Online discussion for Human Resources Management in Healthcare Essay - 1

Online discussion for Human Resources Management in Healthcare - Essay Example Hence, this shuns the manager from thinking of ever increasing the employees’ monetary rewards but result to other ways to retain the staff. Medical field owing to its dynamic nature, which keeps in pace with technological knowhow; mostly prompts practitioners into developing themselves in their respective careers. Therefore, the plan will be effective if it motivates medical practitioners in the firm to advance in their careers (Zipf & Engle, 2008). However, due to the firm’s limited budget, managers can organize internal training sessions where more experienced practitioners are able to share their knowhow especially with the juniors. To arouse this desire, the healthcare facility ought to create an environment where people are free to interact and even organize internal workshops for their juniors or the new recruits. Workers’ health is extremely essential despite them being the one who would work towards the wellness of the patients. Therefore, the management ought to ensure that, the healthcare facility has effective wellness initiatives meant for workers wellbeing. This does not imply management should strain the already limited budget, but introduce cheaper programs. These may encompass internal workouts days, campaigns against certain health predicaments (like obesity) besides organizing medical check ups for the practitioners. However, these initiatives should not turn to be an extra financial burden to the budget but should be within its limit. Employees usually feel appreciated and motivated especially if the organization’s management recognizes their exceptional contribution towards attaining its goals (Zipf & Engle, 2008). This is especially when they devise something new and uncommon in other organizations that will aid in raising their competitive advantage. This recognition plan may entail sometimes

Ap Chemistry - Gravimetric Lab Essay Example for Free

Ap Chemistry Gravimetric Lab Essay By filtering and weighing the carbonate after it has precipitated, the mass and moles of CaCO3 could then be found; with these values, a molar mass of M2CO3 can be found. Using gravimetric analysis, it has been determined that the unknown Group 1 metal carbonate compound is K2CO3 (potassium carbonate). Experimental Sources of Error: A) The first source of error had to do with the precipitation section of the lab. Not only is possible, but it is almost guaranteed that the CaCO3 did not precipitate to its fullest extent. Attaining a precipitate that is 100% pure and is exactly of the composition represented by its chemical formula would be extremely difficult. A second source of error was in the filter paper. No filter paper can be perfect, and it is very likely that it did not filter all of the precipitate, which would then decrease not only the mass of CaCO3, but also the molar mass because only the majority of the correct mass of the precipitate was found; by lowering the mass of a compound, its molar mass will also fall. B) After the precipitate had been filtered and dried, the filer paper that contained the precipitate was mishandled and its contents was scattered all over our lab bench. The dried precipitate had to be then gathered and then put back onto the filter paper; this contributed a large portion of human error to this lab. Spilling the dried precipitate is a source of human because it is almost guaranteed that not all of the precipitate was collected that had been spilled. This would have then lowered the mass of all of the following data, and wholly, our end result (i.e. molar mass). C) Percent error = your result-accepted valueaccepted value x 100 Percent error = 128.79-138.21138.21 x 100 = 6.8157% Considering that any percent error that is under 5% is often times considered accurate, a percent error of 6.8% can be viewed as fairly accurate. It is not too far off to completely disregard, but it is also not close enough to use as fact.

Importance of Community Sports Programmes

Importance of Community Sports Programmes Hemel Hempstead INTRODUCTION The lack of a sports programme in our community has left many young people with no choice but to rely toon gadgets for entertainment and to pass time. Therefore, I feel strongly that theres a need for us to try and save our young generation from the world of new technology that has taken the whole world by storm. We need to go back to those days where the only way to entertain yourself was through activities, e.g. playing games, dramas, socializingsocialsing and so forth. DISCUSSION Today in our community, young people have lost the practicality of what life is. Many of the youths have become too lazy, they cant even use their brains to do anything involving or rather challenging instead they rely on apps to do everything. Many of these young people are now doing verymuch less in terms of socializingsocialising and helping their parents doing choruschores at home. Above all their health is at high risk because they are not doing anything to keep them physically fit. I argue that council representatives need to recreate sports programmes in our community as soon as possible.as thisthes programmes will boost theiryoung people participation in sport that can generate a variety of economic benefits. Sports in the community can, and does do, have positive impacts on individuals, especially young people in the communities and wider society. Below is the research on how sports have impacted on our economy, health and culture. Economic impact In 2010, sport and sport-related activity contributed  £20.3 billion to the English economy 1.9% of the England total. The contribution to employment is even greater sport and sport-related activity is estimated to support over 400,000 full-time equivalent jobs, 2.3% of all jobs in England. Health impact Physical activity, including sport, is linked to reduced risk of over 20 illnesses, including diseases such as cancers Taking part in regular sport can save between  £1,750 and  £6,900 in healthcare costs per person. Social and cultural impact Published studies show the positive effects of sport on education include improved attainment, lower absenteeism and drop-out, and increased progression to higher education. For instance, young peoples participation in sport improves their numeracy scores by 8 per cent on average above non-participants. Sport programmes can help youths who are at risk of criminal behaviour to enhance self-esteem and reduce reoffending. Benefits of sport | Sport England https://www.sportengland.org/research/benefits-of-sport/ Published studies show the positive effects of sport on education include improved attainment,lower absenteeism and drop-out, and increased progression to higher education. For instance,young peoples participation in sport improves their numeracy scores by 8 per cent on average above non-participants.   CONCLUSION Sport(s) is something all can bond over, despite the differences in social or economic circles. You dont Besides, you dont have to be rich, well educated, or come from a good home to enjoy sports. All walks of life find themselves staring at the television rooting onfor their favourite team. All fans, no matter their background, want(s) to be in the stands during an exciting game and they dont care if they are sitting next to someone of the same social standing as they are, so long as they are a rabid fan rooting for their team, of course. For a moment, at least, there is no worry about who has more than whom. There is no comparison, Thanks to sports that makes us all equal. http://www.artsite.tv/impact-of-sport-on-human-society/ Sports is something all can bond over, despite the differences in social or economic circles. You dont have to be rich, well educated, or come from a good home to enjoy sports. You dont have to be refined or crass to be a rabid spectator. All walks of life find themselves staring at the television rooting on their favorite team. All fans, no matter their background, wants to be in the stands during an exciting game and they dont care if they are sitting next to someone of the same social standing as they are, so long as they are a rabid fan rooting for their team, of course. For a moment, at least, there is no worry about who has more than whom. There is no comparison, no socio-economic struggle. There is just a group of people enjoying a game.

A Plea for a Peircean Turn in Analytic Philosophy Essay -- Philosophy

A Plea for a Peircean Turn in Analytic Philosophy ABSTRACT: Criticisms of analytic philosophy have increased in intensity in the last decade, denouncing specifically its closing in on itself, which results in barrenness and ignorance of real human problems. The thought of C. S. Peirce is proposed as a fruitful way of renewing the analytic tradition and obviating these criticisms. While this paper is largely a reflection on Hilary Putnam’s study of the historical development of analytic philosophy, not only can some of its main roots be traced back to Peirce, but also the recent resurgence of pragmatism can be regarded as a pragmatist renovation of the analytic tradition. Further, Peirce’s thought offers suggestions for tackling some of the most stubborn problems in contemporary philosophy, thereby enabling us to shoulder once more the philosophical responsibility which has been abdicated by much of twentieth-century philosophy. The most accurate understanding of Peirce is to see him as a traditional and systematic phil osopher, but one dealing with the modern problems of science truth, and knowledge from a valuable personal experience as a logician and an experimental researcher in the bosom of an interdisciplinary community of scientists and thinkers. "Most people have never heard of him, but they will" W. Percy, "The Divided Creature", 80 Criticisms of analytic philosophy have increased in intensity in the last decade, denouncing specifically its closing in on itself, resulting in barrenness and ignorance of real human problems. It is not only the genius loci, nor the echoes of his Sesquicentennial Congress held here in Boston in September, 1989, but within the solemn framework of a World Congress of Philosophy on t... ...s, Cambridge, MA, 1990. H. Putnam, "A Half Century of Philosophy, Viewed From Within", Daedalus 126 (1997), 175-208. R. Rorty, "Pragmatism, Categories, and Language", Philosophical Review 70 (1961), 197-223. R. Rorty, Consequences of Pragmatism (Essays: 1972-1980), University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis, 1982. R. Rorty, "Pragmatism as Anti-Representationalism", in J. P. Murphy, Pragmatism from Peirce to Davidson, Westview, Boulder, CO, 1990, 1-6. B. Russell, Wisdom of the West, Doubleday, Garden City, NY, 1959. L. Santaella-Braga, "Difficulties and Strategies in Applying Peirce’s Semiotics", Semiotica 97 (1993), 401-410. W. Spohn, "Editorial Note", Erkenntnis 33 (1990) 1-4. L. Wittgenstein, Culture and Value, G. H. von Wright, ed., Blackwell, Oxford, 1980. G. H. von Wright, The Tree of Knowledge and Other Essays, Brill, Leiden, 1993.

Law and Morality Essay

Morality can be described as a set of values common to society, which are normative, specifying the correct course of action in a situation and the limits of what society considers acceptable. Law on the other hand according to Osborn’s Concise Law Dictionary is a rule of conduct imposed and reinforced by the sovereign. A body of principles regognized and applied by the state in the administration of justice. If law is to enforce morals, then it is faced with the problem that what one person considers immoral, another might not, so which viewpoint should the law uphold. This can be seen in the case of Gillick v West Norfolk and Wisbech Area Health Authority (1986) where Mrs Gillick sought a declaration that what she saw as an immoral activity (making contraceptive advice and treatment available to girls under the age of consent) was by nature of its immorality, illegal. This was a moral conflict as some saw this as immoral – it encouraged underage sex – others felt it was moral as young girls would engage in underage sex anyway , but contraceptives would prevent unwanted pregnancies. Which viewpoint would the law support. The House of Lords ruled against Mrs Gillick but stated that they were governed by the relevant statutes rather than moral arguments. What then is the relationship between law and morality. What are the differences and similarities The vast differences between existing theories of the basis of law often fail to notice the fact that they are based on the practice of comparing an act to certain standards in order to determine its legality. [1] Different approaches differ in terms of which standards are compared and assessed, though both ultimately assess acts to certain standards to determine their legality or morality. The two leading theories on the topic are positivism and naturalism – the debate between the two has fuelled theorists for centuries. Many observers of positivism presume that it completely dismisses any role of morality in the application of the law, while naturalism bases the existence and validity of law on moral bases. Although the theories are fundamentally different, it is argued that a link between law and morality is glaringly obvious and unavoidable, no matter which side one chooses to follow or favour. This paper will seek to argue that claims which deny any link between law and morality are weak and flawed at best, and apply in a limited manner to simple, straightforward cases. The mere existence of the ‘hard case’ and of court deliberation provides a great deal of evidence for not only the existence of the link between law and morality, but also the necessity of such a link. The naturalist and positivist theories will be explored in order to assess whether the link between law and morality can survive its critics and strengthen the faith of its followers. Legal Positivism Positivists claim that objective morality simply cannot exist because values consist of different attitudes towards and beliefs about certain values. [2] Attitudes and beliefs differ between individuals and cause us to react to a certain act in a subjective manner. Moral perceptions are predominantly emotional, so that such assessments in the realm of the law cause uncertainty and inconsistency. It also fails to recognise difficult cases and the possibility of new cases arising. The apparent main flaw of positivism is that it is unable to explain the legal deliberation which takes place in the courtroom, particularly the difficult cases which have no apparent ‘yes or no’ answer. The very difficulties posed by interpreting the law and applying it to everyday circumstances are unable to be adequately explained by positivism. Indeed, there is a distinction here between hard and soft positivists; the latter do recognise a form of moral basis upon which written laws are perched. Yet both soft and hard positivists are at pains to explain how hard cases arise, in which there is simply no right or wrong answer, and in which morality may unavoidably take a central role. Morality and the Naturalist Approach Naturalists claim that non-legal considerations such as ideological, moral and political factors are not only relevant to the posited law, but that law is also based on such factors. The central argument of naturalism is that objective knowledge of right and wrong can and does exist, and that this provides the basis for legal decisions as well as for the validity of law. Naturalists such as Aquinas[3] claim that natural law provides the basis of validity for posited laws. Rousseau[4] believes that positive law cannot override or entrench upon certain existing natural rights; Aristotle claims that natural justice exists independently of individual perceptions of or opinions on it. [5] Jeremy Bentham proposed utilitarianism where moral action was the one that produced good for many, even it was at the expense of one – the greatest good for the greatest number. John Stuart Mill’s refinement of the idea argues that while this is true the individual should not have to follow society’s morals and should be free to act as they wish provided they do not harm others. The problem arises in defining who are included in others and what is harm. It is clear that naturalist claims to provide a strong link between law and morality, the latter of the two being a basis upon which the former is based. Judges, when they interpret and apply posited law, often make non-legal considerations in order to apply the law effectively. Naturalism, however, has a major flaw in that it claims the existence of objective morality. There are many case examples which suggest otherwise. [6] One presented with two rather extreme and different concepts of the link (or not) between law and morality. Is it plausible that such a links exists? Is there evidence for such a link, and how does it serve to affect how the law is administered? Does there really need to be objective knowledge of right and wrong in order for the link to be maintained? In order to explore these questions, the ever-elusive ‘difficult case’ will be assessed. It will be argued that the link between law and morality is not weakened by the argument that objective knowledge of right and wrong is nonexistent. The debate over the relationship between law and morality came to the forefront in the Hart/Devlin debate which followed the publication of Wolfenden Report in 1957. The report recommended the legalization of prostitution and homosexuality on the particularly untilitarian basis that â€Å"the law should not intervene in the private lives of citizens or seek to enforce an particular pattern of behaiour further than necessary† to protect others. Hart supported the report’s approach stating that legal enforcement of moral code is unnecessary. Devlin on the other hand was strongly opposed to the report. He felt that society had a certain moral standard which law was obliged to uphold as society would fall apart without a common morality. Devlin felt that this morality should be based on the views of the ‘right-minded person’ and that legislature should adhere to three basic principles: (1) Individuals should be allowed as much freedom and privacy as is possible without compromising morality. (2) Parliament and the judiciary should be cautious about changing laws relating to morality and (3) punishment should be used to prevent actions considered abominable to ‘right-minded people’. Hart opposed this view questioning what was ‘right-minded’ and submitted four reasons for not criminalizing what the ‘right-minded person† objected to. (1)Punishment of someone does harm to them only and if their actions involved no one else this was not right. (2) Free will is very moral, so interferance with free will would be immoral, (3) Free will allows learning through experimentation and (4) legislation surpressing an individual’s sexuality will harm them, as it can affect their emotional state. For the majority of legal issues, judges are not required to deviate from posited law and precedent in order to decide. The law makes murder wrong, and it has been a long-standing principle that taking the life of another is morally abhorrent. Yet what of the ‘hard cases’? What if A kills B in self-defence? What if C forced A to kill B else A lose his own life? What if the application of a law is indeterminate? Can posited law be applied without recourse to moral reasoning? Positivists such as Dworkin and Hart differ in their approach. Dworkin claims that there will always be applicable law,[7] while Hart claims that judges can make non-legal considerations under such circumstances. [8] Hart’s theory is applicable to the less open-textured terms where changes made by non-legal considerations are the result of â€Å"resemblances which can reasonably be defended as both legally relevant and sufficiently close. †[9] The judge thus utilises morality as a way of choosing between pre-existent definitions, without devising his own definitions. Although Hart is classed as a positivist, he does acknowledge a â€Å"core of indisputable truth in the doctrines of natural law†[10] which enables law to be based on something more than simply factual considerations. Hart’s theory can be interpreted as recognising a form of natural law, although he does stipulate that having recourse to moral values does not always ensure that law and its application will be just. This assessment of Hart’s approach is plausible, and it serves to create a link between law and morality which avoids the objective criticism of the naturalists. It provides a strong argument for a link between law and morality which is based on interpretational, social considerations which are evident in the courtroom today. It is perhaps necessary to query: does the law define what is right and wrong, or do we determine good and bad independently of the law? There are certainly evident customs in society which have strong influences on the way we behave. Such customs are not implemented by the law or backed by a sanction; they are simply examples of moral codes within a society which exist independently to the law. Does this mean that law and morality have no connection so that the latter can only be found in customs? Does a moral rule backed by the law become a valid law no matter what its content? It is arguable that even majority abhorrence of an act does not make it an immoral act per se, despite the fact that societies need a shared moral outlook in order to exist. [11] It could thus be suggested that the law is simply an embodiment of the current moral outlook of society; like morality the law changes according to attitudes and social tolerance. It is such observations that cause the positivist shunning of the link between law and morality to become less convincing. It is even arguable that the obeying of law is based on the recognition of the moral rule that law should be obeyed; the threat of sanction is evidently not enough to deter some. It could further be argued that the only reason that legislation has authority as law is because of the moral structure of a society. As has already been mentioned, the law develops and evolves according to moral outlooks; this can be seen where laws prohibiting same sex marriages and abortion have been abolished. If the law were completely disconnected from morality, why has it developed and evolved over time? Why does social pressure to repeal or change law often achieve its goal? The Link Between Law and Morality – Evidence Dworkin claims that courts refer to non-legal (moral) standards when deciding hard cases. Assessing and taking into account moral and political considerations has the potential to create a complex web of law and â€Å"justify the network as a whole†. [12] It is strongly arguable that deciding difficult cases without appealing to non-legal considerations is futile – the reason that such cases are ‘hard’ is because the law does not provide enough direction. However, it is important here to stress that decisions are not free to be made according to personal convictions – judges are on the contrary required to carefully weigh social factors in applying and interpreting the law. Dworkin’s theory in this sense is able to escape the positivist criticism that non-legal convictions are ultimately subjective. Rather, the judge is assigned the difficult interpretative task which is seen constantly in court. This is evident in cases such as that of Re A (Conjoined Twins)[13] in which moral judgements were inevitable and necessary in applying the law to the specific circumstances of the case. Ultimately, the judges were faced with the decision of killing one twin in order to save the other, or to not act and cause the death of both twins. While moral judgements are dangerous ground here, a positivist could not argue that the law as it is could be applied simply and without problem – often the law is simply not enough. The law in this case proved of very little aid – how is one to decide whether A’s life has more importance or value than B’s life? While moral considerations could have caused the decision to fall either way, it must be stressed that such situations must risk the dangerous ground created by moral convictions, particularly because the law provides little guidance. Simple cases indeed provide evidence that a link between law and morality is not only non-existent, but also not necessary. [14] Yet the ever-emerging hard cases cry otherwise; they not only highlight the constant shortcomings of posited law, they also emphasise the need to acknowledge and utilise the link between law and morality. Although theorists claim that natural law need not override positive law, except when the two conflict, this serves to strengthen the link between law and morality. If there is no link between law and morality, then how can conflict occur in the first place? Why does public outrage occur when an ‘unjust’ law breaks the boundaries of social tolerance? Those who claim that there is no link between law and morality utilise the naturalist claim to objective morality as their basis for criticism. Yet the term ‘universal morality’ need not apply to the universe as a whole. It is plausible, and certainly does not discredit the naturalist theory, that ‘universality’ or ‘objectivity’ remains as such despite being applied or interpreted differently between societies. Because the universal moral to preserve life may allow the sick to be killed in primitive societies to save sparse resources for the healthy, while requiring that all efforts be made to save every life possible in richer, more able societies. The moral principle – the preservation of life – still remains existent, it is simply expressed and applied differently between societies. [15] Conclusion There are various theories which discuss how law and morality should relate to each other. The current approach by the legal system seem to be that a common morality , based on traditional values should be maintained by the law as exposed by Devlin. Cases such as Shaw v Director of Public Prosecutions (1961) and Knuller v Director of Public Prosecutions ( 1972) made use of the conspiracy to corrupt moral. This had not been done since the 19th century. This was the beginning of the law to attempt to uphold society’s moral values according to Devlin’s doctrine. This approach continued as the more recent case of R v Brown (Anthony) 1992 demonstrates. The defendants had had willingly consented to various sado-masochistic practices and none of them reported it to the police. Yet they were prosecuted and their convictions were upheld by both the House of Lords and The European Court of Human rights, based on public policy to defend the morality of society. Whether or not the law should uphold the moral values of society is still debated. Those who criticise the link between law and morality often rely on the argument that no single opinion of correctness can exist,[16] yet such criticisms presuppose that such a link requires a single notion of correctness or justice. [17] It does not require such a single notion; it merely requires the recognition that legal considerations are often not enough, and that the interpretational practice which takes place is indeed a result of the link between law and morality. To ultimately deny a link between law and morality is to entirely discredit legal precedents, lengthy assessments of judge decisions, and the controversy of many difficult cases. It is also to turn away from the glaringly evident evolutions and changes which have occurred in the legal sphere – to ignore the changing of legal standards according to societal outlooks. Such evidence is difficult to ignore. Upon which other basis does the law stand if it does not reflect the moral tolerances and standards of the society which is subject to it? Bibliography R Alexy, ‘On the Thesis of a Necessary Connection between Law and Morality: Bulygin’s Critique’ (2000) 2 RJ 13, 138-147. T Aquinas, ‘Summa Theologiae’, in Selected Political Writings, JG Dawson (trans), AP D’Entreves (ed) (BB, Oxford 1970). J Bentham, Of Laws in General, HLA Hart (ed) (AP, London 1970a). J Bentham, An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation, JH Burns, HLA Hart (eds) (AP, London 1970b). E Bulygin, ‘Alexy’s Thesis of the Necessary Connection between Law and Morality’ (2002) 2 RJ 13, 133-137. P Devlin, The Enforcement of Morals (OUP, New York 1996). R Dworkin, Law’s Empire (Belknap Press, Cambridge, Mass. 1986). J Finnis, Natural Law and Natural Rights (OUP, New York 1980). HLA Hart, The Concept of Law (CP, Oxford 1961). HLA Hart, The Concept of Law (2nd edn, OCP, Oxford 1994). DD Raphael, Moral Philosophy (OUP, Oxford 1994). R Wacks, Understanding Jurisprudence (OUP, Oxford 2005). ———————– [1] R Wacks, Understanding Jurisprud). ence (OUP, Oxford 2005 [2] DD Raphael, Moral Philosophy (OUP, Oxford 1994) ch. 2. [3] T Aquinas, ‘Summa Theologiae’, in Selected Political Writings, JG Dawson (trans), AP D’Entreves (ed) (BB, Oxford 1970) pt. 2, qu. 94, art. 2. [4] JJ Rousseau, The Social Contract (OUP, Oxford 1762). [5] Aristotle, Nichomachean Ethics, H Rackham (trans) (William Heineman, London 1938). [6] Corbett v Corbett (1970) 2 WLR 1306 CA per Ormrod LJ. [7] R Dworkin, Law’s Empire (Belknap Press, Cambridge, Mass. 1986) 32-34. [8] HLA Hart, The Concept of Law (2nd edn, OCP, Oxford 1994) 145-147. [9] HLA Hart, The Concept of Law (CP, Oxford 1961) 127. [10] HLA Hart, 1994, op. cit. , 146. [11] P Devlin, The Enforcement of Morals (OUP, New York 1996). [12] R Dworkin, 1986, op. cit. , 245. [13] (2000) 4 All ER 961, (2001) 1 FLR 1 CA. [14] J Finnis, Natural Law and Natural Rights (OUP, New York 1980) 33-34. [15] J Finnis, 1980, op. cit. , 34. [16] E Bulygin, ‘Alexy’s Thesis of the Necessary Connection between Law and Morality’ (2002) 2 RJ 13, 133-137. [17] R Alexy, ‘On the Thesis of a Necessary Connection between Law and Morality: Bulygin’s Critique’ (2000) 2 RJ 13, 138-147.

Free Essays on The Great American Author

The Great American Author The word â€Å"American† has a definition that can almost never be found twice. Part of the reason behind this is because the American can hardly define himself. Is he a person born on the soil of this nation, or is he a person who resides here regardless of his birth place? Is an American someone who believes that freedom is a right, or is it someone who thinks freedom is a privilege? These definitions, and many others, are the thoughts of Americans and non- Americans alike. The great writers of America can be confined by literary boundaries. He does not have to be a poet or even a novelist. He does not even have to be a he for that matter. The great American writers do not have meet at a common ground about what America is or what it is supposed to be. In this paper the reader will be given several examples of how two different American writers go about defining this country and its people, whether they try to or not. To some people, being American is a state of mind. Many would argue that any thoughts of freedom and democracy are American no matter where they originate from. Others may say that the American is an endangered species. The way the great American writer Mark Twain saw America was different from all of the above. Twain thought of the America as a great and vast canvas waiting to be painted by anyone who would be willing to try. He also thought no one was taking advantage of this great opportunity. To him America was a great jackpot waiting to be claimed. In his writings it seems like some things are obvious like his awareness of the state of society in his country and other things are not so obvious, like society’s awareness own awareness of its state. In the classic novel Adventures of Huckleberry Finn, Twain has already set the pace for his interpretation of America and what it means to be American with the title itself. The title uses the name of the main character,... Free Essays on The Great American Author Free Essays on The Great American Author The Great American Author The word â€Å"American† has a definition that can almost never be found twice. Part of the reason behind this is because the American can hardly define himself. Is he a person born on the soil of this nation, or is he a person who resides here regardless of his birth place? Is an American someone who believes that freedom is a right, or is it someone who thinks freedom is a privilege? These definitions, and many others, are the thoughts of Americans and non- Americans alike. The great writers of America can be confined by literary boundaries. He does not have to be a poet or even a novelist. He does not even have to be a he for that matter. The great American writers do not have meet at a common ground about what America is or what it is supposed to be. In this paper the reader will be given several examples of how two different American writers go about defining this country and its people, whether they try to or not. To some people, being American is a state of mind. Many would argue that any thoughts of freedom and democracy are American no matter where they originate from. Others may say that the American is an endangered species. The way the great American writer Mark Twain saw America was different from all of the above. Twain thought of the America as a great and vast canvas waiting to be painted by anyone who would be willing to try. He also thought no one was taking advantage of this great opportunity. To him America was a great jackpot waiting to be claimed. In his writings it seems like some things are obvious like his awareness of the state of society in his country and other things are not so obvious, like society’s awareness own awareness of its state. In the classic novel Adventures of Huckleberry Finn, Twain has already set the pace for his interpretation of America and what it means to be American with the title itself. The title uses the name of the main character,...