One of the topics explored in Part 4: Eating is feasting. Feasting is an interesting cross-cultural phenomenon that involves food, social interaction, and celebration. What better time of year than the summer to enjoy a feast? Some feasts are quite elaborate in cuisine and social ritual (such as a wedding, holiday dinners), while others are rather simple but enjoyable (like a backyard BBQ, potluck party). In both cases, the social event involves a special meal – feasting. For this reading reflection, you will participate in (or perhaps organize) an event that includes feasting.
You will select ONE of the learning objectives from chapter 6 to provide an interpretation of your feast
Learning objective: Identify and explain the different types of feasts explored by societies, explore the social dynamics of meals as eating events.
Sample Solution
Fourthly, Vittola questions upon whose authority can demand a declaration of war, where he implies any commonwealth can go to war, but more importantly, âthe princeâ where he has âthe natural orderâ according to Augustine, and all authority is given to him. This is further supported by Aristotleâs Politics ((1996), Page 28): âa king is the natural superior of his subjects.â However, he does later emphasise to put all faith in the prince is wrong and has consequences; a thorough examination of the cause of war is required along with the willingness to negotiate rival party (Begby et al (2006b), Page 312& 318). This is supported by the actions of Hitler are deemed unjustly. Also, in todayâs world, wars are no longer fought only by states but also non-state actors like Al-Queda and ISIS, showing Vittolaâs normative claim on authority is outdated. This is further supported by Froweâs claim that the leader needs to represent the peopleâs interests, under legitimate authority, which links on to the fourth condition: Public declaration of war. Agreed with many, there must be an official announcement on a declaration of war (Frowe (2011), Page 59-60&63). Finally, the most controversial condition is that wars should have a reasonable chance of success. As Vittola reiterated, the aim of war is to establish peace and security; securing the public good. If this canât be achieved, Frowe argues it would be better to surrender to the enemy. This can be justified because the costs of war would have been bigger (Frowe (2011), Page 56-7). Consequently, jus ad bellum comprises several conditions but most importantly: just cause and proportionality. This gives people a guide whether itâs lawful to enter a war or not. However, this is only one part of the theory of the just war. Nevertheless, it can be seen above that jus ad bellum can be debated throughout, showing that there is no definitive theory of a just war, as it is normatively theorised. Jus in bello The second section begins deciphering jus in bello or what actions can we classify as permissible in just wars (Begby et al (2006b), Page 323). First, it is never just to intentionally kill innocent people in wars, supported by Vittolaâs first proposition. This is widely accepted as âall people have a right not to be killedâ and if a soldier does, they have violated that right and lost their right. This is further supported by ânon-combatant immu>
GET ANSWER
Fourthly, Vittola questions upon whose authority can demand a declaration of war, where he implies any commonwealth can go to war, but more importantly, âthe princeâ where he has âthe natural orderâ according to Augustine, and all authority is given to him. This is further supported by Aristotleâs Politics ((1996), Page 28): âa king is the natural superior of his subjects.â However, he does later emphasise to put all faith in the prince is wrong and has consequences; a thorough examination of the cause of war is required along with the willingness to negotiate rival party (Begby et al (2006b), Page 312& 318). This is supported by the actions of Hitler are deemed unjustly. Also, in todayâs world, wars are no longer fought only by states but also non-state actors like Al-Queda and ISIS, showing Vittolaâs normative claim on authority is outdated. This is further supported by Froweâs claim that the leader needs to represent the peopleâs interests, under legitimate authority, which links on to the fourth condition: Public declaration of war. Agreed with many, there must be an official announcement on a declaration of war (Frowe (2011), Page 59-60&63). Finally, the most controversial condition is that wars should have a reasonable chance of success. As Vittola reiterated, the aim of war is to establish peace and security; securing the public good. If this canât be achieved, Frowe argues it would be better to surrender to the enemy. This can be justified because the costs of war would have been bigger (Frowe (2011), Page 56-7). Consequently, jus ad bellum comprises several conditions but most importantly: just cause and proportionality. This gives people a guide whether itâs lawful to enter a war or not. However, this is only one part of the theory of the just war. Nevertheless, it can be seen above that jus ad bellum can be debated throughout, showing that there is no definitive theory of a just war, as it is normatively theorised. Jus in bello The second section begins deciphering jus in bello or what actions can we classify as permissible in just wars (Begby et al (2006b), Page 323). First, it is never just to intentionally kill innocent people in wars, supported by Vittolaâs first proposition. This is widely accepted as âall people have a right not to be killedâ and if a soldier does, they have violated that right and lost their right. This is further supported by ânon-combatant immu>
Is this question part of your Assignment?
We can help
Our aim is to help you get A+ grades on your Coursework.
We handle assignments in a multiplicity of subject areas including Admission Essays, General Essays, Case Studies, Coursework, Dissertations, Editing, Research Papers, and Research proposals
Header Button Label: Get Started NowGet Started Header Button Label: View writing samplesView writing samples