*세* 스토어

*세*

개인

팔로워0 팔로우

소개

등록된 소개글이 없습니다.

전문분야 등록된 전문분야가 없습니다.

판매자 정보

학교정보

입력된 정보가 없습니다.

직장정보

입력된 정보가 없습니다.

자격증

입력된 정보가 없습니다.

판매지수

판매중 자료수

6개
전체 판매량

13개
최근 3개월 판매량

0개
자료후기 점수

-
자료문의 응답률

-

전체자료 6개

Fluid and Electrolyte Balance (Human Renal Physiology and Urinalysis)

Fluid & Electrolyte balance is essential for all body systems to functionThe kidneys are the primary organ responsible for urine production in mammalsFunction of kidneyFiltration-Reabsorption-Secretion-ExcretionThe NephronThe nephron is the functional unit of the kidney regulates the concentration of body fluid filteredAnti-diuretic HormoneDiuretics-Alcohol-Caffeine AldosteroneChemSticksused to analysis the chemicals of urineDetect abnormal solute concentrations (If present)....

자연과학| 2011.04.21| 19페이지| 1,500원| 조회(257)

동물 인간 오줌 urina, Fluid and Electrolyt, Huma..

미리보기

닫기
PHIL150 Short_Legislating virtue - sang

A virtue is a characteristic or property that enables an object to fulfill its function. For human life, its function is eudemonia, to live a life as a whole it is worth living. The virtue of human life, therefore, is the wisdom to that allows people to live a happy life as a whole. If that is the case, should state legislate virtue? In other words, does government have obligation to regulate people to live virtuous life? Yes, legislating virtue should be the responsibility of state. Although everyone thinks they know what makes them happy, almost all of them are wrong. People’s ability to judge on life is highly distorted. They are extremely incorrect in deciding which action will bring the best consequences for their lives. For example, a drug user use drug because the usage of substance makes him/her happy. ic person who has the wisdom. .......

인문/어학| 2011.04.21| 3페이지| 1,500원| 조회(163)

영문 legislative vir, legislative vir, PHIL1..

미리보기

닫기
PHIL150 Short_Immigration sang

As a result of rapid technological development, the world has become much smaller place than it was in the past. People are able to move around the world easier than ever. Although such development brought number of benefits to the world, it also has created number of concerns. One of them is immigration. An immigrant is somebody who leaves country and enters another with intention of living. Immigration, or migration, has been present for long time; however, with the technological development, number of immigrants has increased enough for some people to see it as a problem. Many of them argue immigration should not be allowed. However, immigration should be allowed. When one leaves his/her own country, for means of permanent abandoning, that person has left the social contract. In other words, he/she is no longer a signer or a member of the social contract. Where there is no contract, there is state of nature. Although immigrants lack societal right, they have right to claim their natence. Even if their societal rights are gone, a natural right (right to free intercourse) allows immigrants to move to wherever they desire without anyone saying “no” to them. Citizens of the country argue that immigrants’ right to free intercourse conflicts with their privacy or property rights; and that their rights are more important. However, when rights conflict, the balance test is not which one is more important. Rather, it should be who loses the most. When the citizens lose, they do not lose entire property or privacy right. They are forced to share space or feel little less secured. However, when immigrants lose their right to free intercourse, they lose their natural right, which is all they have. Clearly, immigrants are the ones that lose the most. As a result, citizens do not have authority or right to stop immigrants from entering the country; therefore, immigration should be allowed.On the other hand, the opponents of the immigration, the ones who sees immigration as a p with their government. In order for the contract to function, therefore, trust between individual is needed. The trust is not that everyone will agree with an individual. Everyone has different opinions, and therefore, it is highly unlikely that everyone will vote or agree on same side. Rather, the trust comes from the sense that citizens share common interest. Right or wrong, a citizen trusts in others that they will have his/her greatest interest at their heart. In other words, even if people do not agree on same side, at least people share the idea of what is important. Such trust in common interest is what is necessary for social contract to work in reality. However, according to opponents of immigration, immigrants jeopardize such equation. Immigrants are people who have lived in another country for long time. In other words, they have been members of other contract. The opponents argue that because they come from different society, it is likely that they do not share common integrity of common interest. The presence of immigrant, according to opponents, diminishes the trust that social contract requires.Although the opponents argue that immigrants jeopardizes the trust in social contract that is not necessarily true. The opponents’ argument relies on the assumption that immigrants will not share the common interest. The term “common interest” is quite a vague term. Because people have different belief, it is extremely hard for people to share a common interest. As countries differ from one another on what is important, individuals have different ideas on their priorities too. As a result, the only common interest that everyone is likely to share is something that is universal, such as how to live a better life. Everyone values his/her own life and wants to live a better life. That is true without any doubt. If the common interest is universal as such, it is highly probable that immigrant share same interest as well. In addition, even if opponents argue they aanarchy, oligarchy, etc., people do not have power to make changes. Only the government holds the authority to alter the society. In democratic society, people exercise their power to influence through voting power. People delegate their power to the representative that they believe will express or represent their belief the best. When people wish to influence, they do so by voting or not voting a candidate. Immigrants, however, do not have the power to vote when they enter the country. Most of democratic countries, including U.S., do not allow non-citizens to vote. Rather, they have some process and time period that an immigrant have to go through before he/she is naturalized. For example, in U.S., immigrants have to reside in U.S. territory for at least five years. Even if one has live for five years, an immigrant must pass an exam to become a U.S. citizen. Similar to U.S., countries have their own ways to make sure an immigrant is qualified enough to be given the power to vote. Theyon

인문/어학| 2011.04.21| 3페이지| 1,500원| 조회(165)

영문, 이민, argumenta argumentat

미리보기

닫기
Euthanasia Short essay

Voluntary euthanasia should not be allowedEuthanasia, by definition, means “a good death.” It is a practicing of terminating one’s life with the end of his/her suffering or pain from severe health condition. Euthanasia is considered when a patient is in extreme condition where he/she has minimal chance of recovering. It is generally accepted by majority that involuntary euthanasia should not be allowed because it is serious deprivation of one’s right to life. The controversy lies in whether voluntary euthanasia should be allowed. Whether one is for or against euthanasia, the arguments appeals to same value of life, the dignity of act of living gives to body. In voluntary euthanasia, permission is given by patient for the physician to practice euthanasia. The living will cannot be said to clearly represent the desire of patient when faced with actual situation. People’s wishes and desires changes as situation changes. What one believes or wants may be completely different from what he/s the decision made under normal condition. The reason society helps those who are addicted in alcohol or drug is because they are in state of being where individual cannot make rational decision. However, intense medication may place individual in same position where he/she is unable to think rationally. Because it is life-and-death situation, such risk in uncertainty in whether the decision is made rationally should not be taken. The authority is often delegated to people who have known the patient for long time, such as family member, spouse, etc., because they are considered as best people to know what patient might have wanted. Nevertheless, although one might have lived with another for long period of time, it is impossible to know another for certain. It is simply impossible for others to know one’s wishes or desire with complete certainty. The decision whether to practice euthanasia or to receive treatment is basically deciding whether to kill one or not. When individual is killhe dignity in living should be weighed more than one’s choice in life; and therefore, voluntary euthanasia should not be allowed.Another reason why euthanasia should not be allowed is based on the slippery slope argument. If the government decides to allow euthanasia in extremely urgent health condition where permission is given by patient himself/herself only, then the government will be soon pressured to allow euthanasia in lesser strict standards since it already accepted its permissibility. That could be opening a door for an abuse. Some patients who do not fall under the standard may fake his/her medical condition to be euthanized. Some family members may make up an authorization for euthanasia to be performed in order to fulfill their benefit, such as an economic interest. Thus, if the government opens door for euthanasia, then it could open the door for life to be used as a commodity or means to benefit. People may be killed without or even against his/her own will. However, it causation. There is no statistical data or conducted research that proves such chain of events took place in where euthanasia is allowed. Nevertheless, on the other side, there is no proof that it will not happen. Absence of proof cannot be used to prove the opposite argument. It is very possible situation. In some cases, mere possibility of unpleasant conditions might not be the strongest argument. But euthanasia is different from such cases in that it is a life-and-death issue. Thus, extra careful measure is needed to be taken. The society must carefully look at the possible consequences it could bring, and see whether it is something that the society can bare with. Once the door is opened, there is no coming back. Even if it is highly unlikely to happen, the consequence it may bring might not be what society meant by allowing euthanasia; in fact, it could be complete opposite of the actual purpose. It is like a Pandora’s Box. There are some doors that should not be open for the sakeclosely related with life. People breathe, eat, and sleep in order to live. An action that seems to have nothing to do with living is related to life. For example, the reason people go to school is to receive education. People want education because it will lead to better career. People want better career because they will earn more money. The reason people want more money is to make their lives better and longer. So they can eat better foods and be healthier. To live is why people are born at first place. There is no controversy over whether life is important. Everyone agrees. And euthanasia takes away what everyone agrees to be important. Whatever people argue for euthanasia, euthanasia is an action of killing another. It is an individual taking away life of another. And in the society, people call such action a murder. It is society’s duty to protect people from deprivation of life by others. It is obligation of society to make sure people recognize and respect the value that life hL150

인문/어학| 2011.04.21| 3페이지| 1,000원| 조회(290)

안락사, 영문, argumentative argume

미리보기

닫기
Against legislating virtue short paper

The virtue by the definition is a property or a thing has that makes it to fulfill its function. The function of human life is eudemonia, happiness throughout whole life; live a life as whole and is worth living. The virtue of human life is to live satisfied and fulfilled to its functions. But does the state’s legislative virtue satisfy or fulfill all of individuals’ happiness? Or does the government know what makes individuals happy? The answer is not quite. The happiness should be found by one’s self, not by the others. The states do not know what makes individual happy. Every single person in the world has different thoughts and interests. They all have interest of finding happiness in life. Some people find happiness from spending money and some find the food as the source of happiness. Every single individual might find happiness from similar sources, but how they process these sources to their own happiness is different from each other. The libertarian has the same believes. They believe that the states does not have obligation to legislate the virtue. They view that the individual’s well being is not proper concern of state and states do not have responsibility to make citizens happy; it only has responsibility not to impede individual to obtain happiness.However, everyone thinks they know what will make them happy but some argues that everyone is wrong. People are bad at judging what’s going to make them happy. So the only way to acquire virtue is to find someone who has the skill or an ability to estimate relative choice and mimic them. But if an individual mimics a wrong person, it will result a failure. This is where the state’s paternalism ensues. Paternalism is when state stands to citizen in role of a parent, teaching the best way to live well. For some people, they need some kind of a guide to live a well life. States make sure that citizens do not get off the path of good life. And one way to make the citizens live well is to make things illegal such as driving under influence. Under the state’s paternalism, citizens get the guide to live safe and to live well, the human life in function of eudemonia.The state’s paternalism might guide some people to live a well life, but there are too many people to fulfill their happiness. To satisfy all these people, there will be so much work for the government to do for each and every citizen, and at the end there’s going to be people who are unsatisfied. For example, there are some states that the gay marriage is legal and some are not. The gay marriage and normal marriage both have fine purpose of marriage so it is not worth the state to differentiate. Therefore, states cannot fulfill every citizen’s happiness, which means they fail to virtue the human life, and give the wrong guide to some people in judging what makes them happy. Accordingly, states do not know what makes all the individuals happy, in other words, the happiness should be found by one’s self not by the others. It is the individuals of citizens’ effort to find their happiness not by the states. The state should not legislate virtue between citizens. Purpose of state is to keep us safe, and it is our purpose to live well.Sae June KimPhil 150Short essay (Against legislating virtue)

인문/어학| 2011.04.21| 2페이지| 1,000원| 조회(178)

철학, 영문, Against legislating

미리보기

닫기