Theories of Justice Essay Example for Free

Theories of Justice Essay Theory of Justice is a work of political philosophy and ethics by John Rawls. It was originally published in 1971 and revised in both 1975 (for the translated editions) and 1999. In A Theory of Justice, Rawls attempts to solve the problem of distributive justice (the socially just distribution of goods in a society) by utilising a variant of the familiar device of the social contract. The resultant theory is known as Justice as Fairness, from which Rawls derives his two principles of justice: the liberty principle and the difference principle. Objective In A Theory of Justice, Rawls argues for a principled reconciliation of liberty and equality. Central to this effort is an account of the circumstances of justice, inspired by David Hume, and a fair choice situation for parties facing such circumstances, similar to some of Immanuel Kants views. Principles of justice are sought to guide the conduct of the parties. These parties are recognized to face moderate scarcity, and they are neither naturally altruistic nor purely egoistic. They have ends which they seek to advance, but prefer to advance them through cooperation with others on mutually acceptable terms. Rawls offers a model of a fair choice situation (the original position with its veil of ignorance) within which parties would hypothetically choose mutually acceptable principles of justice. Under such constraints, Rawls believes that parties would find his favoured principles of justice to be especially attractive, winning out over varied alternatives, including utilitarian and right-libertarian accounts. A society, according to Utilitarianism, is just to the extent that its laws and institutions are such as to promote the greatest overall or average happiness of its members. How do we determine the aggregate, or overall, happiness of the members of a society? This would seem to present a real problem. For happiness is not, like temperature or weight, directly measurable by any means that we have available. So utilitarians must approach the matter indirectly. They will have to rely on indirect measures, in other words. What would these be, and how can they be identified? The raditional idea at this point is to rely upon (a) a theory of the human good (i. e. , of what is good for human beings, of what is required for them to flourish) and (b) an account of the social conditions and forms of organization essential to the realization of that good. People, of course, do not agree on what kind of life would be the most desirable. Intellectuals, artists, ministers, politicians, corporate bu reaucrats, financiers, soldiers, athletes, salespersons, workers: all these different types of people, and more besides, will certainly not agree completely on what is a happy, satisfying, or desirable life. Very likely they will disagree on some quite important points. All is not lost, however. For there may yet be substantial agreementenough, anyway, for the purposes of a theory of justice about the general conditions requisite to human flourishing in all these otherwise disparate kinds of life. First of all there are at minimum certain basic needs that must be satisfied in any desirable kind of life. Basic needs, says James Sterba, are those needs that must be satisfied in order not to seriously endanger a persons mental or physical well-being. Basic needs, if not satisfied, lead to lacks and deficiencies with respect to a standard of mental and physical well-being. A persons needs for food, shelter, medical care, protection, companionship, and self-development are, at least in part, needs of this sort. [Sterba, Contemporary Social and Political Philosophy (Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing Co. , 1995). A basic-needs minimum, then, is the minimum wherewithal required for a person to m eet his or her basic needs. Such needs are universal. People will be alike in having such needs, however much they diverge in regard to the other needs, desires, or ends that they may have. We may develop this common ground further by resorting to some of Aristotles ideas on this question of the nature of a happy and satisfying life. Aristotle holds that humans are rational beings and that a human life is essentially rational activity, by which he means that human beings live their lives by making choices on the basis of reasons and then acting on those choices. All reasoning about what to do proceeds from premises relating to the agents beliefs and desires. Desire is the motive for action and the practical syllogism (Aristotles label for the reasoning by which people decide what to do) is its translation into choice. Your choices are dictated by your beliefs and desiresprovided you are rational. Such choices, the reasoning that leads to them, and the actions that result from them are what Aristotle chiefly means by the sort of rational activity that makes up a human life. We may fairly sum up this point of view by saying that people are rational end-choosers. If Aristotle is at all on the right track, then it is clear that a basic-needs minimum is a prerequisite to any desirable kind of life, and further that to live a desirable kind of life a person must be free to determine his or her own ends and have the wherewithalthe means, the opportunitiesto have a realistic chance of achieving those ends. (Some of these Aristotelian points are perhaps implicitly included in Sterbas list of basic needs, under the head of self-development. ) So w hat does all this do for Utilitarianism? Quite a lot. We have filled in some of item (a) above: the theory of the human good, the general conditions essential to a happy or desirable life. The Utilitarian may plausibly claim to be trying to promote the overall happiness of people in his society, therefore, when he tries to improve such things as rate of employment, per capita income, distribution of wealth and opportunity, the amount of leisure, general availability and level of education, poverty rates, social mobility, and the like. The justification for thinking these things relevant should be pretty plain. They are measures of the amount and the distribution of the means and opportunities by which people can realize their various conception of a desirable life. With these things clearly in mind the Utilitarian is in a position to argue about item (b), the sorts of social arrangements that will deliver the means and opportunities for people to achieve their conception of a desirable life. John Stuart Mill, one of the three most important 19th century Utilitarians (the other two were Jeremy Bentham and Henry Sidgwick), argued that freedom or liberty, both political and economic, were indispensable requisites for happiness. Basing his view upon much the same interpretation of human beings and human life as Aristotle, Mill argued that democracy and the basic political libertiesfreedom of speech (and the press), of assembly, of worshipwere essential to the happiness of rational end-choosers; for without them they would be prevented from effectively pursuing their own conception of a good and satisfying life. Similarly he argued that some degree of economic prosperitywealthwas indispensable to having a realistic chance of living such a life, of realizing ones ends. So, ccording to Utilitarianism, the just society should be so organized in its institutionsits government, its laws, and its economythat as many people as possible shall have the means and opportunity to achieve their chosen conception of a desirable life. To reform the institutions of ones society toward this goal, in the utilitarian view, is to pursue greater justice. In the 19th century utilitarians often argued for a laissez faire capitalist economy. More recently some of them have argued for a mixed economy, i. e. , a state regulated market system. Mill, interestingly, argued at the beginning of the 19th century for an unregulated capitalist economy, but at the end argued for a socialist economy (which is not the same thing as a mixed economy). (3) The protection of the sorts of liberties that were guaranteed in the United States  Ã‚   by the Bill of Rights in our Constitution. (4) Democratic forms of government generally. The utilitarian rationale for each of these institutional arrangements should be fairly obvious, but it would probably contribute significantly to our understanding of utilitarianism to review, in more detail, some utilitarian arguments for (2) free market capitalism. This we shall do later, in the next section. Three Theories of Justice: Utilitarianism, Justice as Fairness, and Libertarianism (1) Utilitarianism A society, according to Utilitarianism, is just to the extent that its laws and institutions are such as to promote the greatest overall or average happiness of its members. How do we determine the aggregate, or overall, happiness of the members of a society? This would seem to present a real problem. For happiness is not, like temperature or weight, directly measurable by any means that we have available. So utilitarians must approach the matter indirectly. They will have to rely on indirect measures, in other words. What would these be, and how can they be identified? The traditional idea at this point is to rely upon (a) a theory of the human good (i. e. of what is good for human beings, of what is required for them to flourish) and (b) an account of the social conditions and forms of organization essential to the realization of that good. People, of course, do not agree on what kind of life would be the most desirable. Intellectuals, artists, ministers, politicians, corporate bureaucrats, financiers, soldiers, athletes, salespersons, workers: all these different types of people, and more besides, will certainly not agree completely on what is a happy , satisfying, or desirable life. Very likely they will disagree on some quite important points. All is not lost, however. For there may yet be substantial agreementenough, anyway, for the purposes of a theory of justice about the general conditions requisite to human flourishing in all these otherwise disparate kinds of life. First of all there are at minimum certain basic needs that must be satisfied in any desirable kind of life. Basic needs, says James Sterba, are those needs that must be satisfied in order not to seriously endanger a persons mental or physical well-being. Basic needs, if not satisfied, lead to lacks and deficiencies with respect to a standard of mental and physical well-being. A persons needs for food, shelter, medical care, protection, companionship, and self-development are, at least in part, needs of this sort. [Sterba, Contemporary Social and Political Philosophy (Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing Co. , 1995). A basic-needs minimum, then, is the minimum wherewithal required for a person to m eet his or her basic needs. Such needs are universal. People will be alike in having such needs, however much they diverge in regard to the other needs, desires, or ends that they may have. We may develop this common ground further by resorting to some of Aristotles ideas on this question of the nature of a happy and satisfying life. Aristotle holds that humans are rational beings and that a human life is essentially rational activity, by which he means that human beings live their lives by making choices on the basis of reasons and then acting on those choices. All reasoning about what to do proceeds from premises relating to the agents beliefs and desires. Desire is the motive for action and the practical syllogism (Aristotles label for the reasoning by which people decide what to do) is its translation into choice. Your choices are dictated by your beliefs and desiresprovided you are rational. Such choices, the reasoning that leads to them, and the actions that result from them are what Aristotle chiefly means by the sort of rational activity that makes up a human life. We may fairly sum up this point of view by saying that people are rational end-choosers. If Aristotle is at all on the right track, then it is clear that a basic-needs minimum is a prerequisite to any desirable kind of life, and further that to live a desirable kind of life a person must be free to determine his or her own ends and have the wherewithalthe means, the opportunitiesto have a realistic chance of achieving those ends. (Some of these Aristotelian points are perhaps implicitly included in Sterbas list of basic needs, under the head of self-development. ) So w hat does all this do for Utilitarianism? Quite a lot. We have filled in some of item (a) above: the theory of the human good, the general conditions essential to a happy or desirable life. The Utilitarian may plausibly claim to be trying to promote the overall happiness of people in his society, therefore, when he tries to improve such things as rate of employment, per capita income, distribution of wealth and opportunity, the amount of leisure, general availability and level of education, poverty rates, social mobility, and the like. The justification for thinking these things relevant should be pretty plain. They are measures of the amount and the distribution of the means and opportunities by which people can realize their various conception of a desirable life. With these things clearly in mind the Utilitarian is in a position to argue about item (b), the sorts of social arrangements that will deliver the means and opportunities for people to achieve their conception of a desirable life. John Stuart Mill, one of the three most important 19th century Utilitarians (the other two were Jeremy Bentham and Henry Sidgwick), argued that freedom or liberty, both political and economic, were indispensable requisites for happiness. Basing his view upon much the same interpretation of human beings and human life as Aristotle, Mill argued that democracy and the basic political libertiesfreedom of speech (and the press), of assembly, of worshipwere essential to the happiness of rational end-choosers; for without them they would be prevented from effectively pursuing their own conception of a good and satisfying life. Similarly he argued that some degree of economic prosperitywealthwas indispensable to having a realistic chance of living such a life, of realizing ones ends. So, ccording to Utilitarianism, the just society should be so organized in its institutionsits government, its laws, and its economythat as many people as possible shall have the means and opportunity to achieve their chosen conception of a desirable life. To reform the institutions of ones society toward this goal, in the utilitarian view, is to pursue greater justice. In the 19th century utilitarians often argued for a laissez faire capitalist economy. More recently some of them have argued for a mixed economy, i. e. , a state regulated market system. Mill, interestingly, argued at the beginning of the 19th century for an unregulated capitalist economy, but at the end argued for a socialist economy (which is not the same thing as a mixed economy). (3) The protection of the sorts of liberties that were guaranteed in the United States  Ã‚   by the Bill of Rights in our Constitution. (4) Democratic forms of government generally. The utilitarian rationale for each of these institutional arrangements should be fairly obvious, but it would probably contribute significantly to our understanding of utilitarianism to review, in more detail, some utilitarian arguments for (2) free market capitalism. This we shall do later, in the next section. What do you think a Utilitarian would say about universal medical care? Would he or she be for it or against it? What about affirmative action programs, anti-hate crime legislation, welfare, a graduated income tax, anti-trust laws? For or against? What would decide the issue for a utilitarian? (2) Utilitarianism and Competitive Capitalism The key claim about market capitalism for the utilitarian is that free, unregulated markets efficiently allocate resourceschiefly labor and capitalin the production of goods. By a market is meant only any pattern of economic activity in which buyers do business with sellers. In the classical system of economics competition is presupposed among producers or sellers. Toward the end of the nineteenth century writers began to make explicit hat competition required that there be a considerable number of sellers in any trade or industry in informed communication with each other. In more recent times this has been crystallized into the notion of many sellers doing business with many buyers. Each is well informed as to the prices at which others are selling and buyingthere is a going price of which everyone is aware. Most important of all, no buyer or seller is large enough to control or exercise an appreciable influence on the common price. The notion of efficiency as applied to an economic system is many-sided. It can be viewed merely as a matter of getting the most for the least. There is also the problem of getting the particular things that are wanted by the community in the particular amounts in which they are wanted. In addition, if an economy is to be efficient some reasonably full use must be made of the available, or at least the willing, labor supply. There must be some satisfactory allocation of resources between present and future productionbetween what is produced for consumption and what is invested in new plant and processes to enlarge future consumption. There must also be appropriate incentive to change; the adoption of new and more efficient methods of production must be encouraged. Finallya somewhat different requirement and one that went long unrecognizedthere must be adequate provision for the research and technological development which brings new methods and new products into existence. All this makes a large bill of requirements. Rawlss Theory of Justice as Fairness The reformulation of Utilitarianism we just saw comes from John Rawls, who did not present it as a version of Utilitarianism at all. He presented it as a first approximation to a quite distinct conception of justice from Utilitarianism, a conception that he calls Justice as Fairness. I presented Rawlss idea as a reformulation of Utilitarianism, anyway, because it seems to me to be greatly clarifying of whats wrong with Utilitarianism to have an alternative to compare it to, an alternative that blocks the kinds of fairness objections that are typically raised against Utilitarianism. In Utilitarianism everyone, in a way, is given equal consideration at the outset inasmuch as everyones happiness is taken into consideration and is given the same weight in the reasoning by which a form of social organization is settled on as the one that, in the circumstances, yields the greatest average utility. But, as we saw, Utilitarianism may in some circumstances settle on a form of social organization that treats some people unfairly, by imposing undue burdens on them for the sake of the greater average utility or happiness of the whole social group. In the light of this fact it is reasonable to conclude that something is wrong with the Utilitarian procedure for weighing the interests of the individual members of the social group in deciding on what forms of social organization best serve those interests. The procedure puts individuals at and undesirable and unfair risk of being sacrificed for the overall social good. In the principle that we suggested as a revision of Utilitarianism, people would not be put at quite the same risk. Rawls in fact argues for a more elaborate principle of justice in social organization, one that we havent seen yet, and he does so by employing a hypothetical model of a situation requiring people to choose the fundamental principles by which the basic institutions of their society are to be evaluated and organized. He argues that in the hypothetical conditions under which the choice of principles is to be made, only fair or just principles can be chosen. He argues that this is so because of the hypothetical conditions he imposes on the situation of the people making the choice. Then he argues that under those conditions people would choose the following conjunction of principles: The Equal Liberty Principle: Each person is to have the maximum civil liberties compatible with the same liberty for all. The Difference Principle: Inequalities are permissible only if (a) they can be expected to work to everyones advantage, especially to the advantage of the least well off, and (b) the positions, offices, roles, to which the inequalities attach are open to all under conditions of fair equality of opportunity. Libertarianism The Libertarianism, as the name suggests, emphasizes individual liberty as the central and indeed exclusive concern of social justice. A just society, according to the Libertarian, must grant and protect the liberty or freedom of each individual to pursue his desired ends. In the Libertarian view people are essentially rational end-choosers, to use our earlier term, and the kind of life appropriate to rational end-choosers requires them to be free to choose their own ends and free to pursue them without interference from others. This may seem to imply that the Libertarian holds that everyone should be able to do whatever he or she wants, but really the Libertarian holds no such view. The Libertarian view is that each person should have the same freedom to pursue his chosen ends, that each is therefore obligated to refrain from interfering with others in their freedom to pursue their ends, and that the function of the state is solely to protect each individuals freedom to pursue his chosen ends. The Libertarian therefore conceives of everyone as having certain rights, which protect his or her liberty to pursue a desirable kind of life. What is distinctive about Libertarianism is its conception of the rights that each individual has. The libertarian philosopher John Hospers states the fundamental libertarian principle in a variety of ways that it may clarify the Libertarian view to repeat here. He says (in The Libertarian Manifesto, reprinted in Justice: Alternative Political Perspectives, edited by James P. Sterba, Third Edition (Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing Company, 1999), pp. 24, 25): [E]very person is the owner of his own life[;] no one is the owner of any one elses life,  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚   and consequently every human being has the right to act in accordance with his own choices, unless those actions infringe on the equal liberty of other human beings to act in accordance with their choices No one is anyone elses master and no one is anyone elses slave. Other mens lives are not yours to dispose of. The rights recognized by the Libertarian include all the rights we called civil or personal liberties in our discussion of Rawls, but in regard to property the Libertarian favors a scheme in which each person has a quite unrestricted right to acquire property, including full capitalist rights to acquire ownership of the means of production and full rights of bequeathal. Libertarians emphasize property rights as essential to the liberty essential to the life of a rational end-chooser. Property does not mean only real estate; it includes anything that you can call your ownclothing, your car, your jewelry, your books and papers. The right of property is not the right to just take it from others, for this would interfere with their property rights. It is rather the right to work for it, to obtain non-coercively the money or services which you can present in voluntary exchanges.

The End of The Storm :: Free Essays Online

The End of The Storm I've heard it said that an institution is the sum of it's parts, but I prefer to think of it as the average of them. My high school, Campbell Hall, was a great school not because of the fact that it had a large number of great faculty members and students, but because it had an eclectic mix of great people. Campbell hall has a diverse mix of forward thinking people being lead by one of the most regressive and closed minded men I have ever met, the Reverend Canon Thomas C. Clark. When I arrived at Campbell Hall in ninth grade I knew that it was Episcopalian, and being a person who is never quite happy with one religion this scared me a little. But I soon found out that chapel included services for Jewish high holy days, Ramadan, and any other religious holidays that were celebrated by the student body. I was extremely impressed with this. But I soon found out that the Administration was not as tolerant as the chaplain in charge with these services. My first problem with Reverend Clark was when, in ninth grade, a friend of mine's older sister was asked to leave school because she was pregnant. I was too young to truly appreciate the lack of compassion shown for this girl then, but I was old enough to know that this was not the right way to handle the situation. My first true confrontation with Reverend Clark was when four people in my twenty-two person sophomore English class were caught cheating on an exam. The high school principal got to the bottom of it and punished the guilty accordingly. A week later my class found out that Reverend Clark had decided to make an example out of these four by suspending the entire English class for a day in hopes of making any future cheaters fear the wrath of their peers as well as that of the administration. Well myself, my class, and the entire student body were not very pleased with this decision, so we decided to show up to class on the day of our suspension anyway. Clark caved in, and we all went to class. But the event which truly confirmed my abhorrence of Reverend Clark was when my friend Andrew wrote a stunning essay for his A.P. English class on the confusions of growing up gay. The End of The Storm :: Free Essays Online The End of The Storm I've heard it said that an institution is the sum of it's parts, but I prefer to think of it as the average of them. My high school, Campbell Hall, was a great school not because of the fact that it had a large number of great faculty members and students, but because it had an eclectic mix of great people. Campbell hall has a diverse mix of forward thinking people being lead by one of the most regressive and closed minded men I have ever met, the Reverend Canon Thomas C. Clark. When I arrived at Campbell Hall in ninth grade I knew that it was Episcopalian, and being a person who is never quite happy with one religion this scared me a little. But I soon found out that chapel included services for Jewish high holy days, Ramadan, and any other religious holidays that were celebrated by the student body. I was extremely impressed with this. But I soon found out that the Administration was not as tolerant as the chaplain in charge with these services. My first problem with Reverend Clark was when, in ninth grade, a friend of mine's older sister was asked to leave school because she was pregnant. I was too young to truly appreciate the lack of compassion shown for this girl then, but I was old enough to know that this was not the right way to handle the situation. My first true confrontation with Reverend Clark was when four people in my twenty-two person sophomore English class were caught cheating on an exam. The high school principal got to the bottom of it and punished the guilty accordingly. A week later my class found out that Reverend Clark had decided to make an example out of these four by suspending the entire English class for a day in hopes of making any future cheaters fear the wrath of their peers as well as that of the administration. Well myself, my class, and the entire student body were not very pleased with this decision, so we decided to show up to class on the day of our suspension anyway. Clark caved in, and we all went to class. But the event which truly confirmed my abhorrence of Reverend Clark was when my friend Andrew wrote a stunning essay for his A.P. English class on the confusions of growing up gay.

Motorcycle Accidents

MOTORCYCLE ACCIDENTS ENGLISH 215 28 AUGUST 2011 Motorcyclists are more prone to die in accidents than those in automobiles. Accidents are caused by the motorcycle itself, the lack of experience, not wearing proper gear,  riding at excessive speeds, and inexperienced automobile drivers. The main reason for most motorcycle accidents are caused by motorcyclist that operate their vehicles without wearing the proper protection. A safe and secure cyclist wears a helmet if riding one mile or two hundred miles.Without a helmet, a person is leaving themselves open for the potential for many different types of injuries when riding a motorcycle, in particular injuries to the brain. There are many dangers which can be waiting on the highway for motorcyclists and many of these are preventable by being properly ready to ride and always being safe. Some believe that motorcycles are temptation for fate; unlike cars that have overhead covering, seatbelts, windshields, and two extra tires. Motorcycl es provide no safety features for the rider. This seems to be a good enough reason for most people to avoid riding motorcycles.A select few individuals are willing to take this chance at fate and enjoy the thrill and excitement of riding on the open road. There are many injuries and fatalities associated with motorcycles that cause most people to be against operating motorcycles. Some people have even lost love ones because of the love of motorcycles. Once the collision has occurred, or the rider has lost control through some other mishap, several common types of injury occur when the bike falls: * Collision with less forgiving protective barriers, or badly placed roadside â€Å"furniture† (lampposts, signs, fences etc. This is often simply a result of poor road design, and can be engineered out to a large degree. Note that when one falls off a motorcycle in the middle of a curve, lamps and signs create a â€Å"wall† of sorts with little chance to avoid slamming agains t a pole. * Concussion and brain damage, as the head violently contacts other vehicles or objects. Riders wearing an approved helmet reduce the risk of death by 37 percent. ( Wald, Matthew, 12September 2007, The New York Times) The Hurt Report also commented on injuries after an accident stating that the likelihood of injury is extremely high in these motorcycle accidents – 98% of the multiple vehicle collisions and 96% of the single vehicle accidents resulted in some kind of injury to the motorcycle rider; 45% resulted in more than a minor injury. ( U. S. Department of Transportation. ) People who ride motorcycles most realize that due to the extreme risk of riding, certain protective gear must be worn to help minimize injuries.The most important piece of equipment is the helmet. Operating a motorcycle without a helmet is just ludicrous. Riders should want to be highly visible at night. When a motorcyclist is not visible to others at night they become more susceptible to bei ng injured by other vehicles. The wearing of bright or reflective clothing helps other people notice you at night. Abrasion resistant clothing is a must. This material help protect against debris and major cuts. Wearing jackets and pants that have extra padding assists in protecting the motorcyclist from extreme impacts.Gloves are very important as well. Depending on the weather a riders hands may become moist or damp and could potentially cause the hands to slip of the throttle. The proper foot wear is very important because a rider most protect his ankles and have the necessary grip on the foot pegs to ensure a safe posture. Speeding also plays a part in the fatalities and injuries of motorcyclist. Motorcyclists tend to be very competitive when it comes to motorcycles. They often choose to speed but lack the experience to handle the speed.Inexperience motorcyclist and automobile drivers play a big part in most accidents. Most automobile operators lack the necessary skills to opera te a motor vehicle. The average person goes to the DMV and takes the written test and passes it. Then go straight to the driving portion without going through any type of driver’s training. Attending drivers safety courses can help reduce injuries and fatalities among motorcyclist and automobile operators. Most states highly encourage people to attend these classes but few actually attend.Even with over 1,500 locations in USA, and over 120,000 annual students, MSF only trains about 3% of the owners of 4,000,000 new motorcycles sold for highway use. (Motorcycle Safety Foundation. ) There are many reasons for motorcycle accidents and fatalities and some of them are unavoidable, but it is up to the individual to decide whether they want to operate the vehicle, regardless of the dangers. REFERENCES www. ct. gov/dot/LIB/dot/Documents/dhighwaysafety Department of Transportation. www. nytimes. com/2007/09/12/us/12helment. html New York Times. www. msf-usa. org/SafeCycling/Safe_Cycli ng Motorcycle Safety Foundation

How to Use Italian Definite Article Forms

The Italian definite article (articolo determinativo) indicates something well defined, which is assumed to be already acknowledged. If, for example, someone asks: Hai visto il professore? (Have you seen the professor?) they are alluding not to any professor, but to one in particular, that both the speaker and listener know. The definite article is also used to indicate a group (luomo à ¨ dotato di ragione, that is, ogni uomo—man is endowed with reason, every man), or to express the abstract (la pazienza à ¨ una gran virtà ¹Ã¢â‚¬â€patience is a great virtue); to indicate parts of the body (mi fa male la testa, il braccio—my head hurts, my arm), to refer to objects that belong strictly to oneself mi hanno rubato il portafogli, non trovo pià ¹ le scarpe—they stole my wallet, I cannot find my shoes), and is also used with nouns that signify something unique in nature (il sole, la luna, la terra—the sun, the moon, the earth) and the names of materials and matter (il grano, loro—wheat, gold). In certain contexts the Italian definite article functions as a demonstrative adjective (aggettivo dimostrativo): Penso di finire entro la settimana—I think Ill finish by the end of the week (or later this week); Sentitelo lipocrita!—Listen to him the hypocrite! (this hypocrite!) or a demonstrative pronoun (pronome dimostrativo): Tra i due vini scelgo il rosso—Between the two wines I choose the red, (the one thats red); Dei due attori preferisco il pià ¹ giovane—Of the two actors I prefer the younger (the one thats younger). The Italian definite article may also refer to individual members of a group: Ricevo il giovedà ¬Ã¢â‚¬â€I receive it Thursday (every Thursday); Costa mille euro il chilo (or al chilo)—It costs a thousand euro a kilogam (per kilogram), or time: Partirà ² il mese prossimo.—Im leaving next month (in next the month). Italian Definite Article FormsIl, iThe form il precedes masculine nouns beginning with a consonant except s consonant, z, x, pn, ps, and the digraphs gn and sc: il bambino, il cane, il dente, il fiore, il gioco, il liquorethe child, the dog, the tooth, the flower, the game, the liquor The corresponding form for the plural is i: i bambini, i cani, i denti, i fiori, i giochi, i liquorithe children, the dogs, the teeth, the flowers, the games, the liqueurs Lo (l), gliThe form lo precedes masculine nouns that begin: with s followed by another consonant: lo sbaglio, lo scandalo, lo sfratto, lo sgabello, lo slittino, lo smalto, lo specchio, lo studiothe mistake, the scandal, the evicted, the stool, the sled, the enamel, the mirror, the office with z: lo zaino, lo zio, lo zoccolo, lo zuccherothe backpack, the uncle, the clog, the sugar with x: lo xilofono, lo xilografothe xylophone, the engraver with pn and ps: lo pneumatico, lo pneumotorace; lo pseudonimo, lo psichiatra, lo psicologothe tire, the collapsed lung, the pseudonym, the psychiatrist, the psychologist with the digraphs gn and sc: lo gnocco, lo gnomo, fare lo gnorri; lo sceicco, lo sceriffo, lo scialle, lo scimpanzà ©the dumpling, the gnome, to play dumb; the sheikh, the sheriff, the shawl, the chimpanzee with the semivowel i: lo iato, lo iettatore, lo ioduro, lo yogurtthe hiatus, the evil eye, the iodide, the yogurt NOTE: Nevertheless, there are variations, especially before the consonant cluster pn; for example, in contemporary spoken Italian il pneumatico tends to prevail over lo pneumatico. Also, before the semivowel i the use is not constant; in addition to lo iato there is liato, but the elided form is less common. When preceding the semivowel u, its necessary to distinguish between Italian words, which take the article lo in the elided form (luomo, luovo), and words of foreign origin, which take the form il: il week-end, il whisky, il windsurf, il walkman, il word processorthe weekend, the whiskey, the windsurfer, the Walkman, the word processor. With plural nouns the forms gli (gli uomini) and i (i walkman, i week-end) are used respectively. For words starting with h use lo (gli, uno) when preceding an aspirated h: lo Hegel, lo Heine, lo hardwarethe Hegel, the Heine, the hardware. And use l when preceding a non-aspirated h: lhabitat, lharem, lhashishthe habitat, the harem, the hashish. NOTE: In contemporary colloquial Italian there is a preference for the elided form in all cases, since even foreign words with an aspirated h (for example the aforementioned hardware, as well as hamburgers, handicap, hobbies, etc.) usually have an Italianized pronunciation in which the h is muted. However, in adverbial phrases the form lo (instead of il) is common: per lo pià ¹, per lo meno, corresponding to the use of the definite article in early Italian. The form lo also precedes masculine nouns that begin with a vowel, but in this instance it is elided to l: labito, levaso, lincendio, lospite, lusignolothe dress, the fugitive, the fire, the guest, the nightingale. As previously noted, before the semivowel i there is typically no elision. The form corresponding to lo in the plural is gli: gli sbagli, gli zaini, gli xilofoni, gli (or also i) pneumatici, gli pseudonimi, gli gnocchi, gli sceicchi, gli iati, gli abiti, gli evasi, gli incendi, gli ospiti, gli usignoli NOTE: Gli can only be elided before i: glincendi (but more frequently the entire form is used). The gli form is used instead of i before the plural of dio: gli dà ¨i (in obsolete Italian gliddei, plural of iddio). La (l), leThe form la precedes feminine nouns starting with a consonant or the semivowel i: la bestia, la casa, la donna, la fiera, la giacca, la ienathe beast, the house, the woman, the fair, the jacket, the hyena. Before a vowel la is elided to l: lanima, lelica, lisola, lombra, lunghiathe soul, the propeller, the island, the shadow, the fingernail. The form corresponding to la in the plural is lei: le bestie, le case, le donne, le fiere, le giacche, le iene, le anime, le eliche, le isole, le ombre, le unghiethe animals, the houses, the women, the fairs, the jackets, the hyenas, the souls, the propellers, the islands, the shadows, the nails. Le may be elided only before the letter e (but this happens rarely, and almost always as a stylistic device in poetry): leliche—the propellers. With nouns starting with h, unlike the masculine form, the non-elided form predominates: la hall—the hall, la holding—the holding company.