Self Actualization Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 2000 words

Self Actualization - Essay Example Self-actualization is a psychological concept accredited to Kurt Goldstein, defined as an instinctive human need to make the most of their abilities and to strive for fulfillment of their potential. In Maslow's expansion of Goldstein's concept, an individual reaches self-actualization when they feel assured of their physiological security, affiliations and affections, and their respect. In Maslow's terms, "What a man can be, he must be (Maslow, 1943)." Self-actualization can be described in layspeech as self-fulfillment. Though the term carries various implications and nuances depending upon the academic, its essence is of happiness and fulfillment. Paxton and Turner paraphrase Shostrom: Overall, Shostrom's theory of self-actualization is one that emphasizes positive mental health and psychological adjustmentActualizing persons are viewed by Shostrom as individuals who are willing to take the risk of being themselves and to respond according to how they feel in the present, rather than adhering to rigid patterns of the past or to inflexible goals of the future. Two concepts that are central to Shostrom's theory of actualizing are inner-direction and time competence. Shostrom describes actualizing persons as being inner-directed, meaning that the motivation for their behavior comes from within, not from external influences. The importance of the concept of inner-direction to Shostrom's theory is illustrated by the fact that he describes inner-direction as a goal of self-actualizing and a central tenet Time competence, another characteristic of actualizing individuals, refers to the ability to live in the here-and-now rather than predominantly living in the past and/o r in the future (66). Self-actualization is intimately related to identity-the concept of fulfillment grows from one's perception of self. "The reflected self is composed of three elements: The self-concept (SC)-a person's perception of himself or herself; the Perceived Self-Concept (PSC)-a person's perception of others' evaluations of him or her; and the Social Self-Concept (SSC)-others' actual evaluations of a person (Schafer et al, 168)." The well-known Chilean sociologist Max-Neef has inextricably nine components of fulfillment and actualization in his matrix of needs-satisfactions. According to Max-Neef, people and communities reach fulfillment when they have access to the following: Basic subsistence (food, shelter, work), Protection (rights, family, security), Affect (friends, family, partners or spouses), Understanding (education, policy, and communications which orient one in their social context), Participation (rights, responsibilities, and obligations), Recreation (games, shows, parties, leisure), Creation (abilities, talents, methods, and skills), Identity (symbols, language, customs, sexuality, values, and roles), and Freedom (civil rights and equality) (Max-Neef, 1986). Fundamental Human Needs Being (qualities) Having (things) Doing (actions) Interacting (settings) subsistence physical and mental health food, shelter work feed, clothe, rest, work living environment, social setting protection care, adaptability autonomy social security, health systems, work co-operate, plan, take care of, help social

Tort Law - Principles limiting actions in negligence against public Essay

Tort Law - Principles limiting actions in negligence against public bodies - Essay Example This essay also analyses how the exclusionary rule compares to other principles used by the court to limit claims in negligence against public bodies. The Rule in Hill v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire In Hill, the plaintiff’s son was the last victim of a serial killer known as the Yorkshire Ripper. The plaintiff claimed that had it not been for police negligence in detecting and apprehending the Yorkshire killer, her daughter would not have been murdered by him. The court ruled that the police do not owe the public a general duty of care in terms of apprehending criminals that are not known, unless failure to exercise care results in more risks. Moreover, police do not owe a general duty of care to individuals except in circumstances where there is proximity of relationship between the police and an identified victim.3 Lord Keith acknowledged that there may be a number of circumstances in which there may be a duty of care to the general public in the conduct of a number of activities that may require a higher standard of care. However, it is unreasonable to expect this kind of general duty to be applied to the activities that police conduct. Lord Keith went on to state: The general sense of public duty which motivates police forces is unlikely to be appreciably reinforced by the imposition of such liability so far as concerns their function in the investigation and suppression of crime. From time to time they make mistakes in the exercise of that function, but it is not to be doubted that they apply their best endeavours to the performance of it.4 It would therefore appear that in formulating and justifying the exclusionary rule, there is an assumption that in the investigation and suppression of crimes, police put forth their best efforts and any missteps are regarded as excusable errors. Such an assumption is unrealistic, but at the same time, police are accountable for intentional torts in terms of assault and battery. In such instances, proximity is clearly established. The court was very careful to emphasize that the exclusionary rule would apply only in some instances.5 Lord Keith clearly stated that it would be unreasonable to impose a duty of care I â€Å"some instances† as this â€Å"may lead to the exercise of a function being carried on in a detrimentally defensive frame of mind†.6 The court explained that the specific instances where it would be unreasonable to impose liability on police would be instances in which police were conducting investigations and suppressing crimes. Lord Keith specifically stated that the likelihood of the police conducting their duties with a â€Å"defensive frame of mind† when conducting investigations â€Å"cannot be excluded†.7 Thus liability could not be imposed when police were conducting investigations and this part of the ruling was prefaced by the presumption that police conduct their investigations putting forth their best efforts. The justification for the exclusionary rule may therefore be counterproductive. In safeguarding against the risk that police may become too distracted by the prospects of being found liable for negligence in the performance of