The last of the tasks included in the structure of the exam is an alternative one. The graduate is given the right to choose and write a short creative work (essay) on one of the topics listed in the list. The list includes topics from all social sciences, the content of which is the school subject "Social Science".

This task is worth five points. Essay topics are formulated in the form of aphorisms containing certain polemical issues. The applicant has the opportunity to demonstrate their knowledge of the conceptual apparatus of the course, the ability to independently formulate judgments on topical social problems. A small creative work (essay) must necessarily include a personal assessment of the author, his argumentation of his point of view. We propose to start writing an essay by revealing the understanding of the problem formulated in the aphorism, its significance for social knowledge, followed by the author's goal-setting of the work, the presentation of his opinion, the selection of arguments, conclusions and generalizations. The quality of the work will be higher if you give opinions on the stated problem of well-known thinkers, scientists. Carefully follow the style of presentation, do not allow incorrect, lightweight statements.

Essay example

“Society is a set of stones that would collapse if one did not support the other” - Seneca.

The main problem raised by the author in this statement is the problem of interaction in society, the problem of social solidarity. Each society is characterized by its own specific features (integrity, close relationship, the presence of common tasks and goals) without which its existence is impossible.

I chose this topic for my essay because I think this problem is very relevant for the current situation in our country and in the world as a whole. Numerous troubles, catastrophes, cataclysms and crises have befallen humanity. And all this is connected, first of all, with the fact that people put their local interests as a prerogative, they try to benefit only for themselves, without thinking about the consequences of their actions. The evidence for these words is a huge number of environmental problems, the financial crisis, the uncontrollability of nuclear weapons and many other global problems. It would seem that it is possible to do in such a situation? The answer to this question is very simple: people should forget about their local interests and consolidate to solve these issues.

Seneca's position on this issue is that he sees society as numerous small particles that make up a single whole. He draws attention to the close relationship of these particles and points out that society is a rather unstable structure that will collapse if there is no mutual understanding and unity in it.

I cannot but agree with the position of the author, since I consider it the only true and unshakable one after centuries. There are many examples from history showing that only when a society is united can it exist. Firstly, this is a period of unrest in our country, when Russia could completely lose its sovereignty and it was saved only by a united people who created popular militias. Secondly, this is a vivid example from the foreign history of the 70s, when in Spain, after the death of the dictator Franco, the first elections to the parliament (Cortes) took place; two warring parties of completely different orientations, the communists and the francists, scored equally in votes, but despite their differences, they decided not to disperse until a constitution was adopted. Strange as it may seem, this constitution works almost unchanged to this day.

I would like to end my essay with the wonderful phrase of Jean Jacques Rousseau: "If there were no such points at which the interests of all would converge, there could be no question of any kind of society."

Essay examples:

“Nature creates man, but society develops and shapes him.” (V.G. Belinsky )

I chose this topic because it is interesting to me and relevant today, as in modern society there is a huge variety of social institutions and interests on which the inner world of a person depends. It is important for each of us to understand that innate inclinations do not guarantee success, since much also depends on the nature of his interaction with society.

The author, by his statement, claims that nature creates a person, but society educates him. The author's point of view can be divided, since nature creates a person and only some inclinations are laid in him, which then the person himself must develop and realize. But even if a person was deprived of some inclinations, then he himself can find and develop them in himself, if he really needs it. As Maxim Gorky said: "A person can do anything ... if only he wants to." But basically society makes a person a person, and not only himself. A person throughout his life goes through various social institutions, where he acquires the skills to communicate with people of different professions and ages, where character is formed, his own self is formed and where a person turns from an individual into a person. Also, one should not forget about the great importance of nature in a person’s life, it is she who creates him, and his future life, his interests, his predisposition to any objects or activities depend on the inclinations that nature has invested in a person. For example, Vasily Tropinin, who from childhood was gifted with talent and a penchant for drawing. But this gift might not have developed in him if Count Morkov had not seen this talent in him and had not given him the opportunity to reveal himself, and then Vasily Tropinin would not have become the same Vasily Tropinin, whom the whole world knows. Thus, nature is its fundamental basis, and society is its core.

I share the point of view of V.G. Belinsky and I believe that it is society, together with the person himself, that makes him the way he should be at a certain period in the life of society. That is, a person is a reflection of the life of the whole society at a certain moment in the history of the life of all mankind.

“Man is the only animal for which his own existence is a problem: he must solve it and you can’t get away from it anywhere” (E. Fromm)

I chose the saying of the German social psychologist and philosopher Erich Fromm: “Man is the only animal for whom his own existence is a problem: he must solve it, and there is no getting away from it.”

In my opinion, this aphorism reflects the problem of self-realization and self-expression of a person, which consists in the identification and development of personal abilities by an individual in all spheres of activity.

I opted for this particular statement, since the problem raised by the classic was and remains extremely important. Nowadays, plunging headlong into everyday issues and material worries, people often “push” the problem of self-actualization into the background, trying to forget about it.

In my opinion, the author means that a person needs self-expression as such. It is the need for self-realization that is one of the main criteria that puts him in a special position in the world, distinguishing him from other animals.

I cannot but agree with the opinion of the classic. Indeed, for a person, unlike an animal, it is important to know himself, to reveal his talents and abilities, interests, skills, as well as to show them in a specific activity. In my opinion, the life of the individual continues in his works, works. Realizing his abilities in one area or another, he not only prolongs his social existence (which becomes longer than the actual existence of the individual himself), but also gives other people the opportunity to appreciate his talent, perhaps share his views ...

The need for self-realization, self-expression combines the needs of a person in moral standards, morality and law, religion, love, creativity, knowledge of the world around and, of course, oneself. No wonder the American scientist A. Maslow put these needs at the top of his pyramid of human needs, calling them "spiritual".

"Spiritual" needs - the needs of our spirit, our inner "higher self", that is, the need for self-fulfillment - the manifestation of their hidden capabilities.

Based on all of the above, we can conclude that the need for self-realization and the satisfaction of this need are very important for every person. It allows him to feel needed, to answer some questions about the meaning of his existence, to deeply know his personality and learn to control its various elements, rearrange them as necessary for certain circumstances. All these skills will always allow a person to find his place in the world and society, to ensure his worthy existence.

“We should strive to learn facts, not opinions, and, on the contrary, find a place for these facts in the system of our opinions” (Mr. Lichtenberg)

The problem raised by this statement is related to cognitive activity man and understanding of the concept of true knowledge. True knowledge cannot be obtained by knowing opinions, since not every opinion or assessment is true.

I chose this aphorism because it is an interesting enough thought that has made me think about this problem more than once. This problem is very relevant in our time, because people, for the most part, learn opinions, as it is quick and easy, instead of getting the true information from primary sources. Listening to opinions and assessments, and not researching and studying the facts, you can get false information, which will lead to serious or frivolous errors.

We really should strive to learn facts, not opinions, since knowledge is an activity aimed at knowing the truth, at forming knowledge about the world, the laws of its development and about man himself. Knowing opinions, not facts, we run the risk of not receiving true data or news, since each person sees things in the world around him in his own way (as Aristotle stated: “What seems to everyone is certain”), so the sensations of another person cannot be accept as true knowledge. But by knowing the facts, we can get accurate information about a particular event or object, and, having learned the facts, we draw conclusions, assessments, and, based on this, we form certain opinions, we observe patterns that will help us to make our own decisions in the future. life is more convenient in the world around us. This point of view has the French philosopher R. Descartes, who wrote: "The word" Truth "means the correspondence of thought to the subject."

Therefore, I want to say that I fully share the author's point of view and consider him absolutely right, because only true knowledge gives us the opportunity to draw the right conclusions.

Essay example

“Art should teach to love virtue and hate vice” (D. Diderot)

I chose the statement of the French writer, philosopher and enlightener Denis Diderot: "Art should teach you to love virtue and hate vice."

In my opinion, this aphorism raises the problem of the purpose of art, its role in human life.

I opted for this particular aphorism, since the topic touched upon by the classic is more relevant than ever for the modern world. Nowadays, art is often used not as a carrier of high ideals and values, ideas about Good and Evil, but as just a means of making a profit.

The author believes that the true purpose of art is to be the concentration of moral and ethical norms and ideals, to carry the ideas of goodness and virtue, to help a person form a scale of values ​​and ideas about a decent life and behavior.

I cannot but agree with the opinion of the author. Without a doubt, in many respects through art we learn the world and receive education. Art gives each of us the opportunity to understand and change ourselves through contact with the world of beauty. It is impossible to deny the fact that art is the embodiment of the cultural heritage of society, a reflection of a particular era; it has a serious impact on public consciousness, people's perception of the surrounding reality.

Art, as mentioned above, underlies the formation of personality. Each of us feels the influence of art every day, sometimes without realizing it. Art connects generations, unites and unites the people, thereby directly influencing the fate of the state.

Interaction with the world of art satisfies human spiritual needs, which, by the way, were placed at the very top of the pyramid of needs by the American scientist A. Maslow. Love and creativity, religion and moral standards, morality, knowledge of the world and oneself - everything was embodied in art.

If art carries a vice, false ideals, then its influence will be destructive both for a single individual and for the whole society as a whole.

Based on all of the above, we can conclude that art is only art when it carries a message that can influence a person, change him, direct him on the right path, when it teaches goodness, justice, true, sincere love for loved ones. , Motherland ...

Virtue, love, mercy, unselfishness 8230 atavisms

Probably many people have asked this question. This topic is as hot as ever today. I also thought about this problem many times. Now, when many people are in constant pursuit of money, when material well-being is an end in itself for most of our society, when the pace of life is growing day by day, when the expression “if you want to live, know how to spin” becomes the main life credo, can we talk about such things as virtue, love, mercy, selflessness?

Everyone has their own opinion on this matter. One believes that these are really obsolete concepts, that in our age of high speeds, when everyone can rely only on themselves and believe only in themselves, it is stupid and useless to be merciful or disinterested. Indeed, what does it give? What is the benefit for the person who gives money, even a small amount, to the poor? What will the one who keeps all the commandments of the Lord and loves “his neighbor as himself” get? Nothing. Or almost nothing? Is it possible to consider one's own satisfaction as "nothing"? I do not think so. People who do not feel joy in helping their neighbor are, in my opinion, simply selfish. And there are many such people. Their number is growing every day, they flood our planet, they, like deadly viruses, kill our society. These people love no one but themselves. So what's good about it? I agree that in material sense it is absolutely unprofitable and that life dictates its harsh laws - the laws of the jungle. Do not spare anyone, sweep away everything in your path - and you will be at the top. Sounds creepy, doesn't it? But that is exactly what is happening now. Careerists, thieves, criminals, just angry people everywhere. Society is suffocating. Isn't it time to change your mind? Isn't it time to take the first step towards building a healthy team, normal human relations?

It's time! And you have to start with yourself first. Of course, love, mercy, selflessness on a global scale - beautiful words. But look at how you behave, the people around you, your friends and loved ones. Probably everyone knows such people who will always come to the rescue, without demanding any gratitude for it, people who do not hold a grudge against anyone. It is thanks to them that those wise laws of life that God preached have still been preserved, have not yet completely become obsolete. I believe that religion greatly helps truly righteous people to survive in our society, like diamonds that shine in a pile of stones, not yet covered with dust and dirt. It is these people who believe in the spiritual revival of society, and it is thanks to them that we can still be saved from moral degradation.

When you write about love and mercy, you involuntarily recall a trip in public transport at rush hour. This sight is terrifying. A crowd of people with faces distorted with anger flies through the open doors, choking and pushing. Those that are stronger and taller, mostly men, have time to take a seat and immediately turn to the window so as not to see the unhappy eyes of women standing with bags near them. This picture perfectly illustrates the "love" for each other and the selfless "desire to help".

What is there to say about unselfishness? It is out of the question. I admit that people can help relatives and friends, but I very rarely see this picture among people who do not know each other. All this made me think about the question: “Why?” To cure a disease, one must know its cause.

I thought a lot and came to the conclusion that at heart many people are very kind and merciful. The street changes them, those harmful molecules of malice that constantly rush in the air. "He pushed me! I will push him or “tear” my evil on the other,” many people argue like that. But the same people show ... care for the old mother, adore their children and take care of sick animals. Is this not love and virtue?

What happens to them when interacting with other people? In my opinion, now all people are so busy with their problems that day by day they become more and more withdrawn. They push all their feelings and experiences deep into themselves and are covered with a kind of "protective shell", which does not allow either good or evil to affect the human soul. An elementary defensive reaction of each person is to respond with a blow to a blow or to withdraw into oneself, to escape from reality. Stone faces around, absent looks, silence - this is that defensive reaction. But sometimes a person remembers something good and kind, and a smile appears on his face, like a ray of sunshine, his eyes soften, and he speaks beautiful words of love and trust.

Then you realize that love has not yet died, that you are surrounded by lovely and good people. You just need to be able to melt that crust of ice that covered their heart. “Treat people the way you want to be treated” is a hackneyed biblical truth. But just imagine what would happen if all people began to follow it! I think that everyone imagines this picture of universal happiness in different ways, but for everyone it is equally beautiful. So why don't people aspire to it? It is not so difficult to be a little kinder and more merciful. You just need to make a little effort - disinterestedly, just like that.

The level of morality is getting lower and lower, there is less and less spirituality in our faces But if people are still just as virtuous, if they still have love in their hearts, if they are still merciful and selfless, then why don't we try to make the world a little better ? At least, so that such a question never again arises: “Are all those lofty and beautiful concepts that make our existence better and brighter atavism?” Let's listen to the voice of the heart that every person deep down wants to change and change the world for the better. Personally, I believe that, although it is contradicted every day by our behavior, there is room in everyone's soul for love, mercy and selflessness. Let's be real, the way we really are. And if at least a few of us become even one iota better, it will be the best thing that we will do for all of humanity. The revival of the whole society begins with the moral perfection of each of its members. I think life will be easier and better. Otherwise, what to do? How to continue to live on? Slide further down the moral ladder?

No no and one more time no! This will lead first to the moral, and then to the physical degeneration of man. Let's not allow this, let's answer the main question of our time: money or soul? Soul. The essence of a person cannot be changed. And it's generally not worth it. We are people, not animals, because we can cry, laugh, love, hate, suffer and be happy, we can be merciful and disinterested. Preserving these qualities, we remain human and improve. Isn't this the main goal of every person's life?

Virtue should be not only kind in the soul, but also a warrior. There are kind people, but not brave, not self-confident, so they can fail in their efforts. It is necessary that the will be strong, then there will be sense. The will needs to be tempered and strengthened, and this can be done if you really want to.

This suggests that good and evil do not exist in nature. Virtue is just a word from which the grace of God and the fragrance of flowers does not come. There is such an expression "the road to hell is paved with good intentions" People get confused in the concepts that they themselves invented. If you help a person, then you should not expect gratitude or some kind of special attitude, to help or not to help is a matter of choosing the one who decided to help, the person you help does not owe anything to the one who helped, otherwise this is not selfless help. self-beneficial, respect is benevolence, that is, help is no longer a disinterested act and therefore cannot be considered virtuous. To summarize))) in the course of reasoning, it turned out that good and evil do not exist in nature, and if virtue exists, it is not she who actually loses, but the one who thinks that he is doing a good deed. In general, reasoning on the principle of good and evil is good and this is bad, as a rule, leads a person into complete chaos. In order to write an essay on this topic, you should understand what virtue is in general. What is good and what is evil, as soon as you delve into the essence of these words, you will understand that this is superficial nonsense, there is life and there is death human actions neither good nor bad there are those that lead to life, but there are those that lead to death, the decision to help or not to help should come from a person in such a way that when doing help he does not expect anything in return, and then what is called virtue will never lose. In such cases, hurt pride always loses.

Hello! Virtue done
by anyone without the realization of GOD
Sincere and selfless love for neighbor
usually fails...
It's very, very short. Actually EVERYTHING
SPIN WITH IMMENSE ALL-POWERFUL
FORCE OF GOD. But when a person doesn't know
ETOGO believes that he helped someone and even
while pursuing some kind of benefit: glory,
popularity and other selfish goals ...
That kind of virtue always fails
Don't do good, you won't get evil.
But if a person does something
spontaneously detached without dreaming of anything
get in return... That is such a virtue
will never crash. SHE IS ETERNAL
Once again, all this is very, very
in short.

Other questions from the category "Mysticism, Esotericism"

• Did I understand correctly that the Creator created everything in six thousand years, according to how we think?!
• I opened an incredible discovery, did not know to share or not to share. but still. all conspiracies are said in a whisper and then I realized

One of the most precious bounties is the will. No treasures - neither terrestrial nor sea - can compare with it. The greatest of all misfortunes is bondage, therefore, for the sake of freedom, one can and should risk one's life. Love is a powerful force that captivates the human soul. It is like death: it does not take into account anyone and does not know the measure in anything. Love lives both in luxurious royal palaces and in squalid huts.

Years and centuries have passed, but the thoughts expressed by Cervantes through the mouth of Don Quixote are close to me. I believe that one should really fear God, for "in the fear of the Lord lies wisdom." For many years we were cut off from the church, we were brought up as atheists. Fortunately, people have returned to God, trying to live according to the commandments. The path to God has made us spiritually purer, richer and wiser.

I agree with the author's conclusion that the most important thing is to know yourself. It is very easy to find flaws in another person, to criticize and condemn. And to understand what you really are, without overestimating and underestimating, is very difficult. I think you should always take into account the attitude of others towards you. If parents, relatives, teachers suffer through us, we should also be dissatisfied with ourselves. You should always look for the cause in yourself, and not blame others.

The most important thing for a person is freedom. Indeed, neither wealth nor fame can replace it. The worst thing is to feel the fetters on your hands, not to be able to do as you wish. For centuries, the hearts of people have been worried about the problem: what is spiritual and physical beauty? I value in a person, first of all, the soul.

After all, a cold narcissistic beauty is just a soulless doll that can be disgusting. And a person, albeit ugly, but spiritually rich, honest, kind, fair, educated and compassionate attracts and awakens a feeling of great and passionate love. I believe that Miguel Cervantes expressed truths that are close not only to me, but to all my contemporaries.

Moral virtues are the result of self-improvement. Only by overcoming the inclination to evil and cherishing the good, a person can become a perfect, harmonious personality, which, in fact, God created him. Man is born for good. She must be merciful. It is in our time of indifference and cruelty that mercy, I am convinced, acquires special weight.

This is not only charity, but pity for every ant or flower, in every living being. One must have a truly loving, kind heart in order to selflessly help others. After all, it is known that the alms that we give without sympathy, but through the love of glory, are not accepted by God.

One of the feelings that ennobles a person is gratitude. It is the readiness to return kindness for kindness. I didn't always think about why my mother was crying. Unfortunately, sometimes they were tears caused by my indifference, rudeness or even cruelty. We must try to never allow this, and this will be elementary human gratitude.

Honesty and modesty are important moral values. A dishonest person cannot inspire respect and trust. It is impossible to deal with her, because at any moment you can expect deception, a dirty trick. They say modesty is the first sign of intelligence. A person endowed with this quality can better evaluate himself and his knowledge, he does not boast, does not exalt himself, does not show rudeness or arrogance. Of course, everyone needs a measure. A too modest person cannot fully realize himself, feels discomfort, uncertainty.

I consider dignity to be a very important moral value - the ability to wisely control oneself. After all, the nobility of the human personality is manifested in the extent to which it can distinguish what is worthy of it and what is not.

In life, a person encounters beauty and meanness, joy and sorrow, triumph and suffering, love and hatred. Sometimes it is worth deciding what to do, how to get out of a particular situation. Therefore, one must always remember that a person is created in the image of God, and cultivate more moral qualities in oneself.

Aristotle, considering ethics in terms of human (and not divine) will, made a person responsible for his own destiny and well-being. By this, he rejected the religious-mythological concept, according to which the good or unhappiness of a person is determined by the vagaries of fate. Aristotle also excluded piety from the number of studied virtues. The philosopher does not say anything about the role of the gods in the moral life of people; in his ethics, religiosity is completely absent. Aristotle explores ethical issues to help people become better and make society more perfect. In contrast to Socrates, Aristotle (for the first time in the history of ethics) associates ethical virtue with desire, desire, will, believing that, although morality depends on knowledge, nevertheless, it is rooted in good will: after all, it is one thing to know what is good and what is bad, and another is to want to follow the good. Virtues are not qualities of the mind, they constitute the warehouse of the soul. Therefore, Aristotle distinguishes between diapoetic (thinking) virtues associated with the activity of the mind, and ethical virtues - the virtues of the mental disposition, character. Both those and other virtues are not given to us by nature, we can acquire them. Ethical virtue is finding the proper middle ground in behavior and feelings, choosing the middle ground between their excess and deficiency. How to determine the proper middle ground for each of us? According to Aristotle, for this it is necessary either to have practical wisdom, prudence, or to follow the example or instructions of a virtuous person.

On the issue of the innate or acquired nature of the higher mental abilities of a person, Stagirite writes that, although virtue is an acquired quality of the soul, however, “after all, they are both just and prudent, and courageous. and so on (in a sense) we have been right from birth ... ". At the same time, Aristotle says that the virtues acquired by upbringing are higher than the gift of nature, inborn abilities. Virtue requires skill, habit, practice. “Virtue is a consciously chosen warehouse (of the soul), consisting in the possession of a middle in relation to us, moreover, determined by such a judgment as a reasonable person determines it. They have a middle between two (kinds of) depravity, one of which is from excess, the other from lack. It is not easy to find the proper middle in feelings and actions, it is much easier to become vicious. It is difficult to be virtuous: "It is not for nothing that perfection is both rare, and commendable, and beautiful." Few perfect people and many mediocre ones.

Virtues Aristotle divided, as already mentioned, into two types. Dialoetic (thinking or intellectual) and ethical (moral). The first are two - rationality, or wisdom, and prudence, practical wisdom acquired through training. The second are the virtues of will, character; these include courage, generosity, morality, etc. The latter are developed by cultivating habits.

To become a virtuous person, apart from knowledge. that there is good and evil, it also takes time to develop character. One good deed does not lead to virtue. Naturally, education is best to start from childhood. Therefore, in the field of educating citizens, Aristotle assigns a large role to legislation and the state.

Speaking of the "middle" as a distinctive recognition of virtue, Aristotle means "average" in the realm of feelings. "Middle" is "nothing too much". Stagirite examines virtues in detail from this point of view, opposing them to vices. Thus, he contrasts generosity with vanity (“excess”), on the one hand, cowardice (“lack”), on the other. Generosity, therefore, is the "middle." Courage is a mean between reckless courage and cowardice, generosity, generosity - between wastefulness and avarice, modesty - between shamelessness, arrogance and shyness, timidity. Since moral action is based on reason, it implies a free choice between good and evil. “Virtue is in our power, just like vice, for we have the power to act in all those cases when we have the power to refrain from action.” By introducing the concept of free choice, Aristotle opens the first page of the long controversy about free will.

Conclusion

The enduring merit of Aristotle is the creation of science, which he called ethics. For the first time among Greek thinkers, he made the will the basis of morality. Aristotle considered thinking free from matter as the supreme principle in the world - a deity. Although man will never reach the level of divine life, yet, as far as he can, he should strive for it as an ideal. The approval of this ideal allowed Aristotle to create, on the one hand, a realistic ethics based on the existent, i.e., on norms and principles taken from life itself, as it really is, and on the other hand, an ethics that is not devoid of an ideal. The ethics of the Stagirite, its whole meaning and purpose, is to show how to avoid misfortune and achieve the happiness available to mortal man. According to the spirit of the ethical teaching of Aristotle, the well-being of a person depends on his mind of prudence, foresight. Aristotle put science (reason) above morality, thereby making moral ideal contemplative life. In accordance with his ethical ideal, Stagirite highly appreciates the traditional ancient virtues of a citizen - wisdom, courage, justice, friendship. However, he does not know about the love of man for man in the sense that it began to be taught. Christian theologians. The humanism of Aristotle is completely different from Christian humanism, according to which "all people are brothers", that is, everyone is equal before God. Aristotelian ethics proceeds from the fact that people are not the same in their abilities, forms of activity and degree of activity, therefore the level of happiness or bliss is different, and for some, life may turn out to be generally unhappy. So, Aristotle believes that a slave cannot be happy. He put forward the theory of the "natural" superiority of the Hellenes ("free by nature") over the "barbarians" ("slaves by nature"). For Aristotle, a person outside of society is either a god or an animal. But since the slaves were a foreign, alien element deprived of civil rights, it turned out that the slaves were, as it were, not people, and the slave becomes a man only after gaining freedom.

The ethics and politics of Aristotle study the same question - the question of cultivating virtues and forming habits of living virtuously in order to achieve happiness that is available to a person in different aspects: the first is in aspects of the nature of an individual person. The second is in terms of the socio-political life of citizens. To cultivate a virtuous lifestyle and behavior, morality alone is not enough. We need more laws that have coercive force. Therefore, Aristotle states that "public attention (to education) arises due to laws, and good attention - thanks to respectable laws."