Leadership In Ancient Civilizations Essay -- essays research papers

During the period of the Roman Republic and the Roman Empire, different leaders exhibited different styles of leadership and employed different political strategies. In addition, these leaders came to power and maintained their control in their own unique ways. Each leader seemed to have his own agenda, which set the tone for that era. Five prominent leaders of this time period were Agricola, Augustus, Julius Caesar, and the brothers Tiberius and Gaius Gracchus. The point to be made with respect to these particular men is related to the obvious correlation between the nature of a leader’s agenda and the impact of his reign. In the end, a ruler’s fate was dependent not on his agenda, but on style and strategy with which he pushed his agenda. Those leaders whose methods were completely altruistic were heralded as great leaders, while those with devious and/or unethical methods of pushing their agendas were hastily assassinated. First consider Tiberius Gracchus. It is imperative to analyze his style of leadership and his political strategies. During his term as tribune, Tiberius’ major goal was to pass a land reform bill. This bill was biased toward the masses. Tiberius tried fairly and squarely to gain the support of the Roman senate, but this effort was to no avail. Tiberius then resorted to unfavorable tactics when he impeached another tribune, Octavius, the major opponent of Tiberius’ bill. Thus Tiberius willingly destroyed the long-held and quite favored notion of an immune tribune. However, this is what the common people wanted. Tiberius’ big mistake was blatantly opposing, thus disrespecting the Roman senate. As a result, the senate assassinated Tiberius. The lesson to be learned here is not that Tiberius’ agenda was constructed out of self-interest or greed. Tiberius simply wanted to help the common people. However, Tiberius’ methods were not proper for that time in that place. And it is probable that Tiberius could easily have been persuaded to compromise. Thus, Tiberius’ downfall was not his agenda, but his style and political strategy. A different example of the same principle is summed up with the story of Tiberius’ younger brother, Gaius Gracchus. Gaius worked not to appease the senate, but to appease the people. Although this seems quite noble of him, it was still a mistake to oppose the senate. Granted, this notion is counter-intuitive. One wo... ...in accordance with the main point we have been discussing, he did so with a particular style and political strategy, so as not to offset social order. He ruled very subtly. He saw to it that he got what he wanted, yet he did so with such caution that it was disguised as interest in providing for the good of the citizens. Therefore, Augustus’ reign supports the theory that a ruler can drive a selfish agenda, yet as long as the style and political strategy of the leader in question is favored by the people, then the leader can still be considered a good ruler.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Therefore, upon considering the lives of Tiberius and Gaius Gracchus, Julius Caesar, Agricola, and Augustus Caesar, it is clear that people in the Roman Republic and the Roman Empire considered a leader’s particular actions more that his agenda when deciding whether or not a leader is worthy of being called â€Å"great† or being assassinated. Obviously, a leader’s agenda and accomplishments are important factors, but we have seen with these five particular leaders that sometimes accomplishments do not matter. What matters greatly are the steps taken by a leader to obtain goals or satisfy certain needs.

Grapes Of Wrath :: essays research papers

During the Dust Bowl, hundreds of thousands of southerners faced many hardships, which is the basis of the novel called The Grapes of Wrath. John Steinback wrote this fiction novel to portray the harsh conditions during the Dust Bowl. However, is the portrayal of the Dust Bowl in The Grapes of Wrath valid? When one considers the merit of this novel, one thinks, how can Americans treat other Americans so horribly. After reviewing American History, the mistreatment of the "Okies" in The Grapes of Wrath can be concluded as being valid. After slavery, blacks were terribly treated. During the Civil War, Americans were divided. During the Red Scare, Americans mistrusted other Americans. These three different periods of U.S. history display how Americans can treat fellow Americans so cruelly. 	African Americans were terribly treated after slavery. Although they were Americans just like the whites, many of the whites hated them because they were different. One example of mistreatment of the African Americans was segregation, which was the division of local places by race. The blacks were thought to be so "dirty", and the whites were scared of them. The whites did not want the blacks to mix with the whites. Public areas such as schools were segregated so the blacks and whites went to different schools. It was like the whites wanted to rid the U.S. of the blacks. In The Grapes of Wrath, the Californians wanted to rid the "dirty" Okies from California because they were afraid of them. They were afraid that the Okies would take their land. Blacks were also beaten for no just reason. Racial group such as the KKK, beat up blacks because they hated the blacks. They wanted the blacks to go away or die. In The Grapes of Wrath, Okies were unjustly beaten. The California police beat them for no just reason because they wanted the Okies to leave the state. The police killed Casey for no just reason. They killed him just because they thought the was a Okie fighting for more rights. The Californians did not like the Okies even though they were Americans, just like how the Blacks were not liked by the whites, even though they were Americans. White mistreatment of African Americans was not the only Americans mistreatment of Americans; there was also the infamous Red Scare. The Red Scares is another situation in which Americans mistreated Americans.

Call of the Wild

Zach Maes English 2 8-30-2011 Call of the Wild 1. Some readers see the hardships and suffering of the dogs in the sled team as symbolic of workers in a Capitalistic system. Identify and explain these similarities. â€Å"He had killed man, the noblest game of all, and he had killed in the face of the law, of club and fang† (ch. 7) Capitalism is an economic system in which the workers only are paid enough to eat and survive. The dogs in the sled team have to work hard and are only fed enough to survive.The workers in the Capitalistic system are treated the same as the dogs, in which they are given the bare minimum to live, and only to live, they do not receive enough money to do more then eat. The sled dogs have to work hard like the workers, and are rewarded with food. They relate because the bare minimum is given whether it is the sled dogs or the Capitalistic workers. 2. Trace Buck’s development from a â€Å"monarch† to a working dog to a â€Å"free† dog. Specifically, how is Buck’s transitional experience a â€Å"Call of the Wild†? Consider such quotes as Pete’s: â€Å"When he was made, the mold was broke. † â€Å"His eyes turned bloodshot, and he was metamorphosed into a raging fiend. So changed was he that the judge himself would not have recognized him† (Ch. 1) Buck starts the novel as a ruler of his household. His experience becomes a â€Å"Call of the Wild† because he is an animal and that is where he naturally came from.He goes through several stages of life from living in a royal palace to working hard pulling a sled for the Canadian Government. And then to falling in love with someone that he belongs with, and then getting it all ripped away from him again. He was bred to fight, and bred to be a leader and to be alone in the wilderness, and to conquer the wilderness and to answer the â€Å"Call of the Wild†. 3. Compare Buck at the beginning of his journey with Buck at the end of his journey. What are the changes and what causes them?Would you call him a hero? Why or why not? What is the most valuable lesson learned? â€Å"He was older than the days he had seen and the breaths he had drawn. He linked the past with the present, and the eternity behind him throbbed through him in a mighty rhythm to which he swayed as the tides and seasons swayed. † (Ch. 6) At the beginning of Bucks journey he didn’t know a lot about himself, but as his journey continued he slowly began to learn more about himself, like how much pain he could handle, and how much fight he had.He learned that he could withstand anything, and he learned a lot more about himself then he could of he spent the rest of his life at the Judge’s house. He learned that he could live by himself in the wild and that he needed to kill and he needed to eat fresh meat to live. Living in the wild was what he was made to do, it was in his blood, passed down from generation to generation from his parents, and all that was needed was to be introduced to the wild, and when given that opportunity he flourished. ? London, Jack (1903). The Call of the Wild.

Ball corporation Essay

1. How do you think a small margin for error affects communication on a project? I think that it can affect the zero error margins. By not listening and paying close attention to the information, room for error can occur. Also after knowing that there zero room for error the people working on the project will pay close attention to any communication. 2. In what ways do you act differently in a face to face meeting than you do during a telephone conference call? I have not have the experience, but may I feel that the difference would be that during a conference call, the person who is talking will not be able to see and body expression thus thinking that everything is okay. In a face to face call the person that relates the info can see anybody that might not agree and ask why they might feel this way. 3. Why is it written communication essential in some situations (such as conveying specifications), while oral communication is essential in others (such as technology interchange transfers)? Written communication sometimes is a necessity it’s like having an architect and telling the contractor what to do. It will be quite hard for the contractor, because he might know where to start; miscommunication and the architect might have other projects. So it might be easier to have the plans on hand and the contractor can go over it several times to ensure the building is coming along to specification. The oral communications are just simple decision that will be agreed upon not really giving any numbers because it will be harder to explain in detail than having the plan in front. 4. What listening hurdles do you find yourself facing as you listen to others? How do you handle it when you believe someone you’re speaking to is not hearing what you say? Some hurdles I find myself facing would be distractions, such as watching the T.V. and having a conversation with the family a lot of communication can be lost by trying to listen to both at the same time. I have found several ways to combat this issue, one that the text give is asking questions to see if the audience is listening. Another that I have learned from my supervisor were if there are people talking during a speech he brings the attention to the coworkers by asking everybody to pay attention to them because I guess there conversation is more important than the information that is being given, he then proceeds back to the information. I have seen this one work several times.

Legalizing Marijuana Marc Dalcin

Legalizing Marijuana Marc Dalcin Dr. Marie Carroll Ashford Intro To Ethics And Social Responsibility 08/10/12 Marijuana has been at the center of a heated debate regarding its legalization. It has received both criticism and praise in equal measure. Critics refer to marijuana as a â€Å"devil weed† while supporters have often referred it to a â€Å"miracle drug. † Despite the different references to marijuana, there has been a prolonged debate on whether it should be legalized for personal use or not.There are two approaches to the use of marijuana with one involving medicinal purposes while the other involves purposes of pleasure. Medical health is an important aspect of human life and the legalization of marijuana for medicinal purposes has the importance of improving human health. In the case of using marijuana for pleasure, there is the issue of abuse of drugs, which often results in lawlessness among users. Legalizing marijuana presents an ethical dilemma in the se nse that it is difficult to ascertain the intentions of the users hence the drug may end up being used for the wrong reasons (Burnham, 2011).This paper provides a comprehensive analysis of the ethical dilemma arising from the debate on legalizing marijuana and presents the use of deontological reasoning theory in solving the dilemma. The paper also includes a comparison between deontological reasoning and relativism with the eventual identification of the theory that best relates to the personal opinion with regards to the debate on legalizing marijuana. The question of legalizing marijuana Should the use personal use of marijuana be legalized? There are numerous uses associated with marijuana.AIDS and cancer patients find marijuana useful as a drug that restores appetite and fights nausea. Marijuana also has nutritional value because its seeds contain vitamins and can be used in preparing cooking oil (Rosenthal, Kubby & Newhart, 2003). Research studies also indicate that the mariju ana can be used in the manufacturing of clothes. The plant has been used in the manufacturing of paper and clothing material for a very long time and is considered produce higher amount of fibre compared to trees. Environmentalists have found the marijuana plant important in addressing the problem of deforestation and soil erosion.Marijuana is beneficial in the restoration of lost soil nutrients. To law enforcement agencies, marijuana is considered to play a major role in increasing the number of crime rates. A significant number of incarcerated criminals have at least used marijuana prior to their arrest. The above analysis on the use of marijuana and its impact clearly points out to the fact that one group will support the legalization of marijuana while the other will oppose such a move. However, the debate can be solved using two theories of deontological reasoning and relativism.Deontological Reasoning The theory of deontological reasoning proposes that actions are either corre ct or wrong in themselves without taking into account their consequences. The theory of deontological reasoning can be best explained with the use of an example of a murder case. In such a situation, a deontologist considers the act of murder as wrong based on the fact that it involves taking the life of another person. It is assumed that humans have the duty of preserving life hence one should never kill no matter the circumstances (Mizzoni, 2009).In a nutshell, this implies that the end does not justify the means. Generally, deontologists believe that human beings have the duty of upholding morality. People have the moral duty to do the right things and avoid doing things that are wrong. The consequences of an action are never considered in determining whether the action is right or wrong. An individual has to consider his or her moral duty in order to make moral decisions. In this case, the personal use of marijuana is considered right or wrong based on the moral duty of users ra ther than the consequence of the plant on its user.The theory of deontological reasoning is connected to three concepts including rights, duties and principles (Burnham, 2011). However, our discussion only focuses on duties in analyzing the debate on legalizing the personal use of marijuana. There is a brief discussion of the concept of rights with regards to the theory of deontological reasoning. If an individual has the right to life, other people have the duty of making sure that such a right is respected. This relates with the issue of legalizing the use of marijuana. From a doctor’s perspective, medical marijuana has medicinal value and can be used in preserving life through healing.In such a case, the government and law enforcement agencies have the duty of respecting the right to life by legalizing the use of marijuana in providing treatment (Gerber, 2004). Marijuana may also be used for a different purpose such as pleasure, which may eventually result in users going i nsane. In order to preserve the life of users, there is an urgent need to make it illegal for users to abuse marijuana. This is because it will reduce the number of cases related to drug abuse hence saving a significant number of the human population from getting insane or engaging in criminal activities.Insanity and criminal actions have may result in the loss of life. The theory of deontological behavior proposes two classes of duties. First, there are general duties, which are commonly identified as prohibitions. Examples of prohibitions include do not kill, do not steal, and assist the needy among other general duties. The second class of duties relate to duties arising from the fact that there exists specific social relationships. For instance, if an individual has made a promise, then he or she has the duty of keeping the promise.Additionally, if one is a parent, then he or she has the duty to provide for the children. In this case, legalizing the personal use of marijuana is considered under the class of general duties (Jebreal & Lukes, 2011). One argument is that marijuana should be prohibited because it involves abuse of substances. On the other hand, doctors with patients have the duty to provide them with treatment even if it involves the use of marijuana as a medicine. Aquinas notes that each person has duties related to personal actions. An individual has a duty to keep promises, but does not have the duty to ensure that promises are kept.According to the theory of deontology, people should be more concerned with fulfilling personal duties but never make attempts of bringing out the most good. This is because it may result in the violation of the concept of a duty. In this case, we only have the duty of meeting the needs of other people rather than maximize the good (Mizzoni, 2009). There are a number of actions that people may choose from but they are free to act as they please. Basically, this means that people have the option of using marijuana for whatever reasons regardless of its consequences. There are instances when duties conflict with each other.W. D. Ross notes that in such cases, one does not require rules in solving such a conflict. One is only required to use their judgment in arriving at a solution. However, there are cases whereby one lacks the criteria that can be used in making decisions (Mizzoni, 2009). Deontologists argue that identifying the intentions of actions can provide a solution. Ross argues that actions are determined to be wrong or right based on the intentions of the agent. Therefore, deontological reasoning justifies the legalization of marijuana on the basis that it is used to improve human health.The use of marijuana can only be considered illegal if users intend to harm others. Relativism According to the theory of relativism, an action is considered moral or immoral relative to the cultural norms of the agent. This means that an action is considered right or wrong based on the moral norms of the culture within which it is practiced. A particular action may be considered moral in one culture while immoral in another culture. Relativists are opposed to the use of universal moral standards in determining whether an action is right or wrong (Jebreal & Lukes, 2011).The United Kingdom may consider the use marijuana as morally wrong while Amsterdam considers it morally right. According to relativists, there is no standard framework to be used in resolving moral disputes such as the legalization of marijuana across different members of society. Relativism is different from deontological reasoning in the sense that upholds societal norms as the determining factor on moral issues. According to relativism, marijuana should be legalized or not based on what society considers being moral or immoral (Jebreal & Lukes, 2011).However, in the case of deontological reasoning, actions are considered to be right or wrong based on the moral duties of an individual. Whereas relativism plac es emphasis on society in solving ethical dilemmas, deontological reasoning places emphasis on the moral duty of an individual. In this case, a relativist may support the legalization of marijuana because it is commonly used among members of his or her society. The same person may oppose legalizing marijuana because it is uncommon to use marijuana or use of marijuana is considered immoral within his society.The theory of relativism raises a number of important issues related to legalizing marijuana. First, different societies have conflicting moral beliefs and that believes of people within a society are deeply determined by their culture. It is therefore important that we incorporate the relativism when arguing for or against legalizing marijuana. Second, the theory provides for the exploration of reasons that influence the differences in beliefs of different individuals. This ensures that we also challenge the beliefs we hold for or against the legalization of marijuana (Burnham, 2011). Marijuana should be legalizedMy personal opinion is that there should be the legalization of marijuana. After making comparisons between the theory of relativism and deontological reasoning, I have discovered that relativism contains views that are closer to my own views. The issue of legalizing or prohibiting marijuana should be determine on the basis of what society views to be right or wrong rather than the moral duties of an individual. The theory of deontological reasoning argues that individuals have the moral duty to do what is right and at the same time avoid what is wrong but such actions are never aimed at aximizing most good (Gerber, 2004). However, relativism argues that an action is morally good or bad based on the cultural norms of a society. In such a case, actions are either considered to be good or bad for the collective benefit of society. This means that marijuana should be legalized because it helps the society or it should be made illegal because it harms the society. There are two perspectives that can be used in supporting the use of marijuana. They include marijuana as a medicine and marijuana as an illicit drug. Medical MarijuanaSince 1972, medical marijuana has been considered an illegal substance in the United States and across a number of countries in the world. In the United States, the congress banned the use of medical marijuana on the basis that it was harmful to the health of consumers and even placed it in the first schedule of the Controlled Substances Act. Generally, the congress considered that the drug did not have any healthy gains for the human body. However, recent research studies on the effects of marijuana provided different results to the claims presented by the US congress.Theses research studies have led to the discovery that medical marijuana can be used as medicine and has the potential to heal a number of diseases (Burnham, 2011). Marijuana contains a chemical THC, which has been proven to be harmless to human body. The new discoveries provide enough reasons for the legalization of marijuana. Failure to legalize marijuana implies that a significant number of people will be denied access to proper medication. Marijuana as an illicit drug Illicit drug use is a major problem and many countries led by the US have found it very difficult to address the problem.Various governments have established a number of programs aimed at solving the problem including treatment and prevention programs, international narcotics control, and drug education programs (Rosenthal, Kubby & Newhart, 2003). Despite the efforts of government agencies to solve the problem of illicit drugs use, there is still an increase in the number of drug users. Research studies indicate that marijuana is the most commonly abused illicit drug. A perfect example is that in 1990, the US recorded approximately 6 million people using marijuana on a weekly basis or more.The increasing usage of marijuana as an illicit drug has bee n closely associated with crime rates all over the world. In 2002, the US reported that approximately 40 percent of jailed adults have at least tried using marijuana. This has the implication that the legalization of marijuana presents a big threat to law and order. Despite the fact that the use of marijuana has become a major problem, the war against its use has proven to be very costly compared to the benefits accrued from legalizing marijuana.For instance, the United States of America spends approximately 12 billion dollars in fighting the problem of marijuana. Legalizing the use of the same drug has the benefit of earning revenues for the government from taxation of marijuana. Instead of the government banning the use marijuana, it should legalize it but ensure that its cultivation, sale and purchase are regulated in order to control criminal activities associated with marijuana (Gerber, 2004). Legalizing marijuana is indeed an ethical dilemma given the fact that it can be used as medicine as well as an illicit drug.However, deontological reasoning proposes that an action is good or bad based on the moral duty of an individual rather than its consequence. The theory therefore proposes that the morality of legalizing the use of marijuana is a personal choice. On the contrary, the theory of relativism proposes that an action is morally ethical relative to the culture within such an action is practiced (Rosenthal, Kubby & Newhart, 2003). It is on the basis of the theory of relativism that I propose the legalization of the use of marijuana.The benefits of legalizing marijuana such as healing and economic value far outweigh the cost of prohibiting its use. References Burnham, A. (2011). Benefits of Legalizing Marijuana. New York: GRIN Verlag. Gerber, J. R. (2004). Legalizing Marijuana: Drug Policy Reform and Prohibition Politics. New York: Greenwood Publishing Group. Jebreal, R. & Lukes, S. (2011). Moral Relativism. New York: Profile Books. Mizzoni, J. (2009). Ethics: The Basics. New York: John Wiley & Sons. Rosenthal, E. , Kubby, S. & Newhart, S. (2003). Why Marijuana Should Be Legal. Chicago: Running Press. Legalizing Marijuana Marc Dalcin Legalizing Marijuana Marc Dalcin Dr. Marie Carroll Ashford Intro To Ethics And Social Responsibility 08/10/12 Marijuana has been at the center of a heated debate regarding its legalization. It has received both criticism and praise in equal measure. Critics refer to marijuana as a â€Å"devil weed† while supporters have often referred it to a â€Å"miracle drug. † Despite the different references to marijuana, there has been a prolonged debate on whether it should be legalized for personal use or not.There are two approaches to the use of marijuana with one involving medicinal purposes while the other involves purposes of pleasure. Medical health is an important aspect of human life and the legalization of marijuana for medicinal purposes has the importance of improving human health. In the case of using marijuana for pleasure, there is the issue of abuse of drugs, which often results in lawlessness among users. Legalizing marijuana presents an ethical dilemma in the se nse that it is difficult to ascertain the intentions of the users hence the drug may end up being used for the wrong reasons (Burnham, 2011).This paper provides a comprehensive analysis of the ethical dilemma arising from the debate on legalizing marijuana and presents the use of deontological reasoning theory in solving the dilemma. The paper also includes a comparison between deontological reasoning and relativism with the eventual identification of the theory that best relates to the personal opinion with regards to the debate on legalizing marijuana. The question of legalizing marijuana Should the use personal use of marijuana be legalized? There are numerous uses associated with marijuana.AIDS and cancer patients find marijuana useful as a drug that restores appetite and fights nausea. Marijuana also has nutritional value because its seeds contain vitamins and can be used in preparing cooking oil (Rosenthal, Kubby & Newhart, 2003). Research studies also indicate that the mariju ana can be used in the manufacturing of clothes. The plant has been used in the manufacturing of paper and clothing material for a very long time and is considered produce higher amount of fibre compared to trees. Environmentalists have found the marijuana plant important in addressing the problem of deforestation and soil erosion.Marijuana is beneficial in the restoration of lost soil nutrients. To law enforcement agencies, marijuana is considered to play a major role in increasing the number of crime rates. A significant number of incarcerated criminals have at least used marijuana prior to their arrest. The above analysis on the use of marijuana and its impact clearly points out to the fact that one group will support the legalization of marijuana while the other will oppose such a move. However, the debate can be solved using two theories of deontological reasoning and relativism.Deontological Reasoning The theory of deontological reasoning proposes that actions are either corre ct or wrong in themselves without taking into account their consequences. The theory of deontological reasoning can be best explained with the use of an example of a murder case. In such a situation, a deontologist considers the act of murder as wrong based on the fact that it involves taking the life of another person. It is assumed that humans have the duty of preserving life hence one should never kill no matter the circumstances (Mizzoni, 2009).In a nutshell, this implies that the end does not justify the means. Generally, deontologists believe that human beings have the duty of upholding morality. People have the moral duty to do the right things and avoid doing things that are wrong. The consequences of an action are never considered in determining whether the action is right or wrong. An individual has to consider his or her moral duty in order to make moral decisions. In this case, the personal use of marijuana is considered right or wrong based on the moral duty of users ra ther than the consequence of the plant on its user.The theory of deontological reasoning is connected to three concepts including rights, duties and principles (Burnham, 2011). However, our discussion only focuses on duties in analyzing the debate on legalizing the personal use of marijuana. There is a brief discussion of the concept of rights with regards to the theory of deontological reasoning. If an individual has the right to life, other people have the duty of making sure that such a right is respected. This relates with the issue of legalizing the use of marijuana. From a doctor’s perspective, medical marijuana has medicinal value and can be used in preserving life through healing.In such a case, the government and law enforcement agencies have the duty of respecting the right to life by legalizing the use of marijuana in providing treatment (Gerber, 2004). Marijuana may also be used for a different purpose such as pleasure, which may eventually result in users going i nsane. In order to preserve the life of users, there is an urgent need to make it illegal for users to abuse marijuana. This is because it will reduce the number of cases related to drug abuse hence saving a significant number of the human population from getting insane or engaging in criminal activities.Insanity and criminal actions have may result in the loss of life. The theory of deontological behavior proposes two classes of duties. First, there are general duties, which are commonly identified as prohibitions. Examples of prohibitions include do not kill, do not steal, and assist the needy among other general duties. The second class of duties relate to duties arising from the fact that there exists specific social relationships. For instance, if an individual has made a promise, then he or she has the duty of keeping the promise.Additionally, if one is a parent, then he or she has the duty to provide for the children. In this case, legalizing the personal use of marijuana is considered under the class of general duties (Jebreal & Lukes, 2011). One argument is that marijuana should be prohibited because it involves abuse of substances. On the other hand, doctors with patients have the duty to provide them with treatment even if it involves the use of marijuana as a medicine. Aquinas notes that each person has duties related to personal actions. An individual has a duty to keep promises, but does not have the duty to ensure that promises are kept.According to the theory of deontology, people should be more concerned with fulfilling personal duties but never make attempts of bringing out the most good. This is because it may result in the violation of the concept of a duty. In this case, we only have the duty of meeting the needs of other people rather than maximize the good (Mizzoni, 2009). There are a number of actions that people may choose from but they are free to act as they please. Basically, this means that people have the option of using marijuana for whatever reasons regardless of its consequences. There are instances when duties conflict with each other.W. D. Ross notes that in such cases, one does not require rules in solving such a conflict. One is only required to use their judgment in arriving at a solution. However, there are cases whereby one lacks the criteria that can be used in making decisions (Mizzoni, 2009). Deontologists argue that identifying the intentions of actions can provide a solution. Ross argues that actions are determined to be wrong or right based on the intentions of the agent. Therefore, deontological reasoning justifies the legalization of marijuana on the basis that it is used to improve human health.The use of marijuana can only be considered illegal if users intend to harm others. Relativism According to the theory of relativism, an action is considered moral or immoral relative to the cultural norms of the agent. This means that an action is considered right or wrong based on the moral norms of the culture within which it is practiced. A particular action may be considered moral in one culture while immoral in another culture. Relativists are opposed to the use of universal moral standards in determining whether an action is right or wrong (Jebreal & Lukes, 2011).The United Kingdom may consider the use marijuana as morally wrong while Amsterdam considers it morally right. According to relativists, there is no standard framework to be used in resolving moral disputes such as the legalization of marijuana across different members of society. Relativism is different from deontological reasoning in the sense that upholds societal norms as the determining factor on moral issues. According to relativism, marijuana should be legalized or not based on what society considers being moral or immoral (Jebreal & Lukes, 2011).However, in the case of deontological reasoning, actions are considered to be right or wrong based on the moral duties of an individual. Whereas relativism plac es emphasis on society in solving ethical dilemmas, deontological reasoning places emphasis on the moral duty of an individual. In this case, a relativist may support the legalization of marijuana because it is commonly used among members of his or her society. The same person may oppose legalizing marijuana because it is uncommon to use marijuana or use of marijuana is considered immoral within his society.The theory of relativism raises a number of important issues related to legalizing marijuana. First, different societies have conflicting moral beliefs and that believes of people within a society are deeply determined by their culture. It is therefore important that we incorporate the relativism when arguing for or against legalizing marijuana. Second, the theory provides for the exploration of reasons that influence the differences in beliefs of different individuals. This ensures that we also challenge the beliefs we hold for or against the legalization of marijuana (Burnham, 2011). Marijuana should be legalizedMy personal opinion is that there should be the legalization of marijuana. After making comparisons between the theory of relativism and deontological reasoning, I have discovered that relativism contains views that are closer to my own views. The issue of legalizing or prohibiting marijuana should be determine on the basis of what society views to be right or wrong rather than the moral duties of an individual. The theory of deontological reasoning argues that individuals have the moral duty to do what is right and at the same time avoid what is wrong but such actions are never aimed at aximizing most good (Gerber, 2004). However, relativism argues that an action is morally good or bad based on the cultural norms of a society. In such a case, actions are either considered to be good or bad for the collective benefit of society. This means that marijuana should be legalized because it helps the society or it should be made illegal because it harms the society. There are two perspectives that can be used in supporting the use of marijuana. They include marijuana as a medicine and marijuana as an illicit drug. Medical MarijuanaSince 1972, medical marijuana has been considered an illegal substance in the United States and across a number of countries in the world. In the United States, the congress banned the use of medical marijuana on the basis that it was harmful to the health of consumers and even placed it in the first schedule of the Controlled Substances Act. Generally, the congress considered that the drug did not have any healthy gains for the human body. However, recent research studies on the effects of marijuana provided different results to the claims presented by the US congress.Theses research studies have led to the discovery that medical marijuana can be used as medicine and has the potential to heal a number of diseases (Burnham, 2011). Marijuana contains a chemical THC, which has been proven to be harmless to human body. The new discoveries provide enough reasons for the legalization of marijuana. Failure to legalize marijuana implies that a significant number of people will be denied access to proper medication. Marijuana as an illicit drug Illicit drug use is a major problem and many countries led by the US have found it very difficult to address the problem.Various governments have established a number of programs aimed at solving the problem including treatment and prevention programs, international narcotics control, and drug education programs (Rosenthal, Kubby & Newhart, 2003). Despite the efforts of government agencies to solve the problem of illicit drugs use, there is still an increase in the number of drug users. Research studies indicate that marijuana is the most commonly abused illicit drug. A perfect example is that in 1990, the US recorded approximately 6 million people using marijuana on a weekly basis or more.The increasing usage of marijuana as an illicit drug has bee n closely associated with crime rates all over the world. In 2002, the US reported that approximately 40 percent of jailed adults have at least tried using marijuana. This has the implication that the legalization of marijuana presents a big threat to law and order. Despite the fact that the use of marijuana has become a major problem, the war against its use has proven to be very costly compared to the benefits accrued from legalizing marijuana.For instance, the United States of America spends approximately 12 billion dollars in fighting the problem of marijuana. Legalizing the use of the same drug has the benefit of earning revenues for the government from taxation of marijuana. Instead of the government banning the use marijuana, it should legalize it but ensure that its cultivation, sale and purchase are regulated in order to control criminal activities associated with marijuana (Gerber, 2004). Legalizing marijuana is indeed an ethical dilemma given the fact that it can be used as medicine as well as an illicit drug.However, deontological reasoning proposes that an action is good or bad based on the moral duty of an individual rather than its consequence. The theory therefore proposes that the morality of legalizing the use of marijuana is a personal choice. On the contrary, the theory of relativism proposes that an action is morally ethical relative to the culture within such an action is practiced (Rosenthal, Kubby & Newhart, 2003). It is on the basis of the theory of relativism that I propose the legalization of the use of marijuana.The benefits of legalizing marijuana such as healing and economic value far outweigh the cost of prohibiting its use. References Burnham, A. (2011). Benefits of Legalizing Marijuana. New York: GRIN Verlag. Gerber, J. R. (2004). Legalizing Marijuana: Drug Policy Reform and Prohibition Politics. New York: Greenwood Publishing Group. Jebreal, R. & Lukes, S. (2011). Moral Relativism. New York: Profile Books. Mizzoni, J. (2009). Ethics: The Basics. New York: John Wiley & Sons. Rosenthal, E. , Kubby, S. & Newhart, S. (2003). Why Marijuana Should Be Legal. Chicago: Running Press.

Changing Perspectives

Two roads diverged in a yellow wood, And sorry I could not travel both And be one traveller, long I stood And looked down one as far as I could To where it bent in the undergrowth; â€Å"Changing one’s perspective can be confronting and enriching. † The Encarta Concise English Dictionary defines perspective as â€Å"A particular evaluation of a situation or facts, especially from one person’s point of view. † This perspective is shaped by events in a person’s life. These may be decisions they make, or knowledge and change thrust upon them. No matter which circumstances that cause his change in perspective, the effect will be a growth of character in the person. A change in perspective is therefore a change in a person’s evaluation of a situation.The effect of this change can be confronting or enriching to a person. Change in perspective can impact on a person in one of three ways, attitudinally, intellectually and emotionally. By analysing th e film, Looking For Alibrandi and my other related text, The Road Not Taken I will show how changing one’s perspective can be both confronting and enriching. The film, Looking for Alibrandi by Katie Woods is a ildungsroman, which explores changing perspectives in the life of the protagonist Josephine Alibrandi. The events which occur in the film, give an insight into Josie’s life and create a change of perspective on her plight in the film. The Director uses a variety of film techniques to present this change of perspective and growth of character. Josie is presented as a character who is conflicted in her situation. She is a fatherless child in a highly patriarchal society and rejects and freely clashes with her Italian culture and heritage. In the first scene of the film a sepia wash is used, butJosie is presented in bright colour. This shows her character in conflict with the world surrounding her. She furthers this notion in a voiceover where she says â€Å"this m ay be where I am from, but do I really belong here? † This emphasises the difference between Josie’s concept of herself and her place in the world. The voice over positions the audience to sympathise with Josie’s situation. Josie has a confronting change of perspective when she discovers that her father Michael Andretti, has come back from Adelaide and she is faced with meeting him for the first time. In this scene the slow racking of the camera in to frame the faces of Josie and her mother, emphasises the gravity of Michael’s reappearance and how possibly explosive this could be. Josie has another confronting change of perspective when John Barton, the boy that she likes, commits suicide. Josie questions how she can possibly continue when John, who seemingly had everything, felt he had to end his own life.When Josie tears up the note he gave her and throws it out the window, this gesture is coupled with the use of the mournful non-diagetic music â€Å"wi th or without you†, to symbolise her loss of nnocence, perspective and understanding. â€Å"Why can’t anyone see, if John Barton couldn’t be alright, no-ones going to be alright? † This heartfelt questioning by Josie further demonstrates the depth of her confusion and struggle with her perception of her situation in life. Josie is enriched by her final change of perspective when she accepts who she is despite her faults and embraces her Italian heritage. This is symbolised by how she invites her boyfriend and friends to celebrate â€Å"tomato day† with herself and her family. And also by her choice to enjoy the song Tintarella deLuna, instead of changing as she had prior to her change in perspective. In the credits this song changes to a punk version which highlights the generational and cultural change. The words stay the same, but the tune changes, this is a conflation of culture. The final line of dialogue in the movie, a voiceover delivered by J osie, demonstrates just how comfortable she now is, with her life when she declares; â€Å"I am Christina and Michael’s daughter and Katia’s granddaughter. We’re not cursed, we’re blessed. † The poem The Road Not Taken, by Robert Frost is an extended metaphor for the choices we make in life.The poem consists of four stanzas and follows a rhyming pattern, except for the last stanza, which puts an emphasis on the first line. In the first stanza the composer describes how he is faced with two choices or roads, and that he would like to travel both, but he knows he cannot do this. So he tries to see down each road to decide on his path. The second stanza shows the struggle of choosing between two similar paths. The man in the poem chooses one path. In the third stanza he stipulates that neither path has been followed recently, and that one day he would ike to come back and travel the other road, however due to the way in life that one thing leads to an other, he doubted he would. I shall be telling this with a sigh Somewhere ages and ages hence: Two roads diverged in a wood, and I, I took the one less travelled by, And that has made all the difference.In this final stanza, because of the line â€Å"ages and ages hence† we must realise that we cannot assign meaning to the words sigh and difference, because the speaker himself cannot know how his choice will affect his future until he has lived it. The ambiguity of the sigh furthers the point that e is unsure where his choice will take him. It is this ambiguity which makes the poem far more complex. This poem does not moralize about choice; it simply says that choice is inevitable and that you never understand how your choice will affect you, until you have lived it. Changes in perspective are shaped by events in a person’s life. These may be decisions they make, or knowledge and change is thrust upon them. One thing is certain, whether the change is confronting or enr iching, we will always have some regrets and wish for the best of both outcomes. But it is these perspectives that shape who we are.

International Management Assignment Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 500 words - 1

International Management - Assignment Example Apart from tax benefits Pfizer must consider other factors. The stakeholders of the company include shareholders, directors, employees, suppliers, customers and the society. In the case of an inversion each stakeholder will be affected significantly. To start with some employees and customers may not be retained. Shareholders rights may be affected significantly. Before inversion shareholders should consider how their rights will affect when they move from being shareholder of a U.S. corporation to shareholders of a foreign corporation. Any significant effect should be analyzed carefully to determine whether reversal increases the risks associated with ownership in the corporation and if so, agree on whether the increased risk is bearable. Shareholders should consider the following among other factors how shareholder’s proposals are brought before the new board, appointment of new board members, and rights of a minority shareholder. They can also consider the presence of special voting rights for any shareholders and distribution of d ividends. Directors and shareholders must consider legal in a foreign jurisdiction in order to decide which foreign jurisdiction relocate. Once reincorporation is successful the corporate’s shareholders, and directors become subject to the laws of a foreign country. The law could differ significantly from the US laws. The differences in rules should be discussed in length by directors and shareholders. They should review laws on fiduciary duties, shareholders rights and corporate governance. In addition to legal matters, corporation should also consider, including political criticism and public concern. Corporates react to incentives so as to increase profits that can lead to increased personal income like bonuses, high stock prices and other incentives compensation. The primary goal of any business is to maximize on cost and to reduce the cost. Organizations intending to transfer