Alternative Dispute Resolution Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 3750 words

Alternative Dispute Resolution - Essay Example Anyway, there is no harm in so doing. Mediation is actually a class or a form of an alternative dispute resolution process.2 ADR therefore is the generic term. Arbitration, however, has a different meaning. We have to take notice of the variance because the case to be analyzed is also criticized for not distinguishing arbitration from mediation, although that aspect will not be included in this paper. Stated in another way, ADR is a collective description of methods of resolving disputes otherwise than through the normal trial process. It is one of several ways to resolve disputes outside the ambit of the courts or to make an attempt to settle the case if possible. It is a procedure where the parties are therefore given a chance to amicably patch up their differences over a certain dispute. This has to be done in view of the prospect that those involved in a controversy may be able to mend things without going to the court for a full-blown trial. That is why it is considered an alternative solution, meaning that it will take the place of court proceedings if the parties agree. The most logical reason for ADR is to stop the further clogging of cases in tribunals or judicial bodies and agencies. Courts all over the world are confronted by the humongous predicament of so many pending matters for the action or resolution of the judge or panel of judges.3 Why must the courts be unclogged of cases The simple answer to this is to give more quality time to the judges in deciding or resolving suits and other incidents brought before them for judicial determination. If judges have limited time to so decide or resolve, they cannot prepare good and well-studied rulings compared to when they have ample opportunity. From a macro viewpoint, decisions which are crafted under deadline pressures will not serve the ends of justice. It will become a matter of what is haste is waste. If courts are to make good decisions in a loaded environment, what will happen is that the more recent filings will have to wait. Resultant of that will be the slow disposal or resolution of cases. Of course, public opinion frowns upon tardy decisions under the caveat that justice that is delayed is like justice that is denied. A grievance that is addressed but not expeditiously as normally expected is the same as if there was no redress at all.4 How can ADR help the unclogging of cases in the courts The more cases that are resolved in the ADR or mediation level, the lesser the cases that will be forwarded to the courts for hearing or trial. Such a situation will give more elbow room and latitude for the judges in dispensing their functions more efficiently, effectively and speedily. What are the advantages of ADR Firstly, in resorting to the mediation process, the parties save on time, money and efforts if they finally come to an amicable settlement. And secondly, the hostilities among the enemies are reduced if not totally removed and amity, if there was any, is restored once the compromise agreement shall have been concluded. Halsey, in its paragraph 15, citing the distinguished Lord Justice Brooke in the case of Dunnett v Railtrack, credited skilled mediators for having achieved satisfactory results in many cases than could have been achieved in court proceedings.5 Taken altogether, the attendant features surrounding the use of the ADR process indicate that it is for the public

Analyze a companys online strategies Research Paper - 1

Analyze a companys online strategies - Research Paper Example This one of the reason the ships are popularly known as fun ships (Carnival Cruise Lines, 2012). Carnival.com has been in existence for over 18 years now and it is graded at number 8,333 globally. This is an indication that the website is visited by many people at a particular time period. The website has a value of about USD 8,651,845 and daily advertising revenue of USD 1,229. The website is very fast with an optimal load time for the pages of a bout 1.981 seconds. The page ranks 7 of 10 with about 327,600 daily page viewers. Presently, the site requires over 59.3 GB of daily bandwidth on top of the monthly 1.80TB that is also needed. Besides, the site has an SEO score of 79.3% and an IP address of 151.124.250.21. The server of the site is hosted at Miami in the United States. The site is quoted in DMOZ, Yahoo directory (Greenburg, 2009). Carnival Cruise lines has a strong on-line marketing channels such as the blog of Carnival Freedom-FunShipIsland.com which has over one million visits in the recent times. This includes the CarnivalConnections.com which has the same features. As a founder in the arena of on-line marketing the new novels by Carnival web-based projects are formulated to give a great proficient and novel ways of getting out to the customers and travel agents who can easily get accessed to the different channels in a more convenient way. The customers have less to pay for the online services such that they only pay for the internet browsing which makes the services available and affordable by the majority. Moreover, the visitors are given unique outlook of the company and its products while at the same time obtaining them with appropriate tools for research and vocational planning. This kind of promotion has taken cruise’s fun ships to the highest level of unique experience. Some of the fresh web-based marketing initiatives comprise of a blog by John Heald which was initially invented as a section of

Environment Essay: The evolution of the linkage between the environment and human rights

Environment Essay: The evolution of the linkage between the environment and human rights The United Nations (UN) Conference on the Human Environment, held in Stockholm in 1972, declared that: mans environment, the natural and the man-made, are essential to his well-being and to the enjoyment of basic human rightseven the right to life itself. Today, the relationship between the environment and human rights has long been recognised and has evolved in many ways. This essay will attempt to analyse the connection between the environment and human rights. Because of limitations on length, it will broadly place human rights within the framework of a holistic view of development (i.e., one that lends importance to more that simply economic development). It will also discuss their relationship within the discourse of Sustainable Development, a principal concept linking the environment and human rights. The UN Conference on the Human Environment was held at a time when development discourse was dominated by theories of dependency, world systems, and modes of production. The Stockholm conference importantly acknowledged that environmental issues are best handled with the participation of all concerned citizens, and in that capacity established not just the importance of sustaining the environment because it provides for life and basic human rights, but also the importance of sustaining basic human rights in an attempt to defend the environment. Though the need to protect the environment had long been recognised, this conference paved the way for the environment and development to be discussed as a single issue something that did not occur until the Brundtland Report in 1987. The Brundtland Report launched the term Sustainable Development (SD), or development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their needs (WCED, 1987: 43). Although it is often regarded as a dangerously slippery concept (The Economist, 2002) the common characteristic of most definitions of the term is the emphasis on equity both across and within generations. Barrow (1995: 17) identifies ten themes that characterise conventional SD: maintenance of ecological integrity; integration of environmental care and development; adoption of an international stance; satisfaction of basic human needs for all; stress for normative planning; stress on application of science to development problems; acceptance of some economic growth; attaching a proper value to the natural and cultural environment; the adoption of a long-term view of development; and, again a call for inter- as well as intra- generational equality SD has introduced and affirmed many new concepts into the development arena including, but not limited to, a rights-based approach to development and the importance of the environment. The environment played a central role in the Brundtland Report, and it was subsequently attacked for being eco-centric. The Brundtland Report was followed up by the UN Conference on Environment and Development, held in Rio de Janeiro in 1992. Though the Rio conference set in motion a trend towards human (rather than environmental) rights, it still held the environment in the limelight. Moreover, rights to information, participation and remedies in respect to environmental conditions formed the focus of the Rio declaration (Shelton, 2002: 2), thus accentuating the importance of human rights in environmental protection. Since Rio, concern for the environment has (rightly) continued to grow. However, the tendency toward concern for human rather than environmental rights within the sustainable agenda (i.e., a growing concern for the intra- (as opposed to inter-) generational equality) has continued as it is acknowledge that we cannot ignore the deprived today in trying to prevent deprivation in the future (Anand and Sen, 2000: 2030). Many of the alternate definitions of SD have tried, with varying degrees, of success, to resolve the seemingly contradictory notion inherent to SD development frequently involved capitalist or industrial development, and thus the reference to sustainability is certainly then undermined by the paradox of what this type of development means for the environment (Redclift, 1987). Conventional wisdom holds that Southern nations are too preoccupied with economic survival to worry about environmental quality (Dunlap: 1994: 115), something that was, to some extent, reflected in the Rio conference. Governments of developing countries wanted to discuss the idea of development, and the governments of richer countries that of sustainability (to the neglect of development) (Dunlap: 1994: 115). Though economic development need not be unequivocally associated with environmental degradation it must also be recognised that nations (or perhaps more importantly, people within nations) will rightly put more focus on sustaining peoples well-being than the environments. In short, though some government policies in the developing world may be viewed as inconclusive because they fall short of protecting natural resources, such seemingly irrational policies may reflect economic necessity in countries that have little choice but to perpetuate practices that contribute to environme ntal degradation in the absence of alternate sources of income (Bryant and Bailey, 1997: 59). This view of environmental protection versus human rights was pertinent at the UN World Summit on Sustainable Development (or Rio + 10), held in Johannesburg in 1992. In the run-up to the summit African leaders made it clear that they expected to talk about jobs, not birds (The Economist, 2002b). The Economist stated that without concrete or pragmatic action to fight poverty, fine words on greenery, global warming or fish stocks will come to naught (The Economist, 2002b). In other words, sustaining deprivation cannot be our goal (Anand and Sen, 2000: 2030), and whilst surely the conditions for most of the worlds poor can be sustained, the issue is that they should not be (Marcuse, 1998: 106). SD is often received with hostility in LDCs where it is seen as an attempt to challenge the developing worlds elemental right to develop: after all, grinding poverty, it turns out, is pretty sustainable (The Economist, 2002b). The achievement of environmental protection and respect for human rights can only be reached if we do not succumb to the notion that they are mutually exclusive. Human life, and human rights, cannot exist without a relatively healthy environment, and the environment cannot be protected without the acceptance and protection of basic human rights. Though aspects of each may at times need to be sacrificed for progress in the other, it remains vital to navigate the obstacles and move towards a sustainable world. Bibliography Anand, S. and Sen, A. (2000) Human Development and Economic Sustainability, World Development, 28 (12), 2029-2049.Barrow, C. J. (1995) Sustainable Development: Concept, Value and Practice, Third World Planning Review, 17(4), 369-386.Bryant, R. L. and Bailey, S. (1997) Third World Political Ecology, London: Routledge.Dunlap, R. (1994) International Attitudes Towards Environment and Development, in Helge Ole Bergensen and Georg Parmann (eds.), Green Globe Yearbook of International Co-operation on Environment and Development, Oxford: Oxford University Press), 115-126.Marcuse, P. (1998) Sustainability is not enough, Environment and Urbanization, 10(2), 103-111.Redclift, M. (1987) Sustainability: life chances and livelihood, London: Routledge.Shelton, D. (2002) Human Rights and Environment Issues in Multilateral Treaties Adopted between 1991 and 2001, background paper for the Joint UNEP-OHCHR Expert Seminar on Human Rights and the Environment, Geneva, 14-16 January 2002.The E conomist (2002) The Johannesburg Summit: Sustaining the poors development, 29 August 2002.The Economist (2002b) Africa expects to talk about jobs, not birds, 22 August 2002.WCED (1987) Our Common Future, The Brundtland Report, Oxford: Oxford University Press. State Of Nature: Hobbes And Locke State Of Nature: Hobbes And Locke Thomas Hobbes and John Locke applied fundamentally similar methodologies and presuppositions to create justifications for statehood; both have a belief in a universal natural law made known to man through the exercise of reason, which leads to political theories that define the rise of states. From beginning to end, Hobbes and Locke struggle to answer the essential question: Can sovereignty be divided? Though the two authors answer this question by going through the same processes, they begin with distinct notions of the state of nature, thereby reaching divergent conclusions: two nuanced versions of the social contract. For Hobbes, sovereignty is absolutist and governance can only succeed if power is concentrated in a monarch. On the other hand, Locke envisions a radically different structure for government, with a strict division between legislative and executive forces. At a glance, it is difficult to determine which author better answers the question of sovereignty, but by compar ing the warrants beneath their claims, one comes to discover that Locke is correct. Indeed, sovereignty must be divided. To start, one must analyze the model of undivided sovereignty. Hobbess argument for the state is that at some point, constituents of society made a contract amongst themselves to surrender most of their natural right up to a single man, the monarch, establishing a sovereign power in their newly formed commonwealth (Hobbes 110). By permutation, children must obey the sovereign because they are subject to their parents by the natural law, meaning subjection to the sovereign power passes on from one generation to the next (Hobbes 127-35). What constitutes a commonwealth is a group of individuals and their progeny, who are all subject to the sovereign power. This, however, begs the question of exactly what constitutes the sovereign power, since natural right can be forfeited in both different ways and in varying degrees. Hobbes provides two answers to this question, the latter directly expanding upon the former. The first is that Hobbes defines, albeit vaguely, that sovereignty is an entity bearing the person (Hobbes 105-110) of those subject thereto. Second, he argues in a more concrete manner, that sovereignty is the extensive set of powers to make laws, reward and punish subjects arbitrarily, choose counselors and ministers, establish and enforce class distinctions, judge controversies, wage war and make peace, and so on (Hobbes 113-15). Hobbes claims that by giving up their person to the sovereign, subjects forfeit the right to make moral judgments because every act of the sovereign is ostensibly performed by the subjects. The monarch becomes the sole, absolute judge of whatsoever he shall think necessary to be done, both beforehandà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ ¦and, when peace and security are lost, for the recovery of the same and what opinions and doctrines are averse, and what conducing, to peace (Hobbes 113 ). In other words, citizens may never criticize the sovereign, since subjects surrender their very ability to judge whether the sovereign power is acting towards the goals for which they established it. This is a major contradiction in Hobbess theory, for it seems strange and inconsistent that men of the commonwealth are wise enough to establish a state for mutual benefit (Hobbes 106), but straightaway upon entering the social contract, lose the ability to accurately judge whether their condition is good or bad. Although there is such a clear inconsistency within the contract, Hobbes has a two-pronged defense ready. The first is in Chapter XVIII, where he asserts that once covenanted, men cannot lawfully make a new covenant amongst themselves to be obedient to any other, in any thing whatsoever, without permission from the sovereign (Hobbes 110-1). With the way that a Hobbesian social contract works, this claim makes perfect sense; if a covenant is formed by submitting ones person to the sovereign, men cannot form a new covenant independent of the sovereign because they have already given their single person-hood up. Following the person argument, Hobbes introduces the idea that à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ ¦because the right of bearing the person of them all is given to him they make sovereign by covenant only of one to anotherà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ ¦ (Hobbes 111). The philosophers second defense then, is the fact that the sovereign is not party to the actual contract, which means that the monarch can never breach it, no matter the consequences. For Hobbes, the contract is the permanent transfer of person from a group of people to an external man, not a retractable agreement among a group of people to obey one of their party. The agreement, strangely, is only amongst the governed their agreement is to all equally forfeit their person and aligns with Hobbess notion that there must be an external, superior enforcer to contracts. Yet, it is unclear why social contracts should be irrevocable: in Hobbess own account of contracts (Hobbes 79-88), a contract is always renounceable if the parties involved agree so, meaning there should be nothing stopping subjects from uniformly nullifying the contract. Hobbes would respond that social contracts are unique, for the subjects have given up their right to make contracts (and therefore to break them) without the sovereigns permission within the terms. This, however, begs another question: why is the ability to make epistemological and moral judgments a necessary forfeiture to establishing the commonwealth? It doesnt seem logical that the right to break contracts must be a necessary forfeiture included within the person that one gives to the sovereign. After all, it falls under a set of negative-rights that requires a negative action (IE, a violation of the terms of contract) to occur before it can be used. Hobbes simply refuses to acknowledge the binary choice he creat es between civil war and good government is specious at best. The agreement to forfeit person is made equally amongst subjects to escape the state of nature, but even if the sovereign is not a part of the contract, the fact that a citizen doesnt receive the benefits termed within the contract ought to justify breaking the contract because other citizens may be receiving those benefits. If so, wouldnt it be just for a subject to break the contract, not with the sovereign, but with other subjects? Moving on from Hobbess derivation of sovereignty, one comes upon his formulation of sovereignty, the terms of his social contract. What is most shocking is that sovereignty is indivisible (Hobbes 115): the foundational elements of rule cannot be separated. All the powers of sovereignty must reside in the same body. A division of government, to Hobbes, would be redundant at best. From a theoretical point of view, when push comes to shove, a part of government, namely whichever has control of the army, will be revealed as the real holder of sovereign power precisely because it can seize control of the other powers. However, control of the army is nonexistent without the ability to fund it, so taxing and the coining of money is also essential. Imagine a scenario of rebellion or invasion in a divided government: an external force capable of protecting the taxing/treasury department would eventually rout the branch that controls the military. In order to ensure a stable government, then, it would be necessary to concentrate power at one locus using the example of the military any division would allow for opposing factions to gut one another, albeit indecisively. Combining the fact that sovereignty is indivisible with the fact that the social contract is made amongst subjects (that there is no bond between subjects and the sovereign), one arrives at Hobbess insistence that rebellion is never justifiable. Sovereignty is located in a person and not obedience to a person, so any repudiation of that obedience cannot dissolve the bond of sovereignty, for there is no bond to begin with. Nevertheless, this descriptive account of separating sovereign powers is not a normative claim that it ought not be done. This is perhaps Hobbess biggest mistake, for he believes that when, therefore, these two powers oppose one another, the commonwealth cannot but be in great danger of civil war and dissolution, for example, that the civil authorityà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ ¦and the spiritual inevitably clash if divided (Hobbes 216). That is, we ought not separate the two, for sovereignty is conceived of as something that one simply has, meaning several branches of government would constantly be in contest for possession of sovereignty. However, this is an excellent example of the is-ought fallacy, for Hobbes bases the fact that historically, a division of government has always resulted in a collapse to monarchy, and attempts to re-justify the existing norms. The fact that civil and spiritual authority have historically clashed does not mean that they cannot avoid conflict in the future. If so, then Hobbess reason that they ought be combined falls apart. In essence, his claim is not normative, but only descriptive. Locke begins his attack on Hobbess concept of sovereignty by advancing a different conception of the state of nature. For Hobbes, in the state of nature à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ ¦it is manifest that during the time men live without a common power to keep them all in awe, they are in that condition which is called war (Hobbes 76), where à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ ¦nothing can be unjust for where there is no common power, there is no law; where no law, no injustice (Hobbes 78). It is in Chapter XIII that he famously notes that the life of man is solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short, a product of the condition of warà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ ¦(in which case everyone is governed by his own reasonà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ ¦)à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ ¦[where] man has a right to everything, even to one anothers body (Hobbes 80). It is from this anarchic view that Hobbes departs to create a theory of absolutist sovereignty. Individual rights, ironically, conflict to the point where there are no rights in the state of nature. To solve this proble m, Hobbess model forfeits person to an individual, because even two individuals two rulers with person will have conflicting rights claims. On the other hand, Locke paints a calmer picture of the state of nature, arguing that the state of nature has a law of nature to govern it, whichà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ ¦teaches all mankindà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ ¦that being all equal and independent, no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty, or possessions (Locke 9). Locke attack on Hobbess descriptive analysis of the state of nature is particularly damning because it has never occurred. Locke furthers that his notion of the state of nature is historical, that great societies began in the way that his theory described. He cites that the beginning of Rome and Venice were by the uniting of several free and independent of one another, amongst whom there was no natural superiority or subjection (Locke 54). This is because Locke believes that this moral nature has been instilled in humanity by an infinitely wise makerà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ ¦sharing all in one community of nature, there cannot be supposed any such subordination (Locke 9). Unlike Hobb es, who believes there is no ethical frame for punishment during the state of nature, Locke argues that transgressing the law of nature means one declares himself to live by another rule than that of reason and common equity, which is that measure God has set to the actions of men (Locke 10). Locke believes that every man hath a right to punish the offender, and be executioner of the law of nature to criminals in the face of God. From a philosophically rigorous perspective, Lockes justifications are a copout to constructing a normative frame. But at a descriptive level, he may be correct: both Hobbes and Locke agree that it is through reason that mankind transcends the state of nature and enters a state of sovereignty. An elementary comparison of these two versions of the state of nature boils down to the fact that Hobbess interpretation is one that begins with a lack of reason and Lockes starts with reason programmed into mankind by a maker. Is it not possible that the Lockes state of nature simply follows Hobbess? Indeed, in Hobbess model, man must come upon reason prior to entering the social contract, meaning as a collective, they must eventually reach some form of Lockes state of nature. Whether God exists or not, a social consciousness must develop for both authors to successfully continue their theories. This returns us to the epistemological contradiction presented earlier in the fourth paragraph: why do men lose their ability to analyze the benefits of subjugation to a sovereign, if they needed to attain this level of rational deliberation to have accepted the social contract to begin with? It is because Hobbes ignores this concern, but Locke answers it (albeit with God, rather than a development of rationality, as I suggest), that Lockes interpretation of sovereignty is far more convincing. It is easiest to discuss Locke by making a series of modifications on Hobbess theory of sovereignty. Of course, the difference between the two theories is far more complicated, but in regards to the thesis, it is sufficient to identify three very closely-related, key differences. First, Locke dismisses Hobbess assertion (which I have showed to be contradictory multiple times) that subjects give up the right, in fact, the ability, to judge their sovereign when moving from the state of nature to sovereignty. Effectively, Locke makes the contract a two-way agreement instead of a one-way subjection, termed in his works as fiduciary power in Chapter XIII. Second, for Locke, ultimate sovereignty resides always in the people. One on hand, the supreme sovereign will always be God, but beneath his throne, men can delegate power to one another, but there will never be a permanent hierarchy of power. The supreme power of the legislature is amassed from a conditional grant by the people; every m an is bound by its laws, notwithstanding disagreement. By extension of this logic, Locke makes two foundational claims of his notion of sovereignty, which Hobbes does not adopt: one is that no part of the sovereign government will ever be above the law, the other is that power can be retracted from the government at any time, pending agreement of the people (these derivations are explored in detail in Chapters VIII and IX). The third and, perhaps most important, difference is that for Hobbes, sovereignty is a perpetual, indivisible power belonging to a particular individual. Indeed, this disagreement is the crux of this paper. For Locke, there are a variety of powers necessary for the protection of the public good, just as in Hobbes, but there is no need to unite them all in one body. Here Locke presents idea of the sovereignty of law itself: there is no need, that the legislative should be always in being, not having always business to do (Locke 76). The laws have a constant and lasting force, and need a perpetual execution that is provided by the executive power (Locke 76). While Hobbes agrees to the need of these aspects of sovereignty, he refuses to divide them. Locke, on the other hand, demonstrates that a division of labor can very feasibly exist, especially because he touches upon the idea of a natural power that pertains to other duties. Federative power, which relates to the power of war and pe ace, leagues and alliances, and all transactions (Locke 76), could easily be invested in entirely separate bodies from both the executive and legislative powers. The last question to answer, then, is whether the division of power is good. Luckily, Locke tackles this issue, arguing that the inconveniences of absolute power, which monarchy in succession was apt to lay claim to could never compete with balancing the power of government, by placing several parts of it in different hands for in doing so, citizens neither felt the oppression of tyrannical dominion, nor did the fashion of the age, nor their possessions, or way of livingà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ ¦give them any reason to apprehend or provide against it (Locke 57). For Locke sovereignty is the supreme power on loan from the people to the legislative to set laws that look after the public good by dividing duties amongst the executive and other governmental agencies. Power is easily, helpfully, and safely split up into different bodies: easily due to Lockes dismissal of Hobbess contradictory objection to doing so, helpfully because the division of labor allows for increased efficiency and greater pr oductivity, and safely because the division of powers acts as a set of checks and balances to protect the people from arbitrary abuse. Just as it seems that the question Can sovereignty be divided? is answered, a concession of sorts to Hobbes appears with the concept of prerogative, a powerful modification of the way Lockes theory functions in practice. Locke concedes in Chapter XIV that the natural generality of law makes it inapplicable to certain cases and unable to cover every eventuality. The executive is therefore invested with prerogative, the power to act according to discretion, for the public good, without the prescription of the law, and sometimes even against it (Locke 84). It is possible that Hobbes would see this as an admission that Lockes legislative theory is flawed, that the executive does indeed hold supreme power, as both creator and enforcer of laws. This, however, would be a serious misinterpretation. In many ways, Locke disagrees with Hobbes most sharply on this point. Lockes emphasis on the need of governance to provide for the public good is so strong that he argues any violation of the social contract, by the sovereignty, would be grounds for the dissolution of government. He notes that citizens will be willing to cope with the application of prerogative as long as it aligns with the public good, even if they recognize that there is no legal precedence for the actions. While Lockes discussion of prerogative initially appears to be a return to Hobbesian absolutism, it is their most essential disagreement. In Hobbess theory, prerogative is sovereign authority, with no external check. When the sovereigns prerogative fails to lead towards the public good, subjects have no recourse but simply accept things. For Locke, prerogative is a minor modification of the authority delegated from the people to the legislative and thence to the executive. It is not crucial to the existence of g overnment because should subjects find that the executives application of prerogative does not lead to the public good, they can simply retract authority from the sovereignty. When compared with the work of Thomas Hobbes, John Lockes social contract theory comprehensively proves that government can be separated into several branches. By comparing the steps in their methodologies, along with analyzing their different starting points, one arrives at the conclusion that Locke is right. As this paper progressed, it was revealed that Hobbes made two main objections to a divided sovereignty: first, his notion of the forfeiture of person and second, his negative view of human behavior in the state of nature. Hobbess latter objection was easily answered back by comparing Lockes interpretation of the state of nature and demonstrating that the standard of reason created a double bind for Hobbes. Either his state of nature transitioned into a Lockean state of nature, which would then progress to sovereignty, or, a jump must occur from a Hobbesian state of nature straight into absolute sovereignty, which creates a number of contradictions. The former objection was ans wered on multiple levels, ranging from the is-ought fallacy to Lockes strong defense of a system of sovereign checks-and-balances. By juxtaposing Hobbes and Lockes social contract theories, one can decisively conclude that sovereignty can be divided, not only to two branches, but to as many as necessary for the public good. The version of Leviathan cited in this work is the Edwin Curley edited edition. The version of Second Treatise is the same as the one noted on the syllabus.

The Biological and Psychological Drives Behind Consumerism Essay

Most of us like to think that we are reasonable, rational, and independent thinkers and actors. Thus, we believe that we have a good enough reason for our choices. However, we often erroneously buy products succumbing to strange compulsion. It is a power of consumerism. The term consumerism is defined as the tendency of people to identify strongly with products they consume, particularly of name brands and status-enhancing appeal. Then, how does the power of consumerism win over our rationality? In this situation, we pretend to regard the primary cause of the impulse consumerism is the commercial seductions. The truth, however, is that the shopping indulgences does not originate from a manipulation of the commercial advertisements, but rather a biological and psychological drive planted in every one of us. The biological and psychological drives for our consumerism are evidenced by: in order to show off, to get rid of stress, and to follow the fashion. Virginia Postrel explains about a reaction of Afghans when they get liberated after the Taliban fell. Although they are not been exposed of any â€Å"ubiquitous advertising or elaborate marketing campaigns† at all, consumerist impulses expressed as if they were â€Å"celebrating the end of tyranny by buying consumer electronics† (301). This reaction well shows the human desire aesthetic value and also the power of consumerism. In my case, the power of consumerism comes to the surface when I get to choose a product of between famous brand and no-name. I often make a decision to afford the cheaper one; and then with the profit –actually not a real profit– that I earn from buying the cheaper one, I tend to make a reasonable excuse to spend the remained money for the rest of the shopping. It i... ...ver us than we realize. I think this quotation strongly describes beyond what I have said about the internal drives of people: "I can imagine it, therefore I want it. I want it, therefore I should have it. Because I should have it, I need it. Because I need it, I deserve it. Because I deserve it, I will do anything necessary to get it." Before your consciousness being attacked directly by "imagin[g] it," first try to recognize what your internal needs are and set your limits rationally. Wanting things is perfectly human desire. However, buying material things doesn’t lead us to have a happier and more fulfilling life. The more you rely on superficial things to satisfy your needs for belonging and identity, the more dissatisfied you’re likely to be over the long run. If we cannot control ourselves, we can easily surrender to worship of consumerism and materialism.

Application of Ethics

Understanding, acceptance, and application of ethics are important to individuals and groups for several reasons. Ethics are our basic beliefs, and they come into play constantly. Many times we are using our personal Ethics and we are not even aware of it. Acceptance of ethics is important to individuals and groups because it allows for constructive criticism, and it helps avoid and resolve conflicts. In groups it is very important for ethics to be accepted because it will give a common ground of understanding and respect that a team or group needs to be successful. Accepting ethics of others is important to individuals and groups because it allows the individual and members of a group to gain confidence in themselves which leads to morale and productivity. Application of ethics is important on individual levels because a person who applies their ethics is true to themselves. Application of ethics also makes an individual who they are or who they are perceived to be. Application of ethics on a group level is also important because it allows people to act in a way that they are proud of. It also allows a group to be responsible for their actions. If a group shares ethical beliefs the application of them will also be a common ground. Application of ethics by individuals and groups shows integrity and confidence. This can lead to pride in work, and a group mentality. These effects are important in any group situation, and the effective application of ethics will lead to success. When we work in any organization we are bound to accept the moral ethos of that organization. Relying on our own moral principles only erodes the trust and understanding that is necessary for any cooperative work to function successfully. I will discuss and evaluate these claims. In any position we hold within a company, it is important to make sure that our conduct in that company facilitates the smooth functioning of that workplace. However, if the moral ethos of the organization we work for conflicts heavily with our own, or with a common view of morality, then should we have to obey the rules and regulations of that company, or is there some way we can call the ineptitude of their moral ethos into question without risk to our position in the company? In this essay I shall discuss the problems that can arise with conflicts of organizational and individual moral values by looking at specific role moralities, the role of ethics in a company, whether the boss is really the right person to make ethical decisions and I will decide whether the ffective running of a company entails worker conformity to a company moral ethos or whether individuals should be allowed to reason ethically for themselves in the workplace. When faced with a conflict involving organizational and personal moral codes, the role we fulfill and the requirements that that role entails are important factors in resolving the conflict. Sometimes a pa rticular job will hold with it several responsibilities to be upheld which may not mesh with our own individual ethical standards and values. For instance, a lawyer may find out that their client is guilty, but cannot divulge this information to another because of the obligation of confidentiality that their job entails. In the case where keeping the confidences of another directly and negatively effects somebody else, the personal moral ethos of the lawyer may encourage her to believe that by informing someone of this private information she is doing the right thing. The moral ethos of her profession would hold that to uphold the confidentiality of the lawyer/client relationship would take precedent over doing what would commonly be seen as the ethically right thing to do. This distinction between role morality and common morality is often debated, with many believing that a professional role should provide exceptions to certain areas that are taken to be ethically black and white. Certain roles can only be carried out if a certain amount of ethical leeway is granted for their execution. Although it is widely recognized that some professions prioritize certain values above others and that this prioritization may not be consistent with a common morality view, many argue that even though specialized roles may require a certain amount of confidentiality, breaching some of the most fundamentally universal moral principles should never be condoned, even in such role related circumstances. One of the grounding features of a common view of morality is that it is seen to be universal. The role of ethics in the company is generally kept to a bare minimum, with a code of company conduct providing the skeletal structure for ethical workplace behavior. To this effect, the rules of a company are generally viewed in a more practical light as opposed to being viewed as a form of moral compass. Morality is often viewed as a highly subjective, often religiously defined way of regulating behavior and lacks the political correctness of an objective bureaucratic set of rules and regulations. Indeed displays of moral behavior can even be deemed as threatening in the workplace. They can be threatening to our position in the company if they do not gel with company policies, they can be threatening to our relationships with our co-workers, and they can make others feel uncomfortable about the way they conduct themselves in the workplace. In view of this, ethical concerns are rarely raised and an attitude which adopts company policy and coerces those who don't agree to keep their mouths shut is usually what is seen around the workplace. Raising an issue of ethics in the workplace that conflicts with company policy can lead to a breakdown of the delicate relationships which keep a company functioning. . Business decisions cannot be made based on personal values. This is why it is necessary for every business, whether large or small, to have a code of ethics in which employees can follow to ensure the success of the business. Most importantly, the leaders of a corporation Significantly affect the way the business is being conducted, and the need for strong values leads the way for employees to follow, and contributes to the success of a business (Storm, 2007). Every corporation has their own rules of conduct, or code of ethics, which refers to policy statements that define ethical standards for their conduct. Corporate codes of conduct typically do not have any authorized definition and there is great variation in the way the statements are drafted. The authors of a code are usually the founder, board of directors, CEO, top management, legal departments, and consultants. Also involved in the process, are sometimes employee representatives, or randomly selected employees When business people speak about â€Å"business ethics† they usually mean one of three things: (1) avoid breaking the criminal law in one's work-related activity; (2) avoid action that may result in civil law suits against the company; and (3) avoid actions that are bad for the company image. Businesses are especially concerned with these three things since they involve loss of money and company reputation. In theory, a business could address these three concerns by assigning corporate attorneys and public relations experts to escort employees on their daily activities. Anytime an employee might stray from the straight and narrow path of acceptable conduct, the experts would guide him back. Obviously this solution would be a financial disaster if carried out in practice since it would cost a business more in attorney and public relations fees than they would save from proper employee conduct. Perhaps reluctantly, businesses turn to philosophers to instruct employees on becoming â€Å"moral. For over 2,000 years philosophers have systematically addressed the issue of right and wrong conduct. Presumably, then, philosophers can teach employees a basic understanding of morality will keep them out of trouble. But does this position give them clear moral authority? Robert Jackall in his Drawing Lines (1988, p. 111) article from Moral Mazes believes that â€Å"†¦ people in high places i n big companies at some stage lose sight of the objectives of their companies and begin to focus on their positions†. Imagine if a manager of a grocery store had failed to evacuate his store when a fire broke out in a nearby shop. There was not a high risk of the fire spreading to the grocery store, but there was smoke coming into the store and there had been an evacuation call for the whole complex. The manager of this grocery store gave the explanation that the fire was not a great risk and it would have been unwise to cause unnecessary panic. The actual reason he did not evacuate the store was because he knew that he would not make sales targets for that day if the store had to be closed for a period of time. He may have done the right thing for his profit margins at the end of the year, but he certainly did not do the right thing ethically. In this scenario, the other employees of the store, seeing the inaction of their boss, would either have to obey his wishes and keep working and serving the customers, or they would do what they feel is the right thing and get the occupants of the store out of harm's way. It is difficult to make a decision about ethical conduct which goes against our boss, especially if this decision turns out to be the wrong one. For this reason, most people obey not necessarily the moral ethos of their company or their own personal moral ethos, but they will follow blindly what their boss tells them to do. Robert Jackall continues in Drawing lines (1988, p. 111) that â€Å"Bureaucracy transforms all moral issues into immediately practical concerns. A moral judgment based on a professional ethic makes little sense in a world where the etiquette of authority relationships and the necessity for protecting and covering for one's boss, one's network, and oneself supersede all other considerations and where accountability is the norm. This leads us back to whether conformity to an organizational moral ethos actually does create a smoother functioning and more productive workplace. Of course there needs to be a certain level of conformity in the workplace in order for there to be cooperation between employees and to hence provide a smoothly functioning work environment, but does this necessarily entail a strict fo llowing of a company's rules and regulations. On this point, even many company heads say that a company's moral ethos does not need to be followed exactly as it is written, but that compromise and flexibility are often the best way to approach work life. Of course this does not mean that company heads think it is fine for employees to freely express their own moral judgment, because this often leads to an unpredictable workplace and with this things may start to get out of hand. To keep the workplace running smoothly we often have to leave our personal ethical concerns to rest, unless of course the issue is of a very important nature. It is all about weighing up what is most important in the situation, and whether what is happening is harming anyone. If it is harming someone, then the issue should be raised and we should employ some of our own ethical standards in convincing others of the moral importance of the case. But if the issue is a minor one, it is best from both a company perspective and for our own job security that we do, in that instance, keep our mouth shut. When employees act unethically and/or without integrity, customers lose trust and confidence in organizational products and services. When leaders act unethically and/or without integrity, employees lose trust and confidence in organizational processes, systems and products. Both directly impact the bottom line and the return on investment. Organizations are built on the principle that the whole is greater than the sum of the parts. Working together creates results and outcomes for the whole that outweigh the results and outcomes of everyone working for them. The secret to success is not the principle but the way synergy is created. Synergy is defined as a dynamic state in which combined action is favored over the sum of individual component actions. Synergy is an emergent behavior that arises out a multitude of simple actions based in ethics and integrity. Everyone in an organization is expected to do the right thing at the right time in order to create synergy. Doing the right thing at the right time creates positive safety, quality, and productivity and cost results. This is ethics-the determination of right and wrong in organizations. Ethics is learned through trial and error. When behaviors are wrong, they are corrected. When behaviors are right, they are reinforced. These lessons learned and best practices are the moral code that defines the synergistic behaviors required for organizational performance. Problems occur when individuals seek to maximize their personal ends through behaviors that violate the ethics of the organization and its moral code. If one gets more, others get less. For example, employees who slow down during the week to ensure overtime pay reduce the return on investment for others. To prevent violations of the moral code, leaders and managers in organizations are entrusted with a fiduciary responsibility (something that is held or founded in trust and confidence) to reinforce and enforce the requisite synergistic behaviors required for organizational sustainability. Corruption occurs when there is an abuse of entrusted poor for personal gain whether it is financial or political. Corruption sub-optimizes the performance and jeopardizes the sustainability of the whole. Corruption often deceivingly masks itself as business reality. In order to ensure business targets are achieved and performance bonuses are distributed, an accepted practice called â€Å"does what it takes to get the job done† rears its ugly head. This may mean cutting corners, applying Band-Aid solutions, suppressing , ignoring or misrepresenting information in order that the problems or defects are knowingly or unknowingly passed on to another part of the process. Since no one wants a product or service with built in defects, the second part of this practice is â€Å"don’t get caught. † This is corruption and it destroys synergy and undermines organizational principles. Corruption spreads. Employees who do what it takes and don’t get caught are rewarded. This creates a culture of knowing where employees know that doing the wrong thing at the right time will be rewarded. In time, many embrace corruption simply because everyone is doing it. Corruption ignores the fact that unethical actions involved in doing the wrong things create a chain of consequences that far outweighs the cost of doing the right thing. For example, organizations that ship product with quality defects to meet production targets lose in product returns and warranty repairs that reduce profitability. It is a short term gain for a few, and a long term pain for the many. Government, through its regulatory agencies, intervenes to control corruption in financial, safety, human rights, and environmental areas. Unfortunately, regulators cannot legislate compliance to the law. They can only enforce consequences to violations. This is where the â€Å"don’t get caught† behavior invokes ingenuity that defies the legal system. The principle of protecting the whole and the right way to do things then falls to the integrity of the participating individuals. The commitment to comply is an integrity based decision. Integrity is defined as wholeness, unfolding and objectivity. If the ethical foundation and the moral code are sound, then individuals have trust and confidence in the organization. Wholeness is completed by doing the right thing. The unfolding is defined by doing the next right things and objectivity is enhanced by doing things the right way. Performance and sustainability are the outcome of individual commitment to compliance and collective synergies arising out of an ethical moral code. If the ethical foundation and moral code is corrupt-benefiting the few at the expense of the many, then individuals lack trust and confidence in the organization and its products. Doing the wrong thing fragments the whole. Not doing the next right thing creates chaos and objectivity is compromised when people don’t do things correctly. Performance is at risk in the short term and long term sustainability is undermined. Ethics and integrity are the cornerstones of performance and sustainability. As seen in the Enron failure, corporations consistently hold more and more impact on the shape and structure of the world as we see it. They are the large and small organizations that society places their trust in to process the economy. Whether it be a large conglomerate such as Enron, or a one person â€Å"mom and pop† shop, society places their trust in these companies and deserves to have this trust upheld. A company's culture is what determines how the company is operated. A company born of poor ethics in the culture is ultimately at risk for unscrupulous acts. The acts of Enron our probably structure from only a small percentage of its employees, however, due to the company's unethical culture, procedures and policies our allowed that did not facilitate personal ethical behaviors. I believe it is this lack of personal ethics that served as the catalyst to the demise of Enron as a company and the damage that they leave behind. Who is responsible for a company's ethical culture? I believe the leaders of the organization are responsible for these ethics through their own personal ethics. One might argue that personal ethics do not have a role, provided they are kept separate from the business world. I believe it is impossible to maintain a separation between personal and business ethics. They inevitably intermingle. The issue is then, how to foster a sense of accountability that transcends the workday. I believe one method of creating a strong sense of personal ethics in all employees, and hence a corporate ethical culture, is through social responsibility. This is done by empowering employees to create and be responsible for their own actions and environment. When employees see a correlation between their actions and direct consequences, they develop pride associated with a job well done and a sense of accountability and responsibility to their jobs. An example of a company that, through its leadership has a great sense of company ethics and has created a culture of social responsibility is Enterprise, an internationally known rental car company. The company began its operation when its founder, Jack Taylor, worked for a car salesman and was tired of the lies and gimmicks that our used by the competing car companies. With his employer, Taylor invested in a new kind of car company whose culture consisted of no tricks or hidden agendas and offered all of the facts up-front to its customers. Taylor's personal sense of ethics determined the standards of his business model. And because his personal ethics centered on straightforward dealings with customers, his customers responded positively. Relieved to find someone in the automotive business who would deal with them honestly, customers helped Enterprise become an industry leader. Its status continues to this day: it has never laid off any of its employees and is considered one of the most financially sound rental car companies by Standard & Poor's. Enterprise's success is also a testament to the influence of social ethics. Their system of promoting new employees fosters a sense of social responsibility. Its primary new employee candidates are new college graduates, who are immediately placed in a junior management program. Upon their success as a branch manager, they are offered their own store location to run. All management from junior manager on up to the board of directors are then rewarded primarily on a commissions basis based on their own individual performance and those of their subordinates. Due to the empowerment of its employees for their own success or failure and the establishment of a reward system, Enterprise has reached success rates that are otherwise non-existent in its industry. Enterprise also has one of the lowest attrition rates in its industry and in many industries around, simply because its employees want to work there. It is evident that the success of Enterprise is largely due to the company's sense of social responsibility and the company's cultural ethics, which stem from the personal ethics of its leadership

Mobile Phones Should Be Banned While Driving Essay

The risk of getting into a car accident while talking on a mobile phone while driving is growing as the number of mobile phone subscribers increases. Engaging in a phone conversation on a mobile phone while driving distracts the brain and delays reaction times which are more likely to cause drivers to swerve between lanes, slow down and miss important signs. Mobile phones should be banned while driving because they are risky. An Australian study conducted in 2005, estimated that the risk of a collision when using a mobile phone was four times higher than the risk when a mobile phone was not being used. 456 drivers who owned phones, were involved in crashes. By collecting these drivers’ mobile phone records, scientists determined those who made telephone calls just before the time of the crash. Case crossover analysis of mobile phone habits enabled the scientists to calculate the increase in risk. Even hands-free devices were not that safer. An earlier study in 2003, integrated data from questionnaires, mobile phone companies and crash records kept by the police. It found that the overall relative risk (RR) of having an accident for mobile phone users when compared to non-mobile phone users averaged 1.38 across all groups. The RR was then adjusted for kilometers driven per year and other crash exposures. When this was done RR was 1.11 for men and 1.21 for women. The study also revealed that increased mobile phone use correlated with an increase in RR. However, there are some objections to the call for the ban of mobile phone use while driving. According to the Associated Press, CTIA – The Wireless Association, a mobile phone trade group in America, objected to a complete ban. Its vice-president, John Walls, is reported as saying, â€Å" we think that you can sensibly and safely use a mobile phone to make a brief call.† Although there are objections, there is sufficient evidence to prove that using a mobile phone while driving is risky. Using a mobile phone while driving, taxes the cognitive skills of the brain at the expense of driving. The vast majority of drivers have no idea that using the mobile phone while driving is risky. >argumentative essay<