Norms Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 500 words

Norms - Essay Example However, these norms are different from ethical norms because such things as workers’ compensation are part of contract and managers are penalized if they don’t comply with them. However, most of the ethical values are not stipulated in any contract and managers have to be totally answerable to their own conscience. There is no obligation on them. Response to class mate 1: After thoroughly reviewing your response to the question asked, I have reached the conclusion that your response is totally off the track! In the first half of your response, when you insist that workers should learn the norms and traditions of every culture they move into for the purpose of work so that they may not offend the indigenous people of new cultures, and do their job smoothly, you fundamentally talk about ethics. This is what the teachings of ethics are. But this was not the requirement of the question. In the question, you were asked to compare Ethics to other subjects and identify ethica l shades in subjects other than Ethics.

International Securities and Finance Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 500 words

International Securities and Finance - Essay Example mediary used insider information to trade securities of the companies outlined, as they were price affected and thus make high profits than the normal traders (Suzi , 2014). Insider dealing is under the FSA and Securities regulation in the UK. It has been a criminal offense since the year 1985 and currently it is incorporated under the criminal justice Act 1993 Part V. Information that is not available to all parties in the market is deemed asymmetric as traders could use it for their personal gains and make high profits. Efforts have been done overtime to tighten up laws on insider dealing but still there are some who go unprosecuted. Insider dealing is said to be a criminal offense when; the information on hand is price sensitive to the shares trading in the market and when an individual encourages someone else to pass the inside information or deal with the shares that are price sensitive and finally when the dealing takes place through a professional trader or broker and on a regulated market (out-law.com, 2014). For most of the times, people have always thought that insider trading is always illegal, but there are some circumstances where it is legal where the officers, employees, directors, buy and sell stock in their own companies and they report to the reporting authorities of their actions. However, it becomes illegal where the buying and selling of securities involves a breach of fiduciary duty or trust and confidence while in possession of material information that is not available to the whole market. Insider trading is said to undermine investors’ confidence in the market as it does not in any way promote integrity and fairness with some gaining more than others gain. Thus, the relevant authorities should be more stringent in regulating the trading of securities in the market by prosecuting those involved in insider dealings (Mirranda, 2013). The security markets within the UK have faced a lot of criticism from members of the public as issues of

Extraordinary Rendition Essay Example for Free

Extraordinary Rendition Essay Extraordinary rendition is a political practice that involves deliberate transfer of individuals to other jurisdictions for interrogation using coercive means. These individuals who comprise terrorists are usually transferred to foreign countries where torture and other clandestine activities are considered normal in the process of acquiring information. The term extraordinary rendition can be likened to rendition which refers to handing over of individuals to other jurisdictions without following the necessary legal process. However, the contrast is that extraordinary rendition implies the use of torture (Great Britain: Parliament: House of Commons: Foreign Affairs Committee House of Commons, 2009). Although it is associated with the September 11 attack, the process can be traced back to the administration of President Bill Clinton. The attack on September 11 only heightened and expanded the program (American Civil Liberties Union, 2005). The process of extraordinary rendition is illegal, which explains the need to carry it outside the United States territory. Since the United States is bound by the United Nations Convention Against Torture (UNCAT), it uses the services of other countries that do not have strict human rights protection laws. This practice can be amounted to outsourcing torture. Former CIA agent Robert Baer notes that,â€Å"If you want a serious interrogation, you send a prisoner to Jordan. If you want them to be tortured, you send them to Syria. If you want someone to disappear never to see them again you send them to Egypt. † (American Civil Liberties Union, 2005; para 2). The nature of the rendition program in the united states raise serious debate as to its justification. The process is in itself brutal, extra-legal and an abuse of conventional human rights. However, extraordinary rendition is a program that targets terrorist who pose a threat to innocent American civilians and therefore one would argue that the program is justified. Since the September 11 attack, it has been necessary to obtain information regarding terrorism as fast as possible in order to gurantee the security of America. Striking a balance between national security and preservation of human rights would be a tricky affair because there are valid arguments from both sides. References American Civil Liberties Union. (2005). Fact Sheet: Extraordinary Rendition . Retrieved june 6, 2010, from: http://www. aclu. org/national-security/fact-sheet-extraordinary-rendition Great-Britain: Parliament: House of Commons: Foreign Affairs Committee House-of-Commons. ( 2009). Human rights annual report 2008: seventh report of session 2008-09, report, together with formal minutes, oral and written evidence. London: The Stationery Office.

Moral Perspectives On Euthanasia Philosophy Essay

Moral Perspectives On Euthanasia Philosophy Essay Should individuals, especially terminally ill-people in excruciating pain, be able to end their lives? If so, may they hasten their deaths only be refusing medical treatment designed to sustain their lives, or may they take active measures to kill themselves? Can they ask others to assist them? Who can they ask: their spouses? Close friends? Their doctors? Should they expect the law to support their decision?  [1]  These are commonly asked question when debating on euthanasia. In this paper I shall try to answers these questions from different moral perspectives. According to Vincent Barry, euthanasia is the act of painlessly putting to death a person suffering from terminal or incurable disease or condition  [2]  . To elaborate, euthanasia is deliberate act; it is painless killing and is performed to people with incurable disease or irreversible coma. In addition euthanasia is performed only to those patients who have confirmed diagnosis of untreatable disease, are at their terminal stage of life and are suffering from intense pain or other painful medical symptoms. The term euthanasia is often used interchangeably with physician assisted suicide/death as it is usually assisted or advised by a physician. There are six categories of euthanasia. However it can be classified in two different ways. First is the way life is taken from the patient suffering from terminal disease, which is known as active or passive euthanasia. Active euthanasia is an act of killing the person by injecting lethal drugs to cause immediate and painless death. While passive euthanasia is omitting the act of saving a persons life with incurable disease, and is not benefiting from the existing medical treatment. Hence passive euthanasia is allowing the patient to die (Daniel Gorman, 1998). Moreover it could be painful or painless depending on the present condition of the sufferer. Not everyone agrees with classifying passive euthanasia under the category of euthanasia as it is not a deliberate act of killing, and is usually prolong and painful. Therefore allowing the patient to die can be morally permissible (Gay-Williams, 1979). Others argue killing and allowing dying holds same moral position in some cases and therefore should be answered separately (James Rachels, 1975). The second method of classification of euthanasia is (a) voluntary i.e. the sufferer who is competent adult is giving consent for particular form of treatment for euthanasia. (b) Non-voluntary euthanasia i.e. when the consent is given by some other person because the patient to die is not eligible to give consent (Vincent Barry, 1985, pg 195). Different moral positions and arguments are held for different forms of euthanasia. Therefore in this paper I would discuss voluntary active euthanasia from Kantian and utilitarians perspective. In additions I would be discussing arguments for and against voluntary active euthanasia. Immanuel Kant focuses on actions and labels an action morally right if it is done for the sake and respect of duty. For him rational being is someone who guides his will and duty with reason. In addition he talks about principal of categorical imperatives that actions are morally correct if a person can will it to be universalized. Also he says not to use human beings as mere beings. Kant would look at voluntary active euthanasia as a form of suicide. In his groundwork for metaphysics of morals he talks about it as Act in such a way as to treat humanity, whether in your own person or in that of anyone else, always as an end and never merely as a means  [3]  . So a person choosing euthanasia is using himself as mere being and is not respecting his own rationality. Hence Kant would strictly forbidden voluntary euthanasia as the person in pain inclined to take his life, is not acting according to duty and is therefore always immoral. The action is moral as Kant says if the unfortuna te one, strong in mind, indignant at his fate rather than desponding or dejected, wishes for death, and yet preserves his life without loving it not from inclination or fear, but from duty, then his maxim has a moral worth  [4]  . There are many schools of thoughts on utilitarianism but John Stuart Mills theory on utilitarianism and euthanasia will be discussed. Mills ethical theory mainly talks about pleasure and avoidance of pain. According to him, actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness, wrong as they tend to produce reverse of happiness  [5]  . Hence voluntary active euthanasia can produce happiness for a number of people. Firstly the persons suffering from pain will get rid of it and having control over their lives would give pleasure. Secondly the family of the patients, who feel the pain of their close ones, and who are spending lots of money in the treatment, will ultimately be free of pain. Therefore utilitarians would allow active voluntary euthanasia because it follows greatest happiness principle. In my point of view, voluntary active euthanasia can be morally permissible. Keeping utilitarianism in mind, active voluntary euthanasia holds many advantages. It terminates the suffering and pain of the terminally ill persons and their families. In addition the material resources and paramedical staff needed to keep alive patients, whose death is certain, can be used for those patients who have curable diseases. Moreover families of such patients suffer from economic burden of medical expenses, hence it is also relieved. Lastly and most importantly, euthanasia gives a sense of autonomy and control to people, to decide how and when their lives should end, when death with incurable disease is certain. Now I shall converse the arguments for and against the act of voluntary active euthanasia. The first argument made by most of the opponents is that act of euthanasia is against the divine will of God and it interferes in the natural processes that God has formulated for human beings. As argued by Gay-Williams (1979), man as trustee of his body act against God, its rightful possessor, when he takes his own life. Hence killing human life is violation of Gods commandments. However Vincent Barry in his writings answers this argument in the light of modern medicine. He argues that contemporary advances in medicine have also interfered with the divine plan of God as it has prolonged peoples life who would have died long before. Hence if active euthanasia is said to be immoral, then prolonging peoples life against the will of God can also said to be immoral. Opponents of euthanasia argue that diagnosis made by physicians may at times be wrong. Therefore a patient diagnosed as having incurable disease might be an error. That is a mistaken diagnosis is made, and patient is forced to go for euthanasia. In addition they claim that physicians as human beings are inclined to make errors therefore euthanasia leads to an immoral and unacceptable act (Hooker, 2002, pg 28)  [6]  . In answer to this argument, proponents respond that there are very few cases in which such error is made. This doesnt imply that euthanasia shouldnt be legalized. If euthanasia is to be legalized and practiced, only medical experts would be eligible to make a diagnosis. Further to reduce the error of misdiagnosis, three medical experts shall discuss the diagnosis and come to the conclusion of whether euthanasia is applicable or not. The third argument made by the opponents is regarding new treatment options. They argue that what if new treatment modalities are available after acting on euthanasia? The outcomes would be terrible. Moreover people and physicians would become hopeless as soon as they encounter fatal disease and would not look for new treatment options. Brad Hooker (2002) talks about two standards that need to be followed for euthanasia. First he says that as euthanasia is always implied at the end stages of a fatal disease, where there is no possibility of the diseased being benefited from new medical treatments, hence in such cases active voluntary euthanasia can be entertained. Secondly on the other hand, if there is a possibility that a patient might benefit from any innovative medical treatment, euthanasia should always be restricted. Slippery slope argument on the legalization of voluntary active euthanasia is also made by most of the opponents. They argue that once we have allowed voluntary euthanasia, in no time, non voluntary euthanasia will also be allowed and legalized. Hence doctors and sufferers family will start killing them without their consent. These people will be killed for wealth they posses, doctors will kill them so they can save hospitals resources and so on. Thus it will lead to a chain of reaction leading to devastating results. The Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy cites a study done in Netherlands in 1995 to explore the reality of slippery slope argument. The researchers found the slippery slope argument groundless. That is to say, there a clear distinction between voluntary and non voluntary euthanasia, therefore there is no point in saying that legalization of active euthanasia will lead to abuses of non voluntary euthanasia. Moreover if active voluntary euthanasia would be legalized, it would need to be carefully drafted. And the law would have to be rigorously policed, to prevent abuse (Hooker, 2002, pg 30). In the conclusion, as euthanasia has six classifications, each type should be evaluated for moral worth. Some opponents might argue that good palliative care and pain relief measures are adequate and hence euthanasia is not required. However regardless of our maximum effort to provide best palliative care, euthanasia will always be picture. Moreover the price for not allowing active euthanasia will be paid by sufferer whose suffering and pain will increase (Gorman, 1999, p.860), thus active voluntary euthanasia should be legalized. However in order to ensure that people do not misuse it, law should be strictly implemented. In this way, the victim would feel autonomous and will die with dignity.

Emily Dickinson’s This was a Poet- it is That Essay -- Poet Poem Poeti

Emily Dickinson’s This was a Poet- it is That Emily Dickinson was an unrecognized poet her whole life. Her close family members recognized her talent, and her needs to write poetry, but the literary establishment of her time would not recognize her skill. Even though she was unrecognized, she was still quietly battling the established views through her poetry. Her literary struggle was exposed after her death since, while living, only five of her poems were published. Many of her poems were a reaction to the rejection of many publishers and other literary critics. This particular poem’s character comes from Dickinson’s reaction to Ralph Waldo Emerson’s statement that â€Å"poets are thus liberating gods.† Here she is challenging the established literati by questioning popular Emersonian views. In particular, this poem is a reaction to Emerson’s belief that â€Å"the poet is the sayer, the namer, and represents beauty.† Basically, it is a reaction to the idea that the poet is the creator of beautiful words, liberating the common people by giving them words they would not have access to. This was a Poet  ­ It is That by Emily Dickinson This was a Poet  ­ It is That Distills amazing sense From ordinary Meanings - And Attar so immense From the familiar species That perished by the Door - We wonder it was not Ourselves Arrested it - before Of Pictures, the Discloser  ­ The Poet  ­ it is He  ­ Entitles Us  ­ by Contrast - To ceaseless Poverty - Of Portion  ­ so unconscious - The Robbing  ­ could not harm - Himself  ­ to Him  ­ a Fortune - Exterior  ­ to Time  ­ In the first stanza the author is describing the role of the poet. The poet is one who recreates an irregular view, or creates a s... ...nd the commoner, both victims of the relationship they have with each other. Although she does agree with Emerson that the poet is a namer, she disagrees with some of his other thoughts. Through this poem, Dickinson is setting herself apart from the Poets of her time. She does not consider herself a robber baron of words. She also chooses to deny that the poets are liberating gods because she feels that the poet is in fact dominating the ordinary person, not liberating them. Instead, Dickinson chooses to categorize herself with the ordinary people. She is criticizing Emerson’s obvious belief that the poet is above the ordinary man. He calls himself a liberating God because he is a poet when Dickinson just wants to be a normal person who is a poet. Dickinson does not want to be above the ordinary person in a condescending way, but wants to be among them.

The Force of Evil :: Essays Papers

The Force of Evil "And something had come to life†¦It was a kind of shadow, a poisonous blackness filled with bewildered loathing. †¦something hateful and unspeakable in the souls of men." An apparent introduction is made in the three works, The Most Dangerous Game by Richard Connell, The Child by Tiger by Thomas Wolfe, and The Destructors by Graham Greene; the unwelcome but necessary introduction to the sinful nature of mankind, to evil without limits, and without cause. When confronted with the presence of evil around them, the characters react in very different ways. A few triumph, one just stands in awe. In The Most Dangerous Game Mr. Rainsford, at first, tries to shrug off a fellow sailor's belief of a nearby 'dark' island by saying "Pure imagination . . . One superstitious sailor can taint the whole ship's company with his fear." The sailor replies with haunting faith, "Sometimes I think evil is a tangible thing - with wavelengths, just as sound and light have. An evil place can, so to speak, broadcast vibrations of evil." When Rainsford comes to believe the crucial meaning of his friends' words, it is too late; he is already in the midst of the very place that was spoken of. Appalled at first, by faced with no other choice than to confront the very source of evil, General Zaroff, face to face, Rainsford realizes the danger of his position and takes what he is dealt right in stride. He was now the wanted prey of the most dangerous of hunters. "He had not been entirely clear-headed when the chateau gates snapped shut behind him. His whole idea at first was to put distance between himself and General Zaroff. . . Now he had got a grip on himself, had stopped, and was taking stock of himself and the situation." Mr. Rainsford, an experienced hunter himself, had found himself in a position he probably had never imagined before. This kind of hunting was new to him, for this time the quest was for him and his pursuer was of the most wicked species; the devil, so to speak. "Is there anything a man don't stand to lose when the devil wants to take it all away?" To try an out run, out fox and altogether put an end to the 'devil' was the task, and Rainsford did it the only way he knew how; by being the poacher and the quarry, setting traps while taking flight, and leaving no traces behind to be followed.

Do Rules Contribute to a persons happiness

Do Rules Contribute to a Persons Happiness? Rules and regulations. The two words which every child and even many adults hate to hear. When thinking of ‘rules' we think of something which stands in the way of our doing something we may want to. We immediately curse the rule, not thinking in what way it may be helping us. We fervently wish that it never existed, without really being able to comprehend what the world would be like without that rule.What we, as humans, fail to understand, is that rules are made primarily to help us. We may find them annoying, aggravating, and even completely pointless, but they generally help us feel safe and so, happy. Think of everything in our day to day life which we take for granted. Driving in a car, we expect people to stop for us at some point when at an intersection, that's because someone made traffic lights. Speed limits are another important rule which many people find extremely annoying.Think about this, f there were no road regulation s, would you feel comfortable driving? To all the people who see driving as the ultimate freedom, would you feel the same way if you were in constant fear of being killed? Of course not! The same goes for rules against murder, thievery, drugs, sexual abuse, the list never ends. It is because of all these rules that we are free to feel comfortable and happy in our lives. All the rules so far have been rules on an international scale, but even If we look at rules in our own souses they serve the same purpose.Personally, I would always get annoyed when my parents didn't let me have as much ‘Junk food' as I wanted. I would through tantrums and say that ‘now is the best time for me to eat Junk, while I'm still young! ‘ Now, when I think about It, I am extremely glad that my parents controlled me. If I had eaten too much, I could have had severe health Issues, which would have stopped me from doing so many things which I love doing today, Like playing sports, eating out and Just generally enjoying life.Today I am thankful for the rules set down by my parents, because they are a major reason for my happiness. Overall, I truly believe that rules and regulations are extremely Important to a persons happiness. They may not all help you out (though more often than not you may not see how they are helping you), but without them your life would not be nearly as enjoyable as It Is. As Sheldon Cooper (from The Big Bang Theory) says, Without rules, our entire world would descend Into Anarchy, and who wants that!