Charles Dickens Essay Example for Free

Charles Dickens Essay It also suggests that his previous way of conducting himself has been broken and therefore he has changed. The form of the book and the way that it has been structured has a specific effect on the reader. It breaks the book down into chunks and emphasises the point of each one. The first and last staves, act as a prologue and epilogue to show the Scrooge before and after his moral transformation. This idea is backed up by the fact that the last stave is much shorter than the other four, acting as a round off to the book leaving you to imagine the rest of Scrooges life. In the third stave; The second of the Three Spirits Scrooge meets with the Spirit of Christmas Present who proceeds to show Scrooge how people are spending their Christmases. First he takes Scrooge through the town showing him the hubbub of Christmas shoppers getting food for the forthcoming day. There were ruddy, brown-faced, broad-girthed Spanish Onions, shining in the fatness of their growth like Spanish Friars; and winking from their shelves in wanton slyness at the girls as they went by, and glanced demurely at the hung-up mistletoe. There were pears and apples, clustered high in blooming pyramids; there were bunches of grapes, made, in the shopkeepers benevolence to dangle from conspicuous hooks, that peoples mouths might water gratis as they passed. Dickens uses such descriptive language here to focus on how much the food means to people who cannot afford much, and also how important the meal, and Christmas generally, is to everyone. The idea of food is again a running theme as in Dickenss time large quantities of food, as we commonly see now, were not possible during Victorian times. This was because they had no way of refrigerating food and therefore Christmas was very special in that people could feast at this one time of the year. The language he uses here is important because the way that he personifies the food shows how much attention was showed to it and we see this attention to detail at the beginning of this stave as well when the ghost is sat in a kind of throne of food. Also when the ghost is sprinkling blessings on passing peoples food the ghost tells Scrooge that the poor are more needy than the rich which Scrooge did not realise before as he was always looking out for himself only. Then they visit the Cratchits home where although they are very poor they all love each other and they have a very happy home, this contrasts with Scrooges home and work because although Scrooge is very rich, he is always unhappy. For example although they cannot afford a very big goose for Christmas lunch they are all very happy with it and none of them complain. Dickens especially conveys the feeling of a happy home with the use of a lot of dialogue between family members. Dickenss use of dialogue throughout the book is very effective and attracts the reader as it seems much more realistic. In the forth stave Scrooge meets with the Ghost of Christmas future who has come to show him what his future will be like if he does not change his ways. He is shown his colleges discussing his funeral, and is surprised to realise that none of them care for him. He is also shown a back street merchant to whom his belongings are being sold as no one looked after his house when he died. Finally he is shown that Tiny Tim has died because his family did not have enough money to support him. This stave is very important as it shows Scrooge the short-term consequences of his actions in life if he continues to live the way he is doing so now. And we see that he has fully changed by the end of the stave I will honour Christmas in my heart, and try to keep it all the year. I will live in the Past, Present and Future. The Spirits of all three shall strive within me. This clearly shows that he now cares fully and realises the error of his ways. This is an important part of the novel as it shows that he has changed fully, and the desperation he has at the end of stave four, makes the reader feel sorry for him. This has deliberately been done by Dickens as it shows that a character whom at the start of the story you despised, by the end of this stave you feel sorry for and hope that he does have a chance to show that he is a changed man. Finally in the fifth stave Scrooge gets a chance to show how changed he is as he has been with the spirits only the length of one night. He gets to go and visit his nephew and he raises the salary of his clerk. This particular part, when he raises the pay of his clerk, uses humour again as it shows just how surprised Bob Cratchit is that he is receiving a pay rise, as he cowers and holds up a poker. This use of humour raises the mood of the last stave. Also we see Scrooges mannerisms become much different and he laughs and becomes a different person. During the last stave the most important running theme is emphasised, that anyone can change for the better. This point is shown very clearly because Dickens creates the most horrible character he can and by the end of the book, as a reader you are inclined to like him. The book is appealing to readers because the moral points are important and it is a very heart-warming book that makes people feel better about themselves and want to embrace the spirit of Christmas, which is what Dickens intended.

Military Orders Essay Example for Free

Military Orders Essay The issue of following military orders from higher ranking military officials that may be unethical has been a disturbing and controversial issue over many years and decades. Many soldiers and service members in general have been put into a situation where they were given in order, knowing well that the situation isn’t right but cannot disobey. The leader giving the order in all likelihood may threaten or set out stiff punishment on to the individual who did not follow the order or hesitates to follow out on the order. It just isn’t fair that these soldiers and service members are put in these situations and get punished for doing the right thing. When this situation may be in question in a court of law because of the severity of the crime, these soldiers may get in trouble for committing the act even though they were just following orders. This is a big problem in the United States military and it’s not fair that these soldiers and service members, who sacrifice their lives for our freedom, are punished and put in this situation. Military members who fail to obey the lawful orders of their superiors risk serious consequences. Article 90 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) makes it a crime for a military member to willfully  disobey a superior commissioned officer. Article 91 makes it a crime to willfully   disobey a superior Noncommissioned or Warrant Officer. Article 92 makes it a crime to disobey any lawful order (the disobedience does not have to be â€Å"willful† under this article). In fact, under Article 90, during times of war, a military member who willfully disobeys a superior commissioned officer can be sentenced to death (Powers, N/A). The articles that mentioned above clearly state that a service member cannot disobey a lawful order or they will be punished for the crime, under the article covers their punishment. The excuse of just following orders when they are lawful or not is not an excuse nor will it bold well in a military court. Following through with an unlawful order is bad if not worse than disobeying a lawful order. The individuals committing these crimes will be held accountable and will be punished to the fullest extent. In other cases, some service members have made willful decisions in which they have went AWOL from the orders they received and were supposed to report. An example is when an Army flight surgeon who is risking his career to force President Barack Obama to prove he’s a natural born citizen is under investigation by the Army after failing to report for duty in preparation for an Afghanistan deployment. Lt. Col. Terrance Lakin was ordered to report to Fort Campbell, Ky. on April 12 but instead reported to Walter Reed Army Medical Center in Washington, his former assignment (Jordan, 2010). In this situation, Lt. Col. Lakin is committing a willful crime that is illegal under the articles of UCMJ and is only doing this because of his beliefs. His beliefs that President Barrack Obama needs to prove he is a natural born citizen of the United States. Just reading this article, it provides me with this question: Is it really worth getting in trouble and potentially giving up on a well decorated, stable career for just not showing up to your assigned place of duty just for some proof. President Obama was put into office for a reason and like any job out there was checked up upon and is very much qualified for the position. I think this is a bad decision by Lt. Col. Lakin. Giving up so much for this purpose is just plain ridiculous to me. There are also times where groups of soldiers disobey orders set out for them only because they feel for their lives. Maybe, they experienced something before they lead them to disobey the order. In 2004, Jeremy Hudson of the Clarion-Ledger in Jackson, Miss. , the reporter who broke the story about a military unit in Iraq refusing to go on a dangerous mission. The U. S. military unit in Iraq reportedly refused an order to join what the soldiers called a suicide mission to deliver fuel from their base near Nasiriyah to another base near Taji further north. The soldiers were reservists in a Quartermaster Company. They were supposed to deliver fuel. And they had had some concerns previously about delivering the fuel because of, as they termed it, ill-equipped vehicles mainly lacking the proper armor, and even maintenance problems with the vehicles. They had expressed this, from what I have been told, to their commanders, and basically it fell on deaf ears. They got together and talked to their commanders, from what Im told was for some time, and basically got nowhere. So they decided together to not go (Hudson, 2004). In an article in the Lancet (The Lancet, 2011), a survey was conducted 7 to months into a 15 month, intensity combat deployment in Iraq, between December 11, 2007 and January 30, 2008. An infantry brigade combat team soldiers were picked randomly based upon their company and last four digits of each of these soldiers social security number. The following is an a piece of the article explaining the methods conducted to produce this survey. These soldiers were then invited to complete an anonymous survey 3 months after completion of the training. Reports of unethical behavior and attitudes in this sample were compared with a randomly selected pre-training sample from the same brigade. The response patterns for ethical behavior and reporting of ethical violations were analyzed with chi-square analyses. We developed two logistic regression models using self-reported unethical behaviors as dependent variables. Factors associated with unethical conduct, including combat experiences and post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), were assessed with validated scales (The Lancet, 2011). 500 random soldiers were selected to take the survey and 421 agreed to do the anonymous post training survey. 97 soldiers completed the pre-training survey. The following is the results of the surveys that these soldiers took. Training was associated with significantly lower rates of unethical conduct of soldiers and greater willingness to report and address misconduct than in those before training. For example, reports of unnecessary damage or destruction of private property decreased from 13 ·6% (54 of 397) before training to 5 ·0% (21 of 421) after training (percent difference ? 63 ·2%), and willingness to report a unit member for mistreatment of a non-combatant increased from 36 ·0% (143 of 397) to 58 ·9% (248 of 421). Nearly all participants (410 [97%]) reported that training made it clear how to respond towards non-combatants. Combat frequency and intensity was the strongest predictor of unethical behavior; PTSD was not a significant predictor of unethical behavior after controlling for combat experiences (The Lancet, 2011). With the results of this survey I have come to the conclusion that training is the key to educate these soldiers on how to handle combat situations. The percentage increased in every topic discussed and it proves the fact that training is the absolute way to help these soldiers learn and understand the rules and regulations. What is lawful and what is not. Also, the soldier rights to disobey an order that is not lawful. There are other unethical matters that deal with the military and orders that are ordered to take place. The issue of a soldier that is wounded/injured in a warzone or a military environment and is taken to a medical facility receives but the soldier makes the decision to refuse the medical attention. What rights does the soldier if any have? Does this soldier have the right to make this decision? By not receiving the medical attention, he or she can affect their own livelihood and also others around them by refusing to get help. In an article by Janet Kelly, of the University of Hull, UK, she presents a few scenarios on about this topic and what happens when a soldier does deny medical treatment. The following paragraph is in the article and shows one of these scenarios. With the examples I provided, I have learned that the United States military strictly punishes its service member with the crimes they commit by going by their governing document of the UCMJ. Following military orders is a strictly enforced. There isn’t any room for error when an order is given unless it is an unlawful order and can be challenged by the service member towards the superior official.

What Is The Right Thing To Do?

What Is The Right Thing To Do? If someone, in an attempt to exercise his right of self defense coerces anyone else into defending him then that would mean that the defender himself is a criminal invader of the rights of someone else. So, if X is aggressing against Y, Y may not use force to compel Z to join in defending him, for then, Y would be just as much a criminal aggressor against Z. This immediately rules out conscription for defense, for conscription enslaves a man and forces him to fight on someone elses behalf. Is it always wrong to lie? Consider the case whereby A sets out to murder B and although C knows where B is but C lies to A in order to save Bs life. Under such circumstances would we still render the act of lying wrong or would it be justified to lie in such a case? What do you think is the Right thing to do? Are moral values absolute or are they subjective? Are they universal or are they social conventions instead? Do natural laws exist or do they evolve with time? Who decides between Right and Wrong? Without speck of a doubt, the ability to evaluate reasons for belief is one of the most fundamental critical thinking skills. It is the ability to reason indeed that differentiates human beings form other living organisms. However, one of the biggest dilemmas of moral reasoning remains to be its contradictory nature. We have the mental capacities to reason our belief in something; however, we are just as capable of analyzing it critically at the same time. Question of what is right and what is wrong are not always black and white. At times it seems like the societies are governed by natural laws and social conventions whereby there is a distinct categorization of right and wrong. On the contrary, however, it occurs to us on a great many reflections that problems of morality are relative, and subjective. To re strengthen our belief that reasoning about morality and the problems of morality are themselves contradictory in nature, we are going to cover a few case studies and then see if we reach any conclusion. A many in history nevertheless have made attempts at defining moral ethics and an effort to address to its problems too has been made. According to Protagoras, a Sophist, Man is a measure of all things. The implication is that right and wrong or good and bad, according to Protagoras, must always be considered in relation to a persons needs. Sophists had travelled around the globe splendidly. It couldnt have been anyone better but them to have realized that laws governing the city states and also the norms of a society could vary massively across boundaries. Hence their observation led them to raise questions based on morality and ethics that had to do with conception of what was natural and what was socially induced. Moreover, Sophists believed that there were no absolute norms for what was right and wrong. For instance the idea of natural modesty, to a Sophist who had travelled the world, was a matter of social convention. Had it been natural, it would have been something innate, something humans are born with. Since its seen to be taken differently across different places, not everyone everywhere is afraid or reluctant to show themselves off nakedly, that is not the case. Morality differs in every society, and is a convenient term for socially approved habits.  [1]   However, other philosophers such as the legendary Socrates were of the view that some such norms were in fact absolute and universally valid. According to Socrates, He who knows what good is will do good.Hereby he meant to imply that a right insight will lead to right action and that the virtuous is one who does right. Therefore Socrates proposed that peoples reason and not the society, differentiates between right and wrong. Aristotle had a slightly different take on the issue. He propounded the Golden Mean whereby he emphasized the need to keep a balance. Only by maintaining balance and temperance, so the Aristotelian school of thought goes, does one achieve a happy or harmonious life. As seen hitherto answers to the problems of ethics and morality are not black and white in nature. There cannot be one absolute definition of Morals and Ethics and hence moral reasoning too cannot be chalked out in one specific manner. Moral Reasoning: We are discussing no small matter but how we ought to live.  [2]   One way of explaining Moral Reasoning is by categorizing it into two broad categories: i) Consequentialist Moral Reasoning ii) Categorical Moral Reasoning. Consequentialist Moral Reasoning locates morality in the consequences of an act. Example of Consequentialist Moral Reasoning would be Utilitarianism according to which the right act is that which maximizes utility. Categorical Moral Reasoning on the other hand locates morality in certain duties and rights that have to do with the intrinsic quality of the act itself. Therefore, according to Categorical Moral Reasoning, Murder is a Murder and the act of murdering is wrong irrespective of the circumstances of the act. Utilitarianism: This theory was proposed by David Hume (1711-1776) and defined further by Jeremy Bentham (1748-1832) and John Stuart Mill (1806-1873). Utilitarianism stands by the slogan, the greatest good for the greatest number.According to Bentham the ultimate Moral Principle, namely the Principle of Utility, requires us to choose whatever action would have the best consequences. According to the utilitarian philosophy, we act in a way that maximized the overall level of happiness and pleasure over suffering and pain. In a nutshell, the right thing to do is to maximize utility. However utilitarianism is not as perfect a philosophical concept as it sounds. Some of the objections raised against utilitarianism are that it fails to respect certain individual rights and fails to acknowledge the rights of the minority (lesser number of people).Hence it is argued that certain individual rights of the minority cannot be traded off for the sake of utility. Secondly, it is not possible to aggregate all values. For instance, how would you assign monetary terms to values such as the value of life, respect, etc? Even if we could measure such values then how possibly could we have captured them according to a single uniform measure of value? Let us look at some of the cases concerned with morality in the light of Utilitarian approach and see for ourselves whether utilitarianism befits it: Case1: Euthanasia Mathew Donnelly, a physicist, had contracted cancer perhaps due to an over exposure of X-Rays. It cost him his jaw, upper lip, his nose, left hand, and two fingers from right hand. As if this wasnt enough, he was also left blind. Donnellys physician told him that he had just about a years time left to live. Donnelly, however, was in excruciating pain already, and he thought against better judgment that he would rather die than continue life in such a state. In an urge to free himself of misery and pain, he asked his three brothers to kill him. Two of his brothers refused to do so while the youngest one, 36-year-old Harold Donnelly, shot Mathew to death with a 3.0-caliber pistol. The question in point is whether Harold did wrong. According to social conventions and moral traditions which essentially dictate that the intentional killing of innocent people is always wrong. Hence according to moral traditions, Harold was wrong. However, Harold is assumed to have shot his brother for a no ble cause; he loved his brother and wanted to end his misery. Moreover, Mathew had himself asked to die. Therefore, in consideration of the consent (of Mathew), and noble motives (Harolds love for his brother and wanting to alleviate him of the pain), the point in case asks for a lenient judgment. Utilitarianism would have gone by whichever of the choices available to Harold at that point of time, had the best overall consequences. Utilitarianism would support that action which maximizes happiness for all concerned. Killing Mathew, a utilitarian would think, would free Mathew of misery and pain hence in this case a utilitarian would conclude that the greatest balance of happiness will be achieved for everyone concerned here, by euthanasia. Hereby euthanasia is morally right and justified. Amongst the western States, Euthanasia is legal only in The Netherlands, Belgium, and Colombia. United States renders Euthanasia illegal and terms it as an act of murder hence Haorld Donelly was arrested and charged. A question then arises whether Euthanasia be made legal provided its taken to be morally right by a utilitarian at least. On that point, John Stuart Mill says; The sole end for which mankind are warranted, individually or collectively, in interfering with the liberty of action of any of their member, is self-protection. The only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, physical or moral, is not a sufficient warrantà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ ¦Over himself, over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign.  [3]   Thus utilitarian believes that laws prohibiting euthanasia contradict general welfare of the society, and restrict peoples right to control their own lives the way they wish to. When Harold killed his brother Mathew, he did so in order to end Mathews miserable life in a manner that Mathew had himself chosen. Since the consequences didnt harm anyone, it shouldnt be a problem for anyone either. Things are now changing, in 2005, 58% of Americans were of the view that doctors should be allowed to help patients die who are suffering from painful incurable disease. Case 2 : Case of Queens Vs. Dudley and Stevens: Queens Vs. Dudley is a 19th Century famous British Law Case. The case put a huge question on the validity of utilitarian doctrine. It involves the shipwreck crew of four. After being lost at sea for 19 whole days, Dudley, the Caption decided to kill the weakest among them, the young cabin boy Parker in order that rest of the crew members survive feeding on his blood and body. On the 29th of September 1884, 1300 miles away from Cape, Mignonette was found. Richard Parker, 17-year-old cabin boy was the youngest of all crew members on Mignonette. He was an orphan and had no family. It was Parkers first voyage to sea and had gone against the advice of his friends. A wave hit the shaft, and Mignonette went down. The only food that the crew members had on them was two cans of preserved turnips. What was worse was that the crew members did not have any fresh drinkable water either. For the first three days, the crew members did not eat. On the fourth day, however, they opened one of the cans of Turnips and ate it. The next day, they cut a turtle and together with the second can of turnips, the turtle enabled them to survive for the next few days. For eight days, then, they remained of food and water again. The cabin boy Parker had by now gotten ill as he had drunk sea water. His condition was such that he appeared to be dying. On the 19th day, the captain Dudley proposed an idea that they should all draw a lottery to see who would die to save the rest. Brooks refused to do so and hence lotts werent drawn. Next day, there still wasnt a sign of a life boat , and it was in the midst of harsh conditions that Captain motioned Stevens that boy Parker better be killed. Dudley told the boy his time had come and killed him with a pen knife, stabbing him in his jugular vein. For four days, the three of the crewmembers fed on the blood and body of Parker. At last, on the twenty fourth day of the shipwreck, they were rescued by a German ship which took them back to England where t hey were arrested and tried. Dudley and Stevens went on trial while Brooks turned States witness. It turned out that the captain and his companion werent guilty much, they claimed to have acted out of necessity. They defended their stance by saying that under dire circumstances better that one should die so that three could survive. The prosecutor wasnt influenced; he said a murder is a murder hence the case went on trial. This leaves us with following questions rather objections to the doctrine Utilitarianism: Do we have certain fundamental Rights? If yes, then individual rights shouldnt be traded off and need to be valued. Does a fair procedure justify any result? What is the moral work of consent? Would an active consent at either the time of drawing lottery or at the point of death make so much of a moral difference that an act that is considered morally wrong, taking away someone life for example, would turn morally permissible after the consent? Shall the rights of a weaker being or a minority (in terms of count or numbers) be traded off for the sake of general welfare? Case 3: Baby Theresa: Publically known as Baby Theresa, Theresa Ann Campo was an anencephalic child, born in Florida in 1992.Anencephalic children are sometimes termed as babies without brains as important parts of their brain including the cerebrum and cerebellum are missing and so is the top of their skull. There is however a brain stem, present in such infants, that allows for their autonomic functions such as breathing and heart beat. Even on accounts of survival (from stillbirth), such infants do not live long and for whatever time period they live, they would still never be conscious due to malfunctioning of brain components. Thus Baby Theresas parents volunteered her organs for transplant thinking other needy children could perhaps benefit from the eyes, kidneys, liver, heart, and lungs of Baby Theresa after the transplant. Physicians too thought that it was a good suggestion forwarded by the babys parents that her organs be volunteered so that other children who are in need may benefit. A huge num ber of children need transplants each year but there are never enough organs available. Since Florida law does not permit organ removal until the donor is dead, Baby Theresas organs werent taken. Nine days later, Baby Theresa expired and it was too late by then to use her organs for other children as her organs had been damaged. The newspaper stories of the time opened up a heated debate whether it would have been right to remove the babys organs in order to help other children. If we probe arguments for and against the case, we would come to realize that the problem of removing Theresas organs in order to help other children is not as simple as it sounds. The debate was boiled down to three main line of arguments namely; The Benefits Argument, The Argument that we should not use people as Means, and the third line of Argument from the Wrongness of Killing. The Benefits Argument: Knowing that baby Therese is an anencephalic infant who is incapable of being conscious and is going to die anyway, her parents proposed the idea that Theresas organs be used for transplant in order that other children be helped. Apparently, they reasoned as follows: If we can benefit someone, without harming anyone else, we ought to do so. Transplanting the organs would benefit the other children without harming Baby Theresa. Therefore, we ought to transplant the organs.  [4]   It is interesting to note how this very line of thinking has a division of opinions. On one hand, the contention that Therese wouldnt be harmed is a mere assumption hence the act of removing her organs, based on a mere assumption that she wouldnt be harmed, while she is still alive would be unjustified. On the contrary, however, under such circumstances her parents were right thinking that mere physical existence wouldnt benefit Theresa much provided that she would miss out on thoughts, feelings, connections with people and other normal human activities. Being an anencephalic infant, they must have thought, she is only virtually alive, and that being alive for a few days would not do her any good than ending a miserable life to save the lives of other children. Whereas those children who are in dire need of organ transplants would benefit greatly. Therefore, The Benefits Argument supports the proposition that Theresas organs be used for transplant to help other children. We should not use people as Means: This line of argument opposes the stance that Theresas organs be removed to help other children. It stands by the principle that people should not be used as means to benefit others. Using people is usually used in the context of violating peoples autonomy. Either through manipulation and deceit or by forcing people to do something against their wish, using others only to get our own personal benefits is wrong as it thwarts others autonomy. In Baby Theresas case we wouldnt be deceiving or manipulating anyone by removing her organs for transplant but we would indeed be using her organs to benefit others. In case you are thinking, that happens every time transplants are carried out, you are wrong. Transplants are carried out with the consent of people, and certainly not against their permission. Baby Theresa, however, is incapable of voicing her opinions or expressing her wish by any means hence the complexity of the case remains. Moreover, it can be argued that Baby Theresa does not have wishes in the first place and she is incapable of making any decision for herself therefore she is not really an autonomous being. Thus her parents decision on her part wouldnt really be a violation of anyones autonomy. This leaves us with two ways of thinking about the problem. One, by questioning what would possibly be in the best interest of Baby Theresa, and secondly, if she could have told us what she wanted what would she have said ? Unfortunately, Theresa does not have any preferences, and her interests, even if there were any, wouldnt be affected much since she would die soon after birth no matter what. It all boils down to only one option then which is to do whatever we think is best. Wrongness of Killing: According to most Western traditions, killing someone is absolutely wrong. Since most western states are dominated by the religion of Christianity whereby intentional killing of an innocent being is out rightly wrong and punishable, ethicists who believe in traditional morality would disapprove and condemn an act of killing. To them, killing is always wrong. Nowadays, however, consequence of the act and the circumstances under which the act was committed too is taken very much into consideration. So, according to this way of perceiving things, killing might not always be wrong such as in the case of Baby Theresa. Another approach to the problem would be to think of Baby Theresa as already dead. This might not be as awkward as it sounds after all Brain Death is now accepted at large as a criterion to pronounce someone legally dead. Eventually, Brain Death came to be accepted as real death because such people couldnt live conscious life due to malfunctioning of their brain cells. If brain death is redefined, to include anencephalic since they too lack any hope of conscious life as they do not have any cerebrum or cerebellum, then we would in effect regard anencephalic infants as born dead. Then removing their organs would not be regarded as killing them and hence the argument for wrongness of killing then stands void. Conclusion: In the light of the cases mentioned above, we may conclude that solutions to the problems of ethics and morality are not black and white. As we proposed and opposed line of arguments for the cases under consideration we noticed how reasoning about such matters is often contradictory in nature. Moral Reasoning seems to fluctuate between being definite to vague. One of the biggest dilemmas of human ability to reason is that much as it helps them reach a decision, it engrosses them too at times with contradictions and recessions thus rendering the decision-making process all the more difficult.

The Keys to Entrepreneurship Essay -- GCSE Business Marketing Coursewo

The Keys to Entrepreneurship What makes a successful entrepreneur? What can one do to put oneself in a position to succeed on their own? Jay Goltz, for example, is an extremely successful entrepreneur who started his business from the ground up. In the summer of 1978, Jay Goltz founded the Artist’s Frame Service. His business started by using his father’s basement as his office, but eventually moved to an old factory district in Chicago. Today, Goltz’s business in the largest retail, custom picture framing facility in the United States, with over 120 employees and more than $9 million in sales. This success has led Goltz to earn several awards, including being inducted into the Entrepreneurship Hall of Fame. What did Goltz do or possess to make his business venture so successful? Perhaps if one asks the right questions the answers will reveal themselves. Why do entrepreneurs like Jay Goltz succeed when so many others fail? Can a person develop the personality traits to become a suc cessful entrepreneur, and how would one attempt to do that? How important is a business plan when getting started in a business like Goltz’s Artist’s Frame Service? By examining Jay Goltz, and how he started his business, one should be able to identify the attributes that are required to be successful in entrepreneurship. Jay Goltz succeeded in business, I believe, because he was much more prepared than the average person was. Along with possessing key personality traits, Mr. Golt...

Making Jaun Proud :: essays research papers

The Company is organized into a number of business units. The Company’s North American retail business sells coffee beverages, whole bean coffees and related hardware and equipment through company-operated retail stores in the United States and Canada. The Company’s international retail business consists of entities that own and operate retail stores abroad. These two retail segments are managed by different presidents within the company and are measured and evaluated separately by senior management. The Company operates other business units as well and each is managed and evaluated independently. These other business units are organized around the strategic relationships that govern the distribution of products to the customer. These relationships include retail store licensing agreements, grocery channel licensing agreements, wholesale accounts, and joint ventures. Starbucks Corporation and its subsidiaries buy and roast high quality whole coffee beans. To insure high quality of the product, Starbucks built three roasting plants of it’s own, where highly trained and experienced personnel monitor roasting of beans. Quality standards are so high that entire batches are thrown away after testing if qualifications differ from acceptable standards. Later, beans are sold in primarily company-operated stores along with fresh, rich-brewed coffee, Italian-style espresso beverages, decaffeinated beverages, cold blended beverages, a variety of pastries and confections, coffee-related accessories and equipment, and a line of premium teas. Starbucks sees its success in constant development of its products to bring new experiences and ideas to loyal customers of their coffee-empire. High quality of a product that will appeal to coffee lovers around the world is Starbucks main consideration. Starbucks sells a lifestyle, to customers and employees alike. It has learned from the experience of Pepsi and others to link its brand to new trends. Starbucks' success could be attributed to an objective to meet their customer’s needs, and innovative new product offerings. Selecting a marketing strategy based on a product mix is a key to Starbucks success. Coffee is the second most traded commodity in the world (McMahon, 2001), and as a result, Starbucks was forced to adopt a high product differentiation strategy. This strategy differentiates the company from the competition, making its product unique, by targeting quality, service, and the price conscious customer. Starbucks retail stores are usually located in high-traffic locations and high visibility areas. To reduce risk of failure and economic fluctuations, properties for the stores are leased. Brand name recognition of Starbucks therefore comes from people being frequently exposed to it.

Growth of Sammy in John Updikes A&P :: A&P John Updike

The Growth of Sammy in Updike’s A & P  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚   In the story "A&P," by John Updike, the main character Sammy makes the leap from an adolescent, knowing little more about life than what he has learned working at the local grocery store, into a man prepared for the rough road that lies ahead. As the story begins, Sammy is nineteen and has no real grasp for the fact that he is about to be living on his own working to support himself. Throughout the course of the story, he changes with a definite step into, first, a young man realizing that he must get out of the hole he is in and further into a man, who has a grasp on reality looking forward to starting his own family. In the beginning, Sammy is but a youth growing up learning what he knows about life in small town grocery store. His role models include, Stokesie, the twenty-two year-old, supporting a family doing the same job Sammy does yet aspiring to one day have the manager's position, and Lengel, the store manager who most certainly started out in the same place that Stokesie an d he were already in. Stoksie, the great role model, continues to be as adolescent as Sammy, with his "Oh, Daddy, I feel so faint," and even Sammy sees this noting that "as far as I can tell that's the only difference (between he and I)." Sammy whittles away his days looking at pretty girls and thinking about the ways of people. He hardly realizes that this is how he will spend his entire existence if he doesn't soon get out of this job. During this day that will prove to change his life, he makes the step towards his realization. He decides that he doesn't want to spend the rest of his life working at an A&P competing for the store manager's position. Sammy thinks to himself about his parent's current social class and what they serve at cocktail parties. And, in turn, he thinks about what he will be serving, if he stays at the A&P, "When my parents have somebody over they get lemonade and if it's a real racy affair Schlitz in tall glasses with 'They'll Do It Every Time' cartoons st enciled on." He must get out and the sooner the better. He is still just an adolescent who hasn't completely thought through his decision and yet his mind is made up.

I Have A Dream Speech Essay

Throughout the speech, King frequently appeals to pathos, but he uses all three of the Aristotelian appeals effectively. He uses appeal to pathos to let his audience realize what type of condition the African Americans are in. He uses another appeal to logos to persuade the African Americans to take actions and also to use it for transitions. He also uses appeal to ethos to keep the readers and the audiences to be interested. According to King’s speech, he stated, â€Å"But one hundred years later, the Negro still sadly crippled by the manacles of segregation and the chains of discrimination†¦.And so we’ve come here today to dramatize a shameful condition.† This quote means that after one hundred years free from being slaved, African Americans were still not free through discrimination and segregation. That’s why hundreds of thousands of African Americans came at the Lincoln’s Memorial to dramatize these conditions. King uses anaphora on this quote to emphasize the repetition of the phrase at the beginning of the consecutive sentences to let the reader or the audience know what happened after ‘one hundred years.’In paragraph one to six, the purpose of this section was to introduce the information to the audience about what they needed to know. According to King’s speech, he stated, â€Å"†¦a great American†¦signed the Emancipation Proclamation. This momentous decree came as a great beacon light of hope to millions of Negro slaves†¦.. But one hundred years later, the Negro still is not free†¦. We’ve come here to dramatize a shameful condition†¦. In a sense we’ve come to our nation’s capital to cash a bad check†¦.., that has come back marked as â€Å"insufficient funds†. But we refuse to believe that the bank of justice is bankrupt.† This quote means that the Emancipation Proclamation was the greatest hope for all African Americans to be free. But after one hundred years, they were given a ‘bad check’ because they were facing through many discriminations and segregations. In the second section, the purpose of it was to inform the African Americans what actions they should take and the avoidance in order to gain freedom. In the text, it says, â€Å"Let us not seek satisfy our thirst for freedom by drinking from the cup of bitterness and hatred. We must forever conduct struggle on the high plane of dignity and discipline.† This quote means that the African Americans should not take actions with hatred and bitterness. Instead they should have dignity and discipline to gain freedom. In the third section, the purpose of this section was to describe  the changes and call to action. According in the speech, King stated, â€Å" I have a dream that one day even the state of Mississippi and other parts of the world that suffered through inequality and oppression, will change into freedom and injustice. King uses the writing framework because his speech has a beginning – an introduction, a middle – theme, opposition, and change, and an end – call to action.