Jumping Off Place Essay Sample free essay sample

Q 1: In what manner will the civilization of Spain be different from U. S? In replying this inquiry refer to calculate 4-5. 4-6. 4-7. Autonomic nervous system: if we compare the civilizations of United States and Spain. maintaining in position the hofstede’s dimensions. following cultural differences were found: 1. Power distance: This aspect trades with fact that all persons in societies are non equal. It is defined as: â€Å"The extent to which less powerful members of establishment A ; organisation accept that power is distributed unequally† Spain‘s hierarchal power distance is accepted. Whereas U. S have low power distance. Within American companies. direction degrees are established for convenience A ; higher-ups are ever accessible. Both directors and employees shared information often. Communication is informal. direct and participative. 2. Individuality:It is the inclination of people to look after themselves and their immediate household merely. Spain is collectivized every bit good as individualistic but the practise is non aggressive. We will write a custom essay sample on Jumping Off Place Essay Sample or any similar topic specifically for you Do Not WasteYour Time HIRE WRITER Only 13.90 / page Whereas U. S is extremely individualistic province. Peoples look after themselves and their households. 3. Mascunist/feminist:Masculinity is a cultural feature in which dominant values are success. money and things whereas feminity is cultural feature in which he dominant values are caring for others and quality of life. Spain is a feminist society. They believe in assisting the destitute people. Whereas united provinces is masculine society. They are mercenary and after success and money. 4. Uncertainty turning away:It is the extent to which the people feel threatened by unpredictable state of affairss and have created beliefs and establishments that try to avoid these. Uncertainty turning away is extremely pattern in Spain. Peoples have regulations for everything. Any alteration in the regulation causes emphasis to the people. They are non risk takers at all. Whereas American society is uncertainness credence society. Peoples are willing to take hazard. Above mentioned are the cultural differences between United States and Spain. Q2. If the company expands its operations to Italy. will its experience in Spain be valuable for the company or will the civilization would be so different that the maker will hold to get down a new in finding how to turn to cultural challenges and chances. Explain. Autonomic nervous system: if we consider hofstede’s dimensions so Spain and Italy are non really much different to each other. Power distance in Spain is acceptable but in Italy it is average. Distribution of power justifies that upper degree have more powers as compared to lower degree and have more benefits. As compared to Spain. Italy is more individualistic society. It is â€Å"me centred† . Italy is a strong masculine society whereas Spain is a feminist society. Italy is a strong uncertainness turning away society which means that Italians are non comfy in unpredictable state of affairs. They avoid taking hazards. Same as Spain. they besides avoid taking hazards. Italy is the combination of maleness and high uncertainness turning away which makes life really hard and nerve-racking. In my sentiment. Italy and Spain have about familiar civilization values and differences. If the concern works good in the Spain and the response is good than the U. S Company must spread out its concern to Italy. As there is no much difference in civilizations of both the states. the work experience in Spain will be valuable for the company as the company would already the cultural values. likes and disfavors. buying behavior of consumer. challenges and chances. These all things would assist the company for set uping a concern in Italy. The company will execute better and will spread out its concern excessively. Q3. If the house expands into France. will its old experience will be valuable in assisting the company address cultural challenges. Explain. Ans: France civilization is similar to Spain and Italy. Harmonizing to hofstede’s civilization power distance is low both in France and Spain as comparison to Italy. Individualism is practiced in France at average degree. Whereas Italian practiced at high degree and Spaniards pattern at low degree. Uncertainty turning away is high in France and other two companies. Masculinity is low in France and medium in Italy. The above line shows that there is no much difference in the cultural values and challenges of the states. If the concern works good in Spain and Italy. it is anticipated that the company would have good response from France excessively. They don’t need to analyze new dimensions of civilization. It would be them excessively. The company is smart because it is be aftering to spread out in the same cultural values so that they would non confront cultural differences that would do their concern to fall down. So the earlier experience in Spain and Italy will decidedly be valuable to the company.

buy custom Internal and External Stakeholders essay

buy custom Internal and External Stakeholders essay Stakeholders are individuals interested in the outcome of policies and the success of an organization. This drives them to influence the outcome of such results and accomplishment of financial obligations. In normal cases, there exist two groups of stakeholders: internal and external stakeholders, who exist within the organizations setting and those outside the organization respectively. For example, a stakeholder can be the owner of the business, employee, manager, customer, partner or even a supplier among others; and contributes to the business of an organization either directly or indirectly (Bernstein Bonafede, 2011). Additionally, either stakeholders, internal or external may involve themselves with the outcome of a project or activity other than business, but they often stand to lose or gain depending on the decisions made or policies implemented in the organization. This paper aims to analyze the influence that the internal and external stakeholders have on the homeland secu rity issues such as lack of communication and organization. In reference to the organization structure of the Homeland organization, jurisdiction and organization correlated and directly faced impact from the actions of both the internal stakeholders like the CIA and DOD and the external stakeholders (partners who have an interest in ensuring that homeland achieves the best in maintaining security in the United States). For instance, the internal stakeholders have considerable access to the administration and the structure of the Homeland organization, hence any decision that the organization makes they also have to go through first before implementation. This positively influences the decisions on the organizational structure in that they unbiasedly settle on the best model structure to implement in management and operations of homeland security. As a result, this has led to the advanced restructured arrangements of the departments in homeland security leading to easy communication, transparency and efficiency in homeland operations (Bernste in Bonafede, 2011). On the other hand, any changes in the jurisdiction of the homeland security organization, directly affects their respective stakeholders who in return have to source out alternative lines of access to the organizations successful operations. Hence, they end up persuading new partners into networking with the homeland security organization, which consequently changes the organization's structure entirely. Stakeholders especially, internal stakeholders normally prefer to have all the programs constituted under one cluster for easy management on the full range, therefore, this consolidation of programs sees that an organization consolidates its structure into one compact model for easy management. Evidently, the internal stakeholders have influenced the same on homeland security organization, hence the existence of the cabinet-level departments at the organization that promote specialization in dealing with security issues. This consolidation of programs has also positively impacted on the security issue on lack of communication; in that the organization now has advanced into a close need structure of communication that updates them with highly crucial details about security anytime, anywhere. On the contrary, the scatter of programs among the different partnering agencies (external stakeholders) has also negatively affected the communication channels that relay immediate feedback to the homeland security base in the United States. The scattered nature of the external stakeholders also negatively affected the communication of the homeland security; in that, the organization lacked proper consolidation of ideas and strategies to plan for any cases of terrorist attacks. Hence, t his subsequently led to their fragmentation following the terrorist attack in November 2001 (Sauter Carafano, 2005). Furthermore, the shared responsibility by the external stakeholders has seen the homeland security organization restructure its department to cover all sectors in ensuring a balance in the food, industry and agriculture security, which emerges as on the stakeholders leading positive effects. The external stakeholders such as the federal agencies involved in communication issues that deal with security, negatively affect the homeland organizations communication network due to their resistance in accepting the link between the local, federal and state partners in sharing critical information regarding matters of state in national security. Additionally, the lack of clarified roles and identification of external stakeholders has negatively influenced the effort of the Homeland security organization in implementing advanced model structures of the organization's management in order to increase their operations effectiveness. Nevertheless, other external partners or stakeholders of the homeland security organization such as FDA, DHS and USDA have facilitated better communication (Sauter Carafano, 2005). They did so through networking in an effort to obtain security clearances for some state personnel during critical, emergency operations in communication and sharing of sensitive security information. Since the rapidness in communication and notification systems used during incident reporting requires the careful merge of both the external and the internal stakeholders in decision-making, this has positively influenced the communication channels opening the organization to the world for easy communication and feedback on security related issues. This collaboration has also led to the strengthened ties between the organization and other scattered external stakeholders improving its operations and in return synchronizing its organizational structure for better management. Considering stakeholders in solving the problem linked to lack of communication and organization will come in handy because an organization without partners may likely fail or perform poorly, and since evidence exists that supports the positive benefits of the stakeholders contributions to the homeland security organization outweighing the negative, they hold an extremely vital position in the solution. The homeland security organization needs to increase and expand its link to external stakeholders because matters of state security need more networking from outside partners rather than the internal stakeholders. Conclusion In conclusion, individuals need to understand that, for effective performance and success in the functions of an organization, support from other extended and interested parties, like stakeholders emerges is extremely crucial and almost inevitable (Sauter Carafano, 2005). Evidence lies in the success of the homeland security through the strength and support of its stakeholder, who managed to ensure United States security by capturing Osama Bin Laden. It is essential to avoid bureaucracy in an organization. The stakeholders should be given an opportunity to take part in the decision making process of an organization. Stakeholders should get a chance to celebrate the victory of the organization as they played a role in meeting the objective. The stakeholders should also play a role in the growth of their positions in the organization. It is crucial to engage in one on one coaching of the stakeholders so as to inform them about the details of your solution and the reason why you chose it. When the stakeholders give their views, it is necessary to recognize their views. This recognition is a show of satisfaction for the task accomplished by the stakeholders. If the solution that you choose involves some form of technical knowhow, it is good to take the stakeholders on training over the implementation of the solution. This will ensure that all are aware of the implementation of the solution. Finally, give the stakeholders various leadership roles to take in the aim of implementing the solution. For example, if there is a visitor seeking information on a particular issue, give one stakeholder an opportunity to explain. Stakeholders are individuals interested in the outcome of policies and the success of an organization. This drives them to influence the outcome of such results and accomplishment of financial obligations. In normal cases, there exist two groups of stakeholders: internal and external stakeholders, who exist within the organizations setting and those outside the organization respectively. For example, a stakeholder can be the owner of the business, employee, manager, customer, partner or even a supplier among others; and contributes to the business of an organization either directly or indirectly (Bernstein Bonafede, 2011). Additionally, either stakeholders, internal or external may involve themselves with the outcome of a project or activity other than business, but they often stand to lose or gain depending on the decisions made or policies implemented in the organization. This paper aims to analyze the influence that the internal and external stakeholders have on the homeland secu rity issues such as lack of communication and organization. In reference to the organization structure of the Homeland organization, jurisdiction and organization correlated and directly faced impact from the actions of both the internal stakeholders like the CIA and DOD and the external stakeholders (partners who have an interest in ensuring that homeland achieves the best in maintaining security in the United States). For instance, the internal stakeholders have considerable access to the administration and the structure of the Homeland organization, hence any decision that the organization makes they aalso have to go through first before implementation. This positively influences the decisions on the organizational structure in that they unbiasedly settle on the best model structure to implement in management and operations of homeland security. As a result, this has led to the advanced restructured arrangements of the departments in homeland security leading to easy communication, transparency and efficiency in homeland operations (Bernst ein Bonafede, 2011). On the other hand, any changes in the jurisdiction of the homeland security organization, directly affects their respective stakeholders who in return have to source out alternative lines of access to the organizations successful operations. Hence, they end up persuading new partners into networking with the homeland security organization, which consequently changes the organization's structure entirely. Stakeholders especially, internal stakeholders normally prefer to have all the programs constituted under one cluster for easy management on the full range, therefore, this consolidation of programs sees that an organization consolidates its structure into one compact model for easy management. Evidently, the internal stakeholders have influenced the same on homeland security organization, hence the existence of the cabinet-level departments at the organization that promote specialization in dealing with security issues. This consolidation of programs has also positively impacted on the security issue on lack of communication; in that the organization now has advanced into a close need structure of communication that updates them with highly crucial details about security anytime, anywhere. On the contrary, the scatter of programs among the different partnering agencies (external stakeholders) has also negatively affected the communication channels that relay immediate feedback to the homeland security base in the United States. The scattered nature of the external stakeholders also negatively affected the communication of the homeland security; in that, the organization lacked proper consolidation of ideas and strategies to plan for any cases of terrorist attacks. Hence, t his subsequently led to their fragmentation following the terrorist attack in November 2001 (Sauter Carafano, 2005). Furthermore, the shared responsibility by the external stakeholders has seen the homeland security organization restructure its department to cover all sectors in ensuring a balance in the food, industry and agriculture security, which emerges as on the stakeholders leading positive effects. The external stakeholders such as the federal agencies involved in communication issues that deal with security, negatively affect the homeland organizations communication network due to their resistance in accepting the link between the local, federal and state partners in sharing critical information regarding matters of state in national security. Additionally, the lack of clarified roles and identification of external stakeholders has negatively influenced the effort of the Homeland security organization in implementing advanced model structures of the organization's management in order to increase their operations effectiveness. Nevertheless, other external partners or stakeholders of the homeland security organization such as FDA, DHS and USDA have facilitated better communication (Sauter Carafano, 2005). They did so through networking in an effort to obtain security clearances for some state personnel during critical, emergency operations in communication and sharing of sensitive security information. Since the rapidness in communication and notification systems used during incident reporting requires the careful merge of both the external and the internal stakeholders in decision-making, this has positively influenced the communication channels opening the organization to the world for easy communication and feedback on security related issues. This collaboration has also led to the strengthened ties between the organization and other scattered external stakeholders improving its operations and in return synchronizing its organizational structure for better management. Considering stakeholders in solving the problem linked to lack of communication and organization will come in handy because an organization without partners may likely fail or perform poorly, and since evidence exists that supports the positive benefits of the stakeholders contributions to the homeland security organization outweighing the negative, they hold an extremely vital position in the solution. The homeland security organization needs to increase and expand its link to external stakeholders because matters of state security need more networking from outside partners rather than the internal stakeholders. Buy custom Internal and External Stakeholders essay

Enthalpy Definition in Chemistry and Physics

Enthalpy Definition in Chemistry and Physics Enthalpy is a thermodynamic property of a system. It is the sum of the internal energy added to the product of the pressure and volume of the system. It reflects the capacity to do non-mechanical work and the capacity to release heat. Enthalpy is denoted as H; specific enthalpy denoted as h. Common units used to express enthalpy are the joule, calorie, or BTU (British Thermal Unit.) Enthalpy in a throttling process is constant. Change in enthalpy is calculated rather than enthalpy, in part because total enthalpy of a system cannot be measured. However, it is possible to measure the difference in enthalpy between one state and another. Enthalpy change may be calculated under conditions of constant pressure. Enthalpy Formulas H E PV where H is enthalpy, E is internal energy of the system, P is pressure, and V is volume d H T d S P d V What Is the Importance of Enthalpy? Measuring the change in enthalpy allows us to determine whether a reaction was endothermic (absorbed heat, positive change in enthalpy) or exothermic (released heat, negative change in enthalpy.)It is used to calculate the heat of reaction of a chemical process.Change in enthalpy is used to measure heat flow in calorimetry.It is measured to evaluate a  throttling process or Joule-Thomson expansion.Enthalpy is used to calculate minimum power for a compressor.Enthalpy change occurs during a change in the state of matter.There are many other applications of enthalpy in thermal engineering. Example Change in Enthalpy Calculation You can use the heat of fusion of ice and heat of vaporization of water to calculate the enthalpy change when ice melts into a liquid and the liquid turns to a vapor. The heat of fusion of ice is 333 J/g (meaning 333 J is absorbed when 1 gram of ice melts.) The  heat of vaporization of liquid water  at 100 °C is 2257 J/g. Part A:  Calculate  the change in enthalpy, ΔH, for these two processes. H2O(s) → H2O(l); ΔH ?H2O(l) → H2O(g); ΔH ?Part B:  Using the values you calculated, find the number of grams of ice you can melt using 0.800 kJ of heat. SolutionA.  The heats of fusion and vaporization are in joules, so the first thing to do is convert to kilojoules. Using the  periodic table, we know that 1  mole of water  (H2O) is 18.02 g. Therefore:fusion ΔH 18.02 g x 333 J / 1 gfusion ΔH 6.00 x 103  Jfusion ΔH 6.00 kJvaporization ΔH 18.02 g x 2257 J / 1 gvaporization ΔH 4.07 x 104  Jvaporization ΔH 40.7 kJSo the completed thermochemical reactions are:H2O(s) → H2O(l); ΔH 6.00 kJH2O(l) → H2O(g); ΔH 40.7 kJB.  Now we know that:1 mol H2O(s) 18.02 g H2O(s) ~ 6.00 kJUsing this conversion factor:0.800 kJ x 18.02 g ice / 6.00 kJ 2.40 g ice melted Answer A.  H2O(s) → H2O(l); ΔH 6.00 kJ H2O(l) → H2O(g); ΔH 40.7 kJ B.  2.40 g ice melted

Distribution Plan and Promotions Strategy Assignment

Distribution Plan and Promotions Strategy - Assignment Example External distributors will majorly carry out distribution of the smartphone. The phone is being sold globally and there will be a need to liaise with several distributors from several countries to get the product to the market. The distributors will supply the phones to retailers in their regions. This is an effective way of ensuring that the buyers all over the world can access the product. Other than using distributors, the company also intends to sell the phones on an online shop. This way the busy and young target group can purchase the smartphone and have it delivered to them saving them from the trouble of personally going to the shops. One recommended sales strategy is the use of sales people to sell the products directly to wholesale shops and door to door. This will enable the product to get to people who did not know about it and enable a significant number of wholesales to get hold of the product. Using wholesale outlets may also be a helpful strategy. Potential buyers can buy the product directly from them in bulk at a cheaper price or they can buy them from a retailer who is supplied by the wholesaler. Another applicable and effective channel of distribution is through the internet. Online shopping is the current trend in many households. Marketing products through the internet can be effective in reaching out to the targeted population. Selling the product online entails posting the specifications of the product, including the price and link or address through which a potential buyer can access the distributor. Finally, the use of telemarketing may be as well effective in marketing and distributing the product (Mullin & Cummings, 2008). It involves soliciting the target population to purchase a product through a phone call or through face-to-face video conferencing. It may is relevant in marketing my product and seeking a prospective buyer in that during the call, a promoter entices the targeted individual

Strategic Information System Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 2000 words - 1

Strategic Information System - Essay Example y, the information system is used as an academic sort of study of the systems usually with some particular reference to information and complementary networks of software and hardware that organizations and the people use in collecting, creating, filtering, processing and distributing data. Any the information system normally aims at supporting the operations, decision-making and the management (Haav, 2009). The strategic systems usually are computer systems that normally implement the business strategies. They include the systems where the information service resources that are applied to the strategic business opportunities in a manner that the computer systems have a great impact on the organizations products as well as the business operations (Ulrich, 2010). The strategic information systems mostly are those that are developed in response to the corporate opportunities and the initiatives. The central idea usually comes from the business operational people and the information services that supply the technological abilities and the capabilities in realizing profitable results. Zara, one among the world’s largest companies of fashion had a simple and a unique type of focus in linking the customers demand to the manufacturing and consequently linked the manufacturing to the distribution. Their major issue has been related to the current information technology kind of platform that they use in operating their chain in the retail stores (Quintela VarajaÃŒÆ'o, 2010). The business model could be split into three main components which are; capabilities, concept and the value drivers. The most fundamental concept has been maintaining the production, the distribution and the design that eventually would enable the organization to be able to respond quickly to the shifts in the customer demands. The value drivers for the organization conclusively are tangible and intangible as well in the benefits that are usually brought back to the stakeholders (Barzdin, 2011).

Kateri Tekakwitha Essay Example for Free

Kateri Tekakwitha Essay Blessed Kateri Tekakwitha, patroness saint of ecology, nature, and the environment. Kateri was born in 1656, in Ossernonan. At birth Kateri Tekakwitha was given the name Catherine, or Kateri in Iroquois languages. Kateri Tekakwitha became an orphan at age 4 when her village got attacked by smallpox and her family died, including her parents and her baby brother. After being weakened, scarred and partially blind, she survived. Her 2 aunts and uncle, the Kanienkehaka chief then adopted her. Because Kateri was not baptized as an infant and at age eighteen Father de Lambertville, a Jesuit missionary, baptized her. Her family did not accept her choice to embrace Jesus Christ. Her family refused to feed her on Sundays when she did not work and do chores. Since her life’s rougher times she devoted her life to God. Kateri fled her life in the village and ran 200 mi through woods, swamps, and rivers to the Catholic mission of St. Francis Xavier at Sault Saint-Louis, near Montreal. At the mission she taught the young and help those in the village that were poor, sick, or injured. Her motto became, â€Å"Who can tell me what is most pleasing to God that I may do it? She then made her own chapel in the woods by craving a cross into a tree and spent time to say a prayer there, kneeling the snow. When poor health, which plagued her throughout her life, led to her death in 1680 at the age of 24. Her last words were, â€Å"Jesus, I love you†. On December 19, 2011, Pope Benedict XVI signed the decree necessary for canonization of Blessed Kateri Tekakwitha. She will be canonized on October 21, 2012. I learn in this essay that most people are luckier then they think and should not be selfish about it. The very worst times in your life could be even worse in someone else’s life. The rougher times in life are there to make you stronger, not to punish you.

Essay on Escape in A Rose For Emily and Yellow Wallpaper

Escape from Reality in A Rose For Emily And The Yellow Wallpaper In the Victorian era, women were thought to be weaker than men, thus prone to frailty and "female problems." They were unable to think for themselves and only valuable as marriage material. The women in Faulkner's "A Rose for Emily" and Gilman's "The Yellow Wallpaper" are driven insane because they feel pigeonholed by the men in their lives. They retreat into their own respective worlds as an escape from reality, and finally rebel in the only ways they can find. Emily and 'John's wife,' the woman in "The Yellow Wallpaper" who is never named, both feel stifled and suppressed by the men in authority over them. Emily, as a "slender figure in white in the background," is prevented from having suitors by her father (p. 505). The narrator of "The Yellow Wallpaper" talks much about how her husband, John, is careful for her, even to the point of urging her to rest completely and not write, yet "does not believe I am sick!" (p. 630). Both women are kept almost completely in the house, idle, with nothing to occupy their...

Is Journalistic Objectivity Really Possible in British Society?

Introduction to Journalism End of Module Assessment Module leader Prof. Frank MacMahon Student: Fabio Scarpello Student number: 10182824 Report title: Is Journalistic objectivity really possible in British society. | |Notes: Words 2,275 | |Pages nine | |(â€Å" †¦ â€Å")= Reference to article in bibliography |Introduction Objectivity is the standard to which every journalist should aspire. In this report I analyse the coverage of the European Union (EU) summit in Nice held between the 7th and the 11th December 2000. My aim is to underline whether â€Å"objectivity† has been achieved. I will focus on The Guardian and The Telegraph, (both replaced by their Sunday newspapers on the 10th) and, to a lesser extent, on The Sun. My scrutiny will start the 8th and continue for five days. The report will look at: – Coverage – Prominence – Use of pictures – EditorialTo gain an independent view of the issues discussed, I relied on the BBC, (â€Å"E U Guidelines†), and kept its indication as my benchmark. Accordingly they are: – Charter of Rights (54 rights for every EU citizen) – Drop of National Vetoes, replaced by Qualified Majority Voting (QMV) for most decisions (Blair pledged to maintain six called â€Å"red lines† on tax, social security, immigration, treaty amendments, EU budget and border control) – Re-weighting of the Council of Minister vote. Due to its importance and controversy, I included the Rapid Reaction Force (RRF)Friday 8th Broadsheets give ample coverage to the Summit, with equal prominence. Front-page articles are similar. Headlines are coherent in condemning Chirac while the contents concentrate on the different aspirations for the RRF between France (who advocate operational independence from NATO) and Great Britain (who wants closer co-ordination with NATO). Comments from Government and opposition appear in both. The similitude ends with reports of the pre-summit disturb ances. Different is the approach to the Charter.The Telegraph’s tone is critical, comments however are balanced with Byrne (Irish EU commissioner) who highlights weakness in its draft, and Fontaine (EU Parliament president) who wants it incorporated in European law. The Guardian sees it as a triumph for Britain and voices its optimism with Vaz (European minister) who plays down Tories worries of a European Constitution. The importance of maintaining national vetoes is the main point of the Telegraph’s last article, while The Guardian ends with the gains of widening the EU eastwards.Editorials reflect the broadsheets different political stance. The Guardian advocates the UK’s advantages in dropping its veto on immigration, while The Telegraph reports on the intention of the Anti-EU party to attack labour at next general election. The Sun coverage is also comprehensive. The tone is more direct (â€Å"Blair war on Chirac†), but still covers the RRF (comments from Blair and two conservative ministers), riots and Charter with comment from Jaspin (French PM) who advocates its legal status. The political line is clear in the commentary and in the editorial.Kavanagh (political commentator) sarcastically highlights the division within the EU leaders. The editorial tone gets almost menacing: it begins with â€Å"Tony on Trial† and it ends with â€Å"He dares not return home if he gives up any of them† (â€Å"red lines†) Saturday 9th Coverage and prominence are again similar with both broadsheets dealing with the RRF in depth. Comments from Cook, Cohen (US defence secretary) and Smith (shadow defence secretary) appear in both. The Telegraph strengths its critics with Pearle (US former politician) who says â€Å"this is a catastrophe for NATO† (â€Å"Euro force still†¦. †) .The Guardian, in its defence, uses Chirac and Solana (MEP) who states, †It is not a threat to NATO, we are not trying to make a n EU army† (â€Å"Chirac gives way†¦Ã¢â‚¬ ). Vetoes are mentioned in both and it is interesting the different use of the same picture. In The Guardian it reads, â€Å"veto cloning† (page 7) in The Telegraph only â€Å"veto† (page 11). The latter could be seen as a warning to Blair against dropping vetoes, whilst it is a protest against human cloning. The Sun coverage is poor with a single article. Scepticism against the RRF is expressed by Kavanagh not convinced of Cook reassurance of its real co-operation with NATO.Sunday 10th Both Sunday newspapers (Observer and Sunday Telegraph) comprehensively cover the summit with front-page articles and inside page focuses; however the Observer wins the quantity battle. The Telegraph front-page headline sets the trend: â€Å"Blair isolated in EU as Nice turns nasty†. Within the article the RRF is not mentioned while the vetoes, Charter and the re-weighting are analysed. Blair isolation is judged a consequence of his attempt to keep the â€Å"red lines†. There is also space for the Government intention to give up 17 vetoes in order to streamline the EU decision-making process.Still in the Telegraph, for the first time, is mentioned a clause in The Charter (article 7) deemed as â€Å"further embarrassment to Blair† (â€Å"Blair threatens to†¦Ã¢â‚¬ ) which gives the EU the power to investigate, censor and recommend a change in the law, to countries considered in breach of fundamental rights. The Charter is further criticised in a separate article for its moral and religious values. Several high rank ecclesiastics define it as â€Å"Godless† and â€Å"a way to make easier for homosexual couples to adopt children† (â€Å"Catholic Bishops say†¦Ã¢â‚¬ ).The problems arisen by the EU re-weighting are seen as a blessing to Blair who, thank to them, hides his difficulties. The Observer front-page headline â€Å"British police for Euro army† counterba lances the Telegraph, giving ample coverage to the RRF. The accent shifts, presenting it as a police force rather than an army. The â€Å"red lines† feature with a difference angle as well: Sweden is seen as backing Blair on tax and social security, and the PM voices, for the first time, his intention to drop national veto on immigration. Charter and the re-weighting are covered in a re-cap article on page 5. The focuses are different in angle and size.The Sunday Telegraph devotes a page, covering every issue in a chronological order of discussion (RRF, Charter, veto, re-weighting). Blair isolation is emphasised, and his interpretation of the summit, is ridiculed â€Å"Mr Blair can give an interpretation to the British people. That does not mean that the rest of us have to believe it† (Here is a Nice mess†). In this case it is attributed to a diplomat and refers to the Charter, but, according to The Telegraph, it could be applied to every issue. RRF and Charter a re presented as carrying a hidden agenda, which will lead to a EU army and a constitution.Blair handling is considered weak and partially saved by general chaos. Symptomatic is the closing sentence: â€Å"It was an unhappy summit for Mr Blair†¦ but he was not alone at Nice there were no winners†. The Observer focus owes its title, †Europe- the elephant test† to Hague:â€Å"If it look like an elephant and sounds like an elephant then, it is an elephant you re dealing with†. It relies on pro-European academics to highlight a new vision of superstate, shaped by globalisation. â€Å"European identity is already being shaped by a globalisation of culture as a shared sense of European values ».This cultural aspect seems to be The Observer starting point. Its reasoning builds on with the ineluctability of the process â€Å"we live in a world where layers of governance overlap† says Hobsbawm, while Prodi (EU Commission president) stresses â€Å"It i s the only way our nations can express themselves in a globalised world†. There is not a conclusive definition of superstate; it vaguely states that it is a new entity, different to anything seen before. The report lacks comments from anti-European academics. The editorials do not leave space to misinterpretation.The Sunday Telegraph titles it â€Å"alone again† and labels the Government European politics as naive. The Observer instead gives voice to Palmer (Director of European Policy Centre) who advocates a closer European integration (â€Å"Europe not amused†¦Ã¢â‚¬ ). Monday 11th The main daily issue is the re-weighting. Prominence is equal but the Guardian gives more coverage. The tone remains the same with the Telegraph portraying the difficulties of reaching a decision, while The Guardian applauds Blair for its success. The respective headlines mirror the core of the articles. â€Å"EU leaders scrambles to fix a deal† prints the Telegraph on its fron t page.It concentrates on the squabble and difficulty of the re-weighting procedure using quotes from state’s PM. Words as chaos and crises are repeated. Worth noticing, in the same article the concession to Blair for holding to the â€Å"red lines†, even if the PM is reported saying that due to Tory pressure â€Å"he had no space for manoeuvre†. Inside page articles keep the same tone and issue. A failed appeal to EU leaders by Blair for help in Sierra Leon, makes in print in the Telegraph, while is omitted in The Guardian (â€Å"Blair troops†¦Ã¢â‚¬ ). â€Å"Blair holds on to key vetoes† is The Guardian headline.In this article the recurrent words are victory and triumph. The report uses a much mellower tone in describing the difficulty encountered. The Guardian coverage, in its entirety is more comprehensive with information on EU Parliament seat relocation and on the planning of the Inter-Governmental Conference of 2004; neither reported in The Telegraph. Both editorials criticise the summit but for opposite reasons. The Guardian claims that a superstate is very far. Nice is judged a failure due to politicians, including Blair, too concerns with their domestic interest (â€Å"Naughty Nice†).The Telegraph says that Nice has failed in its main objective (enlargement) and labels it as a â€Å"federalising treaty that has taken giant strides towards closer integration† (â€Å"The reality of Nice†). The Telegraph editorial line is mirrored in the â€Å"letter to the editor†: Mr Garrod preoccupation that a future European superstate would suffer the fate of Yugoslavia and Soviet Union gets published. The Sun coverage is good but fails in prominence (pages 8 and 9). The leading article (â€Å"Fiasco in France†) deals with the difficulties of the re-weighting, blaming Chirac.An increase in the number of EU commissioners and MEP are reported (overlooked in the broadsheet). A separate article credi ts Blair for holding on to vetoes. Plaudits to the PM are also mentioned in the editorial, even if it is considered only a won battle in a long war. EU difficulties are the core issue in the commentary (â€Å"40 years of Euro†¦Ã¢â‚¬ ) in which the lack of popular consent for integration is seen as the main reason of failure. Tuesday 12TH Prominence and coverage is similar with the braoasheet now using the summit as an election’s tool. The Telegraph’s headline â€Å"Blair sold us short in Nice† denounces an unsatisfactory outcome.In it Hague reinforce his point of â€Å"major steps towards a EU susperstate† and pledges not to ratify the treaty, if elected. The possibility of a referendum to decide on it is also mentioned in a further article (â€Å"Tories would put†¦Ã¢â‚¬ ) where comments from Conservatives are only partially balanced by a sentence from Kennedy (LD). QMV and re-weighting are well covered on page 4. Mentioned also are â€Å"e nhanced co-operation† (possibility for members who want further integration to go ahead) and â€Å"demographic bar† (second majority required for decision making in EU council of ministers based on percentage of EU’s population).Worth noticing that this percentage is reported at 62% by the three newspapers and 74. 6 by the bbcnews. com Charter and RRF are neglected. The Guardian titles â€Å"Tories left floundering by EU deal† and looks at the election in buoyant mood. The summit is seen as a Blair victory in a further article (â€Å"Blair balancing act †¦Ã¢â‚¬ ) in which the use of a picture gives the PM and his aids an almost heroic look. Interesting is the assumption by Blair that it is the Conservatives who are politically isolated in Europe.Re-weighting and â€Å"red lines† are analysed with predominantly pro-European comments. Blair vision of â€Å"inter-governmental† Europe (decision making held by a core of nations and not the EU institution) is deemed closer (mentioned also in The Telegraph). The Telegraph’s commentary is even handed (â€Å"Blair battle tale†¦Ã¢â‚¬ ). Worries of a closer EU integration are balanced with approval of Blair handling of â€Å"red lines† and RRF. The Guardian instead goes as far as to regrets Blair for not daring more (â€Å"Nice enough†) The Sun uses a picture to effectively illustrate the summit ‘s marathon (page 2).It criticise Blair presumed guilty of having agreed to a treaty, which gives â€Å"more bureaucracy, secrecy and dodgier decision making† (â€Å"What Blair has†¦Ã¢â‚¬ ). The editorial credits itself as the PM guiding light through the summit, and claims that only its pressure has prevented Blair to agree to further pro-European movements. The summit’s decisions are covered in an easy to read our losses and gain section. Conclusion Impartiality in the UK is demanded of Radio and TV broadcasts. It is enshrined in their codes of conduct and enforced by their respective controlling bodies.Due impartiality and prominence have to be achieved as a legal requirement (Public Broadcast Act, 1990). There is not such a requirement for newspapers. The National Union Of Journalist solicits journalist â€Å"to strive that the information disseminated is fair and accurate† (NUJ code of conduct 29/06/1994), but does not mention any duty to political independence. Furthermore the Press Complaint Commission states that newspapers are free to be partisan (PCC Code of Conduct December 1999) On this basis, it is without surprise that the conclusion of this report is that â€Å"objectivity† in the newspapers analysed has not been achieved.Editorials are clear in their political stance, with articles only seldom contradicting it. Reports are given different spins and angle, which result in biased information. Comments from political figure get different prominence depending on the paper orientat ion. Worth mentioning is that journalistic objectivity has been further damaged since publishing has been incorporated in a globalised financial world. The system derived from this development is based on oligopoly and cross ownership, which are two more stumbling block for editorial independence. This scenario leaves little space to ethical, idealistic code of conducts.In supporting my conclusion I would use R. Fowler comments that news is not a natural phenomenon but a product of an industry, and therefore shaped by bureaucratic, economic structures, government and political organisations (Mac Nair B. , 1999, 36). Bibliography The Guardian Friday 8th December 2000 †¢ Black I. , M. White and R. Norton Taylor â€Å"Chirac widens split on defence† (Page 1) †¢ Henley J. , â€Å"Police injured as street riots greets leaders† (Page 6) †¢ Black I. , â€Å"East grows tired of waiting game† (Page 7) †¢ Comment section â€Å"Fortress Europe† à ¢â‚¬ ¢ Wodlacott M. , â€Å"France versus the mighty Americans†The Telegraph Friday 8th December 2000 †¢ Jones G. , A. Evans-Pritchard â€Å"Chirac angers Blair by backing EU army† (Pages 1 and 2) †¢ Evans-Pritchard A. â€Å"Don’t mess with our tax veto, Blair tells EU allies† (Page 4) †¢ Jones G. A. Evans-Pritchard â€Å"Irish Commissioner says basic rights charter is badly drafted† (Page 4) †¢ La Guarda A. â€Å"Tear gas and riots greet Europe leaders† (Page 5) The Sun Friday 8th December 2000 †¢ Kavanagh T. †Blair has to turn nasty at Nice talks† (Page 1) †¢ Kavanagh T. â€Å"Blair war on Chirac† (Pages 8 and 9) †¢ The Sun says section â€Å"Tory on trial† (Page 8)The Guardian Saturday 9th December 2000 †¢ White M. , I. Black â€Å"Blair feels heat over EU vetoes† (Pages 1 and 2) †¢ Cole P. â€Å"Tale of two Britain and two summits† (Page 6) †¢ Black I. â€Å"Chirac gives way in row with Blair over NATO† (Page 7) The Telegraph Saturday 9th December 2000 †¢ Evans-Pritchard A. , G. Jones â€Å"Blair deserted by EU allies in veto struggle† (Page 1) †¢ La Guardia A. â€Å"Euro force still cause of division† (Page 11) The Sun Saturday 9th December 2000 †¢ Kavanagh T. , P. Gilfeather â€Å"Chirac rips up the rule book† (Page 2) †¢ Kavanagh T. â€Å"Sounding the retreat Y† (Page 2)The Observer Sunday 10th December 2000 †¢ Ahmes K. , D. Staunton â€Å"British police for Euro army† (Pages 1 and 2) †¢ Ahmed K. , D. Staunton â€Å"How it turned nasty at Nice† (Page 5) †¢ Palmer J. â€Å"Europe not amused by this French farce† (Page 5) †¢ Beumont P. , D. Staunton and A. Osborn â€Å"Europe – the elephant test† (Pages 16 and 17) †¢ Comment section â€Å"Europe will never be a superstate† (Page 28) The Sunday Telegraph 10 th December 2000 †¢ Murphy J. , J. Coman â€Å"Blair isolated in EU as Nice turns nasty† (Pages 1 and 4) †¢ Petre J. â€Å"Catholic bishops say EU charter ignores God† (Page 4) †¢ Murphy J. , J.Coman â€Å"Here is a Nice mess† (Page 20) †¢ Comment section â€Å"Alone again† †¢ Murphy J. , J. Coman â€Å"Blair threatens to wreck treaty over tax policies† (Page 4) The Guardian Monday 11th December 2000 †¢ Black I. , M. White â€Å"Blair holds on to UK’s key vetoes† (Page 1) †¢ Black I. â€Å"Europe’s big four pull rank on minnows† (Page 4) †¢ Black I. â€Å"Focus turns to power split† (Page 4) †¢ Comment section â€Å"Naughty at Nice† †¢ Hope C. â€Å"Jeaux sans frontiers† (G2 Section Pages 8 and 9) The Telegraph Monday 11th December 2000 †¢ Evans-Pritchard A. , G. Jones â€Å"EU leaders scramble to fix a deal† (Page 1) †¢ Jones J. A. E vans-Pritchard â€Å"A marathon with jostling all the way† (Page 4) †¢ Evans-Pritchard A. , â€Å"Vote grab by the Big Five leaves smaller states outgunned and outraged† (Page 4) †¢ Mc Smith A. â€Å"Blair troops appeal fails† (Page 4) †¢ Comment section â€Å"The reality of Nice† (Page 19) †¢ Letter to the Editor â€Å"Swift victory on Euro army may be Pyrrhic† (Page 19) The Sun Monday 11th December 2000 †¢ Kavanagh T. â€Å"Fiasco in France† (Pages 8 and 9) †¢ Kavanalagh T. â€Å" 40 years of Euro waffle†¦ now reality sets in† (Pages 8 and 9) The Guardian Tuesday12th December 2000 †¢ White M. , I.Black â€Å"Tories left floundering by EU deal† (Pages 1 and 2) †¢ Black I. â€Å"How big powers won big benefits† (Page 6) †¢ Henley J. â€Å"Europe points finger at Chirac† (Pages 6) †¢ White M. â€Å"Blair balancing act tips election scales† (Page 7) †¢ Young H. â€Å"Everyone was a winner at the battle of Nice† (Page 24) †¢ Comment section â€Å"Nice enough† The Telegraph Tuesday 12th December 2000 †¢ Jones G. â€Å"Blair sold us short at Nice says Hague† (Page 1) †¢ Jones G. â€Å"Blair’s battle tales hide truth of victory† (Page 4) †¢ Evans-Pritchard A. â€Å"Germany becomes first among equals† (Page 4) †¢ Helm T. H. Quetterville â€Å"Schroder hailed for back door coup† (Page 4) †¢ Kallenbach M. â€Å"Tories would put new treaty to a referendum† (Page 14) The Sun Tuesday 12th December 2000 †¢ Kavanagh T. â€Å"What Blair has really given us† (Page 2) †¢ The Sun say section â€Å"Blair owes us† (Page 8) †¢ Kavanagh T. â€Å"French farce† (Page 8) †¢ htpp://www. bbcnews. com â€Å"EU Guidelines† (07 December 2000) †¢ htpp://www. bbcnews. com â€Å"EU Summit at a glance† (12 December 2000) †¢ htpp://www. bbcnews. com â€Å"EU Analysis† (11 December 2000) Background Reading †¢ Curren J. , J. Seaton (1991) Power without responsibility.The press and broadcasting in Britain. London, Routledge †¢ Mc Nair B. , (1999) News and Journalism in the UK. New York, Routledge †¢ Wilson J. , (1996) Understanding Journalism. London, Routledge †¢ Stevenson N. , (1999) The transformation of the Media. Globalisation, morality and ethics. New York, Pearson Education Ltd. †¢ Branston G. , R. Stafford, (1991) The Media Student’s Book London, Routledge Material supplied by TVU †¢ Hilton A. , (1996) Report Writing London, Kogan Page Ltd †¢ UK Press Complaint Commission Code of Practise. †¢ ITC Guidelines. †¢ BBC Editorial’s Values. †¢ NUJ Code of Conduct

Animal Rights and Human Wrongs Essay

Are there limits on how human beings can legitimately treat non-human animals? Or can we treat them just any way we please? If there are limits, what are they? Are they sufficiently strong, as som e peop le supp ose, to lead us to be veg etarians and to se riously curtail, if not eliminate, our use of non-human animals in `scientific’ experiments designed to benefit us? To fully ap preciate this question let me contrast it with two different ones: Are there limits on how we can legitimately treat rocks? And: are there limits on how we can legitima tely treat other human beings? The an swer to th e first ques tion is pre suma bly `No.’ Well, that’s not q uite right. There are som e limits on what w e can le gitimate ly do with or to rocks. If Paula has a pet rock, then Susan can’t justifiably take it away or smash it with a sledge hammer. After all it is Paula’s rock. Or if there is a rock of unusual beauty or special human interest say the Old Man of Hoy or Mt. Rushmore it would be inappropriate , and pro bably im mora l, for me to te ar it down , to deface it, or to chisel o ut a sectio n to use in my ca tapult. These limits though, arise not from any direct concern for the rocks; rather, they are imposed because of the interests a nd rights of other h uman s. Susan can’t take Paula’s rock for the same reason she can’t take Paula’s eraser: it is Paula’s and Paula has a right to those things which are hers. And no one ca n destro y or defa ce items of specia l natural b eauty because by doing so one is indirectly harming the interests of other humans in them. So there are limits on what we can legitimately do to inanim ate objects, but whatever limits there are arise from some human concern.1 Not so for our treatment of other humans. We suppose that it is inappropriate to tr eat a human being just any way we wish. I cannot steal another human; that would be kidnapping. Nor can I sm ash so meon e with a sledgehammer; that would be, depending on the outcome, assault, attempted m urder, or murder. And the reason I cannot do these things has nothing to do with what third parties d o or don ‘t want. It has to do with the interest and desires of that particular person. It is wrong for Susan to hit Paula , not beca use oth er peo ple like Paula or because other people would be offended, but because Paula is a person. Period. Thus, there is a fundamental contrast between those objects which we can treat as we please (excep t when limited by the interests of other humans) and those which we canno t. Ordinary rocks fall into the first camp; humans, into the later. Now, what about nonhuman animals? Do they fall into the first or the se cond c amp? Or som ewhe re in between? There are reasons to believe that many animals and certainly the higher-order anima ls are more like humans than they are like rocks. Thus, we have reason to believe there are constraints on how we can legitimately treat them, regardless of our particular wishes and desires. Or so I shall argue. For the moment I will simply note that these are beliefs which most of us already have. That is, most of us presume that it is illegitimate to treat animals just anyway we wish. For exam ple, mo st of us be lieve it is wrong to wanto nly kill or torture a higher o rder m amm al. Suppose we discover that some member of our commun ity, say Jones, has a habit of picking up stray dog s or cats a nd dec apitating them w ith his hom e-ma de guillo tine’; 2 or we learn he has invented a machine which draws and quarters them. He uses these machines because he revels in th e anim als’ pain, b ecaus e he relis hes in the sight of blood; or maybe he is a scientist who w ants to stu dy their re action to stress. In this case we rightly surmise that Jones is immoral. We wouldn’t want him to be our pre sident, our fr iend, our next door neighbor, or our son-in-law. In short, we all seem to agree that they a re limits on how we can properly treat nonhuman animals, and that these limits arise becau se of the n ature of th e anim als, not m erely because of the de sires of oth er hum ans to see an imals trea ted we ll. That is, such acts are wrong not merely because other humans are bothered by them. We would think them equa lly wrong if they were secretly done so that no one else in the community knew about them. We think they are wrong because of what it does to the animal. On the other hand, we are also part of a culture which rather cavalier ly uses a nimals for food, for clothes, for research in the development of new drugs, and to determine the safety of household products. And many of these u ses req uire inflicting a great d eal of pa in on animals. Record of such uses is readily available in various academic journals, and chronicled by num erous writers on the topic’. 3 But for the reader who might be unfamiliar with them, let me briefly describe two ways in which we use animals ways which inflict substantial pain on them. Anima ls who are raised for food are obviously raised with the express purpose of making a profit for the farmer. Nothing surprising. But the implications of this are direct and obvious and deleterious to the an imals. There are two ways for a farmer to increase her profit. One is to get higher prices for her goods, the other is to spend less producing those goods. Since there is a limit on how much people will pay for meat, there is substantial financia l pressu re to dec rease th e expe nse of p roducin g the m eat. This under standa bly leads to over-crowding; after all the more animals a farmer can get into a smaller space, the less it costs to produce the meat. There are similar pressures to restrict the animals’ movement. The less the animals move, the less they eat, thus decreasing the farmer’s expense. For instance, farmers who raise chickens are inclined to put them in small `battery’ cages. They are commonly kept `eight to ten to a space smaller than a newspaper page. Unable to walk around or even stretch their wings much less build a nest the birds be come vicious a nd attac k one a nother ‘.4 The average person seems equally unfamiliar with the extensive use of animals in laboratory experim ents. Ma ny of thes e are of o nly mo derate significan ce’; 5 most of the them involve extensive pain on animals. For instance, N.J. Carlson gave hig h voltag e electric shocks to sixteen d ogs an d found that the `h igh-sho ck grou p’ acqu ired `an xiety’ faster. Or researchers in Texas constructed a pneumatically driven piston to pound an anvil into the skulls of thirteen monkeys. When it didn’t immediately produce concussions, the researchers increased the strength of the piston until it produced `cardiac damage, hemorrhages and brain dama ge’. 6 Or researchers at Harvard placed baby mice and ba by rats into cages with starving adult male rats. The adults ate them. The researchers’ conclusion: hunger is an important drive in animals. (That, of course, is some thing we are sho cked to learn; we would have never kno wn this fact otherwise). T HE O PTIONS Now, how d o we sq uare o ur abso lute revu lsion at ou r hypoth etical Jones with his animal guillotine, and our rather blithe acceptance of the treatment of animals on the farm and in the scientific and co mme rcial labo ratories? It is not imm ediately clear tha t we can . What is clear, it seems, it that we have three options, three alternative beliefs about our treatment of anim als. Thes e are: 1) If we are repulsed by Jones treatment of stray animals, we are simply being inappr opriately or unduly squeamish or sympathetic. We should have no aversion to killing, torturin g, or usin g anim als in any way w e pleas e, unles s, of course, that anima l is some one els e’s prop erty, that is, he r pet. 2) There are reasons why we should treat non-human animals better than we treat rocks; nonetheless, there are also reasons why we can use non-huma n anim als in ways we could never legitimately use humans. 3) We should be treating non-human animals more like we currently treat humans. Many of our accepted ways of using animals are, in fact, morally objectionable. The first position, it seems, is completely untenable. No sensible person , I think, is willing to adop t a position which s ays that to rturing a nimals for fun is completely acceptable; no one is willing to say that Jones is a fit mem ber of so ciety. This b elief, it seem s, is virtually unshakable. Most of you understood perfectly well what I meant when I describe d Jone s’s behavior as `torture.’ But this claim would be nonsense if we thought there were no moral limits on how we could treat animals.7 So we are left with the la tter option s. And, of course, which one we choose, will have a dramatic impact on the lives of humans and of other animals. One necessary clarification: to say that animals should be treated more like humans is not to say that they should be treated exactly like humans. For instance, we need not consider giving animals the right to vote, the right to free religious expression, or the right of free speech. As far as I can ascertain, most an imals do n’t have the necessary capabilities to exercise these rights. However, the same is true of very young children and of se verely retarded adults. That is why they don’t have these rights either: the y lack the requisite capacities. Nonetheless, the mere fact that some adult humans are not given the right to vote does n ot mea n it is legitimate to have them for lunch or to test bleach in their eyes. So why assume it is so for animals? W HY ANIMALS SHOULDN’T SUFFER NEED LESS PAIN Until now I have been trying to identify our own deeply held convictions about restriction s on the prope r treatme nt of anim als. Now it is high time to try to offer a positive defense of our ordinary understa nding; a defense which will have even more radical implications that we might have supposed. That is, I want to argue for option three above; I want to a rgue tha t there are rather strin gent lim its on wh at it is morally permis sible to do to anima ls. More s pecifically , I wish to argue that we should all b ecom e vege tarians a nd that w e shou ld dram atically curtail, if not eliminate, our use of laboratory animals. Though there are numerous arguments which can be offered in this rega rd, I want to defend one particular claim: that we should not inflict need less pain on anim als. Before I go on I should make it clear what I mean by `needless pain.’ The point can be made most clear by use of an analogy. Contrast the following cases: 1) I prick my daughter’s arm with a needle for no apparent reason (though we needn’t assume I derive any sadistic pleasure from it). 2) I am a physician and I inoculate her against typhoid. What differentiates these cases? In both I prick her arm; in both (let us presume) I inflict similar amounts of pain. Yet we consider the latter not only ju stifiable, bu t possibly obligato ry; the former we consider sadistic. Why? Because it inflicts unne cessar y pain. M y daug hter doe s not in any way bene fit from it. Thus, unnecessary pain is that which is inflicted on a sentient (feeling) creature when it is not for the good of that particular creature. The latter is necessary pain; it is pain which the creature suffers for her own good. There are two main premises in my argument. The first is the factual claim that anima ls do, in fact, feel pa in. The second is the claim that the potential of animal suffering severe ly limits what we can justifiably do to them, it constrains the way we can legitima tely use them. That an imals fee l pain That anima ls do feel p ain see ms rela tively unc ontrove rsial. It is a belief we all share. As I noted earlier we couldn’t even make sense of `torturing’ an animal if we assumed it was incapa ble of feeling pain. Nor could we understand being repulsed at Jones’s use of stray anima ls unless we thought the animals suffered at Jones’s hands. If Jones collected abandoned tin cans and cut them to pieces w ith his guillo tine, we m ig ht think J ones te rribly odd, bu t not imm oral. But more can be said. We have more than adequate behavioral evidence that anima ls feel pain and that they can suffer. Most of us have seen a dog which has been struck by a car, though not killed instantaneously. The dog convulses, bleed, and yelps. Less drastically, most of us have, at some time or another, stepped on a cat’s tail or a dog’s paw and ha ve witne ssed the anima l’s reaction . The reaction, unsurprisingly, is like our own reaction in similar cases. If someone steps on my hand, I w ill likely yell and attempt to move my hand. But we ne edn’t res t the case on beh avioral e videnc e thoug h it does seem to m e to be more than sufficient. We should also note that we share important anatomical structures with higher o rder an imals. A human being’s central nervous center is remarkably similar to that of a chimpanzee, dog, pig, and even a rat. That is not to say the brains are exactly alike; they aren’t. The cerebral cortex in human beings is more highly de velope d than in most mamm als (though not noticeably so wh en compare d with a dolphin or a Great Ap e); but the cortex is the location of our `higher brain fun ctions,’ for e xamp le, the sea t of thoug ht, speech, etc. However, the areas of the brain which neurophysiologist identity as the `pain centers’ are virtua lly identica l betwee n hum an and non-h uman anima ls. Accord ing to evolutionary biology this is exactly w hat we should expec t. The pa in centers worke d well in enhancing the survival of lower species, so they were altered only slightly in succeeding evolutionary stages. H igher br ain func tions, how ever, are condu cive to survival, and thus, have led to more dramatic advances in cerebral development. Given all this, it seems undeniable that many animals do feel pain. That they feel pain is morally relevant ‘So what?†™ someone might ask. ` Even if animals do feel p ain, why should that limit or at least se riously restrict our treatment of them? Why can’t we still use them for our purposes, whatever those purposes happen to be?’ Let’s turn the question around for a moment and ask why we think we should be able to use them for our purposes, given that they are capable of suffering? After all, we are staunc hly opposed to inflicting unnecessary pain on human beings. If animals can also feel pain, why shouldn’t we have the same reluctance to inflicting needless pain on them? A crucial tenet of ethics is that we should treat like cases alike. Th at is, we sh ould treat two cases the same unless there is some general and relevant reason which justifies the difference in treatment. Thus, two students who perform equally well in the same class should get the same grade; two who perform rather differently should receive different grades. By the same token, if two creatures feel pain and it is improp er to inflict needless pain on one of them , it would likewise be improper to inflict needless pain on the othe r. But the argumen t has pro gresse d too qu ickly. This a rgum ent wo rks only if the reason it is wrong to inflict need less pain on the one creature is that it feels pain. If there is some other reason so me rea son wh ich could differentia te hum an from non-h uman anim als then we would not be able to infer that it is illegitim ate to inflict needless pain on animals. Hence, if someone wishes to show that it is not wrong to inflict needless pain on animals, then she must identify some relevant difference between human and non-huma n animals, some differenc e which justifies this d ifference in treatm ent. And, of course , this is just wh at mos t defend ers of ou r presen t treatme nt of anim als are inclined to do. Tho ugh pe ople on ce rega rded a nimals as non-sentient creatures as mere automata that is no longer so.

Free Essays on Our Girls By Elizabeth Cady Stanton

Elizabeth Cady Stanton was a women’s rights activist in the 19th century who believed that women were to be treated equally to men. She argued this idea in one of her many speeches â€Å"our girls†. In â€Å"our girls† she discussed the general disposition of women as being one of dull routine, no intellectual conversation, and superficial beauty. Stanton tried to convince her audience that women needed pecuniary independence and intellect to make their lives better, more fulfilling, and even their health better. Stanton first said that women are beginning to awaken to the fact that they belong to an â€Å"ostracized class.† She claimed that within this class, women had no individual character, no purpose in life, no aims, and no ambitions. Women depended too much on men for their livelihood – but only because that is what they were taught to do. Men were trained to be superior while women were trained to sit in the shadows, listen obediently, and look pretty. Stanton refuted the idea that women were made to please men. She also denied that women should have merely a physical beauty. She saw that as a shallow faà §ade to the inner working inside their minds - which consisted of nothing (because of their lack of education). Since many of these beautiful, thin and fashionable women had no education, their source of knowledge was limited to their homes. Stanton was disgusted by their helplessness and dependence on men. Pretty girls may have had the tight waists and trendy clothing, but Stanton took an odd approach to convincing her audience that tight waists were nothing to aspire for. She used the same type of propaganda that men used for women, to say that tightening your waist could prevent circulation and result in paralysis around 6 inches of a women’s waist. Stanton associated deep thinking with deep breathing, leaving the audience to ponder over her sarcasm. Stanton went on to speak about women’s obsession with cosmeti... Free Essays on Our Girls By Elizabeth Cady Stanton Free Essays on Our Girls By Elizabeth Cady Stanton Elizabeth Cady Stanton was a women’s rights activist in the 19th century who believed that women were to be treated equally to men. She argued this idea in one of her many speeches â€Å"our girls†. In â€Å"our girls† she discussed the general disposition of women as being one of dull routine, no intellectual conversation, and superficial beauty. Stanton tried to convince her audience that women needed pecuniary independence and intellect to make their lives better, more fulfilling, and even their health better. Stanton first said that women are beginning to awaken to the fact that they belong to an â€Å"ostracized class.† She claimed that within this class, women had no individual character, no purpose in life, no aims, and no ambitions. Women depended too much on men for their livelihood – but only because that is what they were taught to do. Men were trained to be superior while women were trained to sit in the shadows, listen obediently, and look pretty. Stanton refuted the idea that women were made to please men. She also denied that women should have merely a physical beauty. She saw that as a shallow faà §ade to the inner working inside their minds - which consisted of nothing (because of their lack of education). Since many of these beautiful, thin and fashionable women had no education, their source of knowledge was limited to their homes. Stanton was disgusted by their helplessness and dependence on men. Pretty girls may have had the tight waists and trendy clothing, but Stanton took an odd approach to convincing her audience that tight waists were nothing to aspire for. She used the same type of propaganda that men used for women, to say that tightening your waist could prevent circulation and result in paralysis around 6 inches of a women’s waist. Stanton associated deep thinking with deep breathing, leaving the audience to ponder over her sarcasm. Stanton went on to speak about women’s obsession with cosmeti...

Candide by Nate Ziefert Essay -- book critique, French satire novella

Candide is a French satire novella first published in 1759 by Gabriel Cramer in Paris, France, and written by Franà §ois-Marie Arouet, or Voltaire, his pen name, a philosopher of the Age of Enlightenment. This book was chosen to show what life was like in France prior to the French Revolution and to provide an overview of the political issues of that period. Reading the book provided context for discussing various themes, including the importance of reason, the corruption of the church, money and power, inequality, which were all-pressing issues in the time period we studied. The book was useful to our course of studies because it detailed what life was like in France during the middle of the 18th century and provided context for what was taught in class--for example corruption by powerful forces in French society, such as the unfair treatment and pay between serfs and their feudal lords. A number of historical events lead Voltaire to write Candide. The first was the publication of Leibniz's "Monadology", an essay discussing Leibniz’ philosophy of optimism. Two other historical events, the Seven Years’ War and the 1775 Lisbon earthquake, also provided inspiration to Voltaire. The close of the Leibniz’ piece, "Therefore this is the best of all possible worlds", serves as the primary basis for Voltaire’s satire. Things were not so good in France, at the time for the majority of the French people and there was not much reason for optimism. Voltaire rejected Leibnizian optimism because if he was in the best of all possible worlds, a tragic and devastating earthquake should not have occurred. Natural disasters simply do not fit into the philosophy of optimism. Voltaire’s point of view is very logicergy goes into the work, and he stops all of his previous philosophical speculation. Finally, he is content. The text was entertaining, but highly improbable, and provides a good perspective from which to view the culture and politics of Spain and France in the mid-1700’s. The themes—the hypocrisy of religion, the foolishness of optimism, the uselessness of philosophical speculation and the corrupting influence of power and money—are expressed in an wildly entertaining manner. I found the way Voltaire interwove the characters with his themes and used satire most interesting. He made the characters whose opinions he disagreed with look like fools in order to discredit their beliefs, and he made his points through characters that were likable. Candide was definitely worth reading and packed in a lot of history and philosophy into a fast-paced, action story.

Design the Training Plan Research Paper Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1250 words

Design the Training Plan - Research Paper Example Indeed, ADDIE has been very useful to determine how the knowledge, skills, and abilities of the employees would be enhanced that would be suitable to the cultural values imposed by the Hilton hotel (Thomas, Mitchell, & Joseph, 2002; Chevalier, 2011). With ADDIE, trainers for Hilton staff of Texas will need to improve their assertiveness, time management, initiative, and open-mindedness skills that were used as a basis for the training design and development. After completing the 5 scenarios. Participants will be divided into five groups with eleven members each. The members of the group will line up face to face and fold their folders that would be connected to the folders of their co-members. The folders of the members would serve as bridge to let the egg surpass from one folder to the other as the group members could walk and catch the eggs until they would reach the finish line. Â   The situation is that the world is in danger as it is infected with deadly toxic wastes and this will destroy the world in a matter of time if it will not be neutralized. The challenge for the participants is to transfer the balls (toxic waste) from the small bucket to the large bucket, for neutralization. However, there is a radiation circle surrounding the two buckets and must maintain a distance away from it. If a participant will go beyond that circle he/she will suffer a severe injury or death. It is in the hands of the group to save the planet within 20 minutes or else everybody will be doomed. This is an indoor activity. Participants are divided into partners by counting them off by two. Let the partners decide who will be number one and who will be number two. The participants who are number one will be lead out of the room and have them blindfolded. The blindfolded participants are called the casualty of war and they are stuck in a field of mines. But they don’t need to worry because their partners will going to rescue