Experimental Training Program: Wilderness/adventure Learning :: essays research papers

Experimental Training Program: Wilderness/Adventure Learning Training employees is a fundamental element of a corporations success. A company succeeds only as well as the people running it can perform. This training process can cover many skills and go into many areas of expertise. One key element that has only recently come into action is an outdoor- based experiential training program. Commonly called "ropes courses," wilderness courses or adventure learning programs have been in use in the USA since the early 1980's, and by organizations in the UK since the early 1970's. Outdoor programs have been most beneficial when used to promote effective work teams and used to enhance leadership and management skills in the participants. Outdoor- based training programs seem to accomplish these objectives by allowing participants to develop a high level of trust in their peers, improve their problem-solving ability, and generally improve the level of interpersonal communications between group members. Companies are looking for leaders that can launch them into a new era. Constant improvement is necessary to meet the growth of challenging competition. So who defines leadership? What is a leader and how would you raise these skills that may be laying dormant in your subordinates? Organizations need great leaders to help them successfully survive the many difficulties of this decade. Yet, the very notion of leadership has rapidly degenerated into a clichà ©, a buzz word. In many people's minds, leadership has become identified with an overly simplistic conception of vision and empowerment. Although these concepts do play an important role in the leadership process, they only scratch the surface of what an exceptional leader actually does on a day-to-day basis. What do leaders really do to make an organization work well? In my research I found that great leaders exhibit nine different kinds of behaviors that enable them to bring out the best in the people around them. Some of the nine behaviors of leadership listed below involve building participatory teams, some involve using "situational management strategies," while others enhance personal resources. Listed separately, the nine behaviors include: Developing people. Being able to influence others. Encouraging teamwork. Empowering people. Using multiple options thinking. Taking intelligent risks. Being passionate about work. Having a strong, clear vision. Stretching one's personal creativity. While many people think leaders are unique, even born to that state of excellence, I have found just the opposite. With proper experiential training, it is possible for people to learn these leadership behaviors. In other words, leaders can be developed. By all means they should be developed at many levels in an organization because leadership in a hierarchical situation stimulates the best in their followers and thereby increases overall productivity.

Big Pharma’s Marketing Tactics Essay

The Big Pharma controversy is about the wide-scale marketing malpractices used by big pharmaceutical companies in America which resulted in a series of negative implications on consumers. It revolves around pharmaceutical companies, government regulators, health professionals (or â€Å"unprofessional†), market consumers and the medical watchdogs. The dispute was formed between the supporters of the marketing tactics used by pharmaceutical representatives and the detractors to it. Specifically it is the context that matters: Is it right, or rather ethical for the medical professionals to profit at the expense of the patients? Are there more underlying factors that led to this controversy? It is important to achieve a balance between the benefits and drawbacks of the marketing tactics used by the pharmaceutical industry; however it is more essential to consider the ethical issues pertaining to these tactics. Certainly, both the consumer welfare and health are of primary concern; but our ethical obligations are not discharged solely by a guarantee of some degree of protection from harm. Still, I strongly believe that the health considerations of consumers should be put before profit maximization, because, unmistakably, the pharmaceutical industry has the responsibility to treat people’s health, instead of harming them. This essay will seek to examine the ethical implications of drug promotion efforts by pharmaceutical giants, the social impacts of drug promotion on consumers as well as the approaches to contain this dispute. Key Issues To Be Discussed  The key ethical issues of argument related to Big Pharma are the questionable marketing practices exercised by the pharmaceutical industry, product safety, science for sale and lobbying efforts. These critical issues have been emotive and multi-dimensional. As a result, it attracted a wide range of views about the topic. Questionable Marketing Practices The marketing efforts of Big Pharma have always been under the media spotlight and the scrutinization of the public and medical watchdogs. The pharmaceutical marketers have made use of different medium to reach to the potential consumers and professionals. The extensiveness of the promotion efforts of the drugs had proliferated into every corners people’s lives. However, many believe that the pharmaceutical industry’s hunger for profits triumphs over their genuine desire to help the public, and that this blinded concern for profits continues to shape the future of this industry. The core of this debate is whether the high cost of drugs is justifiable by the cost of research and development done by the pharmaceutical companies. Has the money been used elsewhere? In fact, the world’s major drug companies have been accused of spending large sums of money on promoting their drugs, rather than researching on them. Big Pharma has developed a plethora of ways to reach out to the public to advertise on their latest and greatest drugs; from television and radio spots to newspaper and internet ads. The advertising budget for the drug companies have sky-rocketed to a significant sum. In 2007, GlaxoSmithKline (GSK)’s biggest advertising price tag was attached to Advair, the firm’s blockbuster asthma medication, which rung up US$127 million in advertising spending. The total amount of money spent on marketing by pharmaceuticals was U. S. $57. 5 billion for 2004. The total spent on domestic industrial pharmaceutical R&D was U. S. $31. 5 billion. Clearly, the promotional workings of the drug companies have shown that the U. S. pharmaceutical industry is still mainly marketing-driven. Corrupted practices among doctors and health professionals are not uncommon in the pharmaceutical industry either. Doctors or even undergraduate medical students were bombarded with logo-infested freebies by the companies, in order to persuade them to prescribe their drugs to patients. Many physicians were subjected to financial lures by companies to convince them to favour their drugs and prescribe them. Back in 2009, a study out of Harvard University and Massachusetts General Hospital found that 84 percent of doctors have ties to drug companies, a ten percent drop from five years earlier. But roughly two thirds of doctors still accept drug samples, while 70 percent accept food and beverage incentives from drug companies. And fourteen percent continue to accept cash payments for services. While some of these unethical practices were tapered off, not all were uprooted. Some octors did not disclose the amount of gifts and cash which they have accepted from the drug companies. They believe that their decisions on the prescription of drugs would not be influenced by the gifts which they have accepted. In my opinion, the supporters, primarily the health professionals and representatives of the pharmaceutical giants, have disregarded the genuine health implications and the high drug costs incurred to the general public in concern. They might try fending off such moral challenges by claiming that substantial amount of advertising is necessary to boost the sales of their products. Securing more profits would also mean more money can be invested on research for better drugs. However, it is evident that the excessive promotional efforts of drugs have blinded the pharmaceutical industry, in the pursuit of more profits and sales. Their main concern of profit maximization still remains ahead of the interests of the community. Corruption practices among health professionals should also be stemmed out so that unfair and biased decisions made by doctors would not affect the drugs prescribed to consumers. A significant sum of money should still be used for the development of better drugs to improve the quality of the lives of people. In conclusion, the principle of utilitarianism actually provides the latitude in deciding the extent of marketing efforts by pharmaceutical giants. Health professionals should not benefit at the expense of the patients. Instead, doctors should always act in the best interest of the patients. It is thus important to achieve a balance between the marketing efforts and the genuine interest for the health of the public. Product Safety The safety of the drugs produced has been a compelling issue in this argument. Drug companies have been reportedly illegally promoting drugs for uses for which they were not approved by the authorities. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) alleged that Astra Zeneca, an Anglo-Swedish giant, illegally promoted Seroquel, an anti-psychotic drug, for off-label purposes, specifically to physicians who do not normally treat patients with schizophrenia or bipolar disorder. Instead, they marketed it in long-term care facilities and prisons for the treatment of unapproved uses, including Alzheimer’s disease, anger management, anxiety, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder and depression. Subsequently, it led to the recall of the drugs and AstraZeneca paid $520 million to resolve allegations for illegally marketing Seroquel for unapproved uses. Some of these unapproved drugs were marketed through different means. Very often, these off-label drugs were made from low quality materials, or were contaminated in the production process. Due to the competitive drug market, manufacturers are tempted to cut corners by outsourcing production to potentially unreliable third parties and skimp on testing the product before releasing it into the market. As a result, some of these products could pose significant health risks to consumers. The trust consumers have on Big Pharma still remains as a big question. Should consumers continue to trust that the drugs manufactured by the pharmaceutical companies are legal and safe for consumption? There is no definite answer to it. Pharmaceuticals are responsible for saving and improving the lives of many people. However, it seemed to turn out otherwise. Again, profit maximization remains as the top priority of pharmaceutical companies. I believe it would still take some time before the drug industry come to a conclusion between profit-making and the health considerations of the public. In my opinion, it is reasonable for drug companies to source for cheaper alternative and achieve low costs in drug production; however, it should adjust or halt the development if serious problems emerge. Thereby, it is important for drug manufacturers to be mindful of the negative consequences that their products have on consumers. Science for sale Science has always been considered an objective endeavour that removes any form of bias in researches and is inherently true and reliable. The results should be generated independently, without bias and with the sole desire to find the best treatments. However, medical researches today, have become corrupted by money and special interests, and often misrepresent the truth to suit personal needs or corporate economic interests. The underlying motive still boils down to profit-making. Consider the example of the large and widely quoted Jupiter trial â€Å"proving† that Crestor, a cholesterol-lowering drug, could prevent heart attacks in people with normal or low cholesterol. In this trial researchers twisted the data to suit the commercial sponsor of the study. An independent review of the Jupiter trial published in the Archives of Internal Medicine showed that it was deeply flawed and the actual data did not show any benefit for the prevention of heart disease. Most medical researches are undoubtedly funded by pharmaceutical giants. Hence, in order to introduce the product into the market, findings are often tailored to be parallel with the economic interests of the company. I believe it is unethical for Big Pharma to pay researchers to twist the truth about bad outcomes and to sneak distorted information and marketing messages into medical journal articles. The consumers’ healths are at stake as they place much trust in the manufacturer when purchasing the products off shelves. If the research, development and distribution of drugs continue the same as it used to be, not only healthcare is at risk, but so are the research enterprise and the reputations of government bodies. The integrity of scientific research is too important to be left to the invisible hand of the marketplace. Healthcare authorities are needed to regulate and ensure that medical results are not manipulated by selfish pharmaceutical companies which are only concern with individual gains. Lobbying efforts Pharmaceutical giants have spent heavily to lobby government bodies. Part of the high costs of drugs is explainable by the high expenditure devoted to lobbying. New disclosure reports in Congress showed that familiar players at the top of the health-care influence heap, includes $6. 2 million in lobbying by the dominant Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA) and $4 million by the American Medical Association. Detractors of pharmaceutical lobby argue that the drug’s industry influence allows it to promote legislation friendly to drug manufacturers at the expense of patients. The perfect example of this is the dishonourable legacy of Nevada Senator and U. S. Senate Majority Leader, Harry Reid. Reid was exposed for accepting large sums of money from Big Pharma in order to craft and guide the health care bill in Big Pharma’s favour. The health care bill drastically expanded Big Pharma’s monopolistic control over America’s health care. Corruption practices by healthcare regulators and government bodies are unavoidable. Acceptance of extravagant gifts and money from powerful lobbyists like Big Pharma would easily allow them to control the government and shape the public health care policies. Financially influenced politicians have their campaigns heavily funded by the pharmaceutical industry. In return, these politicians would help Big Pharma in warding off most government regulations so as to promote their drugs into the drug market. The practice of lobbying is both unethical and deceptive. Such a notion demonstrates the unscrupulous manner in which the pharmaceutical industry runs their operations. It also illustrates that they have no qualms about manipulating the Congress and deceiving the public to achieve their ultimate goals. In my opinion, the government should keep check on these corrupted practices in the Congress and should ban any form of corrupted behaviours that have a large cost to the public. Bridging the gap between the proponents and the detractors Pharmaceutical companies should consider the impact of their actions on the society, who are also direct stakeholders to the issue. The importance of corporate social responsibility (CSR) should be further put into actions. Big Pharma should always take actions that protect and improve the welfare of society as a whole along with their own interests. Besides safeguarding economic and legal obligations, certain responsibilities to society should be extended beyond these obligations. I believe that pharmaceutical companies which simply conduct more researches to prove the safety of their products are not going to win over the public totally. Instead, the businesses need to develop more counter-images or cases to boost good representation. It could be better illustrated by taking the case of GlaxoSmithKline (GSK)’s initiative of selling the company’s malaria vaccine in Africa for no more than a 5 percent profit. GSK is one of the few pharmaceutical companies that succeeded in developing drugs that are beneficial in the developing world. It is thus evident that the pharmaceutical giant is not all about profit maximizing, but also have the intention to help the less fortunate people. I strongly feel that more stringent regulation and compliance standard from the government would be one way to instill trust in the detractors after all the spotty scandals of Big Pharma. An example would be to issue stronger warnings on the bribes accepted by politicians and researchers from pharmaceutical companies. Given the complexity of the issue, it would help to eradicate any forms of bias in the short run, regardless whether it is for medical researches or bills passed on by the legislation. All in all, it is still dependent on the integrity of researchers and politicians to weigh the risk against potential benefits derived with their own judgement. Higher transparency from the government and corporate would be crucial in determining the trust from the public and the criticism from the detractors. As such, with higher transparency, and more giving back to the society, it might help to regain the public trust and reduce detractor’s scepticism. According to the CSR Pyramid, it is undoubtedly that the biggest responsibility of the Big Pharma should still remain as profit maximization. However, legal obligations should not be neglected as well. Corrupted actions should be eliminated from the industry and healthy marketing practices should be encouraged instead. Accurate medical researches should be bias-free and not swayed by any forms of financial lures. Health professionals should always act in the best interest of patients. The pharmaceutical scene would still require further fine-tuning before we could promote a healthy relationship between the government, the manufacturers and the consumers.

Corporations as Moral Agents Essay

I chose to evaluate the second debate because I thought it was the most significant to the purpose of the class: to analyze the moral responsibility of business. The debaters were assigned to negate and affirm the following motion: Corporations are Moral Agents. In my opinion, this motion comes down to the decision to hold corporations responsible for their (corporations) decisions on a moral basis or just hold them responsible for their decisions on a legal basis. If a company were found to be a moral agent, then they would not only have a utilitarian obligation to who they are fiduciaries for, but also a moral obligation to society regardless of stakeholder or shareholder theory. On the other hand, if a company were not found to be a moral agent, then the phrase â€Å"it’s just business† would hold truth for corporations as a whole; as long as the company acted within the boundaries of the law and to maximize the utility of whom they represent as an agent, there would be no moral ground to criticize or opt for a change in practices. In this essay I will outline the arguments each side used to support their case, the additional arguments I believe should have been used, and an evaluation of who won the debate and reason why. The debate was composed of two teams, each of which had 4 members. They each had a 5-minute main speech to prove their arguments, and a 2-minute rebuttal speech to disprove that of their opposing counterparts. Although the speeches were given in an alternating fashion between both teams, I will layout all of the proposition’s arguments, then layout all of the oppositions arguments, and finally move on to chronologically stating the rebuttals. The first speaker of the proposition cleverly set the tone for the debate by defining important terms from the motion. Speaker 1 defined agents as something or someone that acts in behalf of another, and then went on to use the transitive property and identity thesis to state that corporations are moral agents but not moral entities. Yet, the law treats and defines corporations as entities. Just because people are needed to help make decisions does not mean that a corporation is not an entity. Speaker 1 then mentioned that individuals are moral agents, to confirm the fact that the transitive property makes corporations moral agents because they are built from such. Without the assumption that corporations are not entities, the transitive property makes less sense because a corporation would be defined as one single unit. Under law, people and corporations are considered legally equal entities The affirmative team had four main arguments that were divided amongst their four speakers. The first speaker stated that there is legal and social precedent that the corporation entity is a fiction, and that it is an association of shareholders for the gain of shareholders solely. Their second speaker said that morality is related to the law and the freedom of the individual to decide what he/she will do in regards to the law. The third speaker reiterated their definition for moral agents as an argument: the corporation is not an entity of itself because it cannot make decisions on its own;, yet is a moral agent because it is made of individual moral agents, thus it acts with moral imperative due to the transitive property (a leads to b leads to c). Finally, their fourth speaker used the CEO of Whole Foods, John Mackey, to support his claim saying that a corporation is a moral agent because their decisions do not affect parts of the corporation but affect it as a whole. The first speaker not only defined the terms, but also spoke about the legal obligations and precedent that forces companies to maximize profits for shareholder within the confines of the law, without having to weigh in the morality of their decisions. She stated that it is management’s duty to safeguard the wealth of the corporation. Speaker 1 said that utilitarianism supports the motion because when the happiness of society in general is measured only individual happiness is aggregated with no regard for the happiness of corporations. Just because the theory of utilitarianism does not include corporations in their measure of happiness does not mean they are not entities. A dog is an entity, but is not included in this measure either. Moreover, mentioning that law does not require companies to weigh in morality of their decisions completely limits any argument the affirming side could say with the exception of the transitive property. According to that phrase, corporations are not moral agents under law. Also, they use the law here to support their argument, while in their definitions the argued against it to disprove corporations as entities. This double purpose use weakens the claims. The debate concluded by leaving the audience with an analogy that was to be used again later on in the debate: a corporation is a sports team: its an agent, comprised of constituents or players, that makes plays to win or lose a game; yet without the players, it does not exist. Transposed to the actual corporation, the corporation would be the team with the managers and employees as its players, and making or losing money as their wins or losses. The analogy is valid, with the exception of the last part, considering the existence of shell corporations or solely patent holding companies that do not require any employees. The second speaker of the proposition furthered his team’s original claim that individuals are moral agents. He proved that individuals are moral agents by using Kant and French’s arguments of identity and transitive property. He mentions that the autonomy of the will is the foundation of morality and that a sense of law is within everyman that can reason. Moreover, he goes on to talk about universal laws and Kant’s categorical imperative saying to â€Å"act only according to that maxim whereby you can, at the same time, will that it should become a universal law. † These arguments do prove individuals as moral agents, but at no point in time was it linked to how this would prove corporations to be moral agents, other than the restatement of the transitive property. On the other hand, they could have tried to argue that corporations had autonomy of the will because different managers within the company exercise it to make a conglomerate of different decisions, thus giving the company a unique autonomy of the will and making it a moral agent according to Kant. The third speaker of the proposition starts by delineating the difference between an agent and a moral agent. He states that agents are something or someone that act on behalf of another, while moral agents are the same but with the ability to make decisions upon their own morality. He then goes into mentioning the transitive property again, but this time it is at least cleverly tied to the team’s first speaker’s point mentioning that corporations cannot be moral entities as there is a legal precedent that disproves this claim, thus supporting that fact that corporations have to be composed of individual entities. I find it hard to believe that legal precedents disprove this claim when corporations are legally defined as entities. Just the fact that the word legal is used weakens the argument, which should have only spoken about precedents trying to avoid any issue of legality. He then goes on to say that because people who are moral agents compose companies, companies act with a moral imperative due to the transitive property. This is valid, but repeated several times. It should have been built upon to create a stronger argument that legitimized corporations as moral decision-making agents on its own. The fact that a unique combination of moral agents (managers) make decisions in a company means that a corporation has a unique decision making ability different to that of any other moral agent in existence, thus making it a moral agent within itself. Lastly, the fourth speaker for the proposition brought it some new points. He used Mackey to support his argument saying that a corporation is a moral agent because any decision it makes does not only affect parts of the corporation, but the corporation as a whole. This means that any decision a manager makes (with morality in mind) affects the company as a whole, and then the company affects the community at large through a decision that was originally made by an individual that weighed in morality in his decision making process. He mentioned how Whole Foods acts as a moral agent because every decision made by individuals within the firm affects its customers, supplier, employees and several others of the company’s stakeholders. He now goes on to use the team/player analogy speaker 1 told the audience to keep in mind. He says that when a player makes a decision, which as an individual was based upon morality to such extent, it affects his entire team and the team then goes on to affect the community at large. This means that the morality that weighed into that player’s decision was carried on by the team, thus affecting the community it resides in. I find this to be stretching the transitive property to thin. I made the decision to buy a mac book air computer; this decision affected Apple, Foxconn, and all the suppliers and companies involved in the process of making and distributing a mac book air. Saying that my â€Å"moral† decision to buy a mac book air computer makes all of these companies moral agents I find impossible. Moving on to the negative team, it identified 5 arguments within their speeches. The first speaker of the opposition argued that corporations were legally and contractually set-up for one purpose, thus eliminating any possibility for morality in its decisions. Moreover, she also argued that a corporation is not independent to act by what we, as people, think is right or wrong. This really supports the transitive property the other team is arguing for because it supports the idea that companies need people to act. Afterwards, the second speaker of the team argued that the only thing that makes someone or something a moral agent is the intention to act and not consequences of his/hers/its actions, thus a corporation could not be deemed a moral agent upon the consequences of their actions. Yet corporations do have intentions when making decisions. When Apple decided to publically apologize for its ineffective new map application on the IPhone, its intention was to help disperse the bad press and consumers irritation. The third speaker then argued that the majority of managers see themselves as acting in a morally neutral environment, thus making all the decisions made within a corporation amoral. If individuals are not basing decisions upon morality, then the transitive property would make corporations amoral decision-makers as well. Lastly, the fourth speaker of the opposition juxtaposes the legally implied impossibility of a corporation being a moral agent with the societal views on the matter to further disprove the claim. Laws and beliefs are influenced and based on society as a whole. If society does not see corporations as moral agents, which it doesn’t, then they aren’t. The negative team began by redefining the terms in the motion. She said that a moral agent is a being able of acting with preference to being right or wrong. If you look carefully at the words used, you can notice that they used the word being instead of entity, thus inherently defining a corporation as unable to be a moral agent. She first argues that a corporation has a legally binding duty to its shareholders to maximize profit. She says that, through history, corporations have only come into existence for the benefit of its shareholders. This is all partially true, but in reality profit is not always the entire purpose. When entrepreneurs create companies, they have values and specific purposes they want to tackle within society. The need for more entertainment, or better treatment for patients with a particular disease the founder of the company might have had. Companies are founded to fulfill a purpose that is not always to make profit. Speaker 2 then moves on to say that corporations are not independent to act upon what is right or wrong. For a corporation to be a moral agent it has to be able to self-determine. She supports this claim by signaling that a legal structure that is a moral agent cannot be giving birth by communication between other moral agents (people). To further prove a corporation lack of independence in this regard, she poses the dilemma of double counting. When an individual within a corporation commits a crime, both the individual and the corporation are punished independent of each other. Although this helps disprove the transitive property, it also means corporations are found legally liable for its self-determining decisions made by the conglomeration of its management team. The second speakers from both teams based their arguments of the same readings from Kant and Peter French. Speaker 2 of the opposition argued that corporations do not really have any other intention other than to make profit, and that even though the consequences of its decisions can be judged through a moral lens, these cannot be used to prove the morality of such decision maker as morality lies within the intentions of the decision and not the consequences. Again, this is only true to some extent. Entrepreneurs create companies based on values and passions. To say that the only purpose for which companies are created is for profit is to say that entrepreneurs are passionless. She concludes by saying that Corporations do not have to consider the categorical imperative of morality when making a decision, because they do not have the capacity as an entity to evaluate the categorical imperative and have the universal law in mind. This does not consider the fact that all the decisions made by managers did consider the categorical imperative of morality, thus every decision made by the firm is a moral decision. The third speaker from the negative team referred to a phenomenon seen in many large corporations; the delegation of responsibilities for one’s own decisions. She stated that most managers actually see themselves as acting in a morally neutral environment. Yet the transitive property only needs one manager basing his/her decisions upon morality for the entire corporation to become a moral agent. Moreover, she went on to tie her teammates arguments together by using a soccer team analogy. She proposed a theoretical soccer team whose purpose is to win games (equivalent to a company’s legal binding to maximize shareholder profits), and stated that the players and managers are the moral agents leading the team to victory. This would mean that soccer teams do not consider morality while playing, which I believe to be false. I doubt an elementary soccer team coach will tell the children in his/her team that it does not matter how much they hurt the other team with fouls as long as they win the game. She used Moore’s purposes of encouraging excellence in business practices, encourage practice of the corporation itself, etc. to prove that these â€Å"purposes† alluded to the individual morality of each employee and not to that of a corporation. Yet Moore argues that the excellence of business practices transposes to the practice of the corporation itself. A company that makes soccer balls’ excellence in business practice would be to make the best soccer ball possible even if they cost a little more. Under Moore, as long as corporations can be self-sustaining, they are to offer the best product possible even though it does not directly maximize profits (in the short-run at least). Yes, his theory is to be applied by individuals, but for the purpose of the business practice of the corporation. There is a sense of morality in a corporation that creates the best product it can for its customers. Lastly, the last speaker of the opposition began by establishing the notion that corporations always have a value maximization purpose and its decision-making has to reflect it. Thus inherently mandating how decisions have to be made in, and removing the corporation’s morality. Yet this ignores the morality of establishing that value maximization purpose, and assumes that a company can only have one value-maximization purpose. A division of a company might have the sole purpose of maximizing customer satisfaction. Additionally, he says that morality’s constraint on a company’s decision making exists only when a company acts outside the law. This would mean anything done within the law is moral. He gave examples of how society evaluates a company to show that morality fails to form part of that evaluation process as conveyed by the continuous investments in companies (like Nike) whom are constantly found to be using sweatshops for value maximization purposes. It is true that at the end of the day investors look at the earnings, but customers might no be interested in wearing shoes that were made by hungry children, thus negatively affecting earnings. In this sense, society does judge corporations on a moral imperative. There were a total of 8 rebuttals speeches. The statement and analysis of the rebuttals is going to be done in the chronological order of relevant speeches, thus alternating between the affirming and negating teams. The first speaker of the proposition began the rebuttal arguments by trying to completely change the playing field. She said tried to invalidate the opposition’s claim that there is no legal avenue to measure morality by saying that the fact that there is no legal avenue to measure morality says we are analyzing this question within the instrumental sphere, yet we should be doing so within a normative sphere as morality lies on it. I would argue that the instrumental sphere is more useful for evaluation of the motion because it is defined by practice rather than pure theory. The motion deals with real physical corporations and the morality of these corporations should be evaluated through a criterion that can analyze decisions that affect the real world. The second rebuttal speaker quoted French and used the aggregate theory, frequently touched by the proposition to support their claims for corporations, to describe a mob. This argument equaled the moral state of a corporation to that of a mob, who French explicitly said was amoral, thus completely delegitimizing the foundation of the propositions case with the use of the affirmatives team’s own sources. He closed by saying, â€Å"To treat a corporation as an aggregate for any purposes is to fail to recognize the corporation as different from a mob. † I thought this to be the killing blow in the debate considering the third rebuttal speech basically just said that even if corporation does not need to act morally, they due consult to morality when making decisions. I think what should have been done is clarify that a mob is a disordered group of people, while a corporation has a hierarchal defined structure. The second negating rebuttal speech focused on tackling to the transitive property by trying to turn it against the affirmative team. She said both sides agreed that a corporation was a sum of moral agents, and went on to say that the moral agency of a corporation is the sum its managers. This means that morality lies within each individual and can be summed up as such because there is no morality of the corporation on its own that has to be added. This disproves the idea that a corporation has moral agency of its own. She used Enron as an example by mentioning that its managers were tried for immoral acts, and would otherwise not have been if Enron were actually a moral agent. Yet, the addition of morality through individual managers creates a unique moral identity that could be identified as that of the corporation’s. The sixth rebuttal from the negating team coupled the restatement of their definition of a moral agent with the team analogy mentioned at the beginning of the debate to show how outrageous the propositions use of the transitive property really was. She said, â€Å"Our definition of a moral agent is a being that is able to act upon moral tendencies. If the player acts immorally, it does not mean the team is a moral agent, or for that matter that the entire universe is one single moral agent’. This argued against the idea that if a player makes a moral decision that has an impact on its team this is carried on by the team onto the community, thus making the team a moral agent. Theoretically, according to the transitive property and through a moral sphere lens this would be the case, but the motion is being viewed through the instrumental sphere lens. Under this instrumental length, the transitive property loses a lot of its validity. The last speaker of the opposition made a last attempt to restate all three of his team’s arguments, but these had all already been disproved through the rebuttal and no extra supporting evidence was given to make them viable again. On the other hand, the last rebuttal speech of the negating team focused on further disproving the aggregate theory. She stated that the moral aspects of a corporation come directly from the individuals within the firm. Moreover, she said that Kant’s requisites, for morality, of freedom of will and autonomy cannot be applied to corporations because that freedom of will and autonomy lies within each individual employee. What is not considered is the unique will a corporation has as a consequence of the wills of all of its employees.

Interview quiz Essays

Interview quiz Essays Interview quiz Essay Interview quiz Essay Name: Sazzad Hossain Id: 082 084 0 10 Eng 103. 23 For QUIZ How to Prepare for a Job Interview You have just got your degree. You have applied for a fantastic job and are thrilled to get a letter inviting you to attend an interview. Once the euphoria has subsided you begin to feel a little nervous and delf-doubt begins to creep in. People worry that they may make fools of themselves or fall flat on their faces. The job interview is a hurdle that causes many people to panic. It ranks alongside a visit to the dentist in terms of fear and loathing.It makes people break out into cold sweats, sleep badly, and turns their stomachs into a sailor’s knot. Interviews can indeed be scary, especially if you have not been interviewed for a job before. However, a job interview does not need to be so traumatic as there are simple steps you can take to give yourself the best chance to succeed. To do well at an interview you have to find out as much as possible about the job, get a friend to give you a mock interview, and plan for the day well in advance. The first step is to find out about the company and position.Nearly all companies have a mission statement which outlines their aims, priorities and goals. The body shop, for example, is strongly against animal testing. Dropping hints at the interview that you are committed to animal rights will help convince the interview panel that your values match theirs. Another way to increase your knowledge of the company is to look at its ab=nnual report and organizational structure. Showing that you have taken the time to read lengthy and complex information related to the company is certain to be viewed favorably.The internet is a great source of information in this regard and it is also of value in that you can comment on the company’s website during the interview. You should also find out about any new products or services the company may be offering. If the job you are applying for is in marketing, for instance, the interview panel may want you to comment on rival products or say something about their own product’s strengths and weaknesses. Finally, you also need to find out as much as you can about the position that you are applying for.Look carefully at the job description, which should give a detailed list of both essential and desirable skills necessary for the job. Knowing that the job requires excellent interpersonal and communication skills will allow you to prepare a few words detailing your exception abilities in this area. If word processing is desirable, you will be asked to use. You should also focus on the responsibilities and duties that will expected of you. Make sure you know what these are as they will be important for the interview itself and also in the next stage of your preparation; the mock interview.Now that you have all the information you need about the company and the job, you should brainstorm as many possible interview questions as you can for the practice interview. Most interviews will begin with simple question about yourself to help put you at ease and this is best place to start your brainstorming. Be prepared for open-ended questions’ such as, Tell us a little about yourself. Such requests for information are intended to find out about your ability to speak coherently, and are also used to reveal any negative characteristics you may have.Another common question is, What could you bring to the job? and it is here that your research will prove invaluable. You should also brainstorm situations that might occur in the job that you are applying for. If you are applying for a position as an air steward, for instance, you would need to prepare an answer to the question, What would you do if a passenger were rude to you? If applying for a position as a research assistant, you need to be able to answer, without excessive pausing or hesitation, questions on where to find information quickly. hen the mock interview has finished, get your friend to give you some honest feedback. Ask your friend which questions you did well on and which ones made your seem unconvincing or unsure. Also ask if any of your answers gave a wrong impression of your personality and make any changes that are necessary. Giving yourself a mock interview not only helps to prepare for the real interview, but also increases your chances of success. Once you have practiced you mock interview and are comfortable with your responses, you have to plan for the day itself.Apart from making several space copies of your CV, references, and qualifications to hand out tp the interview panel, you should make copies of any written projects that you completed at university that show your abilities in a good light. The people on an interview panel do not necessarily want to hear about what you can do, they want to see evidence of what you can do. Telling your future employers that you can write well or that you have good ideas on presenting information is never as effective as showing them examples of your work.The next step is to organize your transportation to the interview. Make sure that you know where the interview is going to take place, how to get there and how long it will take. You will also need anticipate any possible problems such as traffic jams and inclement weather. If the interview is taking place during rush hour, give yourself extra time to get to the interview location. The same is true if the weather forecaster has predicted bad weather. Nothing creates a worse impression that arriving late for an interview.Indeed, it is much wiser to arrive early to allow yourself time to freshen up after the journey. This relates to the final and perhaps most important part of your interview preparation which is making sure you look presentable. This requires you to get your clothes ready well before the interview. Finding out at the last minute that your interview attire is noticeably stained, no longer fits, or has button missing somewhere leads to panic and stress. Wearing nice, clear clothes, and even having your hair neatly cut or styled attractively does much to increase your self- confidence.Rightly or wrongly, employers often make up their minds about a candidate within the first fifteen seconds of the interviews, so the way you look when you first walk in courts a great deal. Interview panels often have a difficult time choosing the right candidate for the position as there are so many applicants who have the qualities and skills they are looking. Spending some time doing some basic research, practicing your interview technique and organizing well in advance for the big day will maximize your chances of persuading the interviewers that you are the best person for the job.Being interviewed is stressful and it is only natural to feel nervous about it. However, successful applicants overcome the anxiety involved through meticulous preparation. This may sound like hard work, but the reward is getting the job you want. These steps are not a secret. They are listed in nearly every interview guide that you will find in books, magazines or on the internet. The reason that they are recommended is because they have worked for the countless number of people who have used them. If you follow these steps, I am sure they will also work for you.

Why Are Cosmetics So Attractive to Adolescent Girls Speech or Presentation

Why Are Cosmetics So Attractive to Adolescent Girls - Speech or Presentation Example I feel that my aims and objectives were simple but relevant. Young girls’ self-esteem usually plummets as they reach adolescence because it is the time when they are developing their own identities. The research question opens up to a world of possibilities in terms of topics to discuss in the literature. The literature review provided much information about the topic at hand and more. It is comprehensive enough to cover the history of cosmetics, societal influence on women to look good, the beauty myth propagated by media and other media influences, adolescence and some theories that relate to the building of their self-esteem.   All these come together to explain some possible answers to the research question for this study. The use of questionnaires and focus group discussion will allow me to delve deeper into the issue with actual adolescent girls aged 13 to 17. I will get the opportunity to hear their insights first-hand as they discuss within a group the following questions: - Do you use cosmetics? If yes, which ones? - - How often do you use cosmetics? - Why do you use cosmetics? - How do you feel when you use cosmetics? - Do you use cosmetics with your friends? - How do you think people see you when you use cosmetics? - What do you think you can get out of using cosmetics? Right now, it seems so easy because I am only visualizing it, but I am sure that there will be several challenges along the way such as seeking the necessary permissions to conduct the study or dealing with uncooperative participants. In terms of preparation, I guess I failed to anticipate what I would feel in front of an audience. My stage fright was terrible but it was good that I had a small audience of people I knew. It was also great that they were so supportive. I think it is because they can relate to my situation because each of us had our turn presenting. I need to learn to be more confident in speaking. I know being prepared with my talk is a must, but I should learn to loosen up and be more candid, be open to whatever possibilities that may arise during my presentation.

Self Evaluation-Educational Objective Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 500 words - 1

Self Evaluation-Educational Objective - Essay Example To further enhance my skills I would like to get enrolled in the MBA program where I can gain more knowledge and at the same time utilize my practical experiences and contribute to this industry. I got knowledge about it by a friend who has taken part in the MBA program and was satisfied with the curriculum and results of it. I believe that this is the right time to apply for an MBA program as education provides advantages and helps in improving the performance of the person in practical work life. I believe the most important concepts today are globalization, corporate governance and group work. The concepts and theories related to them help a lot in understanding and managing issues which arise. The most crucial issues to be managed are cultural diversity, discrimination and lack of communication skills. I believe that MBA program will be helpful in understanding the ways to tackle these issues and maintain a level of understanding between the group members or employees of the orga nization. I have the capability to work in a group and coordinate with my team members in an efficient manner. This will assist me in coordinating in a good manner with my colleagues in the MBA program and share experiences. The program will at the same time help me in broadening my perspectives with regard to the financial sector.

The Social, Economic, and Political Situation of Kuwait post Gulf War Essay

The Social, Economic, and Political Situation of Kuwait post Gulf War 1990-1991 - Essay Example Even before the Gulf War, Kuwait was facing some political conflicts with Iraq regarding territory occupation, oil, and debts. However, the political system and foreign relations of Kuwait altered after Iraq’s invasion, along with a constant fear of another attack from Iraq. The Gulf War also had a significant impact on Kuwait’s social conditions, especially on the role of women and Shiites, attitudes regarding Palestinians, and social welfare of the people. Although Kuwait gained victory from Iraq within days of the invasion, the social, political, and economic situation of Kuwait post war was a far cry from the situation that existed before the war (Ashkanani, Hadi Ridha., Shears, Jane. 21; Czinkota, Michael R., Ronkainen, Ilkka A. 618; Crystal, Jill. 176; Isiorho, Soloman A., Gritzner, Charles F. 85, 94, 95; Fasihuddin; Omar, Abdullah; Shenon, Philip; Finlan, Alastair 83, 84; Cordesman, Anthony H 14, 15; Al-Mughni, Haya; Federal Research Division 83; Cushman Jr, John H.). Before the Gulf War, in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, the economy of Kuwait was mainly based on trade. It gained a lot of maritime advantage through trade with Asia, Africa, and Europe because of its strategically located natural port. The dependence of Kuwait’s economy then shifted to pearl diving in the nineteenth and early twentieth century. The reason for this was also the gulf, which provided natural pearl banks for harvesting by merchants and sailors. Closely linked to pearl diving was the emergence of the shipbuilding industry, as well as fishing. Trade and maritime occupations remained important monetary sources for Kuwait’s merchant class and foreign orientation till 1990. However, this economy was not enough to provide for most of Kuwait’s population, especially those outside the merchant families and ruling families. Pearl diving slowly began to decline, and came to a sudden halt in the 1920’s due to the Great Depression and Ja pan’s manufacture of an alternative for natural pearls (Federal Research Division 84, 85). Nevertheless, Kuwait’s economy got a chance to thrive when petroleum was discovered in its region in 1938. Its drilling was disrupted as a result of the World War, but then resumed in 1945. Kuwait further got an opportunity to prosper when oil was explored, produced, and exported in the 1950’s. A lot of revenue was gained due to the high demand of oil by foreign countries, and this revenue was used to improve Kuwait’s economy. Industries, social and physical infrastructure was built, along with much spending on the social and economic welfare of Kuwait’s people. This period between 1960 and 1980 was known as the ‘construction boom’, and became a magnet for large number of workers, especially from Iran, South Asia, and Arab countries. The strategic location of Kuwait’s gulf, and its enhanced communication and port facilities, contributed to an expansion of re-exports, trade, and many other commercial activities (Federal Research Division 85; Fasihuddin). However, the invasion and take over by Iraq led to various adverse economic consequences for Kuwait and disrupted its continuous economic development. The first thing Kuwait’s economy had to face was the hefty costs incurred as a result of the war. When Kuwait’s rulers had gone in exile, they had drawn down from Kuwait’