To the board of the Renaissance University Essay Example for Free

To the board of the Renaissance University Essay I am writing this recommendation letter on behalf of Adam Levine. Adam’s life revolves around his band and music. The experience and passion Adam holds are powerful qualities in his favor. He is a zealous music coach and musician. He helps his students and team on The Voice by inspiring them and pushing them to sing outside of their comfort zone and to explore different genres. He challenges young musicians and singers to grow as artists and helps them explore who they are as performers. Adam is young and talented himself, and because of that he communicates well with younger students. Adam Levine is a well-rounded, independent person. Not only is Adam famous for his musical talents he has branched out into television, starting from a comedic role on Saturday Night Live to his fulltime role as a judge on the reality show The Voice. Adam has struggled his whole life with Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD). He started a world-wide project known as â€Å"The Own It Project†, which is his way of encouraging young adults and adults to tell their story about how they deal with ADHD. Adam also is a big supporter of lesbian and gay rights (LGBT) and strongly believes it is something you are born with. His brother, Michael, is openly gay which the family has known about since Michael was two years old. Adam Levine has worked hard to gain confidence and overcome an in-born shyness he had since he was a little boy. His love of music, family, and friends has shaped him to be the man he is today. Adam now exhibits a personality so lively and outgoing that people are enamored by his entertaining qualities. In my eyes Adam has a very gentle personality. People are drawn to him, because he radiates warmth and a caring nature. Adam is the peacemaker on The Voice, always making an effort to find the good in the contestant’s performances, rather than being too critical of their mistakes. People sense Adams desire for a loving and spiritual environment. Adam may not have had strength when he was younger for the music business, but he has proved himself to be able to do anything he sets his mind to. Yours truly, ______________

Comparing Do not go gentle into that good night and When I consider how

Comparing Dylan Thomas's poem Do Not Go Gentle Into That Good Night and John Milton's poem When I consider How My Light Is Spent Dylan Thomas's poem "Do not go gentle into that good night" and John Milton's poem "When I consider how my light is spent" were written during times of trouble in their respective poet's life. Thomas was faced with losing his father to death; Milton was dealing with becoming completely blind at the age of forty-three. As each poet struggles to deal with the crisis occurring in his life, he makes a statement about the relationship between mankind and God, the reasons that God gives and then takes away certain gifts, and the proper way to live life. Thomas and Milton ended up with contrasting answers to these fundamental questions about life. The poets' use of personal events in their lives as a topic and their use of the personal pronouns "I" and "my" resolve possible questions of voice in both poems. Because Thomas refers directly to "my father" (line 6) and Milton opens his poem with the line "When I consider how my light is spent" (1), the reader can, with some basic knowledge of the history of each poem, reasonably assume that the poet and the speaker are interchangeable. Both Thomas and Milton chose to share their private thoughts on intensely personal matters with the world through their poems. By drawing from their own experiences, the poets give these works a tone that resonates with the reader because he/she can connect the words of the poem with his/her own life. Thomas and Milton present contrasting views of the relationship between mankind and God or the inevitable events of life. Thomas sees humans as having some degree of control; his father may not be able to live forever, bu... ...erent men at very different points in history, but both poets were struggling with difficult situations and trying to decide how they should react. Although their final conclusions are completely opposite , the raw emotion behind each poem resonates with the reader whether the poem is 45 or 345 years old. The human struggle to understand life, regret, and why God gives and withholds certain gifts will continue as long as humanity exists; each person who considers these questions will come to his/her own personal conclusions just as Thomas and Milton did. Works Cited: Milton, John. "When I Consider How My Light Is Spent." The Longman Anthology of British Literature: Compact Edition. Ed. David Damrosch. New York: Longman, 2000. Thomas, Dylan. â€Å"Do Not Go Gentle into That Good Night.† Literature and Ourselves. Addison-Wesley Educational Publishers, 1997.

Merrill Lynch-Bank of America Merger

Ethics is a branch of philosophy that focuses on the moral, philosophical characteristics from formal, systematic and ethical principles. Moral judgments are calculated from ethical principles which need to be applied as a standard for everyday choices in life and business. This is directly related to the decisions human beings make. Cavico (2009) states utilitarianism is more than just moral philosophy. It is a way of reformation and used extensively in government decision making. This will be discussed further in the Bank of America-Merrill Lynch merger.Utilitarianism is considered a scientific system of ethics and not just a philosophical theory of ethics. Utilitarian ethics follows the belief of maximizing the greatest good for the largest number of people. As utilitarianism is identified, one needs to learn that the greatest good could be based on aggregate principle or a distributive principle. The Bank of America-Merrill Lynch merger will be assessed in regards to who, what an d how the greater good will be affected in this merger. Within utilitarianism, a moral philosophy is developed that focuses on the consequences of specific actions.An action is done, then observed and then analyzed. After identifying all the people that were involved, one needs to ask the question, â€Å"Do the sum of good consequences outweigh the sum of the bad consequences? † Quantify all the good and bad consequences in the scenario and if the good consequences are greater than the bad consequences then the action was moral and vice versa. In this paper, the actions of the Bank of America-Merrill Lynch merger will be discussed, evaluated and quantified with the Richard DeGeorge Utilitarian perspective.Pinpointing the stakeholders in this case will show who was direct and indirectly affected and how they were affected. Furthermore, it will be discussed the overall affect it had on society from a global perspective, reaction from competitive markets and the economic impact it created within the United States and worldwide. Critical points and actions will dominate the course of action on how utilitarian ethics was applied in this situation. Identifying the individual people or groups that were in this scenario will be evaluated on a pleasure v. ain scale where it will show the extent of good or bad in the situation and the possible outcomes that followed. The pleasure v. pain comparison will then be quantified on a grading scale that represents extreme pleasures and pains in Bank of America-Merrill Lynch merger. After totaling up the good and the bad points, it will determine if the actions in this merger were moral. In late 2008, Bank of America and Merrill Lynch were in negotiations for a business deal. Bank of America was going to buy Merrill Lynch for one of the largest bank mergers and acquisitions in the world.On the surface, Bank of America thought the merger was a good idea and a good business deal to pursue. Former Chief Executive of Bank of America, Kenneth Lewis, and the board of Bank of America saw this business deal as a way to expand into different sectors of the financial markets and strengthen many of its counterparts. With all the extensive financial records of both companies and balance sheet assessments, the deal looked great for smooth sailing. Catastrophically, the deal went through and contributed towards a massive failure in our financial markets that affected and crippled everyone worldwide.The private deal that once seemed so good has now become a nightmare. All of a sudden, the government has stepped in and has announced it will give twenty billion dollars in assistance from tax payer’s money. Investors and the public were shocked something of this magnitude was happening and felt betrayed, cheated and crippled. Within all the mayhem, the actions that will be evaluated come from Merrill Lynch and Bank of America and their failures to disclose pertinent financial information that would have shown greater losses than expected.United States (2009) stated the lack of transparency to investors and to the public showed that there was a negative atmosphere among them that they feared to disclose from the public. In addition to this, rumors circulated that the government had ties to this merger and flexed its power in order to make the merger happen. There were a great amount of people affected in this merger. Merrill Lynch as a company was being bought out in order to be saved financially. Merrill Lynch’s investors, shareholders and CEO, John Thain were a part of this corporation.Bank of America was the number one candidate for purchasing Merrill Lynch at the time. Bank of America’s investors, shareholders and CEO, Kenneth Lewis were all a part of this major merger. United States (2009) includes the Secretary of the Treasury, Hank Paulson and Chairman of the Federal Reserve, Ben Bernanke were on the governmental side of this merger that apparently knew what was going on and forcefully made Bank of America buyout Merrill Lynch. This merger can also contribute to affecting the general public, global economies cross the world and the financial banking industry. As this case develops, there is uncertainty that Merrill Lynch and former CEO, John Thain, have to reveal massive amounts of losses and at one point a fourth quarter loss of fifteen billion dollars. In response, former CEO of Bank of America, Kenneth Lewis analyzes this and decides it may not be a good idea to pursue the merger. Secretively, the Fed, Paulson and Bernanke force Lewis to buy into the deal because if he doesn’t this could create a complete and total meltdown of the financial systems.Utilitarian ethics was used by considering the global economy; the government had to step in to minimize the blow as best as they could to help the greater good of society. In addition to this, there has been speculation that if Lewis hides these huge losses before the merger and reveals the m after the merger he could gain more government help in regards to the massive hit Bank of America now faces. Although the economy is in a meltdown and financial banks are getting hit harder than ever before, this merger may prove to save some of our largest financial institutions and lessen the blow of a complete loss for the global economy.On one spectrum of the scale we have the financial banks abusing high leverage investments in order to gain more money without caring about negative consequences but then on the other hand, the nation is faced with minimizing damages and saving as much as it can because in a result of total loss, the public could be in a greater state economic loss. With Merrill Lynch being saved and Bank of America taking on the bigger role of keeping afloat, Merrill Lynch now has the opportunity to be bought out and saved compared to total collapse and bankruptcy.In this case, it was a smart move for Merrill Lynch to be acquired by Bank of America and a fores eeable good in the future of the financial markets. Kenneth Lewis took the daunting task of acquiring Merrill Lynch and the bad debt expense that the company brought with it. Acquiring Merrill Lynch would provide a huge blow to Bank of America at first but restructuring and getting government help in the merger would prove to be a successful task that would provide foreseeable good in the future. Some people believe that Paulson and Bernanke used their governmental power to make this merger happen.Bank of America’s Acquisition (2009) states they forced Kenneth Lewis to buyout Merrill Lynch and if not Kenneth Lewis and the board of Bank of America would have been terminated. Although this may have been a threatening action, it was in the government’s best interest to make this merger go through or a total collapse of the financial markets would be devastating for the American population and further seep into global chaos. It is a very tough situation to assess but follo wing Utilitarianism considered the greater good of the population and this needed to be done.In addition to this, individual investors were hit very hard with the downturn of the economy. In many cases, people lost more than fifty percent of their investments which sounds terrible but comparing it to a nongovernmental bailout, those individuals would be left with nothing. In this research study, it is needed to define the severity of good and bad consequences for each individual or group that was affected in this case on a numerical grading scale. Each individual or group will be considered according to the Richard DeGeorge Utilitarian approach.The scale will be ranked from +5 being the best and -5 being the worst situation from a pleasure versus pain standpoint. Merrill Lynch being bought out by Bank of America is more of a good thing. Ranking it at +2 gives Merrill Lynch and Bank of America merger the positive side because without this merger people would be in greater amounts of trouble. Ranking a +1 for investors and shareholders of each company provides a positive side of this outcome. Although investors did lose over fifty percent of investments into the companies, this loss is better than losing everything that was invested.Other financial markets were consolidated and restructured. By getting rid of bad assets, other financial institutions could start over and reinvest in the proper markets. This was also a learning lesson for the financial industry and for them to never repeat these careless mistakes again. A rank of +3 will be given to the financial markets. Hank Paul and Ben Bernanke did prove to show excessive force in making this merger happen but only in regards to saving the U. S. economy and limiting the blow that it could’ve potentially produced.Giving the government a ranking of +2 shows they provided a better option for America and the possibility of avoiding a complete financial meltdown. Assessing our global economy by looking back at it over the past five years gives it a ranking of 0. This explains that as a country and globally, we have made minimal increases in our economy. One month says we are getting back on the right track while the next month says we are sinking deeper and deeper into recession. The economy shows a recovery in the stock arket one month but the next month there is speculation that the European markets are going to crash and take everyone with them. Living in these highly volatile times gives uncertainly and fear for most investors which hinders potential growth and recovery. After summing up all the pleasure and pain rankings, the total equals +8. This shows that amidst all the chaos, deceiving and cheating, the outcome created a positive effect that saved our economy as best as possible rather than let it sink and destroy everything.This tragic merger proves to be a morally correct standpoint regardless of the tough actions that were taken in order to achieve this outcome. No individu al cheated the system or manipulated the system in order to gain financial strength. It was in the best interest of the individual companies and the U. S. economy to keep them in tact or greater consequences could’ve occurred. Saving two of our largest banks provides us with a loss in investments but something that would be accepted rather than total and complete collapse of our financial systems.Primary Source: United States. (2009). Bank of America and Merrill Lynch: How did a private deal turn into a federal bailout? : joint hearing before the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform and the Subcommittee on Domestic Policy, House of Representatives, One Hundred Eleventh Congress, first session. Washington: U. S. G. P. O. Secondary Source: Bank of America’s Acquisition of Merrill Lynch: A â€Å"Shotgun Merger†?. (2009, June 16). My Bank Tracker. Retrieved August 4, 2012, from www. mybanktracker. com/news/2009/06/16/bank-of-americas-acquisition-of-merrill-l ynch-a-shotgun-merger/

Not Judge Others And I Should Forgive Essay - 727 Words

As a Christian, I have always been told that I should not judge others and I should forgive. As a Christian, one is also born in sin and that is why Jesus died on the cross. According to Luke 6:37-42, â€Å"Do not judge, and you will not be judged. Do not condemn, and you will not be condemned. Forgive, and you will be forgiven. Give, and it will be given to you. A good measure, pressed down, shaken together and running over, will be poured into your lap. For with the measure you use, it will be measured to you.† Basically, this scripture is reminding us to do unto others as you would like them to do unto you, and we should also respect each other’s lifestyles and decisions. For this reason, I believe that as a man, one should be able to live their life freely and one should not be punished or be feel oppressed because of their sexual orientation. We live in a diverse society that is comprised of different cultures, ethnicities, races, and religion. For that reason, one should not be forced to live by the Western ideology of femininity or masculinity. Oliver emphasizes that â€Å"if the predominant images and metaphors that circulate in Western political theory lead us to concretely understand our ourselves in these terms, then we are a social community with underdeveloped resources for representing and thereby negotiating love, cooperation, growth, and human flourishing† (Oliver 2004, 141). The Western ideology of masculinity molds and shapes in our men and society and causes ourShow MoreRelatedThe Characteristics Of Pride In Arthur Millers The Crucible1507 Words   |  7 Pagesinteract with each other and with certain events in the story. Pride isnt always a good characteristic to have and we see this as the trials continue even when most people realize that the whole idea is wrong and the people are innocent. In more ways than one, pride is on the other hand good in this play is shown by John when he is questioned by Danforth in Act 2 a bout Elizabeth’s character: â€Å"...such a woman that never lied, and cannot, and the world knows she cannot! I may falter somewhatRead MoreWhat Should You Do About Continuing To Do Business With1386 Words   |  6 PagesWhat should you do about continuing to do business with Marshall? Upon reception of the fax from Marshall, in this scenario, I would have hired a lawyer. Prior to any business dealings, there was an unwritten implied contract between Marshall and I. Our business relationship started on good faith and throughout the years, honest dealings were the norm. According to Ala. Code 1975, 26-1-1. Infants and Incompetents, states the age of majority is 19. I would encourage a new method of business dealingsRead MoreAnalysis Of The Sunflower By Simon Wiesenthal842 Words   |  4 Pagesexplicitly stated, or can a person be forgiven silently? When does someone have the right to forgive an individual? In the book The Sunflower by Simon Wiesenthal, the author, a Holocaust survivor, recounts an experience with an SS soldier, named Karl, on his deathbed asking Wiesenthal, a Jewish prisoner, for forgiveness for his inhumane actions, telling his tale with brutal detail. Wiesenthal neither forgives nor condemns the dying man, but instead leaves wordlessly. This ex perience has discomfortedRead MoreWhat The Crucible Can Teach Us About Life1173 Words   |  5 Pagesa cold house (137). Elizabeth realized that she should have acted more loving towards John, which would have added warmth to the house, when she had the chance. She also realized that she if she had not acted so cold toward John, he would not have committed adultery with Abigail Williams, her housemaid. Elizabeth Proctor also gained insight about John Proctor himself. During their last conversation together, John asks Elizabeth what he should do-confess and have his life, or die and have hisRead More The Relationship Between John Proctor and Elizabeth in Arthur Millers The Crucible1373 Words   |  6 Pageshint of suspicion aroused from Proctors recent affair with Abigail Williams. As the conversation carries on Elizabeth is very controlled with what she says. For example, Proctor says to her, Are you well today? and she replies, I am. It seems quite unnatural and forced. In the stage directions it says. He gets up, goes to her, kisses her. She receives it. To me it sounds that Elizabeth is just putting up with Proctor showing her any physical affection. She makesRead MoreTheme Of Forgiveness In William P. Youngs The Shack901 Words   |  4 Pagesnote in his mailbox telling him to meet in the Oregon wilderness. In The Shack by William P. Young, focuses on forgiveness when Will shows how the character forgives everything thing that has happened to him. How Mackenzie’s shifts in character when in the beginning when he is depressed because of his loss and at the end of the story he forgives and comes to terms with the loss. The author describes him meeting God by changing the environment from a cold winter day to a warm spring day in a way GodRead MoreThe Most Capricious Character : John Proctor1035 Words   |  5 Pagestheme of The Crucible. The Crucible is a play written by Arthur Miller in 1953 based on the Salem witch trials during the late 17th centuries. As the play gets closer to the end, some characters undergo dramatic changes, and some do not. In the play, Judge Dan forth remains stubborn and merciless; he indifferently sentenced nineteen innocent people to death by hanging, solely based on a group of girls’ false statements. He imprudently believed that testaments from children would always be true. Mary WarrenRead MoreGeorge Miller s The Crucible 1250 Words   |  5 PagesThere have been many times in my life that I could have submitted to authority, but I chose not to. I look back at times that I didn’t submit to authority and think about what the outcome could have been if I did. The one time I have submitted to authority was when I spoke up to a parent who was screaming at her little girl in public. The little girl had made a big mess of a table by pulling the table cloth which allowed everything on the table to fall off. I did not believe it was the little girlsRead MoreAnalysis Of The Article Rebellion 1156 Words   |  5 Pagesthe other hand, in his article â€Å"Why Does God Allows Evil?†, Swinburne suggest s that God does not allow evil, he just give humans free will and therefore they are the ones responsible for doing what is good or what is bad. God does not allow evil; humans decide to be evil, so they must be held responsible for the outcomes of their decisions. Why doesn’t God prevent evil? In his article â€Å"Rebellion†, Ivan claims, â€Å" †¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦. I am a believer. But then there are the children, and what am I goingRead More Unjustness in The Crucible by Arthur Miller Essay example1413 Words   |  6 Pageswrongly accused of practicing witchcraft. In particular, John Procter, a well respected leader in the town of Salem, soon becomes entangled in the Salem witch trials, when his wife Elizabeth and many other women of the town are accused of witchcraft by Abigail Williams, his former mistress. Unlike other characters in the story, Procters personality can be seen gradually changing throughout the course of the play, because of the events that occur in his life at the time of the trials. In The Crucible

Case Study 7 Sun Brewing - 1555 Words

Case #7 Sun Brewing 1. Looking at the joint venture agreement the first thing that is apparent is that the investors see their ownership of the company decreased from 49% to 32% which means less control of the company. On top of that, pre-venture Investors’ opinion was more important due to their ownership stake, but now they are the third actors within SIL. Looking at exhibit 8, we see that the newly formed executive committee does not include the investors, therefore it seems clear that from an operational standpoint, the investors did not get a great deal. Also, now SUN investors got exposed to western beer markets; however, the possible political turmoil in Eastern Europe at the time was worrisome. Basically, the investor’s controlling stake went down by 17%, and their compensation was obviously Interbrew’s skills and resources, but also the added risk coming from the Omsk and Chernigiv breweries in Ukraine which add risk considering the Geopolitical tensions happening in that r egion. Also, the assets received from Interbrew that were valued at $90 million could be overvalued or at risk decreasing in value due to political tensions in the region. Looking at both the operational and quantitative part of the joint venture agreement, we believe that the investors did not get the best possible deal, mainly because their influence decreased and the assets they got from the deal can be extremely overvalued depending on how the situation evolves in that part of the world. 2.Show MoreRelatedEssay Brewing and Beer2019 Words   |  9 PagesThere is not any first hand knowledge on how beer was discovered, but we can imagine the incident step by step. When the farmer discovered that his barley crop was wet, in order for him to salvage the crop, he probably spread it out to dry in the sun. Chances are that germination had already begun, and the grain had therefore malted and developed a much sweeter taste. The sweet result of what the farmer considered a disaster is now modern-day malted barley. This malted barley gave a sweeter tasteRead More Beer Essay2004 Words   |  9 Pagesnbsp;nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;There is not any first hand knowledge on how beer was discovered, but we can imagine the incident step by step. When the farmer discovered that his barley crop was wet, in order for him to salvage the crop, he probably spread it out to dry in the sun. Chances are that germination had already begun, and the grain had therefore malted and developed a much sweeter taste. The sweet result of what the farmer considered a disaster is now modern-day malted barley. This malted barley gave a sweeter tasteRead MoreThe Boston Beer Company1497 Words   |  6 PagesMarketing Research Fall 2011 Thursday 1:00 pm - 3:00 pm WO 20 Professor: Mengze Shi Project: The Boston Beer Company case Chernenko Kirill 998581510 The Boston Beer Company, Inc., founded in 1984, is a leading brewer in United States, offering wide variety of high quality full-flavored, handcraftedbeers. It is distinctive due to the time-honored recipe of brewing and authentic, consistent quality of alcoholic beverages. Samuel Adams Boston Lager is the pride of BBC, regular handcraftedRead MoreA Case Guide of the Global Beer Industry1905 Words   |  8 PagesCase Study Assignment 3 |What are the dominant business and economic characteristics of the global beer industry? | |The global beer industry is dominated by large corporations who have merged with rivals to increase their global and domestic market share. | |For example in 2004 Interbrew and AmBev merged to form the worlds largest brewing company in terms of volume ( ).Since then Miller | |Brewing has merged with Coors Brewing companyRead MoreMedicine in the Medieval Period Essay1482 Words   |  6 Pagesother parts of Europe. In 1348 one ship brought a devastating plague to England. Source 1-Written by a monk from Malmesbury in Wiltshire, in the 1350s: In 1348, at about the feast of the Translation of St Thomas the Martyr (7 July) the cruel pestilence, hateful to all future ages, arrived from the countries across the sea on the South coast of England at the Port called Melcombe in Dorset. Travelling all over the South country it wretchedly killed innumerableRead MoreCase Study New Belgium Brewing2315 Words   |  10 PagesNew Belgium Brewing A paper submitted in partial fulfillment for the Bachelor of Science degree in Business Administration and Finance Table of Contents Page No. Introduction†¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦.3 Environmental Issues†¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦..3, 4, 5 Strategic Philanthropy†¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦.5, 6 Ethical and Social Responsible†¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦...6, 7, 8 Areas of Development†¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦.8, 9 Conclusion†¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦9, 10 Resources†¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Read More Hops: Not Just A Beer Ingredient Essay1839 Words   |  8 Pagesthird year the plants will exhibit full growth. Height is very closely liked to the amount of sunshine the plant gets. Hops grow best in full sun and should be placed in an area with the best possible Southern exposure, They grow best in loose, well-drained soil. Blended peat moss and sand make a good growing environment. (1) Hops require a lot of water. Studies prove that once-a-day waterings give greater growth and yield, Hops also require a fertilizer to grow to optimum levels. Composted cow manureRead MoreStrategic Analysis of Sabmiller16447 Words   |  66 PagesTakeover of Ohlssons and United Breweries in 1956 4. Reincorporated in South Africa in 1970 5. Government Restrictions Leading to More Diversification: 1980s and Early 1990s 6. International Expansion in the Post-Apartheid Era 7. Moving into the Developed World As SABMiller, Early 2000s 2. CHAPTER 1 1. Introduction to South African Breweries (SABMiller plc) SABMiller plc ranks as the worlds second largest brewer in terms of volume, trailing only Anheuser-BuschRead MoreHackers and Forms of Electronic Trespassing1524 Words   |  7 Pagesgovernment sites report at least one break-in per year. The typical computer criminal is a trusted employee with no criminal record. Hacker Kevin Mitnick is alleged to have broken into several major organizations computer systems, including those of Sun Microsystems, Motorola, and the Pentagon. Mr Mitnick was ARRESTED on February 15,1995, after an FBI computer expert Tsutomu Shimomura tracked him down. Mitnick, the first hacker ever to have appeared on an FBI wanted poster. With 25 counts of allegedRead MoreStrategic Analysis of Sabmiller16462 Words   |  66 Pages 3. Takeover of Ohlssons and United Breweries in 1956 4. Reincorporated in South Africa in 1970 5. Government Restrictions Leading to More Diversification: 1980s and Early 1990s 6. International Expansion in the Post-Apartheid Era 7. Moving into the Developed World As SABMiller, Early 2000s 2. CHAPTER 1 1. Introduction to South African Breweries (SABMiller plc) SABMiller plc ranks as the worlds second largest brewer in terms of volume, trailing only Anheuser-Busch Companies

Retirement Is An Important Life Transition - 1741 Words

Retirement is recognised as being an important life transition (Szinovacz, 1980), associated with a number of adjustments including social roles, income and daily routine adaption’s (Pinquart Schindler, 2007). Although there is no single definition of what retirement is within existing literature (Denton Spencer, 2009), it can arguably be best understood as an subjective journey involving a psychosocial transition rather than a single event of exiting work or an objective life transition (Matour Prout, 2007, Kim Moen, 2002). Future retirees consider retirement to be a huge decision where they envisage what their daily life would be after exiting the work force, as well as the physical and emotional effort to make the transition†¦show more content†¦However, due to the limited qualitative research, quantitative research has been supplemented to provide an understanding of the retirement transition. Even though quantitative literature will be reviewed, a critical st ance is taken due to the different assumptions and philosophical underpinnings which are highlighted throughout. Firstly, retiree’s can experience some losses during the retirement transition. It can be suggested that work is more than just bringing home an income (Kleiber Linde, 2014). For example, many individuals significantly identify with a work role which may have implications when adjusting to retirement life. Osborne (2012) suggests during the retirement transition, individuals can experience partial identity disruption. Identity refers to â€Å"cognitive and effective meanings that an individual attributes to one’s self in a role† (Reitzes Mutran, 2006, p. 336). One explanation of this disruption is provided by role theory (George, 1993) which suggests individuals’ former roles within employment may form an integral part of their identity (Price, 2003). Therefore, it is suggested that psychological distress can occur due to the loss in retiree’s previous work role which may disrupt their identity (Kim Moen, 2002). However,

Doing the Right Thing free essay sample

The Runaway Trolley Suppose you are the driver of a trolley car hurtling down the track at sixty miles an hour. Up ahead you see ve workers standing on the track, tools in hand. You try to stop, but you can’t. The brakes don’t work. You feel desperate, because you know that if you crash into these ve workers, they will all die. (Let’s assume you know that for sure. ) Suddenly, you notice a side track, o to the right. There is a worker on that track, too, but only one. You realize that you can turn the trolley car onto the side track, killing the one worker, but sparing the ve. What should you do? Most people would say, â€Å"Turn! Tragic though it is to kill one innocent person, it’s even worse to kill ve. † Sacri cing one life in order to save ve does seem the right thing to do. Now consider another version of the trolley story. This time, you are not the driver but an onlooker, standing on a bridge overlooking the track. (This time, there is no side track. Down the track comes a trolley, and at the end of the track are ve workers. Once again, the brakes don’t work. The trolley is about to crash into the ve workers. You feel helpless to avert this disaster—until you notice, standing next to you on the bridge, a very heavy man. You could push him o the 22 JUSTICE bridge, onto the track, into the path of the oncoming trolley. He would die, but the ve workers would be saved. (You consider jumping onto the track yourself, but realize you are too small to stop the trolley. ) Would pushing the heavy man onto the track be the right thing to do? Most people would say, â€Å"Of course not. It would be terribly wrong to push the man onto the track. † Pushing someone o a bridge to a certain death does seem an awful thing to do, even if it saves ve innocent lives. But this raises a moral puzzle:Why does the principle that seems right in the rst case—sacri ce one life to save ve—seem wrong in the second? If, as our reaction to the rst case suggests, numbers count—if it is better to save ve lives than one—then why shouldn’t we apply this principle in the second case, and push? It does seem cruel to push a man to his death, even for a good cause. But is it any less cruel to kill a man by crashing into him with a trolley car? Perhaps the reason it is wrong to push is that doing so uses the man on the bridge against his will. He didn’t choose to be involved, after all. He was just standing there. But the same could be said of the person working on the side track. He didn’t choose to be involved, either. He was just doing his job, not volunteering to sacri ce his life in the event of a runaway trolley. It might be argued that railway workers willingly incur a risk that bystanders do not. But let’s assume that being willing to die in an emergency to save other people’s lives is not part of the job description, and that the worker has no more consented to give his life than the bystander on the bridge has consented to give his. Maybe the moral di erence lies not in the e ect on the victims— both wind up dead—but in the intention of the person making the decision. As the driver of the trolley, you might defend your choice to divert the trolley by pointing out that you didn’t intend the death of the worker on the side track, foreseeable though it was; your purpose would still have been achieved if, by a great stroke of luck, the ve workers were spared and the sixth also managed to survive. DOING THE RIGHT THING 23 But the same is true in the pushing case. The death of the man you push o the bridge is not essential to your purpose. All he needs to do is block the trolley; if he can do so and somehow survive, you would be delighted. Or perhaps, on re ection, the two cases should be governed by the same principle. Both involve a deliberate choice to take the life of one innocent person in order to prevent an even greater loss of life. Perhaps your reluctance to push the man o the bridge is mere squeamishness, a hesitation you should overcome. Pushing a man to his death with your bare hands does seem more cruel than turning the steering wheel of a trolley. But doing the right thing is not always easy. We can test this idea by altering the story slightly. Suppose you, as the onlooker, could cause the large man standing next to you to fall onto the track without pushing him; imagine he is standing on a trap door that you could open by turning a steering wheel. No pushing, same result. Would that make it the right thing to do? Or is it still morally worse than for you, as the trolley driver, to turn onto the side track? It is not easy to explain the moral di erence between these cases— why turning the trolley seems right, but pushing the man o the bridge seems wrong. But notice the pressure we feel to reason our way to a convincing distinction between them—and if we cannot, to reconsider our judgment about the right thing to do in each case. We sometimes think of moral reasoning as a way of persuading other people. But it is also a way of sorting out our own moral convictions, of guring out what we believe and why. Some moral dilemmas arise from con icting moral principles. For example, one principle that comes into play in the trolley story says we should save as many lives as possible, but another says it is wrong to kill an innocent person, even for a good cause. Confronted with a situation in which saving a number of lives depends on killing an innocent person, we face a moral quandary. We must try to gure out which principle has greater weight, or is more appropriate under the circumstances. 24 JUSTICE Other moral dilemmas arise because we are uncertain how events will unfold. Hypothetical examples such as the trolley story remove the uncertainty that hangs over the choices we confront in real life. They assume we know for sure how many will die if we don’t turn— or don’t push. This makes such stories imperfect guides to action. But it also makes them useful devices for moral analysis. By setting aside contingencies—â€Å"What if the workers noticed the trolley and jumped aside in time? †Ã¢â‚¬â€hypothetical examples help us to isolate the moral principles at stake and examine their force. The Afghan Goatherds Consider now an actual moral dilemma, similar in some ways to the fanciful tale of the runaway trolley, but complicated by uncertainty about how things will turn out: In June 2005, a special forces team made up of Petty O cer Marcus Luttrell and three other U. S. Navy SEALs set out on a secret reconnaissance mission in Afghanistan, near the Pakistan border, in search of a Taliban leader, a close associate of Osama bin Laden. 7 According to intelligence reports, their target commanded 140 to 150 heavily armed ghters and was staying in a village in the forbidding mountainous region. Shortly after the special forces team took up a position on a mountain ridge overlooking the village, two Afghan farmers with about a hundred bleating goats happened u pon them. With them was a boy about fourteen years old. The Afghans were unarmed. The American soldiers trained their ri es on them, motioned for them to sit on the ground, and then debated what to do about them. On the one hand, the goatherds appeared to be unarmed civilians. On the other hand, letting them go would run the risk that they would inform the Taliban of the presence of the U. S. soldiers. As the four soldiers contemplated their options, they realized that they didn’t have any rope, so tying up the Afghans to allow time to nd a new hideout was not feasible. The only choice was to kill them or let them go free. One of Luttrell’s comrades argued for killing the goatherds: â€Å"We’re on active duty behind enemy lines, sent here by our senior commanders. We have a right to do everything we can to save our own lives. The military decision is obvious. To turn them loose would be wrong. †38 Luttrell was torn. â€Å"In my soul, I knew he was right,† he wrote in retrospect. â€Å"We could not possibly turn them loose. But my trouble is, I have another soul. My Christian soul. And it was crowding in on me. Something kept whispering in the back of my mind, it would be wrong to execute these unarmed men in cold blood. †39 Luttrell didn’t say what he meant by his Christian soul, but in the end, his conscience didn’t allow him to kill the goatherds. He cast the deciding vote to release them. (One of his three comrades had abstained. ) It was a vote he came to regret. About an hour and a half after they released the goatherds, the four soldiers found themselves surrounded by eighty to a hundred Taliban ghters armed with AK-47s and rocket-propelled grenades. In the erce re ght that followed, all three of Luttrell’s comrades were killed. The Taliban ghters also shot down a U. S. helicopter that sought to rescue the SEAL unit, killing all sixteen soldiers on board. Luttrell, severely injured, managed to survive by falling down the mountainside and crawling seven miles to a Pashtun village, whose residents protected him from the Taliban until he was rescued. In retrospect, Luttrell condemned his own vote not to kill the goatherds. â€Å"It was the stupidest, most southern-fried, lamebrained decision I ever made in my life,† he wrote in a book about the experience. â€Å"I must have been out of my mind. I had actually cast a vote which I knew could sign our death warrant. . . . At least, that’s how I look back on those moments now. . . The deciding vote was mine, and it will haunt me till they rest me in an East Texas grave. † 40 Part of what made the soldiers’ dilemma so di cult was uncertainty about what would happen if they released the Afghans. Would 26 JUSTICE they simply go on their way, or would they alert the Taliban? But suppose Luttrell knew that freeing the goatherds would lead to a devastating battle result ing in the loss of his comrades, nineteen American deaths, injury to himself, and the failure of his mission? Would he have decided di erently? For Luttrell, looking back, the answer is clear: he should have killed the goatherds. Given the disaster that followed, it is hard to disagree. From the standpoint of numbers, Luttrell’s choice is similar to the trolley case. Killing the three Afghans would have saved the lives of his three comrades and the sixteen U. S. troops who tried to rescue them. But which version of the trolley story does it resemble? Would killing the goatherds be more like turning the trolley or pushing the man o the bridge? The fact that Luttrell anticipated the danger and still could not bring himself to kill unarmed civilians in cold blood suggests it may be closer to the pushing case. And yet the case for killing the goatherds seems somehow stronger than the case for pushing the man o the bridge. This may be because we suspect that—given the outcome—they were not innocent bystanders, but Taliban sympathizers. Consider an analogy: If we had reason to believe that the man on the bridge was responsible for disabling the brakes of the trolley in hopes of killing the workers on the track (let’s say they were his enemies), the moral argument for pushing him onto the track would begin to look stronger. We would still need to know who his enemies were, and why he wanted to kill them. If we learned that the workers on the track were members of the French resistance and the heavy man on the bridge a Nazi who had sought to kill them by disabling the trolley, the case for pushing him to save them would become morally compelling. It is possible, of course, that the Afghan goatherds were not Taliban sympathizers, but neutrals in the con ict, or even Taliban opponents, who were forced by the Taliban to reveal the presence of the American troops. Suppose Luttrell and his comrades knew for certain that the goatherds meant them no harm, but would be tortured by the Taliban DOING THE RIGHT THING 27 o reveal their location. The Americans might have killed the goatherds to protect their mission and themselves. But the decision to do so would have been more wrenching (and morally more questionable) than if they knew the goatherds to be pro-Taliban spies. Moral Dilemmas Few of us face choices as fateful as those that confronted the soldiers on the mountain or the witness to the runaway trolley. But wrestling with their dilemmas sheds light on the way moral argument can proceed, in our personal lives and in the public square. Life in democratic societies is rife with disagreement about right and wrong, justice and injustice. Some people favor abortion rights, and others consider abortion to be murder. Some believe fairness requires taxing the rich to help the poor, while others believe it is unfair to tax away money people have earned through their own e orts. Some defend a rmative action in college admissions as a way of righting past wrongs, whereas others consider it an unfair form of reverse discrimination against people who deserve admission on their merits. Some people reject the torture of terror suspects as a moral abomination unworthy of a free society, while others defend it as a last resort to prevent a terrorist attack. Elections are won and lost on these disagreements. The so-called culture wars are fought over them. Given the passion and intensity with which we debate moral questions in public life, we might be tempted to think that our moral convictions are xed once and for all, by upbringing or faith, beyond the reach of reason. But if this were true, moral persuasion would be inconceivable, and what we take to be public debate about justice and rights would be nothing more than a volley of dogmatic assertions, an ideological food ght. At its worst, our politics comes close to this condition. But it need not be this way. Sometimes, an argument can change our minds.   How, then, can we reason our way through the contested terrain of justice and injustice, equality and inequality, individual rights and the common good? This book tries to answer that question. One way to begin is to notice how moral re ection emerges naturally from an encounter with a hard moral question. We start with an opinion, or a conviction, about the right thing to do: â€Å"Turn the trolley onto the side track. Then we re ect on the reason for our conviction, and seek out the principle on which it is based: â€Å"Better to sacri ce one life to avoid the death of many. † Then, confronted with a situation that confounds the principle, we are pitched into confusion: â€Å"I thought it was always right to save as many lives as possible, and yet it seems wrong to push the man o the bridge (or to kill the unarmed goatherds). † Feeli ng the force of that confusion, and the pressure to sort it out, is the impulse to philosophy. Confronted with this tension, we may revise our judgment about the right thing to do, or rethink the principle we initially espoused. As we encounter new situations, we move back and forth between our judgments and our principles, revising each in light of the other. This turning of mind, from the world of action to the realm of reasons and back again, is what moral re ection consists in. This way of conceiving moral argument, as a dialectic between our judgments about particular situations and the principles we a rm on re ection, has a long tradition. It goes back to the dialogues of Socrates and the moral philosophy of Aristotle. But notwithstanding its ancient lineage, it is open to the following challenge: If moral re ection consists in seeking a t between the judgments we make and the principles we a rm, how can such re ection lead us to justice, or moral truth? Even if we succeed, over a lifetime, in bringing our moral intuitions and principled commitments into alignment, what con dence can we have that the result is anything more than a self-consistent skein of prejudice? The answer is that moral re ection is not a solitary pursuit but a public endeavor. It requires an interlocutor—a friend, a neighbor, a DOING THE RIGHT THING 29 comrade, a fellow citizen. Sometimes the interlocutor can be imagined rather than real, as when we argue with ourselves. But we cannot discover the meaning of justice or the best way to live through introspection alone. In Plato’s Republic, Socrates compares ordinary citizens to a group of prisoners con ned in a cave. All they ever see is the play of shadows on the wall, a re ection of objects they can never apprehend. Only the philosopher, in this account, is able to ascend from the cave to the bright light of day, where he sees things as they really are. Socrates suggests that, having glimpsed the sun, only the philosopher is t to rule the cave dwellers, if he can somehow be coaxed back into the darkness where they live. Plato’s point is that to grasp the meaning of justice and the nature of the good life, we must rise above the prejudices and routines of everyday life. He is right, I think, but only in part. The claims of the cave must be given their due. If moral re ection is dialectical—if it moves back and forth between the judgments we make in concrete situations and the principles that inform those judgments—it needs opinions and convictions, however partial and untutored, as ground and grist. A philosophy untouched by the shadows on the wall can only yield a sterile utopia. When moral re ection turns political, when it asks what laws should govern our collective life, it needs some engagement with the tumult of the city, with the arguments and incidents that roil the public mind. Debates over bailouts and price gouging, income inequality and a rmative action, military ser vice and same-sex marriage, are the stu of political philosophy. They prompt us to articulate and justify our moral and political convictions, not only among family and friends but also in the demanding company of our fellow citizens. More demanding still is the company of political philosophers, ancient and modern, who thought through, in sometimes radical and surprising ways, the ideas that animate civic life—justice and rights, obligation and consent, honor and virtue, morality and law. Aristotle, 30 JUSTICE Immanuel Kant, John Stuart Mill, and John Rawls all gure in these pages. But their order of appearance is not chronological. This book is not a history of ideas, but a journey in moral and political re ection. Its goal is not to show who in uenced whom in the history of political thought, but to invite readers to subject their own views about justice to critical examination—to gure out what they think, and why.