Speaking Out About Malt

Speaking Out about Malt Case 8. 3 Page 404-405, Moral Issues in Business The case of Whitewater Brewing and Mary Davis touches upon several views and moral issues that are not specifically black or white. Case 8. 3 specifically deals with a business called Whitewater Brewing Co. Whitewater Brewing, as its name sounds, is a manufacturer of alcoholic refreshments, selling its brands to various consumers. The article in particular focuses upon a specific Whitewater product, Rafter. Rafter is being targeted to match other similar products that are bottled in a 40 ounce size. The unfortunate part is that these 40 ounce size refreshments are not only popular with inner-city teenagers but in the area where Whitewater sells these 40 ounce products there is already a community alcohol related problem. Whitewater is not in foreign territory, numerous other companies already have sold similar products in the same area targeting the same clientele. More importantly due to its popularity this product produces good revenue for Whitewater. Enter into this scenario an employee of Whitewater Brewing Co. , Mary Davis, an Associate Vice President. Mary has decided to further her education and is attending a course at an outside school, with her husband who was pursuing his MBA. My intention is to try to determine whether or not Mary or Whitewater were following any ethical practices, determine why they made the choices they did, and to attempt to determine if there is any validity to their reasoning. Mary begins working on a term project studying the making of wine and beer. Research shows Mary that several companies’ market products that are high alcohol based and sold at a very low price point, and not considered a premium product, strictly to satisfy a specific market niche. As Mary’s investigations continue she begins to insert her own feelings and viewpoints into her findings and her paper become a reflection of her personal viewpoints, and not necessarily those of her employer. For the opposite side of the case Whitewater Brewing is basically working like it should; trying to maximize profits for its shareholders marketing products to satisfy consumer needs. In this case, that need is a malt liquor sold in 40 ounce containers and targeted to specific customers. This is nothing new, as other businesses are already in this market. The one caveat here is that none of the companies markets their malt liquors under their name; almost to distance themselves from the negative social implications resulting from the sales of malt liquors, specifically to this target audience. Separately and apart neither Mary Davis or Whitewater marketing products would have been a â€Å"Case 6. 3† were it not for the fact Mary Davis IS an employee of Whitewater. More so it never would have bubbled to the surface had Mary Davis done what she did; which was to ultimately write an article for a paper discussing her personal views on malt liquors wherein she states, again her views, as to the social responsibilities of businesses that produce malt liquors. In stating her personal opinions Mary now has pitted herself again the views of the business. Because Mary’s article is viewed negatively by Whitewater, the CEO of Whitewater fears the article will have a negative impact to profits and to the product(s) they sell. They also feel this could lead to legislation that would ultimately result is direct product loss and loss of revenue. These would be fairly legitimate concerns for any business, in my opinion. So if a socially responsible company produces bad products are they bad? One can argue especially in the case of liquor manufacturers that there is heavy investment to provide a product that is intended for good use and that they aggressively help to pass legislation helping to address those who use their products in a negative manner. So morally and ethically Whitewater, in my opinion, is doing what they are intended to do. Specifically they are trying to make money, and to do so in an ethical manner. No company can be wholly responsible, in every circumstance (but in a specific few), for the immoral or unethical behavior of others utilizing their products. Ralph Jenkins, CEO of Whitewater, writes to Mary Davis to express the company’s views on her behavior and to ask her to first clear all further comments (regarding her personal views on liquor production) with the business. Mary feels this to be an invasion of her right to free speech. Additionally Mary informs Ralph Jenkins that she seeks to pursue her article further and even speak at an engagement about her views (personal ones). Mr. Jenkins remains adamant that Mary adhere to his requests further escalating things to state she can either comply or resign. So does Davis have a moral right to free speech in the workplace, or can Whitewater determine the extent to her ‘free’ speech? Also what would Davis’s best path ethical path be? The second is the easiest to answer so I will do that now. Davis could simply put resign, enabling her to champion her beliefs and become a martyr for her cause, as it were. As for the first question the answer is not a simple clear cut one, and ultimately will be an individual one. Currently there is already legal precedent that allows companies to require employees not to â€Å"act or speak disloyally†. Take the following case: In Korb v. Raytheon, 574 N. E. 2d 370, 410 Mass. 581 (1991), Raytheon terminated Lawrence Korb after receiving complaints of his public involvement in an anti-nuclear proliferation nonprofit known as the Committee for National Security (CNS) and his advocacy of reduced defense spending. On February 26, 1986 The Washington Post ran an article describing Korb's speech at a press conference held the day prior as â€Å"critical of increased defense spending. † Following the publication of the article, several military officials â€Å"expressed their disapproval† of Korb's comments. [77] Despite writing a letter of retraction which ran in The Washington Post, Raytheon terminated Korb's position after it continued to receive â€Å"Navy, Air Force, and Armed Services Committee objections. [78] In adjudicating Korb's claim of wrongful discharge, the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts found â€Å"no public policy prohibiting an employer from discharging an ineffective at-will employee. † His claim under the State Civil Rights Act was dismissed as well. In affirming the lower court’s decision to dismiss, Justice Abrams wrote: â€Å"Although Korb has a secured right to speak out on matters of public concern, and he has a right to express view s with which Raytheon disagrees, he has no right to do so at Raytheon's expense. [79] The above article shows one perspective of the courts on this matter. Furthermore Mary Davis needed to be sure her personal opinions could withstand the scrutiny of being challenged for slander, unless there was very strong specific data supporting her views. Despite Mary’s strong personal views, even if validated, she is in conflict by the very nature of working for Whitewater and having such strong personal views. She may have morally sound arguments about liquor products but she is ethically wrong then for working in the liquor industry. My view is that Mary’s intent, though ethically sound, is still less ethical than that of Whitewater. Mary attempts to peanut butter spread the first amendment right to free speech across the board, when in fact Whitewater too has rights and expectations within the first amendment. While Mary is entitled to do as she chooses outside of work; there are limitations when her choices can have specific negative impacts to her employer. And for these impacts she can be held accountable legally, despite her moral righteousness. In conclusion there is no clear path to moral righteousness and ethical behavior. What I feel is important is that in the end we can do either in a manner that withstands legal implication (much of it already established) and exercise our own personal moral conviction in a manner that does not leave us conflicted. QUESTIONS FROM THE BOOK. 1. Do you think Mary Davis acted irresponsibly or disloyally? I don’t believe at the time Mary Davis intended to act irresponsibly or disloyally; however Mary should have thought more about the big picture and talked with her management first about her intentions. This is a particularly tough issue; as this does touch upon the right to free speech. Depending upon what sort of agreement the company has with Mary would speak volumes as to her ‘rights’ outside of work and expectations as to how she is expected portray her company. Mary also should have known that media sensationalism is what they are in business for. Her views were liable for their interpretation and hence liable to be misconstrued or mis-utilized; as they were. Does Whitewater have a legitimate concern about her speaking out on this issue? Mary’s concern is legitimate; of that there is no doubt. However as an emissary of her company she is responsible both inside work and outside work to present an image of her company that is positive. Or she could choose to work elsewhere. If Mary were to choose her moral high ground and leave the company she would be commended for her actions that follow her beliefs. Does the company have a right to abridge her freedom of expression? The company does have some right to abridge her freedom; particularly if they have a company handbook which specifies their expectations (within reason). Mary’s views and activities outside of work have no real concern to her company; but ethically Mary is working in an industry where serving liquor is the nature of business. These companies often display and rely on laws and policies to inflict rules regarding consumption and abuse. That individuals abuse their products is really not completely their fault. Ethically they are trying to be responsible and they are after all in the business to sell and make a profit. 2. Is your answer to question 1 affected by whether you agree or disagree with the views Mary Davis expressed? I think for the zealots on either side of the spectrum individual views would impact whether they agreed or disagreed with Mary Davis. However, it is my belief that you need not side nor disagree with Mary to realize that her behavior and that of Whitewater brewing are dealing with ethical grey matter. The company has rights as much as Mary does; and each can make choices that would resolve this conflict. Mary can leave Whitewater and then no longer be under their scrutiny or Whitewater can have specific policies on expected behavior that reflects the company position. Communication is at the core of the problem. If either side had communicated among themselves could have avoided this situation; and who knows; perhaps Whitewater being community responsible may have given Mary a different tact to utilize that would have made her and Whitewater happy. 3. Should there be any limits on an employee’s freedom of expression? If not, why? If so, under what circumstances is a company justified in restricting an employee’s right to speak out? This is a tenuous issue as there are already many amendments to current laws of free speech. I understand that businesses have a right to ensure viability and employee comments can adversely affect them. I think so long as there is clear communication up front about business policies regarding this and that they are communicated regularly and clearly then it becomes a buyer/employee beware situation. Again within reason individuals should still be able to express themselves; particularly when there is no direct verbiage that is specific about a business. I am an opponent to a business screening by Facebook etc as what a person does on their time does not necessarily prove they would be bad at work. Statistics aside we all know you can make data to support whatever view you want today. The bigger question is the legal one; and companies basically in my opinion wield a heavy sword (meaning they have deep pockets for legal issues) to drive their views and challenge you to dispute them. So one question we should be asking is once hired by a business â€Å"Are you now their property which can be used in any way, and discarded when no longer needed? † After all, today one can be dismissed without cause, employee at will. Take for instance the following article:http://www. bs2. com/freespch. htm The First Amendment to the U. S. Constitution establishes freedom of speech in the USA. There are several major limitations on this freedom: Only the government is prohibited from restricting speech. Private corporations are free to censor speech of their employees. Freedom of speech is not absolute, even when government regulation or law is concerned. For  example, freedom of speech does not give one the right to commit perjury. See the beginning of my essay on infotorts for more examples. Since 1977, the U. S. Supreme Court has retreated from protecting freedom of speech even for government employees, as explained in my separate essay. Fundamentally, an at-will employee in the USA can be terminated at any time, and for any reason – or  no  reason  at  all – and the courts will not intervene to protect the ex-employee from allegedly unfair treatment by the employer. Courts have repeatedly recognized that â€Å"any  reason† includes a â€Å"morally  wrong† or â€Å"morally  reprehensible† reason. I  have briefly discussed the history of at-will employment in the USA and criticism of this doctrine in a separate essay. The combination of: o legal protection for freedom of speech of employees of for-profit and non-profit corporations and other non-governmental employers, and the freedom of employers to terminate employment at any time, for any reason means that employees in private industry have no legal rights to freedom of speech. (end of art icle) The case presentation doesn’t specify whether the newspaper article identified Mary Davis as an employee of Whitewater. Is that a relevant issue? Whether Mary Davis was identified or not is not necessarily relevant. Once stated, today there should be an assumption that someone, anyone, can ultimately determine ownership. This is especially true if the information is anything but verbal and has been recorded in any way, manner, or form. Does it matter what position in the company Mary Davis holds? To a degree the fact that Mary Davis is high up in the corporate chain bears a more significant impact. In a higher position Mary is more an emissary of the business and as such expected more to promote the business image. However despite her position as an employee of a business she is bound to the requirements of that business, especially once specified to her. Or she can choose to follow her conscience and resign. . What do you think Mary Davis ought to do? Clearly Mary Davis should resign; or fold to the demands of her boss and refrain while employed by Whitewater from expressing her personal views on any liquor related issues. What moral considerations should she weigh? Mary simply needs to weigh what is important to her; her work, money, job and family stability or her moral considerations and the poss ibility that she would need to shift employment in order to not have direct involvement in an industry she believes to be practicing unethical behavior. Does she have conflicting obligations? Mary does have conflicting obligations. If so what are they? They are her obligations to survival, money, job stability, employment, etc. On the other side is her obligation to her conscience and her moral beliefs, particularly the one that is contrary to the production and sale of malt liquor to individuals (specific individuals). 5. Is the company right to be worried about what Mary Davis writes or says, or is the board of directors exaggerating the potential harm to Whitewater of her discussing these issues? The company is totally right to be worried about Mary Davis. There is many a story about David and Goliath where a single individual toppled a business based upon their personal beliefs. 6. Assume a CEO like Ralph Jenkins is legitimately worried that an employee is making damaging statements about the company. How should the CEO handle the situation? My opinion is that the CEO would need to sit with the employee and state the business doctrine as it were. Next would be to ask open ended questions to see if there was an option where both needs could be met satisfactorily without any negative repercussions to either party involved. Is discharge or some sort of discipline called for? Initially, discharge or discipline may not be called for; unless policies had been clearly stated beforehand. Should the company adopt a formal policy regarding employee speech? All companies should have formal policies regarding employee speech. Moreover these should be communicated in plain simple language and reiterated yearly to ensure everyone remains cognizant of the policies. If so, what policy would you recommend? I recommend a policy that is developed with the individuals at all levels of the business to ensure varied concerns are addressed and the needs of the business (their viewpoint) is clearly understood. Works Cited Customer, A. â€Å"Amazon. com: Moral Issues in Business (9780495007173): William H. Shaw, Vincent Barry: Books. † Amazon. com: Online Shopping for Electronics, Apparel, Computers, Books, DVDs & More. Web. 16 Jan. 2012. . â€Å"First Amendment to the United States Constitution. † Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia. Web. 16 Jan. 2012. . â€Å"Freedom of Speech. † Dr. R. Standler's Professional Homepage. Web. 16 Jan. 2012. ;http://www. rbs2. com/freespch. htm;.

Explore the Ways in Which John Steinbeck Presents He Character of Lennie in ‘of Mice and Men’

In this essay I am going to be writing about one of the main characters in John Steinbeck’s novella ‘Of Mice and Men’. The story portrays the travels and arising problems of two migrant workers who share an uncommon friendship for the time and environment in which the novella is set. Lennie Small is the character I will be exploring and I will start off by giving a detailed explanation of his physical appearance and behaviour. Second I will look at his and the other main character George’s relationship which will then be followed by Lennie’s relationships with other characters throughout the book. I will then go on to look at the foreshadowing in which Steinbeck displays in the story and finally I will conclude the story of its final climax. Steinbeck uses many different descriptions of Lennie Small in the novella. Often compared to animals, one of the first descriptions of him is him being compared to a bear. ‘He was dragging his feet a little, the way a bear drags his paws’, is a line which portrays an image of how physically large Lennie is while also suggesting the extent of his strength. Lennie is also described to be ‘shapeless of face, with large, pale eyes’ which compares easily to a small innocent child who doesn’t understand his surroundings. The imagery created in this scene begins to imply that Lennie, even though a grown man, does not have a mind of his own, almost childlike, while always having someone to direct him through life. Despite his age, Lennie acts and speaks with immaturity due a mental disability. ‘Slowly like a terrier, who doesn’t want to bring a ball back to his master’ is a line Steinbeck wrote to emphasise Lennie’s immature personality. By comparing him to a terrier he becomes viewed as irrational with a very instinctive side to him. Steinbeck uses the word ‘master’ which signifies how Lennie, unable to make sensible decisions, needs a master or more so a carer. It stresses his naivety and also his loyalty to George. Furthermore in this novella Lennie doesn’t intentionally mean to do harm but that does not mean he is completely harmless. This is shown when Steinbeck writes ‘I wasn’t doing nothing bad with it, George.. jus’ stroking it. in the scene where George is demanding the dead mouse from Lennie. By writing this Steinbeck has suggested that the innocent Lennie is and both a victim and villain throughout his life. No matter how harmless he is within his mind, his strength betrays his personality leaving his child like mind, and brute strength a threatening combination. Steinbeck’s first description of George and Lennie’s relationship demonstrates the fact tha t George is very much like a father figure to Lennie. He is constantly mimicking George and following obediently which is described when ‘they had walked in single file down the path, and even in the open one stayed one behind the other’. This quote emphasises the dominance in the relationship and how Lennie is always following behind George because he wants to show him respect. Also Lennie imitates George with the upmost precision, ‘Then (George) replaced his hat, pushed himself back from the river, drew up his knees and embraced them. Lennie who had been watching imitated George exactly’ highlights this as it shows just how much Lennie looks up to George as if he is also a hero as well as a father figure in which he wants to make proud. It produces the thought that maybe all Lennie wants is for George to be proud of him and is symbolic to the fact Lennie looks up to George as a role model. In the opening dialogue between George and Lennie the nature of their relationship is easily distinguishable when George says ‘Lennie! Lennie for Gods sake, don’t drink too much.. ou gonna be sick like you was last night’ because it conveys how much George actually cares for and worries for Lennie without making it sound too affectionate. He speaks down to Lennie in a patronizing manner which also symbolises the authority in the relationship. In this novella one of the key things about Lennie and George is the dream they both wish to achieve. Due to Lennie’s childlike mind set and George’ s fatherly role in Lennie’s life the dream becomes somewhat a bedtime story for Lennie. On several occasions ‘Lennie pleads â€Å"Come on George. Tell me. Please, George. Like you did before. † ‘ which further emphasises how much of a child he is due to the fact it makes him calm, happy and almost settled as if he were an infant going to bed. It could also portray the subconscious worries Lennie has so he feels the need to be reassured about their dream. Lennie’s relationships with other characters vary and progress throughout the novella. When Slim, the jerkline skinner, is first introduced to Lennie and George he is taken aback by the oddness of their relationship with each other. He immediately see’s Lennie’s lack of mentality and later on states to George ‘it seems kinda funny, a cuckoo like him and a smart guy like you travelling together’ which is the first opinion Slim reveals towards Lennie. At first he only sees the childlike Lennie but after the situation explained he understands and views Lennie in a completely different light. ‘He’s a nice fella, guy don’t need no sense to be a nice fella’ is a line which Steinbeck wrote to show clearly how Slim respects and likes Lennie as it emphasises that he doesn’t just see the absence of intelligence but the nice guy hidden underneath the childish exterior. Even though Slim doesn’t really get to know Lennie in this novella, his friendship with George allows him to understand Lennie and the position the two are in. Slim appreciates that Lennie is not a cruel person when he says ‘He ain’t mean, I can see Lennie ain’t a bit mean’ which further emphasises the intelligence Slim possess to see behind the original interpretation of Lennie as a man and shows how his feelings towards him have developed into somewhat respect. Another relationship that Lennie has is one with the stable buck, Crooks. Steinbeck enforces this unspoken friendship between the two because both are isolated from the rest of the ranch workers, Lennie because of his size and childish behaviour and Crooks because of him being black and being segregated from the rest of the workers. Although Lennie is portrayed as the weakest mentally, he doesn’t understand the unwritten code of racial segregation which brings out the intelligent side to him which is proven in the way he acts towards Crooks. When Crooks questions him about why he has entered the barn Lennie replies with ‘Nothing- I seen your light. I thought I could jus’ come an’ set’ which shows how innocent Lennie is and in a way how lonely he is as he goes to investigate the possibility that he could converse with someone. It could also show that Lennie sees crooks as an equal unlike the other men on the ranch who merely see his colour. In this novella Steinbeck uses foreshadowing a great deal throughout the whole story. It appears everywhere, hinting on what will happen to different characters and the way the story will develop. It is used to show that Lennie will be getting in trouble with Curley’s wife, her death and also his death and the exact way in which he dies. The moment Curley’s wife is introduced an ill feeling overcomes the atmosphere signifying that Lennie will in fact be getting into some sort of mess involving her. George says at the very beginning ‘I seen ‘em poison before, but I never seen no piece of jail bait like her before. You leave her be’ is a quote from the novella which directly foreshadows Curley’s wifes death because by having George tell him to leave her alone, it’s obviously going to go the opposite way and something will end up bringing the pair together. Another thing that adds to the foreshadowing of her death is Lennie’s tendency to ‘get carried away’ with touching soft, silky and pretty things. Throughout the novella the victims of Lennie’s harmless ‘petting’ gradually get bigger, starting off with the girls dress in Weed, the mouse, progressing on to Curley’s hand and the puppy and finally ending with Curley’s herself. The skirt, mouse, puppy and Curley’s wife all link in with the need to touch ‘soft things’ and the same reaction even happen in each. Once they begin to panic or squirm Lennie reacts in a childlike way and doesn’t know what to do so he simply doesn’t let his hold of that object go. Excluding Curley’s hand which was purely down to animal and childish instinct, all the other incidents could connect to the idea that in Lennie’s naive mind, ‘soft and pretty’ things relate to the dream that he and George have and once the victims begin to struggle it instantly alerts Lennie that the dream is escaping him and he holds on in fear of letting go and loosing it. The foreshadowing of Lennie’s death occurs at different points throughout the novella. The shooting of candy’s dog being the main one. When Carlson is trying to persuade Candy into letting him shoot the dog he says ‘He ain’t no good to you, Candy. An’ he ain’t no good to himself. Wh’n’t you shoot him, Candy? ’ which is exactly how Lennie is viewed as a partner of George. Both the dog and Lennie are connected as they both in some way weigh down their ‘owner’ and aren’t really useful to them. Another thing which foreshadows his death is George’s constant reminders of how his life would be easier without him. ‘God you’re a lot of trouble, I could get along so easy and so nice if I didn’t have you on my tail. I could live so easy and maybe have a girl’ is a line which Steinbeck wrote to foreshadow what might happen in the end of the story as it is how George feels inside which he frequently tells Lennie at different points in the story. Lennie’s death, placed right at the end of the story, is no big surprise when it actually occurs. Beforehand Lennie and George are merely talking. Lennie is confused as to why George isn’t shouting at him and this particular bit shows how much George secretly does care for Lennie and wishes that this didn’t happen. ‘No Lennie, I ain’t mad. I never been mad an’ I ain’t now. That’s the thing I want ya to know. ’ is a line from George which symbolises that no matter what bad things Lennie has ever done, George only wants the best for him, even if that means killing him. Steinbeck uses the phrase ‘never been mad’ to show that George is feeling guilty about his reactions towards Lennies mistakes in the past and trying to make it right. Despite the fact he has already made the decision to end Lennie’s life George still finds it difficult to do so which is portrayed when Steinbeck wrote that ‘George raised the gun and his hand shook, and he dropped his hand to the ground again’. This quote lays emphasis on how challenging it is for George to follow through with his task. No matter how much of a dead weight Lennie is to him, they have still been together for a long while which adds to the fact George finds it so hard to kill him. The thing that played the most part in the decision George made to kill Lennie was Candy’s words, ‘I ought to of shot that dog myself, George. I shouldn’t ought to of let no stranger shoot my dog. ’ because George understands that the death of Lennie is inevitable and is going to happen one way or another whether it be now or in the next town when he does something else wrong. Georges decision is reassured by Slim right at the end of the novella when he says ‘You hadda George, I swear you hadda’ because he understands the situation George is in and is trying to assure him that he made the right decision in killing Lennie. In conclusion, Lennie Small is a very complex character. The description of his character is very precise and so is his personality. Throughout this novella it is obvious that Lennie’s character is the one that undergoes the least amount of development. His childlike mentality and mind set prohibit any possible expansion of his character however Lennie's protection from George, devotion to him, and dreams of the farm make him the character that he is. His portrayal of innocence during the course of the novella is a key reason why readers feel so much sympathy for him, and is the main way in which he is represented all throughout Of Mice and Men.

The Transatlantic Slave Trade and Its Effects on Africa Research Paper

The Transatlantic Slave Trade and Its Effects on Africa - Research Paper Example According to Muriithi, the blacks were not only massively enslaved, but also sold into bondage across the continents . In wanting to know more about slavery and its impacts one, can try to find out what Transatlantic Slave Trade entails (TST). Traditional answers associate transatlantic trade with enslavement and transportation of Africans to the New World through Atlantic Ocean. According to Green, The transatlantic slave trade was a human atrocity that involved transportation of millions of men and women from sub-Saharan Africa. Green further claims that TST began in 15th century when the European kingdoms portrayed some ability to expand overseas and reach Africa. According to him, the Portuguese was among the first Europeans to expand their demand for slaves into Africa. In tandem to this, Rodney asserts that the Portuguese began by kidnapping people from the West Coast of Africa and transporting them to Europe . According to him, by 16th century, almost 10% of Lisbon was filled up be Africans. In their book, Olaniyan and Sweet also expounds on what must have led to increase in the rate of slave capturing. According to them, the demand for slaves rose exponentially when the Europeans discovered the American continent; both the Europeans and the Americans were insufficient .

International Insurance law Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 4000 words

International Insurance law - Essay Example The specific principle has been related mostly to the insurance law. The introduction of the above principle was considered as a measure for increasing the validity of marine contracts, a target that has been achieved but not fully. The examination of the principles’ aspects led to the assumption that the specific principle has led to the introduction of a series of rules; these rules are critically presented in this paper; appropriate literature and case law have been used in order so show the actual characteristics of the principle of good faith and its implications for the marine insurance contracts, to which the principle of utmost good faith is mostly related. It is concluded that the principle of utmost good faith has played a key role in the increase of validity of marine insurance contracts, at least for the side of insured. The weakness of the principle to provide a clear plan of action when a violation has occurred in regard to one or more terms of the contract invol ved is clear. The efforts that the Law Commission developed recently in regard to the protection of consumers in the particular field, could help to control the violations in marine insurance contracts – which are critical for the entire market – and to improve the performance of the principle of utmost good faith, as an element of the relevant agreements. 2. Utmost good faith in the English law 2.1 The context of the principle of utmost good faith The principle of utmost good faith has been derived from the principle of good faith – a common element of contracts. For this reason, in order to understand the elements and the rules of the principle of utmost good faith it would be necessary to refer primarily to the framework of the principle of good faith – as used in the common law. The principle of good faith can be characterized as an indispensable element of contracts. The above principle has been recognized as a valuable criterion for deciding on the validity of a contract – especially in cases where the intention of the parties involved is not easily identified.1 In the Scots law, the principle of good faith, or else the ‘bonae fidei’ is a prerequisite for all contracts,2 even if opposite views have been periodically developed.3 Theorists and researchers have used similar approaches in order to describe good faith. In accordance with the most common view, the good faith can be characterized as ‘acting on the assumption of honest dealing’4. The principle of good faith is not accepted as a general principle; it is rather used in specific types of contracts, like ‘the insurance and employment contracts’;5 Conflicts have been often developed regarding the potential value of the principle of good faith for contracts. In Scotland, the most recent trends, lead to the limitation of the necessity of good faith for contracts; however, there are opposite views supporting the value of good fait h in contracts. The supporters of good faith in Scotland refer to the need for continuation of civilian traditions, as an argument for promoting the use of good faith in contracts.6 It should be noted that the principle of good faith is not strongly supported in the context of the common law; on the contrary, in the civil law, emphasis is given on the use of the principle

September 11, 2001 and the Global War on Terror Essay - 1

September 11, 2001 and the Global War on Terror - Essay Example Further, the fruits of war are important for the businesses which profit from it at the cost of human lives which are wasted because of it. The evidence for this comes in the shape of reports, the government’s official statements and the historical record of the time which shows that Americans had been given a different story from what the ground realities actually were. It certainly makes a person wonder that even though the government tells us that we are winning the war on terror and that everything is fine with the world today, it may not be so in reality. What we know to be true may not necessarily be the facts of the matter and we could still be led astray by what the government and the media would have us believe. For example, even from the historical data that we have, we have always been told that America stands for democracy and that it stands for the freedom of all people. However, when it comes to imperialism and global domination through the use of military power, the sheer number of American army bases around the world paints a completely different picture. America does not appear to express the sam e ideals in deed which it supports in the shape of words. In conclusion, it becomes easy to say that the American government may not be working towards the interest of the American people but in fact could be working towards maintaining the interest of the American corporations which support the government. Further, political objectives and political motivations seem to be far more important for the people who rule our country rather than any ideological belief for supporting democracy and upholding what is right. However, this may not necessarily be a bad thing since the government and their actions from the past have only shown us that they are pragmatic enough to realize that words which sound nice are only good for speeches. Actions which are geared towards securing

Theories of punishment Term Paper Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 750 words

Theories of punishment - Term Paper Example Crime and punishment consider the philosophical concept of cause and effect. Crime causes suffering, pain, and losses to someone. Punishment also causes suffering, pain, and losses (â€Å"Crime†). Punishment is the effect in the form of penalty inflicted on an offender through a judicial procedure. Society imposes retribution on an individual who committed an act that public laws forbid. Society has numerous answers to the issue why an offender should be punished. Some of them are to stop them from committing further crimes, tell the victims that the society disapproves the act, and share their feelings, stop others from doing similar acts, and protect the community. The set forth above review indicates that society tries to punish all offenders who commit index crimes. Whether a sentence is carried out or not is exclusively law enforcement and judicial authority’s tasks and only statistical appraisal can confirm it, which is beyond the scope of this assignment. An inde x crime is committed willingly and non-index ones are perpetrated non-willingly. Non-index crimes consist of non-physical confrontation. For example, violation of liquor laws is a non-index crime, which does not cause pain, loss and suffering to another person. It is a non-index crime. ... The concept of utilitarian theory is: Does consequence (result of punishment) relate to the happiness of the largest number? Punishment in this theory works for the prevention of future crime. Retributive theory is past oriented and it seeks retribution from offenders for their crimes. It also conveys to the offender that the purpose of the punishment is to impose moral responsibility, and punishment does not account offender's future conduct. The salient feature of the above analysis points to the fact that society is more eager to punish those whose crimes consist of physical confrontation. We can conclude that non-index crimes are punished less often. The described above definition of the index and non-index crimes states that index crime consists of physical confrontation and non-index crimes consist of non-physical one. For example, homicide, forcible rape, robbery, and aggravated assault cannot be committed without physical contact with the victim, while fraud, forgery, gamblin g, drug abuse, and disorderly conduct do not involve physical contact. That is why index crime, as a whole, causes more physical harm and financial loss than a non-index crime. According to the FBI report, property crimes in 2011 resulted in estimated losses of $156.6 billion (â€Å"Crime Statistics for 2010†). Part II The criminal justice system in general uses two punishment theories: utilitarianism and retributivism. The first theory states that criminal laws’ purpose is to prevent future harms while the following states the purpose is to punish past wrongs. Retributive justice has undergone different criticism. One of them defines that punishment for the same crime is different in different jurisdictions of the same country.

Personal Philosophy of Student sucess Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 750 words

Personal Philosophy of Student sucess - Essay Example order to ensure that I earn more than a sheet of paper with a degree printed on it upon college graduation, I have set up some important guidelines so that my education, career, and life are set on the right track and a solid foundation. If a student sets off to college expecting professors to set his or her life’s course − whether we are talking values, career direction, or other goals − that student is playing a game of Russian roulette. Fortunately, I have been counseled at an early age to be accountable for my actions, and this is consistent with scholarly guidance being offered to college students today, which emphasizes that accepting personal responsibility for one’s actions is critical to achieving college success, (Downing 1). From this core value stem the ability to self-motivate, master self-management of one’s time and obligations, and establish interdependence – where one learns to give and receive essential information from others. Also, the power of choice to make wise decisions must be utilized (Downing 3), as one must use his or her cognitive skills to collect, organize, rehearse, and then evaluate information (Downing 16) before acting out. One barometer that I personally employ to gauge my personal choices is the Bible, which teaches me to â€Å"Trust in the Lord with all your heart and lean not on your own understanding; in all your ways acknowledge him, and he will make your path straight. Do not be wise in your own eyes; fear the Lord and shun evil,† (The NIV Study Bible, Prov. 3.5-7). I can always fall back on wise teachings such as this in order to stay grounded on a moral track and rely on the timeless discernment that has shaped this nation for centuries − and the world for millennia. When striving to set more specific and short-term goals, I find it beneficial to focus on positive ways to adapt well to academic demands and campus life. Impeccable attendance in class is always a top priority of mine − there is a direct