Religious beliefs Essay

In What Pragmatism Means, James writes that the central point of his own doctrine of truth is, in brief, that â€Å"truth is one species of good, and not, as is usually supposed, a category distinct from good, and coordinate with it. Truth is the name of whatever proves itself to be good in the way of belief, and good, too, for definite, assignable reasons. † Richard Rorty claims that James did not mean to give a theory of truth with this statement, and that we should not regard it as such; though other pragmatism scholars such as Susan Haak and Howard Mounce do not share an instrumentalist interpretation of James. Bruce Kuklick, (Kuklick, tells us that, â€Å"James went on to apply the pragmatic method to the epistemological problem of truth. He would seek the meaning of ‘true’ by examining how the idea functioned in our lives. A belief was true, he said, if in the long run it worked for all of us, and guided us expeditiously through our semi-hospitable world. James was anxious to uncover what true beliefs amounted to in human life, what their â€Å"Cash Value† was, what consequences they led to. A belief was not a mental entity which somehow mysteriously corresponded to an external reality if the belief were true. Beliefs were ways of acting with reference to a precarious environment, and to say they were true was to say they guided us satisfactorily in this environment. † In this sense the pragmatic theory of truth applied Darwinian ideas in philosophy; it made survival the test of intellectual as well as biological fitness. If what was true was what worked, we can scientifically investigate religion’s claim to truth in the same manner. The enduring quality of religious beliefs throughout recorded history and in all cultures gave indirect support for the view that such beliefs worked. James also argued directly that such beliefs were satisfying—they enabled us to lead fuller, richer lives and were more viable than their alternatives. Religious beliefs were expedient in human existence, just as scientific beliefs were. † William James gave a further direction to pragmatism, developing it as a theory of truth. True ideas, according to James, are useful â€Å"leadings†; they lead through experience in ways that provide consistency, orderliness, and predictability. John Dewey was another leading pragmatist whose influence on educational and social theory is still prevalent in American society. We learn from (American Pragmatism I), that â€Å"James elaborated his theory of pragmatism in works such as Pragmatism: A New Name for Some Old Ways of Thinking (1907) and The Meaning of Truth: A Sequel to Pragmatism (1909). He considered pragmatism to be both a method for analyzing philosophic problems and a theory of truth. He also saw it as an extension of the empiricist attitude in that it turned away from abstract theory and fixed or absolute principles and toward concrete facts, actions, and relative principles. James considered philosophies to be expressions of personal temperament and developed a correlation between â€Å"tough-minded† and â€Å"tender-minded† temperaments and empiricist and rationalist positions in philosophy. Theories, he felt, are â€Å"instruments† that humans use to solve problems and should be judged in terms of their â€Å"cash value† or practical consequences for human conduct. Reference American Pragmatism I. â€Å"Pragmatism†. Adventures in Philosophy. James, William. (1902-1920). â€Å"What is Pragmatism†. The Library of America. Lecture II Kuklick, Bruce. â€Å"William James†. The Introduction to William James’s Pragmatism. Wikipedia, The Free Dictionary.

Exploring the Issues behind Patient-Assisted Suicide Essay

Death is as much a part of human existence, of human growth and development, like birth. All humans need to undergo all these processes as they journey through life. However, death sets a limit on our time in this world, and life culminates in death. However, when we intervene with some of these natural processes, problems arise because it intrudes in life’s natural processes. This is why, suicide is not just perceived as a medical problem because it also involves legal, ethical, social, personal, and financial considerations. It is not just morally reprehensible for a physician, or any medical practitioner, to assist the patient to conduct this procedure because it negates their responsibility to preserve life, suicide also devalues the life of the patient as its fate is put entirely in the hands of a human being to intrude with the natural process of things. For this reason, the debate over euthanasia (or patient-assisted suicide) involves many professionals, as well as the patients and their families. The arguments now have to do with the dignity of the patients, the quality of their lives, their mental state, and sometimes their usefulness to society. For example, the patient who is in a vegetative state is considered dead by some but not by others, and this case presents substantial ethical and logistical problems. The Oxford Dictionary of English (2005) defines euthanasia as â€Å"the painless killing of a patient suffering from an incurable and painful disease or in an irreversible coma†. However, euthanasia means much more than a â€Å"painless death†, or the means of procuring it, or the action of inducing it. The definition specifies only the manner of death, and if this were all that was implied a murderer, careful to drug his victim, could claim that his act was an act of euthanasia. We find this ridiculous because we take it for granted that in euthanasia it is death itself, not just the manner of death. How can someone administer a medical â€Å"procedure† to the one who dies in the end? If a person requests the termination of his or her life, the action is called voluntary euthanasia (and often also assisted suicide). If the person is not mentally competent to make an informed request, the action is called non-voluntary euthanasia. Both forms should be distinguished from involuntary euthanasia, which involves a person capable of making an informed request, but who has not done so. Involuntary euthanasia is universally condemned and plays no role in current moral controversies. A final set of distinctions appeals to the active–passive distinction: passive euthanasia involves letting someone die from a disease or injury, whereas active euthanasia involves taking active steps to end a person’s life. All of these distinctions suffer from borderline cases and various forms of ambiguity. The focus of recent public and philosophical controversy has been over voluntary active euthanasia (VAE), especially physician-assisted suicide. Supporters of VAE argue that there are cases in which relief from suffering supersedes all other consequences and that respect for autonomy obligates society to respect the decisions of those who elect euthanasia. If competent patients have a legal and moral right to refuse treatment that brings about their deaths, there is a similar right to enlist the assistance of physicians or others to help patients cause their deaths by an active means. Usually, supporters of VAE primarily look to circumstances in which (1) a condition has become overwhelmingly burdensome for a patient, (2) pain management for the patient is inadequate, and (3) only a physician seems capable of bringing relief (Dworkin, Frey & Bok, 1998). One well-known incident that VAE came into the headlines was when it was provided by the bizarre activities of Dr.  Jack Kevorkian in early 1990s (or â€Å"Dr Death† as the media have dubbed him) in the USA. Dr. Kevorkian, a retired pathologist, assisted over forty people to commit suicide in recent years in circumstances which were somewhat removed from regular medical practice. These people travelled to Kevorkian from all over the USA to seek his assistance in suicide. He assisted them, sometimes by attaching them, in the back of his rusting Volkswagen van, to his ‘suicide machine’, which injected them with lethal drugs when they activated it. Despite being prosecuted for assisted suicide on several occasions, Kevorkian escaped conviction and continued his personal campaign for relaxation of the law in his peculiar way. It was only when he moved from assistance in suicide to euthanasia that he was finally convicted. He filmed himself administering a lethal injection, and the film helped secure his conviction for murder (Keown 2002, p. 31). Of course, his actions provoked discussion of the thin line separating passive euthanasia, which is legal in this country, and active euthanasia. Opponents of Kevorkian’s actions state that he is practicing assisted suicide, which is illegal. Proponents of Kevorkian’s actions argue that the patient’s right to control his or her medical treatment is sufficient justification for assisted suicide. Euthanasia is Not Ethical According to Somerville (2006), there are two major reasons why people should not allow euthanasia to be legalized. One is based on principle: it is wrong for one human to intentionally kill another (except in justified self-defense, or in the defense of others). The other reason is utilitarian: the harms and risks of legalizing euthanasia, to individuals in general and to society, far outweigh any benefits. While Mak, Elwyn & Finlay (2006) reasoned that â€Å"most studies of euthanasia have been quantitative, focusing primarily on attitudes of healthcare professionals, relatives, and the public†. Pain is usually identified as a major reason for requesting euthanasia; other influences included functional impairment, dependency, burden, social isolation, depression, hopelessness, and issues of control and autonomy. This is why, Mak, Elwyn & Finlay (2006) thought that legalizing euthanasia is a â€Å"premature† move when research evidence from the perspectives of those who desire euthanasia is not yet proven to be necessary. They said â€Å"more qualitative patient based studies are needed to broaden our understanding of patients†. What needs to be done, they deemed, should be the â€Å"inclusion of medical humanities, experiential learning, and reflective practice into medical education should help ensure doctors have better communication skills and attitudes†. By examining ways to improve care at all levels, healthcare professionals can eliminate the side effects of poor end of life care, then euthanasia would not be needed anymore. In 1988, the Journal of the American Medical Association published a statement on its take about patient-assisted suicide when a gynecology resident agreed to conduct assisted suicide to a young woman, dying of cancer, whom he has never seen before. Horrified by her severe distress, and proceeding alone without consultation with anyone, the doctor gives her a lethal injection of morphine. The publishing of this gynecology resident’s letter caused media hype and was featured in the previous issue in JAMA, where it was titled as â€Å"It’s Over Debbie† (1988). This is how the JAMA took its position regarding the matter: 1. ) On his own admission, the resident appears to have committed a felony: premeditated murder. Direct intentional homicide is a felony in all American jurisdictions, for which the plea of merciful motive is no excuse. That the homicide was clearly intentional is confirmed by the resident’s act of unrepentant publication. Law aside, the physician behaved altogether in a scandalously unprofessional and unethical manner. He did not know the patient: he had never seen her before, he did not study her chart, he did not converse with her or her family. He never spoke to her physician. He took as an unambiguous command her only words to him, â€Å"Let’s get this over with†: he did not bother finding out what precisely she meant or whether she meant it wholeheartedly. He did not consider alternative ways of bringing her relief or comfort; instead of comfort, he gave her death. This is no humane and thoughtful physician succumbing with fear and trembling to the pressures and well-considered wishes of a patient well known to him, for whom there was truly no other recourse. This is, by his own account, an impulsive yet cold technician, arrogantly masquerading as a knight of compassion and humanity. (Indeed, so cavalier is the report and so cold-blooded the behavior, it strains our credulity to think that the story is true. ) Law and professional manner both aside, the resident violated one of the first and most hallowed canons of the medical ethic: doctors must not kill. Generations of physicians and commentators on medical ethics have underscored and held fast to the distinction between ceasing useless treatments (or allowing to die) and active, willful taking of life; at least since the Oath of Hippocrates, Western medicine has regarded the killing of patients, even on request, as a profound violation of the deepest meaning of the medical vocation. The Judicial Council of the American Medical Association in 1986, in an opinion regarding treatment of dying patients, affirmed the principle that a physician â€Å"should not intentionally cause death. † Neither legal tolerance nor the best bedside manner can ever make medical killing medically ethical (Baird & Rosenbaum 1989, p. 26). Indeed, the laws of most nations and the codes of medical and research ethics from the Hippocratic Oath to today’s major professional codes strictly prohibit VAE (and all forms of merciful hastened death), even if a patient has a good reason for wanting to die. Although courts have often defended the rights of patients in cases of passive euthanasia, courts have rarely allowed any form of what they judged to be VAE. Those who defend laws and medical traditions opposed to VAE often appeal to either (1) professional-role obligations that prohibit killing or (2) the social consequences that would result from changing these traditions. The first argument is straightforward: killing patients is inconsistent with the roles of nursing, care-giving, and healing. The second argument is more complex and has been at the center of many discussions. This argument is referred to as the wedge argument or the slippery slope argument, and proceeds roughly as follows: although particular acts of active termination of life are sometimes morally justified, the social consequences of sanctioning such practices of killing would run serious risks of abuse and misuse and, on balance, would cause more harm than benefit. The argument is not that these negative consequences will occur immediately, but that they will grow incrementally over time, with an ever-increasing risk of unjustified termination (Dworkin, Frey & Bok, 1998). Refusal of Treatment When a patient refuses treatment, the physician is faced with a great dilemma. Doctors maintain that if the patient does not want treatment, physicians do not have a duty to start it. Once treatment is started, however, physicians have a duty to continue it if discontinuing it would lead to the patient’s death. They are not required to force a patient to go on a respirator if the patient refuses, but once the patient has gone on the respirator, doctors have a duty to keep him on it, even contrary to the patient’s wishes, if taking him off would result in his death. Suffice it here to point out one important limit: a doctor is not ethically bound to assist a refusal of treatment which is suicidal, that is, made not because the treatment is futile or excessively burdensome but in order to hasten death (Keown, 2002, p. 253). Actual suicide has been a felony in England in the past but today, suicide has been decriminalized in most part of the world. Attempting to take one’s own life, however, remains criminal in some jurisdictions. In these as well as in those states where it is not a crime, the state has intervened in some cases to order life-sustaining treatment in the face of objection by a competent adult. The most widely cited case in which this was done is John F. Kennedy Memorial Hospital v. Heston (1971), where a twenty-two-year-old unmarried woman refused a blood transfusion because she was a Jehovah’s Witness. She was forced to have one anyway on the theory that there is no difference between passively submitting to death and actively seeking it. The state regards both as attempts at self-destruction and may prevent them. Since this case, however, the trend of cases has been away from this reasoning and toward subordinating the state’s interest in the prevention of suicide to the rights of patients to forgo or have withdrawn life-sustaining treatment (Berger 1995, p. 20). However, when the patient is terminal and death is imminent, no treatment is medically indicated, and the competent patient’s rightful refusal of treatment does not conflict with the health provider’s form of beneficence. There may be an emotional problem in admitting defeat, but there should be no ethical problem. It should be noted that, although the patient may not be competent at the end, refusal of treatment may be accomplished through a living will or a surrogate, especially through a surrogate who has durable power of attorney for health matters. In the case when the patient is terminal but death is not imminent, for example when the disease or injury progresses slowly, and granted the consent of the patient or surrogate, it appears ethical to omit treatment on the ground that nothing can be accomplished in thwarting the progress of the disease. But it is not ethical to omit care, since human dignity is to be respected. To solve this dilemma, the AMA Council on Ethical and Judicial Affairs (1996) takes a clear stand on the issue: E-2. 20 Even if the patient is not terminally ill or permanently unconscious, it is not unethical to discontinue all means of life-sustaining medical treatment in accordance with a proper substituted judgment or best interests analysis. The treatments include artificially supplied respiration, nutrition, or hydration. In its recent opposition to physician-assisted suicide, the AMA has strongly endorsed a program to educate physicians to the appropriateness of switching from therapeutic treatment to palliative care. The group has gone from a tentative, negative position (â€Å"not unethical†) to a much stronger positive stand (AMA, 1996). On the other hand, we should also consider the reasoning behind the ethical correctness of not beginning or of stopping treatment in the case of the consenting patient who is terminally ill. First, the health care provider has no obligation to prolong dying merely for the sake of prolonging it. That is, it makes no sense to prolong life when the true result is the prolongation of the dying process. Furthermore, when treatment is only prolonging the agony of the patient, its continuation is unethical as an insult to human dignity (Cahill, 1977). In such cases, the health care provider would be ethically justified in discontinuing treatment, except when the patient insists on treatment. Even in this case, however, there can be exceptions. When there is a severe shortage of medical resources, the physician might be justified in stopping nonindicated treatment even over the protests of the patient. We say â€Å"might be justified,† since justification would depend, among other things, on a new social consensus about the duties of health care professionals and on a reasonable certainty that a shortage exists. There are also problems in discontinuing treatment when the patient’s surrogate(s) objects. It should be noted that cessation of life-sustaining treatment does not always bring about a swift and painless death, even though it may speed up the process of dying. For example, if kidney dialysis is discontinued, the person remains conscious and suffers vomiting, internal hemorrhage, and convulsions. The removal of a respirator does not lead to death immediately, and the patient suffers the pain and panic of suffocation. The obligation to care for the patient demands that every ethical effort be made to alleviate these sufferings with drugs and other methods that will not prolong life. Much recent research suggests that physicians are particularly deficient in their willingness and ability to provide adequate pain palliation for dying patients (SUPPORT, 1995). This could be one of the main concerns that drive the interest in physician-assisted suicide. Beyond this, when such pain relief is not possible for the patient, or when the harm is not the pain, but the insult to dignity, there arises the difficult problem of actively cooperating in the suicide of the patient. Religious Issues Several religions have a negative take on any form of suicide. Those who oppose active euthanasia on religious grounds, the basic concern seems to be the view that our lives are not ours but gifts from God. In this view, humans hold their lives as a trust. If this is true, then we are bound to hold not only the lives of others inviolate but also our own, since to take our life is to destroy what belongs to God. For Christians, in Exodus 34:7 and Daniel 13:53, scriptures taken from the Old Testament, the doctrine of the sanctity of life principle is upheld, except in rare instances of self defense. Judeo-Christian precepts generally condemn active euthanasia in any form, but allow some forms of passive euthanasia. The difference is that of omission and commission: While the Judeo-Christian philosophy might tolerate the allowance of death, acts that permit death, it draws the line in regard to acts that cause death. For Buddhists, they perceive it as an involvement of the intentional taking of life. This is why euthanasia is contrary to basic Buddhist ethical teachings because it violates the first of the Five Precepts. It is also contrary to the more general moral principle of ahimsa. This conclusion applies to both the active and passive forms of the practice, even when accompanied by a compassionate motivation with the end of avoiding suffering. The term ‘euthanasia’ has no direct equivalent in canonical Buddhist languages. Euthanasia as an ethical issue is not explicitly discussed in canonical or commentarial sources, and no clear cases of euthanasia are reported. However, there are canonical cases of suicide and attempted suicide which have a bearing on the issue. One concerns the monastic precept against taking life, the third of the four parajika-dharmas, which was introduced by the Buddha when a group of monks became disenchanted with life and began to kill themselves, some dying by their own hand and others with the aid of an intermediary. The Buddha intervened to prevent this, thus apparently introducing a prohibition on voluntary euthanasia. In other situations where monks in great pain contemplated suicide they are encouraged to turn their thoughts away from this and to use their experience as a means to developing insight into the nature of suffering and impermanence (anitya) (Dictionary of Buddhism, 2003). Nonreligious arguments against active euthanasia usually follow a slippery slope or wedge line of reasoning. In some ways the arguments recall the parable of the camel who pleaded with his owner to be allowed to put his nose into the tent to keep it warm against the cold desert night. Once the nose was allowed, other adjustments were requested, and the owner found himself sleeping with his camel. Is there something so persuasive about putting others to death that, if allowed, would become gross and commonplace? The Nazi â€Å"final solution,† which brought about the death of millions of Jews, gypsies, and other eastern Europeans, could be traced to compulsory euthanasia legislation that, at the time of its enactment, included only mental cases, monstrosities, and incurables who were a burden of the state. Using the Nazi experience as a guide, critics of active euthanasia do see some seductiveness to killing that humans do not seem able to handle. Perhaps Sigmund Freud (1925) was right as he wrote: What no human soul desires there is no need to prohibit; it is automatically excluded. The very emphasis of the commandment â€Å"Thou shalt not kill† makes it certain that we spring from an endless ancestry of murderers, with whom the lust for killing was in the blood, as possibly it is to this day with ourselves. The religious take on euthanasia often focus on the sanctity/inviolability of life. In Western thought, the development of the principle has owed much to the Judaeo-Christian tradition. That tradition’s doctrine of the sanctity of life holds that human life is created in the image of God and is, therefore, possessed of an intrinsic dignity which entitles it to protection from unjust attack. With or without this theological underpinning, the doctrine that human life possesses an intrinsic dignity grounds the principle that one must never intentionally kill an innocent human being. The ‘right to life’ is essentially a right not to be intentionally killed (Keown, 2002, p. 40).

O great god-king Xerxes Essay

O great god-king Xerxes, I have heard that you are planning to launch a full-scale invasion of the Greek nations following on the steps of your father, Darius. I come here before you to attempt to dissuade you of your plans for Greece. As I am once a prominent citizen of one of the many city-states in the nation, it would do you well to listen to my advice as it contains extensive knowledge of what you are about to face if you push through with your plans. O King, barely ten years ago, your father Darius launched a similar invasion against the Greek city-states in retaliation to the Athenians’ aiding the Ionians in their revolt against his rule. Although it had been initially successful, the invasion was ultimately put to an end by his defeat during the Battle of Marathon. It could be worth noting that, despite the battle being a victory, it was a desperate attack by the Athenian army that caused the defeat of your father’s armed forces. Sparta, perhaps the state with the most powerful military in all of Greece, was absent from the battle and even then the Greeks scored a victory. Each city-state in Greece acts independently from each other. They are each governed by their respective rulers and are not influenced by the affairs of the other city-states. However, it is not impossible for each of them to call for aid to one another as evidenced by the Ionian call for aid during the previous war. Sartus was taken thanks to the aid provided by Athens, who had the major contribution in the allied army, and by Eretria. Sparta had chosen delay sending military aid as it had decided a full moon needed to pass before they do anything and were thus absent from the Battle of Marathon, where your father’s army was defeated utterly. Had Sparta’s forces been present, its superior military might compared to Athens would likely contribute to utter decimation of the Persian forces under your father’s command. However, even then, your father’s soldiers lost under the Greeks. If you attack now, O King, you risk provoking an even greater alliance that can now include Sparta, which is your most formidable enemy on the plains of Greece. The Spartans are a race that places utmost emphasis on military training and raising superior soldiers that have been tested in war. Furthermore, the Spartans will never participate and are not interested in any alliance that will not mean leadership to them. They can be a vain and arrogant nation but with the strength to back their vanity up. If you threaten the entire Greek country now, your Majesty, the major powers of the nation will definitely ally themselves with Sparta at the helm. With Spartan tactics and warriors at the vanguard, your army – no matter how great – will run into serious opposition which can result into an even greater demise than what has happened to your father’s forces in Marathon. As could be expected from any nation, the Greeks have devised battle tactics that are best suited to their terrain. They know their land; you can expect them to take advantage of that and lure your forces into a disadvantage in battle. With a possible alliance under Spartan leadership, the Greek can have a tactical and strategic advantage even if your army is greater in number. O Wise King, great wisdom it would be not to rely on the greater numbers of your armed host. The Greeks, especially the Spartans, will not be easily daunted. They have tactics that can be quite effective when employed in terrain which they know well. For example, your father Darius in Marathon faced a tactic called the phalanx. By definition, a Greek battle line deployed in a phalanx means there is equal strength in all sides of the battle formation. However, in Marathon, the Greek commander faced superior numbers but was able to modify the phalanx into an effective variant: he strengthened the wings of his battle formation while weakening the center. At first you would think that the Greeks were committing suicide and, indeed, the Greeks seemed to be at the point of desperation. However, stronger wings meant that the Greeks managed to hold off the wings of your father’s formations, holding them back and disabling them from reinforcing the center of King Darius’ battle lines. Thus, it was then that the Persian armies were surrounded and routed by the Greek army in Marathon. The results of the battle were horrific. Your father lost a sizable portion of his soldiers, sixty times more than what the Greeks lost in that same battle. A second Marathon is not the only thing that you should worry about in the conduct of battle in this planned invasion. A worse battle awaits your forces if you push through. In Greece, there is a place which we call the â€Å"Hot Gates† or Thermopylae. This place is a narrow pass bordered by a sheer cliff wall on one side, and the sea on the other side. This is a battleground ideal for the phalanx. In such a narrow pass, the phalanx will serve as a wedge that will drive through your attacking forces. The Greeks need only to strengthen their front lines with the rear guard merely pushing the front soldiers forward. In here, the superior numbers of your great army will definitely count for nothing. The Greeks, especially the Spartans and the Athenians, are aware of this pass; they will definitely use this to their advantage to hold off your army while a greater force amasses for retaliation. A Spartan-led phalanx could be as devastating as any phalanx, which had been proven by the Athenian tactics in Marathon. As you could see, Great King Xerxes, the sheer size of your army is both your strength and your liability. To support such a large host, you need a sizable navy to carry supplies back and forth. Your navy will be stretched thin supporting your great army; it will also have to endure against whatever naval counterattacks and offensives that the Greeks may launch against you. You could face a naval situation similar to Thermopylae in Salamis. It is a narrow channel, one which can reduce your navy into a bottleneck and reduce their effectiveness. The Greeks can pick your ships off one by one even if they may be smaller in size. Consider my wisdom in this matter, King Xerxes. I daresay that, even if you hold the greater number of forces, you would find it hard to manage them effectively at smaller levels. The Greeks, my former countrymen, are geniuses both in scholarship and in battle; your father Darius learnt that the hard way in the fields of Marathon under the Athenians alone. With a possible pan-Greek alliance – with the mighty Spartans leading – your forces face yet another humiliating defeat similar to Marathon, only this time you will be facing the combined might of all the city-states of Greece. Abandon this plan now, before this results to destruction of your mighty host. Sources: Wheeler, Kevin. (2001). â€Å"Ancient Greek Battles of Marathon, Thermopylae, Artemisium and Salamis. † Retrieved November 30, 2008, from Ancient World Battles website: http://www. geocities. com/caesarkevin/battles/Greekbattles1. html Lendering, Jona. (2005). â€Å"Phalanx and Hoplites. † Retrieved November 30, 2008 from Livius. org website: http://www. livius. org/pha-phd/phalanx/phalanx. html Lopez, Vincent. (2008) â€Å"Shock Tactics on the Ancient Battlefield. † Retrieved November 30, 2008 from Armchair General website: http://www. armchairgeneral. com/shock-tactics-on-the-ancient-battlefield. htm/5 Stewart, Michael. â€Å"People, Places & Things: Xerxes I†, Greek Mythology: From the Iliad to the Fall of the Last Tyrant. Retrieved November 30, 2008 from Messagenet website: http://messagenet. com/myths/ppt/Xerxes_I_1. html Freedom44. (2004). â€Å"The First Persian War – Greek Wars. † Retrieved from Free Republic website: http://freerepublic. com/focus/f-news/1196577/posts

Marketing Plan for White Appliances Inc Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 4000 words

Marketing Plan for White Appliances Inc - Essay Example White Appliances Inc. primarily focuses on meeting the needs of the high-income customer segment and this strategy will call upon the company to serve customers across the various income segments including the lower-income segment. This study has identified that the company’s positioning strategies should focus on differentiating the company’s products from the other products variety provided by competitors. The pricing strategy identified also allows the company to launch its brand in the market and build relationships that promotes the customer-business relations this study has used push strategy to optimize use of the available distribution channels. This strategy will help the company to offer distributors some generous discounts that would enable them achieve the objectives of giving the distribution channels incentives. This study has done market intelligence to analyze customers and competitors and has also conducted micro and macro environment analysis using SWO T and PEST analysis. Creating product awareness and improving customers’ knowledge about the product are important in achieving the desired market presence. Background of the company White Appliance Inc. is one of the international companies in America that manufacture and markets its appliance products globally. Microwave ovens are one of the company’s product lines with production plants in United States and in Asia. White Appliances Inc. Produces and markets its products to high-income customers across its global market. ... 16). Microwave products refer to the cooking devices that help in both cooking and reheating of food by passing the foods to be heated through electromagnetic radiations that emanate from all directions. Company’s situation analysis Goals: White Appliances Inc aims at penetrating microwave oven market in India cutting at all prices segments. The company has mainly focused on high price segment but it has established the need to cut across all other market segments (Mills 2002, p.3). The company also aims at increasing its market share in India; currently the company has very limited market presence. White Appliances Inc. also looks forward to changing consumer conceptions about microwave in the market. Focus: the main focus of White Appliances Inc. is to penetrate Indian market at all price levels by shifting consumer conceptions or mindsets concerning microwave ovens and also by educating customers on the usage of microwave in cooking and reheating of food (Cateora et al 2009 , p. 43). Corporate culture: White Appliances is committed to manufacturing and marketing of superior products ranging from scooters to soda pop to kitchen appliances. The company is innovation driven and it corporate culture has also exhibited reliability, high quality and excellence. The company is committed to meeting customers’ needs and in this regard it has focused on improving the understanding of customers about their products. The company is sensitive to customers’ views and its uses the views to determine customers’ satisfaction (Mohr et al 2009, p. 5). Strengths of the company: the company has familiarized itself in the Indian market as seen in the high-models developed for the Indian market.

Choose a topic that falls within the time frame of 1945-1964 Essay

Choose a topic that falls within the time frame of 1945-1964 - Essay Example Subsequently, the paper will highlight some of the ways the Jewish population were accepted into American society. Between 1945 and 1960, the United States of America advocated for the survival of the Jews. During this era, world war two had just come to an end and hence an era of human destructiveness was ushered. Only three million Jews were alive in around 1945 out of a total of nine million in 1939. For most of the Jews who were alive during this period, there was no home to go to in Europe1. For the few Jews who attempted to go back to their pre-war homes (Europe), cold hatred, and local ethnic violence awaited them. Between 1945 and 1946, allied forces returned home from war ready to abandon the destructive life they had lived. With this wave came more than half a million Jewish soldiers and marines. The Jews had joined the American forces and fought alongside them during the war. By 1946, they were being referred to as Jewish Americans rather than the more unfriendly term American Jews. The American society commenced accepting the Jewish population in 1945. For example, Miss Myerson was crowned in Atlantic City, New Jersey as Miss America in September 1945. She had Jewish immigrant parents. This gesture implied that the American population was slowly accepting the Jews into their society. 2The era after WWII marked the delineation between what was good and evil. The American nation stood for what was good while fascism, communism and Nazism represented or were considered to be evil. 3The American government commenced on a voyage of destroying anti-Semitic groups between 1946 to 1950. During this exercise, more than 35 anti-Semitic groups in America were banned or shut down. Although some groups remained, they were however pushed to be more receptive to the Jewish population. The stigma associated with being part of the Nazis also helped to reduce

Adversarial System vs Inquisitorial System Essay

Adversarial System vs Inquisitorial System - Essay Example They state that after one side of the proceedings wins the case, there is always a sense of closure for those who have been involved in the case. Moreover, it is always rare to find anyone who has any grievance concerning how the proceedings took place, because they believe that justice has been done. On the other hand, the proponents of the inquisitorial judicial system often state that this system is more suitable because it caters for social change as well as ensuring the creation of an efficient policy for court proceedings. This creates an environment where cases are dealt with swiftly and efficiently, and because the court has a hand in the investigations, it is a rare thing for false evidence to be presented. Moreover, the inquisitorial proceedings help ensure that the cost of legal proceedings remains low, because the court caters for the expenditure of the investigations being carried out (Ringnalda 120). When one closely considers these systems, one would say that the inqui sitorial system is more efficient in dealing with cases than adversarial system. In this paper, we shall analyze both of these systems and their application in various situations, assessing their strengths and weaknesses. The adversarial system is a judicial system that involves two opposing parties being represented by advocates, who defend the position of these parties before a group of people who are considered objective. In most of the cases handled under an adversarial system, the divergent parties present their cases before a judge for arbitration. This system is quite different from the inquisitorial system, where a judge, or a group of them, has a direct hand in the investigation of the cases, which have been brought before them. This is an advantage over the inquisitorial system because in such a system, there is always likelihood that the judge may be impartial in making decisions concerning the case. Consequently, the judge may end up making a decision in favor of the par ty to which he or she is partial. This is not the case in an adversarial system because the purpose of the judge is to listen to the proceedings and make a balanced decision based on the evidence presented by the parties involved. In this system, it does not matter which side is correct as long as the evidence presented gives an advantage to one party. The adversarial system is used in almost every country that practices common law, although there are exceptions in some instances, especially where the common law cannot be applied. This system has a structure of two sides, one dedicated to the defense, while the other is dedicated to the prosecution. The structure operates in a way that puts the defense against the prosecution, and the side that is able to make the more convincing argument ends up winning the case. This structure is set up in a way that justice is only achieved when the side with the best argument wins, despite the fact that the side that wins may be in the wrong. Th erefore, it is the task either of both the defense and the prosecution to convince a judge or in some cases a jury, that they are right. It is for the jury to decide which side has given a more convincing argument, and come up with a verdict (â€Å"Adversarial and Inquisitorial Legal Systems†). This is not the case in an inquisitorial system, because the parties involved might feel that they are at the mercy of the judge presiding over the case. Such a situation would make these parties not to be confident in the legal proceedings. They might feel that the judge might not have their best interests at heart when making decisions. Another advantage which the adversarial sys

Stress Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1500 words

Stress - Essay Example It depends on the ability of the persons involved to be able to cope with the demands, effectively and efficiently. Looking at the definition of the stress, we can see that there are three major approaches that may be used to manage the stress; action oriented approach, emotionally-oriented approach and acceptance-oriented approach. In action-oriented approach to manage stress, we seek to confront the problem which was causing the stress. This is done by changing the environment or the situation. To be able to take an action-oriented approach, we must have some power or control, in the situation. If we possess that power, then action-oriented approaches are some of the most satisfying and rewarding ways of managing stress. Through these techniques, we can manage and overcome stressful situations, by changing them to our advantage. In emotionally-oriented approach for stress management, we do not have the power to change the situation, but we can manage stress by changing our interpretation of the situation and the way we feel about it. If we do not have the power to change a situation, then we may be able to reduce stress by changing the way we look at it, using an emotionally-oriented approach. Emotionally-oriented approaches are often less attractive than action-oriented approaches. The stresses can recur. However, these approaches of stress management are still effective and useful. The third approach is acceptance-oriented, where it is assumed that something has happened over which we have no power and no emotional control, and where our focus is on surviving the stress. Sometimes, we have so little power in a situation that all we can do to survive it. In these situations, often the first stage of coping with the stress is to accept one’s lack of power. These different approaches to stress management address the problem for solution in different ways: the action-oriented techniques help us to manage the demands upon us and increase the resources