The Giver :: essays research papers

The book The Giver by Louis Lowry is a very interesting book that everyone should take time to read. This book takes you through a community of people where everything has to be perfect. The story line is based around a boy named Jonas. Everyone in the community is assigned a job when they turn twelve and its Jonas turn to step up and get his job. This book is interesting because everything has to be perfect, Jonas gets the best job, and the adventure Jonas has to go through to save a new born child named Gabriel. In the book everyone and everything has to be perfect. If someone made a mistake they bring shame to there family and are released or kicked out of the community. One pilot had read his coordinates wrong and flew over the part f the community he wasn’t supposed to. The author states, â€Å"Needless To Say, He Will Be Released,† (2) This shows how strict the community was. Later on it the book Jonas receives his job as The Receiver of Memory. Since the community is perfect they never feel pain, pleasure, or can see any colors. Jonas’ job allows him to do all of the above and more. He must also keep the memories of the past. The author states, â€Å"Such a selection is very, very rare,† (60) which shows that getting that job is the community’s most honored position. Jonas after feeling the pain of death does not want Gabriel to die so he runs of with him. Jonas finally can see colors and knows what snow is and stuff like that. When he and Gabriel leave the community they are being searched by planed that detect body heat. To lower there body temperatures he used his memories of snow to cool them down. The author states, â€Å"Together they became cold; and when the planes were gone, they would shiver, holding each other, until sleep came again.

Dr. Martin Luther King :: essays research papers

My impression of Dr. Martin Luther King was always and still is that he was a great leader for the African American people. He was a big leader in the civil rights movement. He was also very involved in the community. Even though I have much respect for Dr. King, I felt he was a â€Å"house† or â€Å"yard† negro leader, the term Malcom X used, and was only interested with civil rights issues.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  The term â€Å"house† and â€Å"yard† negroes was what Malcom X called black leaders who were just puppets for the white man. They were there just to keep peace among African American people. Like I stated early I have much respect for Dr. King but I still felt he was like the rest of the black leaders who just preached about nonviolence. The ones who always say, look have far we come from the old days, but in actuality we were no better then, than we were back in the old days. I just felt hat violence was never an option when it came to Dr. King and his beliefs. Until I read his comments and he states, â€Å"we still have a choice today; nonviolent coexistence or violent co annihilation.†   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  I also thought Dr. King was more interested in civil rights than he was human rights. â€Å"How is the black man going to get â€Å"civil right† before first he wins his human right?†(Malcom X). But after reading his comments my views have changed. He stated, â€Å"The limited reforms we have won have been at bargain rates for the power of structure. There are no expenses involved, no taxes are required, for Negroes to share lunch counters, libraries, parks, hotels and other facilities. Even the more substantial reforms such as voting rights require neither monetary or psychological sacrifice. He was also quoted saying â€Å"it a crime for people to live in this rich nation and receive starvation wages.†   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚     Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  My opinions of Dr. Martin Luther King, has changed since reading his comments. I went from thinking violence was never a choice for Dr. King to learning that it was. Although I feel that he was still a 100 percent against violence. My main opinion of him has change a great deal. I thought Dr. King was only for the civil rights moment, meaning he would be happy with us just getting our voting rights and every thing else that represented the civil rights movement. Dr. Martin Luther King :: essays research papers My impression of Dr. Martin Luther King was always and still is that he was a great leader for the African American people. He was a big leader in the civil rights movement. He was also very involved in the community. Even though I have much respect for Dr. King, I felt he was a â€Å"house† or â€Å"yard† negro leader, the term Malcom X used, and was only interested with civil rights issues.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  The term â€Å"house† and â€Å"yard† negroes was what Malcom X called black leaders who were just puppets for the white man. They were there just to keep peace among African American people. Like I stated early I have much respect for Dr. King but I still felt he was like the rest of the black leaders who just preached about nonviolence. The ones who always say, look have far we come from the old days, but in actuality we were no better then, than we were back in the old days. I just felt hat violence was never an option when it came to Dr. King and his beliefs. Until I read his comments and he states, â€Å"we still have a choice today; nonviolent coexistence or violent co annihilation.†   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  I also thought Dr. King was more interested in civil rights than he was human rights. â€Å"How is the black man going to get â€Å"civil right† before first he wins his human right?†(Malcom X). But after reading his comments my views have changed. He stated, â€Å"The limited reforms we have won have been at bargain rates for the power of structure. There are no expenses involved, no taxes are required, for Negroes to share lunch counters, libraries, parks, hotels and other facilities. Even the more substantial reforms such as voting rights require neither monetary or psychological sacrifice. He was also quoted saying â€Å"it a crime for people to live in this rich nation and receive starvation wages.†   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚     Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  My opinions of Dr. Martin Luther King, has changed since reading his comments. I went from thinking violence was never a choice for Dr. King to learning that it was. Although I feel that he was still a 100 percent against violence. My main opinion of him has change a great deal. I thought Dr. King was only for the civil rights moment, meaning he would be happy with us just getting our voting rights and every thing else that represented the civil rights movement.

How does the view of modern media and literature vary to the biblical literature on the medical developments of Cloning?

This essay deals with the issues raised in the media by the rapid technological developments of cloning and in particular on the religious beliefs of the uniqueness of life. It will also touch upon the ethical and legal issues brought about through out the development of cloning. 1A clone is a group of genetically identical organisms. Identical twins are therefore a clone since both come form one fertilised egg that is divided into two genetically identical cells that then separate. In the process of mammalian cloning there are two processes. Nuclear Transfer is where the nucleus is removed from the unfertilised egg cell; this eliminates all its genetic information. The cell nucleus of the individual being cloned is introduced into the enucleated egg cell though cell fusion. If this is done in the right conditions, the egg cell then begins to divide and go through a process of foetal developments as if it had been fertilised normally. The other process is artificial twinning which is a process of splitting the embryo into two or more embryos. First an egg cell is fertilised by sperm, then left to grow into an embryo. The embryo is split into two or more embryos when it is still in the early stage of development. The split embryo are nurtured into new embryos, all genetically identical, then implanted into the surrogate mother to grow. This is not the same as nuclear transfer as the born animal has biological parents and is a clone of its brothers and sisters. Cloning of mammals has proven to be difficult and has only developed in the past few years through a long line of research. 3In 1997 came the most famous sheep of all Dolly who was cloned using a cell from an adult sheep. She represented a new departure because she was the first mammal to have been cloned using a nucleus taken from an adult sheep. She possessed a genetic code identical to that of her original parents. This breakthrough raised the possibility of cloning adult mammals rather than embryos. However it is not known yet whether nuclear transfer will be possible in the process of cloning humans. Most future cloning developments will not even concern the reproduction of humans but it will focus on using cloning to understand cell development, heredity and genetic structure. For example cloning research may contribute to disease treatment by allowing scientists to reprogram cells. Through research, skin cells could be reprogrammed into insulin producing cells in the pancreas. These skin cells would then be introduced into the pancreas of the diabetes patients, allowing them to produce insulin. 4However a number of other applications has been envisaged. It could be used in future research in which cloning may be beneficial, such as encouraging research into cloned tissues to work with the basic building blocks of life ‘the stem cells' and discovering how to reprogramme them in such away that they will develop into the tissue that is needed such as skin or heart muscle or nerve cells. These stem cells can be acquired from the foetus which has miscarried or been aborted. In order to obtain these stem cells which are genetically identical to the suffer, it is necessary to use the cloning technique, taking the nucleus of a cell from the affected person and putting it into a human egg, from which the nucleus has been removed. This is the creation of life; it is genetically identical to the person who is suffering. After just a few days of cell division, the stem cells would be removed from the embryo and then the embryo would be destroyed, this would give you a cell line which would never be human but would be used for producing identical tissue for a patient who needs a supply of cells or tissue for grafting, such as replacing heart muscle tissue which would offer hope for people with heart disease, or brain tissue which would help suffers of Alzheimer's. However many of these future applications of cloning involve the creation of embryo solely as a source of cells and destroying them. In an article by Roger Highfield science editor of The Daily Telegraph raises the ethical question, does the 100 cell early embryo that will be used in the stem cell research count as a person? That is the question at the heart of the debate. At one extreme, pro-life groups, the Catholic Church and some other religious organisations argue that the embryo becomes a human being as soon as an egg is fertilised, and should be accorded the same respect as a baby. However, as stated by Roger Highfield in the Sunday Telegraph 2002 the Christian tradition has not always granted this moral status to the early embryo. For many centuries it was believed that the human soul did not enter the embryo until 40 days after conception in the case of a man, and 90 days after conception in the case of a woman. This distinction only ended in 1869 when Pope Pius IX declared that women who had survived an abortion were to be excommunicated implying that a person was ‘ensouled' at conception. Highfield believes those at the other extreme of the debate claim that a very early embryo is no more than a collection of undifferentiated cells and deserves little more attention that any other isolated human cell or tissue. The fact that the embryo has the potential to become a person does not they say accord it the rights of a person. They also say the view that the embryo is a person from the moment of conception does not match most people's idea of human personal identity. The Warnock committee concluded that the early embryo has special status but not one that justifies its absolute protection. One of the arguments used by the modern media against developing embryonic stem cells is the same for cloning whole animals. As it could be argued that once scientists have done this there would be no stopping them from going on to develop a human clone. If once the first step is taken it might seem inevitable that the next step should follow. Therefore is it wrong to let the first step take place? As Mary Warnock suggests in her article on stem cell research from the Dialogue journal is our fear of genetic manipulation different in kind from other fears? Many fears of new discoveries have been fears of supposed risks. This was the case when people feared steam engines or internal combustion engine. And we have on whole become a risk averse society, we think of minimising risks as human nature. The issue poses the question of how cloning maybe beneficial as well as morally wrong. The people against cloning feel it is an affront to religious sensibilities; it seems like playing God and interfering with the natural process. There are other objections too like they are worried that cloning appears to be a powerful force that can be exploited to produce horrendous results like creating a population entirely the same. One of the main ethical concerns brought up by the media is the possibility of the psychological impact on the offspring. Would the human clone have a diminished sense of individuality? Perhaps human clones would think that they were genetically destined to the same fate as the person from whom their donor cells came. 7Ethical questions have been raised about how cloning could also control the children's genotypes, which could be practised in discriminatory ways. As the author Peter Paris expressed in the Ethics of Human Cloning that parents could use cloning as genetic manipulation along with other techniques to exercise the quality control over their children, or perhaps scientists may use it with racist intent a fear raised by Peter Paris,' Since Europeans, and euro Americans have never been able to affirm the value of the worlds darker races as equals, there is little reason to believe that their scientists would not seek to rid the world of some of its racial diversity by combining science of eugenic with that of human cloning,. From this there could be a reduction in genetic variability, for producing many clones runs the risk of creating a population entirely the same. The population would be susceptible to the same diseases and one disease could devastate the entire population. Too this lends support to old prejudices and it could also raise new ones which cut across existing social divisions. In the modern media supporters of cloning consider that with careful continuation of research, the technological benefits of cloning clearly outweigh the possible social consequences. In their minds, the final products of cloning, like farm animals and laboratory mice will not be the most important achievement. The applications of cloning the envision are not nightmarish and inhumane, but will improve the overall quality of science and life. Cloning will help to produce discoveries that will affect the study of genetics, cell development, human growth, and obstetrics. Also the people who argue in favour of cloning believe that much of the concerns are based on misunderstandings. They believe cloning in reality would produce what amounts to a delayed identical twin, several years or even decades younger than that person who is being cloned. Identical twins are separate individuals. They look different because of different preferences, clothing and hairstyle. They even have different moral values, academic achievements and tastes in music. As many identical twins through their lives develop unique identities of their own. Another misunderstanding is how genes influence an individual's development. Human beings do not inherit a fixed unchangeable genetic blueprint from their parents. Scientists believe it's an interaction between genes and the environment in which an individual grows up and lives including the environment in which the foetus is in the womb. 8One of the major reasons people fear cloning is based religious reasons on the notion that a clone is an imperfect imitation of the real thing, which causes some people to think that far from having the same soul as someone else a clone would have no soul at all. In the book Remaking Eden it was stated that the Irvine, California, rabbi Bernard King was seriously frightened by this idea when he asked, ‘Can the cloning process create a soul? Can scientists create the soul that would make a being ethical, moral, caring, loving, all the things we attribute humanity to? ‘. The Catholic Father Saunders suggested that, ‘Cloning would only produce humanoids or androids-soulless replicas of human beings that could be used as slaves. ‘ However there is nothing artificial about the cells used in cloning. They are alive all through the cloning process. The newly formed embryo can only develop inside the womb of a woman in the same way embryo and foetuses develop. Cloned children will be proper human beings thus the notion of soulless clone has no basis in reality. 9Though the fundamental ethical concern is something for which Christian theology provides some insights. Neil Messer suggests that the act of cloning can go against many people's moral and religious beliefs. The bible is an important part of any Christian's life and it contains the teachings of God and his views on life. In genesis he talks of the creating of earth where on the fifth day: ‘God created man in his image: in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them. Genesis 1v27. Human beings are made in the image of God. This bestows on them unique status in creation to treat them, not as manipulated, is to violate Gods given nature. Should we be going against him and creating humans to our specifications? Or is this what God would have wanted? Many strong Christians would disagree with pre-cloners saying that God made man and we should not be tampering with God and his creations, we are finite and limited creatures, we are mortals rather than God, and it is both foolish and self destructive for us to forget that. Whilst many would answer with arguments that if God had not wanted this then he would not have let humans progress so far, like genesis 11 we find human beings use there God given skill and ingenuity to try and reach up to heavens, to make a name for themselves in efforts to become like God ‘ Come let us build ourselves a city a tower that reaches the heavens, so that we may make a name for themselves and not be scattered over the face of the earth' Genesis 11v3. In this man is using Gods given ability to push back out limits to take some measure of control and authority over created order and share in Gods creative work. This was seen as an arrogant use of that skill and ingenuity to pretend that we have no limits, that we are Gods. However God has given us freewill and to exercise this freewill would mean consequently God cannot be held responsible. 10Also in Bioethics a primer for Christian Gilbert Milander believed Christians would also see cloning as a violation to the uniqueness of human life, which God has given to each person and to no one else. Christians are given their individualism uniqueness in the ritual of baptism. In baptism God sets his hand upon them calls them by name and thereby establishes their unique individual identity and destiny. Their uniqueness is not a personal achievement or power it is established in community with God when they realise that they can not directly control their destiny but when they admit that life is grounded and sustained by God. 11Nevertheless from the earliest time of human culture we have been co-creators with God. We have taken the things around us including our own bodies and brains and reorganized them into a number of different ways. We can ask ourselves the question is there anything that can be excluded from the touch of the human hand and the initiative of the human brain Even now we have discovered that life itself can be tampered with. Which shows us that we are co creators with God and we can shape life anyway we desire. 12Consequently can we Christians accept their positions as co-creators or would this be seen as blasphemy? Although the fact remains that humans have been given such power without the knowledge and understanding of God, which means the moral issue then becomes whether we will use our power responsibly. What wrong things might we create with the power of life? Will we be able to watch someone die knowing we are able to create replicas of them? Will we deny our human weakness and try and stop the process of aging by replacing aging parts of our body? Will we worship physical strength and create a society where only those people live and make false images of human life selected by our own preferences. The media has now made us aware that the possibility of cloning humans is only a few years away. Though Cloning has offered us an insight into the power of creation that humanity has done. A Christian could come to the analysis that humans are co creators with God, that we are ever moving closer to making babies rather than having babies. The media and religious organisations believe Cloning represents a test of human restraint wisdom and technological developments and in many ways identifies genetic engineering as one of the most moral problems of the 21st century. Epilogue The media provides us with information that the science of cloning continues to evolve at a rapid pace, and medical advancements based on this science will continue to provide new ethical and religious challenges. As Dr Michael West said on a radio4 Today programme when interviewed by John Humphry's ‘The Use of stem cell research for the relief of disease, Parkinson's, Cystic thybrosis will prove to be irresistible but not for human cloning, Literature Review I have many books written about the ethical debate surrounding cloning all of which are in the light of the recent developments of cloning and sets out the modern debate and the Medias views of cloning as well as the theological issues. The books seem quite useful all giving different viewpoints on the subject and they all seem to have been written quite recently as cloning is a new issue and first explored in March 1997 when Dolly the first cloned mammal was born. There are journals which consist of the moral debate of cloning hence I will be able to get hold of up to date information and the view ethicists in this area. The Ethics of Human Cloning Neil Messer 2001 With all the recent events and research of cloning this booklet sets out the debate of cloning it explains the technical terms clearly and draws out the theological issues and shows what Christians have to contribute to the discussion of Cloning. 2 Clone The Road to Dolly and The Path Ahead 1998 This book puts the science and ethics into context and discusses what part of cloning may play in the future of this medical research and human race. The book also considers the ethical dilemma that maybe used to clone human. Also the book touches on how news on scientific journals reach the popular media. 3. Remaking Eden Cloning and Beyond 1999 This book explores the science of embryology touching down on cloning and the new world of baby making , it explains what science can do and will be able to do. 4. Flesh of my flesh, the ethics of Human cloning This book contains a collection of articles from scientists, philosophers, bioethists and theologians debating whether cloning should be allowed , it also examines up to date laws on cloning and different legal points of views.

Luxury Brand Marketing Essay

While the word ‘luxury’ is used in daily lives to refer to certain lifestyle, the underlying construct’s definition is consumer and situation specific. If you earn less than 15000 a month, a pair of reebok shoes would be a really big luxury item for you. On the other hand, if you are going to a party with some big-wigs a $100,000 car may not be a luxury. The word luxury originates from the Latin term â€Å"luxus† signifying, â€Å"soft or extravagant living, indulgence, sumptuousness or opulence† The meaning of luxury is extremely subjective and multidimensional in nature. It depends on dimension such as high price, high quality, uniqueness, exclusivity etc. What is a luxury product? In economic terms, luxury products are those who can consistently command and justify a higher price than products with comparable functions and similar quality. In marketing term, luxury products are those who can deliver emotional benefits which is hard to match by comparable products. The luxury sector targets its products and services at consumers on the top-end of the wealth spectrum. These self-selected elite are more or less price insensitive and choose to spend their time and money on objects that are plainly opulence rather than necessities. For these reasons, luxury and prestige brands have for centuries commanded an unwavering and often illogical customer loyalty. Luxury and prestige brands such as Rolex, Louis Vuitton and Cartier represent the highest form of craftsmanship and command a staunch consumer loyalty that is not affected by trends. These brands create and set the seasonal trends and are also capable to pulling all of their consumers with them wherever they go. Premium brands are those brands like Polo Ralph Lauren, Calvin Klein and Tommy Hilfiger that aspire to be luxury and prestige brands but their marketing mix strategies are more attuned to a mass market, albeit a luxury mass market. They are also termed as mass-premium brands or mass-luxury brands. Fashion brands on the other hand are those that address the masses. Strategies for Luxury Marketing There are conventional foundations for ensuring success of a brand and they are listed below in brief : 1. The brand must be â€Å"expansive†. Which means it should be full of innovation opportunities for the marketer and in terms of satisfying the divergent needs of the luxury consumer 2. The brand must tell a story It is this story, of either heritage or performance or other aspects that goes on to build the aura of a brand over time. The story always accentuates the identity of the brand. 3. The brand must be relevant to the consumers’ needs Depending upon the mindset of the luxury class, it is imperative for a brand to satisfy those needs, whether they be for recognition or functional use etc. 4. The brand must align with consumers’ values A brand that does not concur with the basic values of a consumer’s society has a small chance of succeeding because luxury items are forms of expression or identification for a luxury consumer. This makes it difficult for the consumer to adopt the brand in such cases. 5. The brand must perform Irrespective of which category the brand belongs to, a performance assurance is a must for the brand if it wishes to be in the evoked set of luxury consumers, considering the price being paid for luxury. LUXURY brand marketing CONCEPTS: Socialite as a Conductor In 2006, when Christian Dior chose Chawla as its spokesperson, everyone was shocked – some secretly jealous. Chawla’s association: to be the face of the brand, be seen in Dior in the right circles, host events attended by the right people and generally hobnob with the circle that she already moves in. The money details are not clear – people in the circuit and in the luxury industry say its part financial, part goodies. But it might be working. Chawla says, â€Å"Dior has done incredibly well with a consistent rise in sales. It is the most visible brand in India with the highest recall value in terms of marketing strategies implemented. † â€Å"Socialites being signed up for a fashion brand is not new, at least not in the West,† says former fashion editor and luxury specialist Sujata Assomull-Sippy. She mentions Armani’s 19-year-old association with British semi-royal and socialite Lady Helen Taylor that started when he designed her wedding gown in 1992. The association ended in 2009. Taylor, who was also the face for Bulgari, gave a sigh of relief and was glad to give up â€Å"her uniform†. Six years hence, Chawla is nowhere close to hanging up her Dior couture. The ‘Mohan for Gucci’ buzz has engendered new aspirations in the circuit that goes beyond the ‘hostess’ or the grander-sounding luxury consultant tags. â€Å"The socialite is becoming more important in a luxury brand’s marketing strategy as she pulls in the ‘right kind of crowd,† says Priya Sachdev, creative director for TSG International Marketing that has brought brands like YSL, Diane von Furstenberg to India. Nichevertising Brand consultant and strategist Harish Bijoor of Harish Bijoor Consults loftily terms it â€Å"nichevertise vs massvertise†. According to him the luxury brands are not for mass consumption and shouldn’t be mass advertised. The social circuit gives them a fresh channel to reach out to their target audience without any noise. â€Å"The socialite model of marketing targets the guest lists minus the hard sell,† he says. Personal voice- distinct style Every luxury brand needs to develop a marketing strategy that not only helps them achieve their marketing goals, but is also in line with their brand. For example, while it makes sense for Christopher Bailey from Burberry to update the Burberry Facebook page with short videos he makes or music he supports, the same type of strategy might not work for someone like Bentley or Rolex. Bijoor says that for luxury brands, sell is a four-letter word – and not just literally and that’s why they aim at buy. â€Å"Luxury brands like to be bought, not sold,† he says. â€Å"Sell is a top-down strategy which involves an element of ‘shout’ – you asking consumers to consider you. Buy, instead, is a pull-oriented strategy. Luxury brands love pull not push,† he explains. This is ideal for the socialite marketing where the conversation with the brand is more visual and not aural.

Azt Pricing Decision Essay

In 1986, Burroughs-Wellcome Company introduced the first major breakthrough against acquired immune deficiency syndrome (AIDS). It was the life-prolonging drug AZT. The product has turned out to be very successful for the company and, largely because of AZT’s success, Burroughs-Wellcome’s profits have doubled in the three years ending in 1988. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) plans to expand the authorization for the drug’s usage to those who are infected with the AIDS virus, but not yet showing signs of serious illness. The estimate of the size of this market is hundreds of thousands rather than the tens of thousand who are currently sick with AIDS (1988). The controversy over the drug centers on its price. AZT costs about $8,600 for a year’s supply for each patient (lowered from $10,000 in 1987). Critics in the gay, medical, and legal communities contend that Burroughs-Wellcome executives are â€Å"corporate extortionists.† Some believe that the company has already made too much money at the expense of the sick. The price is so far out of reach of indigent and moderate-income people that the federal government had to step in with subsidies of millions of dollars. Burroughs-Wellcome defends it pricing practices by stating that its profit margins (in the 50-70 percent range) are in line with those companies introducing new drugs. They contend these high returns are necessary to finance research and recoup the millions of dollars invested in developing the drug. They initially gave the drug free-of-charge to as many as 5,000 AIDS patients and spent $80 million on a new plant. Additional criticism revolves around the actual development of the drug. The Wall Street Journal stated, â€Å"But Wellcome’s moral position is undercut by its relatively minor role in the creation of AZT.† Researchers at the Michigan Cancer Foundation, from West Germany, and at the National Cancer Institute are credited with the major discoveries that led to AZT. Nevertheless, Wellcome performed toxicology, pharmacology, and animal studies before AZT was given to the first human volunteer. It also financed the big clinical trial and bankrolled the give-away to the patients in the initial experiment. Wellcome is under pressure to cut its price. The government is attempting to institute a â€Å"reasonable price† clause where an unduly high price could trigger a government order for a company to open its books. Any company found in violation could be sued for breach of contract. Congress is also studying AZT and one Congressman wrote the company contending that the original price rationale (achieving a decent return on investment during a short product life) no longer exists as the drug has been on the market for three years and the market is growing for the product.

The Island of Bohol: Heaven on Earth

Bohol is an island in the tropical country of the Philippines which is located in Southeast Asia. A couple of years back, I traveled to Bohol to get acquainted with Asia. The moment I stepped out of the airport, I smelled something different. The scent of tropical paradise overpowered my senses. It's a mix of flavors of coconut trees, sweet fruits and the usual body-scented steam that just makes you want to relax and unwind. More so, the sizzling ray of the sun, the hypnotic sound of the sea and warm smile of the natives of Bohol greeted me as I entered nature's hidden treasure.My adventure began as I traversed the oval-shaped island from the luscious mountainous region going towards the pristine coastal area. I started with the infamous Chocolate hills. It's a large formation of rich brown-colored cone-shaped hills. These cute hills looked like gigantic Hershey's kisses strategically placed in a picturesque landscape. After my first immersion with Bohol's local beauty, I said to mys elf that there's no way that there could be another place that can beat the exquisiteness of Chocolate hills.This was a fact until I saw the long white sandy beaches of Panglao island. It literally took my breath away. It was simply idyllic. Endless columns of coconut trees outlined the beach front. The white sand is so friendly to the naked foot because of it is fine as a salt and soft as milk texture that made me want to cover my whole body with it. The natural charm of the place did not stopt here,it went beyond to the extensive crystal blue water of the sea. The undulating movements of the waves took me to a place that highlighted my contentment and happiness.

Ethical Theories

Ethical Theories ETH/316 April 9, 2013 Ethical Theories Introduction Ethics is system of moral principles, the way individuals conduct themselves with respect to the right and wrong of their actions and to the good and bad of any motives and ends of such actions. Ethics are instilled in individuals since they were children by parents, teachers, and loved ones. This paper will show the similarities and differences between virtue theory, utilitarianism, and deontological ethics. Similarities and Differences Understanding the similarities between virtue theory, utilitarianism, and deontological ethics, they first must be defined.Boylan (2009) stated, â€Å"Virtue ethics is also sometimes called agent based or character ethics. It takes the viewpoint that in living your life you should try to cultivate excellence in all that you do and all that others do† (p. 133). Individuals who judge others by his or her character rather than his or her actions, exemplifies the virtue theory of ethics. Utilitarianism is defined as a theory that an action is morally right when that action is for the greater good of a group rather than just an individual (Boylan, 2009).Utilitarianism theory is based upon creating the greatest good for a number of people. An individual can be overlooked in order to achieve a greater goal for all individuals involved. Deontology ethics is a moral theory that suggests that an individual’s duty to do a certain task because the action, itself, is right, and not through any other sorts of calculations—such as the consequences of the action (Boylan, 2009). Basically the theory suggests that individuals have a moral obligation to follow certain rules that are deemed unbreakable.Virtue theory determines the good and bad traits of a person over a long period of time. Utilitarianism theory also finds the good in a person – provides guidance for behavior and enables people to know what differentiates as a good moral choice. Deontol ogy recommends an action based upon principle. Utilitarianism is the end justifies the mean while deontology is the end does not justify the means. Virtue theory is a broad term that relates to the individuals character and virtue in morals rather than doing their duty or acting to bring about good choices. Personal ExperienceFrom the time we are able to walk and talk we are given rules from our parents. Those rules are not given as punishment, but to guide us in life to know what is right from wrong. We are taught morals on how to act, how to treat others, not to lie or be disrespectful. We are taught virtues that were instilled in our parents from their parents and passed on from generation to generation in hopes that we learn from their past mistakes. They place values in us that we will grow up to do the right things in life and teach others and to lead by example. ConclusionEthics is something everyone learns from a young age and individuals either grow with it or they choose t o follow another path in life that may not be as good as it should have been. Ethics is learned it is not something that is already in place. Some people go above and beyond, why others falter. People all have a choice in life as the path they travel down. Every individual should instill some form of ethics within them so the world could be a better place to live in. Reference Boylan, M. (2009). Basic Ethics: Basic ethics in action (2nd ed. ). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson. Ethical Theories Morals define our character; ethics dictate the working of a social system. Ethics point towards the application of morality. In the wake of this understanding, national, social and workplace ethics are based on the abstract moral codes adopted and adhered to by each member of the group. Ethics lay down a set of codes that people must follow. Ethics are relative to peers, profession, community, society and nation. Morals are and are dependent on an individual’s choice or beliefs or religion and can mean doing the right or wrong thing.An example to help you understand the difference would be: Abortion is legal and therefore medically ethical, while many people find it personally immoral. Ethics can be relatively simple to follow, while applying morals can be decidedly tougher. There can be a moral dilemma, but not an ethical one. While good morals represent correct and upright conduct, ethics act more as guidelines. Ethics are applicable or adhered to by a group or community or society, whereas morals relate to individuals.As we can see from the above discussion that ethics and morals may seem similar, but are in fact rather distinct. While morals constitute a basic human marker of right behavior and conduct, ethics are more like a set of guidelines that define acceptable behavior and practices for a certain group of individuals or society. Deontological theories: Deontological theories are the category of normative ethical theories. It is a form of moral philosophy centered on the principles of eighteenth century philosopher Immanuel Kant. Its name comes from the Greek words Deon and logos, meaning the study of duty.Deon means duty. Actions are morally right are those in accordance with certain rules, duties, rights and maxims. Deontological theories hold that an action’s tightness or wrongness depends on its conformity a certain moral norm regardless of the consequences. Actions can be morally permitted, required or forbidden. Consequences of the activities are not important according to deontological theory. The basis of deontology is to assess a person’s character by how well he or she follows moral rules, even if by doing so, tragic results occur.Deontology always advocates the Right over the Good. The deontological model of ethics determines the correctness of a moral action by determining if it follows moral norms. For instance, Kant gave the example that it is wrong to lie even if it could save a person’s life. The agent-centered theory of deontology: focus on the duties of the moral agent (the person acting); rather than the rights of person being acted upon (patient centered theory). Act only according to that maxim where by you can at the same time as an end and never merely as a means to an end.Lying is forbidden, because if lying is a universal action, society would be undermined. Also it is states that people’s moral choices are determined by personal obligation and permission. For instance, a parent is obligated to treat his or her child as more important than other people; however, other adults have no obligation to treat that parent’s child any differently than anyone else. Since people can have personal obligations that are different from other people, they also have permission to protect their obligations at the expense of others.In this theory, a parent has permission to save his or her own child even if it means causing negative or tragic consequences for other people’s children. The patient-centered theory: that deal with rights, it means an action is wrong if it violates a person’s right (life, liberty, property/ the pursuit of happiness) or against being used only as a means for producing good consequences without one’s consent. It centers on the rights of individuals rather than personal duty. It states that individuals have the right to not be used for moral good against their wills.For instance, a murderer cannot be killed witho ut his or her permission even if it would save several lives. The Advantages of Deontological Theories Deontological morality leaves space for agents to give special concern to their families, friends, and projects. At least that is so if the deontological morality contains no strong duty of general generosity or, if it does, it puts a stopper on that duty's demands. Deontological morality, therefore, avoids the overly demanding and excluding aspects of consequentialism and accords more with traditional notions of our moral duties.The Weakness of Deontological Theories Paradox of deontological theories: We are for forbidden from violating certain duties and rights even to prevent more violations of certain duties and rights. Deontological theories have also weak spots. First and most important of all, is the seeming irrationality of the having duties or permissions to make the world morally worse. Deontology is and will always be paradoxical, unless a nonconsequentialist model of ra tionality is created; deontologists need to defuse the model of rationality that motivates consequentialist theories.The Golden rule: is known as the ethic of reciprocity, this famous cross-culture maxim states: â€Å"Do to others as you want them to do to you†. Humanists try to embrace the moral principle known as the ‘Golden Rule’, otherwise known as the ethic of reciprocity, which means we believe that people should aim to treat each other as they would like to be treated themselves – with tolerance, consideration and compassion. Humanists like the Golden Rule because of its universality, because it is derived from human feelings and experience and because it requires people to think about others and try to imagine how they might think and feel.It is a simple and clear default position for moral decision-making. Sometimes people argue that the Golden Rule is imperfect because it makes the assumption that everyone has the same tastes and opinions and wan ts to be treated the same in every situation. But the Golden Rule is a general moral principle, not a hard and fast rule to be applied to every detail of life. Treating other people as we would wish to be treated ourselves does not mean making the assumption that others feel exactly as we do about everything.The treatment we all want is recognition that we are individuals, each with our own opinions and feelings and for these opinions and feelings to be afforded respect and consideration. The Golden Rule is not an injunction to impose one’s will on someone else! Trying to live according to the Golden Rule; means trying to empathize with other people, including those who may be very different from us. Empathy is at the root of kindness, compassion, understanding and respect – qualities that we all appreciate being shown, whoever we are, whatever we think and wherever we come from. Consequentialism:Hold that; this action’s rightness or wrongness depends on consequ ences it causes (happiness or pain). Consequentialist theories say that; the moral rightness of action can be determined by looking at its consequences, if the consequences are good, the act is right. The right act produces greatest ratio of good to evil of any alternative. If the consequences are bad the act is wrong. Lying generally is bad according to ethics, but if we don’t say that her illness to woman with cancer may be it will be better. Consequentialism is a moral theory, which stands under the normative ethical theories.It can be used as guidelines to enlighten on how to resolve moral issues. This specific moral theory focuses on the consequences of one’s actions, rather than looking at the rightness and wrongness of an act. Therefore a morally right act is an act that creates a good result or consequence. According to this theory the ethically correct decision is the one that produces the best consequences: â€Å"The end justifies the means†. Consequen tialists realize and accept the fact that difficult moral choices sometimes injure others. Thereby they are more flexible than duty-based theorists.It is most important to look at consequences and analyze the results’ impact on other people. Thereby this theory is good in ethical dilemmas, because it concentrates on the impact of our behavior on others. There are two types of consequentialist theories: 1- Egoism 2- Utilitarianism 1- Egoism It contends that an act is moral when it promotes the individual’s best long term interests. If an action produces or is intended to produce of greater ratio of good to evil for the individual in the long run than any other alternative, then it is the right action to perform.Ethical egoism claims that it is necessary and sufficient for an action to be morally right that it maximize one's self-interest. Egoism: The view that morality coincides with the self-interest of an individual or an organization. Egoists: Those who determine the moral value of an action based on the principle of personal advantage. An action is morally right if it promotes one’s long-term interest. An action is morally wrong if it undermines it. There are two types of egoism: a- Personal egoism: You pursue your own best interest, but don’t care what others do.Personal egoists claim they should pursue their own best long-term interests, but they do not say what others should do. Personal egoists pursue their own self-interest but do not make the universal claim that all individuals should do the same. Personal Egoism is a view according to which an individual claims that he/she ought do what is in his/her long term self-interests but cannot tell others what they should do. b- Impersonal egoism: You believe everyone should be an egoist. Impersonal egoists claim that everyone should follow his or her best long-term interests.Impersonal egoists: Claim that the pursuit of one’s self-interest should motivate everyone’ s behavior. Impersonal Egoism requires that each person act in his or her own self-interest regardless of the interests of others (unless it so benefits him/her). This does not prevent people cooperating with each other even when there are different self-interests. Misconceptions about egoism: Egoists do only what they want, not true. Egoists don’t possess virtues like honest, generosity and self-sacrifice, not true. Egoist can possess all of these virtues, as long as they advance long term self-interest.Egoism can’t resolve conflict of egoistic interest. Egoists only do what they like, not so. Undergoing unpleasant, even painful experience meshes with egoism, provided such temporary sacrifice is necessary for the advancement of one’s long-term interest. All egoists endorse hedonism (the view that only pleasure is of intrinsic value, the only good in life worth pursuing) although some egoists are hedonistic, others have a broader view of what constitutes self-in terest. Egoists cannot act honestly, be gracious and helpful to others, or otherwise promote others’ interests.Egoism, however, requires us to do whatever will best further our own interests, and doing this sometimes requires us to advance the interests of others. 2- Utilitarianism: Originally formulated Jeremy Bentham in 18th century and developed by J. Stuart Mill in 19th century. Greatest good is the foundation for morality. Determinations of morality are based on the application of the moral law to an action. Principle of Utility or GHP (Greatest Happiness Principle) is the moral law. GHP states that an action is right in proportion to its ability to promote pleasure/happiness.It is wrong in proportion to its ability to promote unhappiness/pain. Right action = pleasure/happiness Wrong action = unhappiness/pain According to Mill; Satisfaction depends on the attainment of pleasure, and pleasure depends on right action. Right action has to conform to the GHP. Satisfaction ha s to conform to the GHP. GHP is moral, greatest happiness principle refers to collective happiness not individual happiness. Standard of morality govern human conducts. If my action conforms to the standard of morality then my action is moral.Happiness of community is more important than personal happiness. You should sacrifice your personal interest for community happiness. Sacrifice is always done some end. Sacrifice for the greater good is the highest virtue. Utilitarianism is based off of the Greatest Happiness Principle which states that actions are considered moral when they promote utility and immoral when they promote the reverse. Utility itself is defined by Mill as happiness with the absence of pain. The main elements of this philosophy are one's actions and their resulting utility.A person is considered moral when their actions tend to promote utility of the general public in accordance with the Greatest Happiness Principle. However, just an action increasing utility does not necessarily imply a moral action. In order for the action to be moral it must be the optimal choice in increasing utility and minimizing pain. Since it is difficult to determine the superior of two vastly different results, Mill provides us with a system to determine which choice would have the higher quality. This system has the proper judges of the actions determine which they prefer.Whichever is preferred by a majority is considered the action with a higher quality result and thus would be more moral to perform than the action with a lower quality result. In the result of a tie, both choices are considered equally moral. The Greatest Happiness principle also allows for us to cause pain to others as long as a majority of the people becomes happier. We could essentially just steal resources from smaller foreign countries and drive them to poverty as long as more people benefit than lose. Things such as slavery, bullying, rape, racism, and murder could be justified under Utilit arianism as long as the majority prefers it.Murderers could justify their action by simply killing all of those who opposed them. Once their numbers became the majority, murdering became justifiable as moral. Lastly, the Greatest Happiness principle eliminates the usage of the laws provided  by our government. As long as the person's actions increase general utility, then it does not matter how many laws are broken in the process. We could all go speeding down roads and ignoring traffic signals/signs to our full enjoyment despite there being speed limits as long as few people cared and most people would be having a blast.Following examples are used to illustrate the concept of utilitarianism. Say that one has promised to a friend to meet up at six o'clock. Is it acceptable to break this promise in order to rescue someone from a burning building? Consequentialist is only concentrating on the consequence. Therefore, when looking at the result a consequentialist might say â€Å"noâ €  as the consequence would be breaking a promise and in this way it could harm the friendship. On the other hand a consequentialist might say â€Å"yes† if the result might be saving another person’s life, even though it would demand breaking a promise.In utilitarianism it depends on the one making a decision. Therefore one could justify the killing of a homeless if his organs could be used beneficially, saving for example four other peoples’ lives, who have jobs and family (Frost, 2007: 15). Utilitarianism has many flaws. One of the biggest problems with it is that measuring and comparing happiness among different people is impossible in practice as well as in principle. Shareholder theory: It says that one and only obligation of business is to maximize its profits while engaging open and free competition without fraud.According to shareholder theorists such as the Nobel winning economist Milton Friedman, managers should inly focus on serving the interests of the firm’s shareholders. Therefore business executives are obligated to follow the wishes of shareholders while obeying the laws and ethical customs of society. On one hand, it is correct to say that the main focus of a business should be to make profit. Without profit, a business cannot survive. In a way, Friedman’s theory does promote social responsibility to society.The increase of profits in a company benefits the economy which benefits the citizens of the economy. Friedman also believed that social responsibility should not be forced by the government. Responsibility to stakeholders can still be achieved while helping to strengthen the community. For example, companies can conduct research to provide a safer product to consumers. Shareholder Theory, on the other hand, focuses strictly on those who have a monetary share of the company. According to this view, a firm’s only purpose is to serve the needs and interests of the company’s owners.In many industries there are companies that seem to follow a stakeholder theory framework while guiding the majority of interests towards the shareholders and ultimately enforcing a shareholder theory framework. An analysis of shareholder theory applied to the management styles found in major league baseball has revealed such a conflict of interest. According to shareholder theorists such as the Nobel winning economist Milton Friedman, managers should only focus on serving the interests of the firm's shareholders.In an article he published in the New York Times, The Social Responsibility of Business is to Increase its Profits, he states, â€Å"Responsibility is to conduct the business in accordance with their [shareholder’s] desires, which generally will be to make as much money as possible while conforming to the basic rules of the society, both those embodied in law and those embodied in ethical custom. † (Friedman, 1970) Stakeholder theory: Freeman; who has contributed a lo t to this approach, he defines stakeholders as â€Å"any group or individual who can affect or is affected by the achievement of the organization objectives.Normative stakeholder theory contains theories of how managers or stakeholders should act and should view the purpose of organization, based on some ethical principle (Friedman 2006). Another approach to the stakeholder concept is the so called descriptive stakeholder theory. This theory is concerned with how managers and stakeholders actually behave and how they view their actions and roles. Stakeholder theory is a theory of organizational management and business ethics that addresses morals and values in managing an organization. It was originally detailed by R.Edward Freeman in the book Strategic Management: A Stakeholder Approach, and identifies and models the groups which are stakeholders of a corporation, and both describes and recommends methods by which management can give due regard to the interests of those groups. In short, it attempts play to address the â€Å"Principle of Who or What Really Counts. â€Å"[1] In the traditional view of the firm, the shareholder view, the shareholders or stockholders are the owners of the company, and the firm has a binding fiduciary duty to put their needs first, to increase value for them.However, stakeholder theory argues that there are other parties involved, including governmental bodies, political groups, trade associations, trade unions, communities, financiers, suppliers, employees, and customers. Sometimes even competitors are counted as stakeholders – their status being derived from their capacity to affect the firm and its other morally legitimate stakeholders. The nature of what is a stakeholder is highly contested (Miles, 2012),[2] with hundreds of definitions existing in the academic literature (Miles, 2011). 3] The stakeholder view of strategy is an instrumental theory of the corporation, integrating both the resource-based view as well as the market-based view, and adding a socio-political level. This view of the firm is used to define the specific stakeholders of a corporation (the normative theory (Donaldson) of stakeholder identification) as well as examine the conditions under which these parties should be treated as stakeholders (the descriptive theory of stakeholder salience). These two questions make up the modern treatment of Stakeholder Theory. Who are stakeholders?A very different way of differentiating the different kinds of stakeholders is to consider groups of people who have classifiable relationships with the organization. Friedman (2006) means that there is a clear relationship between definitions of what stakeholders and identifications of who are the stakeholders. The main groups of stakeholders are: * Customers * Employees * Local communities the main groups * Suppliers and distributors * shareholder * The media * The public in general * Business partners * Future generations * Past generations (founders of organizations) Academics * NGOs * Stakeholder representatives such as trade unions or trade associations of suppliers or distributers * Government, regulators, policymakers Primary: a firm cannot exist without their continuing participation. Primary stakeholders include: shareholders & investors, employees, contractors, customers & suppliers. Secondary: those who influence or affect or are influenced/affected by, the corporation, but they are not engaged in transactions with the corporation or essential for its survival. Secondary stakeholders include: media, action groups, government agencies, trade unions, regulatory authorities.Non-social stakeholders do not involve human relationships, which may also be divided into primary (direct) and secondary (indirect), for example, natural environment, nonhuman species, future generations and their defenders in pressure groups. They are neither influenced by nor a factor in the survival of the organisation (Wheeler & Sillanpaa (1998): p205, Vandekerckhove & Dentchev (2005): p222). Freeman (1984) argued that it is easy but extremely detrimental for managers to assume that stakeholders who oppose them are irrational and irrelevant.Additionally, this issue is further reinforced by arguing that there is wide variation in stakeholder claims, interests and rights (Hall & Vredenburg, 2005:p11). Internal stakeholders are those in the management, marketing experts, designers, purchasing, manufacturing, assembly and sales, while external stakeholders are the users/customers, distributors, governments, suppliers, communities, laws and regulations. Political stakeholders can be divided into 2 different sub-group; ‘national stakeholders’ and ‘international stakeholders’ (Holtbrugge, Berg & Puck, 2007).National stakeholders include governmental actors such as central government, state government, local authorities and also non-governmental organizations or NGOs. On the other hand, internation al stakeholders are those supranational organizations which constituted by national government (IMF, WTO) and also NGOs (Greenpeace, international association of trade unions, international media). Both governmental actors and supranational organizations are classified as ‘public stakeholders’ while NGOs are classified as ‘private stakeholders’.Hillman & Hitt (1999) proposed a typology which distinguishes between 3 different strategies of political stakeholders: 1. Information strategy: – Seeks to affect the actions of political stakeholders by providing them specific information about preferences for policy or political positions. 2. Financial incentives strategy: – Aims to influence the actions of political stakeholders through financial inducements which may include hiring personnel with direct political experience such as managers or consultants, providing financial support or community bribery of decision makers. . Reputation-building str ategy: – Tries to influence political stakeholders indirectly through stakeholder support. The main instruments to achieve this goal are public relations and codes of conduct. The idea of grouping the different types of stakeholders is a noble one. It helps to improve the understanding and appreciation in managing stakeholders. For this, Kolk & Pinkse (2006:p62) came out with the grouping of stakeholders into two groups, based on potential for threat and for cooperation and, based on concomitant strategies, as shown in Figure 4.Briner et al (1996) indicated 4 different sets of stakeholders namely: client project leader’s organization, outside services and, invisible team members. In the case of corporate and business environment, Colacoglu, Lepak & Hong (2006: p211) cited that there exist three primary groups of stakeholders that exert distinct pressures on organizations and are directly impacted by the performance of organizations. 1. Companies must attend to the need s of capital market stakeholders-shareholders and major suppliers of capital such as banks. 2.Companies must consider the needs and demands from product market stakeholders-the primary customers, suppliers, unions, and host communities with whom organizations conduct business 3. Companies must consider the needs of organizational stakeholders, the employees and managers within the organization. IDENTIFYING The first Step in the mapping process is to understand that there is no magic list of stakeholders. The final list will depend on your business, its impacts, and your current engagement objective—as a result it should not remain static.These lists will change as the environment around you evolves and as stakeholders themselves make decisions or change their opinions Action: Brainstorm a list of stakeholders without screening, including everyone who has an interest in your objectives today and who may have one tomorrow. Where possible, identify individuals. Use the following list to help you brainstorm: * Owners (e. g. Investors, shareholders, agents, analysts, and ratings agencies) * Customers (e. g. direct customers, indirect customers, and advocates) * Employees (e. g. urrent employees, potential employees, retirees, representatives, and dependents) * Industry (e. g. suppliers, competitors, industry associations, industry opinion leaders, and media) * Community (e. g. residents near company facilities, chambers of commerce, resident associations, schools, community organizations, and special interest groups) * Environment (e. g. nature, nonhuman species, future generations, scientists, ecologists, spiritual communities, advocates, and NGOs) * Government (e. g. public authorities, and local policymakers; regulators; and opinion leaders) * Civil society organizations (e. . NGOs, faith-based organizations, and labor unions) To facilitate important stakeholder mapping, Freeman suggests the following questions: In 1984 Edward Freeman offered questions th at help begin the analysis of identifying major stakeholders: * Who are our current and potential stakeholders? * What are their interest/rights? * How does each stakeholder affect us? * How do we affect each stakeholder? * What assumption does our current strategy make about each important stakeholder? * What are the environmental variables that affect us and our stakeholders? How do we measure each of these variables and their impact? * How do we keep score with our stakeholders? Stakeholder versus Shareholder? According to stakeholder theory, the very purpose of the firm is to serve and coordinate the interests of its various stakeholders. These stakeholders can include employees, suppliers, customers and the communities in which the firm operates. It is the moral obligation of the firm’s managers to maintain a balance among these interests when directing the activities of the firm. Shareholder theory, on the other hand, focuses strictly on those who have a monetary share of the company.According to this view, a firm’s only purpose is to serve the needs and interests of the company’s owners. The Corporate Social Responsibility The way business involves the shareholders, employees, customers, suppliers, governments, non-governmental organizations, international organizations and other stakeholders is usually a key features of corporate social responsibility concept. CSR involves a commitment through the on-going engagement of stakeholders, the active participation of communities impacted by company activities and public reporting of company policies and performance in the economic, environmental and social arenas.Corporate social responsibility (CSR, also called corporate conscience, corporate citizenship, social performance, or sustainable responsible business/ Responsible Business)[1] is a form of corporate self-regulation integrated into a business model. CSR policy functions as a built-in, self-regulating mechanism whereby a business monitors and ensures its active compliance with the spirit of the law, ethical standards, and international norms.CSR is a process with the aim to embrace responsibility for the company's actions and encourage a positive impact through its activities on the environment, consumers, employees, communities, stakeholders and all other members of the public sphere who may also be considered as stakeholders. The term â€Å"corporate social responsibility† came into common use in the late 1960s and early 1970s after many multinational corporations formed the term stakeholder, meaning those on whom an organization's activities have an impact. It was used to describe corporate owners beyond shareholders as a result of an influential book by R.Edward Freeman, Strategic management: a stakeholder approach in 1984. [2] Proponents argue that corporations make more long term profits by operating with a perspective, while critics argue that CSR distracts from the economic role of businesses . Others argue CSR is merely window-dressing, or an attempt to pre-empt the role of governments as a watchdog over powerful multinational corporations. CSR is titled to aid an organization's mission as well as a guide to what the company stands for and will uphold to its consumers.Development business ethics is one of the forms of applied ethics that examines ethical principles and moral or ethical problems that can arise in a business environment. ISO 26000 is the recognized international standard for CSR. Public sector organizations (the United Nations for example) adhere to the triple bottom line (TBL). It is widely accepted that CSR adheres to similar principles but with no formal act of legislation. The UN has developed the Principles for Responsible Investment as guidelines for investing entities.