Hamlet Essay Example for Free

Hamlet Essay Hamlet is unique in its revenge genre as it has more than one revenge plots occurring within it. The Dominating one is of Hamlet and his desire to avenge his Father by killing his uncle. Throughout the play we see Hamlet in ideal situations to carry out his revenge, but choosing not to do so. In Act III Scene II we see Hamlet using the play that has been set up to try to test the innocence of his Uncle and king by gauging his reaction to a staging of the events of how he supposedly murdered Hamlets father. In this scene we see the so called ‘Mousetrap’ being played out as Hamlet witnesses Claudius reaction to the play and witnesses his reaction, from this he draws accurately that Claudius is guilty. He has confirmed the ghosts message as true, ‘O good Horatio I’ll take the ghost’s word for a thousand pound,’ and has from that found his resolve and is now fully willing to avenge his father by killing Claudius. From Claudius sudden exit ‘The king rises’ and his poor reason for doing so ‘Give me light. Away! ’ it leaves Hamlet and the audience fairly certain of Claudius guilt. This leads us to disagree that Hamlets methods of enacting revenge are ineffective as the ‘Mousetrap’ was very successful for Hamlet in finding his resolve and evidence for him to exact his revenge. To some extent though the Mousetrap was only effective for Hamlet as it convinced him that of Claudius’ guilt but it doesn’t wholly convince the audience and possibly Horatio, as we can see from Horatio’s lack of enthusiasm and joy but instead simply agreeing with Hamlet on what he saw not what he has drawn from it; ‘Hamlet: Upon the poisoning, Horatio: I did very well note him’. He like the reader, the queen and other members of the court will more likely to assume that it was Hamlet’s incessant taunting and insults that has disturbed the King and caused him to leave it in such a manner. The intended audience of this play which was a late Tudor/early Stuart one also may be more drawn to it as the idea of killing a brother, or uncle such as Hamlet intends, as one of the greatest atrocities of which man was capable which comes, like revenge, from the Romans, and may be more hesitant to accept that someone in such a position of power and noble birth should be incapable of. Also it seems far more likely that it is Hamlets taunts that has caused the kings unrest as the Mousetrap does not provide solid evidence of Claudius’ guilt and that it is more a dramatic imperative that Claudius is guilty of killing Hamlets father as otherwise the play would not fit the criteria of its genre and lead it on to a far cry from what is intended. From this we can see that Hamlet’s methods are ineffective but they have to be correct for the play to carry on. In Act III Scene we see Hamlet finding himself in an ideal situation to carry out his revenge, he has just discovered that Claudius is guilty of murdering his father and now has Claudius alone and unaware; prime for the kill. However Hamlet for some reason stays his blade, and chooses that this type of revenge is not for him, either a clash between his Christian ideals of ‘do unto others as done to you’ and his Renaissance Roman ideals of revenge. Somehow this culminates in Hamlet seeing this revenge as not being up to scratch as he sees it as leading to Claudius forgiveness in the eyes of God, ‘To take him in the purging of his soul, when he is fit and seasoned for passage? ’ Hamlet’s choice to not kill Claudius here leads to his own death as well as the needless death of all the other characters, it also shows how his methods of enacting revenge are ineffective as he was basically given Claudius on a silver platter but refused to kill him due to his ideals contradicting his desires. One can see Hamlets actions during the final scene to show his methods of revenge as being very effective. After witnessing the death of his mother and Laertes confessing to Hamlet about what Claudius has done, ‘The King, the King’s to blame. ’ Hamlet wastes no time in avenging his mother as he forces Claudius to finish the poison, ‘Here, thou incestuous, murderous, damned Dane, Drink off the potion. This also could suggest that Hamlet’s previous delays in enacting his revenge were based only on non-conclusive evidence which in such a mind as Hamlets could very easily have manifested itself into doubt about what he had to do. But finally having conclusive concrete evidence of Claudius Hamlet does not delay in slaying him. Hamlets ability to carry out revenge seems to depend greatly on the presence of his mother and whether she is involved. We can see that when Hamlet is sent to speak with his mother after the Overall we can see in this that Hamlets methods of enacting revenge seem rather dependant on his state of mind, whether he is thinking rationally with a level head which leads to him procrastinating and overthink and subsequently be ineffective, or if his he is enraged, forced to react quickly, or spurned on by the presence of his mother whose presence infatuates and aggravates him. Overall though one must admit that Hamlet did in fact manage to kill Claudius which means to some extend are effective though not greatly as in doing so it lead to the deaths of almost all of the main characters in this play. Had Hamlet been more like his Fortinbras, who can be seen as a foil character, then he would have reacted upon learning immediately of Claudius guilt and slew him whilst he prayed but instead Hamlet delayed it and led to a more ineffective method of revenge.

Okonkwo As A Tragic Hero

Okonkwo As A Tragic Hero Essay Question. Is Okonkwo a tragic hero? To answer this question, one must first know the definition of the tragic hero. A tragic hero, as defined by Aristotle is a character who is noble in nature, has a tragic flaw and discovers his fate by his own actions. In Things Fall Apart, a novel by Chinua Achebe, Okonkwo can be considered a tragic hero because he meets all of Aristotles criteria by being a tragic hero by being a successful and respected leader in Umuofia, having a tragic flaw, and discovering his fate soon after his action. The first Aristotles criterion of the tragic hero requires that the character must be noble or a man of high status. In that sense, as described by Achebe, Okonkwo was well known throughout the nine villages and even beyond. His fame rested on solid personal achievements (Achebe, 3). Starting as a sharecropper with no inheritance from his father, Okonkwo works very hard and makes his way to a wealthy and respected man of titles in Umuofia. From his hard work, Okonkwo has 3 wives with many children, a large compound with obi for each of his wives and a large stock of yams. Okonkwo earns himself respect from people both inside his clan and outside his clan through many of his achievements. When he is a young man of eighteen, he brings honor to his village by throwing the Amalinze the Cat, a wrestler who is undefeated for 7 years. In addition, Okonkwo is one of the nine Egwugwu, a respected judge in the community who is believed to be the spirit of the ancestor. Furthermore, Okonkwo is also chosen by his village to be their representative to negotiate with Mbaino village about the murderer of an Umuofia girl in Mbaino market. With ease, Okonkwo successfully brings back a boy and a virgin as compensation and ends the conflict peacefully, without any confrontation. Similar to other tragic heroes, Okonkwo also has a tragic flaw, which is a fear of weakness and failure. While the fear of failure and weakness drives Okonkwo to work hard and helps him earns his fame and achievements, on the other hand, it also causes him many problems. Many times throughout Okonkwos life, his fear of failure and weakness leads him to act harshly, violently and impulsively toward other people, including his family members. Okonkwo is always harsh and violent with his family members because he doesnt want to be seen as a weak person. Okonkwo solves his problems only by the use strength and violence and it is this attitude that leads Okonkwo to several conflicts within his family, his failings and ultimately, his downfall. For instance, Okonkwo violates the clan rule and beats his youngest wife during the week of peace and almost shoots his second wife who comments on his gun skill. Moreover, Okonkwo kills Ikemefuna, Nwoyes close friend whom Nwoye calls brother who as ks for Okonkwos help because He was afraid of being thought weak (Achebe, 43). By trying to be a strong person and deciding to kill Ikemefuna and beats his wives, Okonkwo not only weaken his relationship with his wives and Nwoye, but also hurts himself mentally. Most important, his violent and impulsive characteristics lead him to kill a court messenger from the British during the clan meeting which soon after leads Okonkwo to the discovery of his own tragic fate. The last Aristotles criterion for being a tragic hero requires that the character must discover his fate by his own actions. Okonkwos self-realization starts when he comes back to Umuofia after his seven years exile with a great plan. However, after his arrival, he realizes that Umuofia is much changed and he is not as important and famous as he used to be before his exile. His arrival doesnt attract as much as attention as he expect and he loses his place in the Egwugwu to the another man as soon as he leaves the clan. Moreover, he also has to wait for another two years to imitate his two sons into the ozo society. But most important, Okonkwo discovers that the white men have settled down in the village. The white men establish a church and a school in the village, and then start converting Igbo people into Christian and attacking Igbo customs and faith. Okonkwo is strongly unhappy with this situation and by his violent nature; he persuades his clan to use violence to drive the whit e men out of the village. However, the clan disagrees and reminds Okonkwo that the white men also have some of the clan members supporting them. Although there is no war between white men and Igbo people, the conflicts between these two groups still often occur, including the unmasking of Egwugwu, the burning of the church and the deceptive meeting held by the white men which results in the capture and humiliation of the five clan members, including Okonkwo. However, despite these failings, it is not until when Okonkwo kills one of the five British court members, who are sent to stop the clan meeting that he discovers his tragic fate. When Okonkwo beheads the messenger during the clan meeting and sees that none of his clan members go after the escaping white men, He knew that Umuofia would not go to war (Achebe, 144). He realizes that he will never be able to drive the white men out of Umuofia because his clan will not fight with him. Realizing that he is defeated and cannot save hi s village from the white men influences, Okonkwo decides to hang himself, which is consider as an abomination in Igbo culture. Okonkwos character greatly fits the Aristotles definition of the tragic hero. From nothing, he rises to the honorable and successful leader of Umuofia. He also has a tragic flaw of a fear of weakness and failure that leads to him to several failings and ultimately, his suicide. Finally, he discovers his own tragic fate because of his impulsive murderer of the British court messenger during the clan meeting. Although Okonkwo starts his life as a successful man of Umuofia but because of his violent and impulsive characteristics, even the most successful man like Okonkwo can still falls from his grace. Work Cited Achebe, Chinua.  Things Fall Apart. Oxford: Heinemann, 1996. Print.

Ethical Examination of the Mortgage Meltdown

Ethical Examination of the Mortgage Meltdown The subprime mortgage crisis, commonly referred to as the mortgage meltdown, unveiled itself after a sharp increase in home foreclosures beginning in 2006, which unfolded seemingly out of control by 2007. American spending declined, the housing market plunged, foreclosures continued to climb and the stock market was shaken. The subprime crisis and resulting foreclosures prompted discord among consumers, lenders and legislators all bound to one another by a web of complex financial engineering. The event represents a turning point in the world economy and our culture as fundamental societal changes are needed to rebuild the relationship between the U.S. government, Wall Street institutions, and the average American. Unethical decisions from various parties have altered the way future business will be conducted as the current economic and political policies were unable to confront the crisis before it unraveled. This paper is focused on investigating the unfavorable effects of the curr ent financial system structure established on unbreakable bonds of linkage among American communities and financial institutions. Initially, many financial experts including the International Monetary Fund (IMF) believed the crisis would be limited within the arena of mortgage lenders who had accumulated these subprime loans. But as time progressed there was an evident spread into the prime commercial and residential real estate markets as well as an impact on consumer credit. In an April 2008 Global Financial Stability Report, the IMF criticized the excessive risk-taking and weak underwriting undertaken by under-capitalized institutions and recommended measures including ratings systems reform and a change in compensation schemes for managers of financial institutions (Smith, 2009, p. 2). According to the IMF, there was a collective failure by financial institutions for not properly managing risk. The New York Times columnist Michiko Kakutani (2010) would add there were flawed mathematical models that most financial executives did not really understand themselves (Kakutani, p. 1). Essentially, Wall Street firm s turned subprime mortgages into exotic, toxic financial products by making a fortune laundering and reselling, and they were enabled in doing so by the very ratings agencies that were supposed to police risk (Kakutani, p.1). Even as the quality of the underlying loans appeared sketchy, few could have expected how the severity of the subprime fallout would threaten the U.S. economy to the degree it has so far. The idea behind subprime loans is borrowers who do not meet the credit requirements for prime mortgage loans are required to pay higher interest rates and fees than prime mortgage loans. Since a significant portion of new home ownership expansion stems from buyers with a lower income compared to historical norms, the initial down payment is relatively low. This creates more risk for lenders and requires higher interest rates attached to the monthly mortgage payment. The difference between the social and economic impact of historical home ownership compared to the subprime situation is the earlier loans created real ownership and wealth, which could be passed along to future generations. The illusion of wealth in subprime lending has led to instability within families and communities as many low-income borrowers were enticed by the ease of becoming a first-time homeowner (Muolo, 2008, p. 277-303). Its important to consider how subprime borrowers came from lower income families. Due to lower savings, they are unable to pay the typical 20% down payment on a house, thus requiring near 100% financing. This new form of lending allowed families who had previously been excluded from home-owning to participate in affordable housing programs. It was even referred to as creative financing. The common question at hand is identifying who is to blame for allowing the capital market economy to create irresponsible home ownership. Much of the subprime homes never yielded real wealth as outright ownership of the home was highly unlikely. Subprime lending to low-income people illustrates how leaders in power are able to raise awareness to followers that home ownership is a moral obligation. The leaders have demonstrated their ability to raise followers consciousness about what is and ought to be important to them (Ciulla, 2003, p. 220). The idea of home ownership even became a political agenda to make people feel like they deserve a new home. Comparisons could be made that our government was almost behaving as a Jim Jones leader. Jim Jones appealed generally to impoverished and minority individuals who felt oppressed and besieged by a hostile world. Similarly, the government allowed subprime lending to target individuals who were historically turned away. ETHICAL ANALYSIS OF MARKET CONDITIONS Understanding the ethical behaviors of the subprime fallout is rather challenging as many dynamics stem from the individual as well as from a societal level. First of all, a new research paper conducted by three respected Irish economists point to a common factor of irrational exuberance among the real estate bubbles experienced in America and Ireland. In both countries, buyers and lenders convinced themselves that real estate prices, although sky-high by historical standards, would continue to rise (Krugman, 2010, p. 2). Consequently, this prevalent belief cannot be explicitly linked to an individual as society collectively accepted these trends. Additionally, the common social viewpoint that rising incomes would continue to accommodate the rising price of homes is not any individuals responsibility. Perhaps, the forecasting models used by economic experts were excessively optimistic, but this does not make them morally irresponsible. Robert Shiller (2008) argues the housing bubble that created the subprime crisis ultimately grew as big as it did because we as a society do not understand, or know how to deal with, speculative bubbles (p. 3). It is difficult to affix an ethical verdict to something as uncontained as the market. However, a slice of moral accountability should be ascribed to key leaders who have control in shaping the market. There was a form of regulatory imprudence as the people charged with keeping banks safe didnt do their job (Krugman, 2010, p. 2). While many regulators looked the other way, the bigger issue is the ideology based on free-market fundamentalism where deregulation was thought to strengthen the financial system. The Federal Reserve chairman, Alan Greenspan, was criticized for maintaining low interest rates that further provoked subprime lending. Due to many stakeholders in the subprime story, blame has been placed on many factors such as a growing dishonesty among mortgage lenders, increasing greed among securitizers, hedge funds, and rating agencies (Shiller, 2008, p. 4). But, we can identify that Greenspan had direct control over key monetary policies such as interest rates, with foreseeable impacts. Justifying whether poor judgment was made in these decisions illustrates a moral question of his accountability. Many others question how well the government addressed regulation policies and the freedom given to banking institutions to issue reckless lending. It is also logical to believe the government essentially allowed an over inflation of homes in the market. Their openhanded efforts in rescuing weakening financial institutions beginning in 2008 with Bear Stearns, then AIG, and many others may indicate a form of duty the government has to help make amends for allowing too many Americans to have a mortgage they are unable to afford. The American financial system is filled with firms that disdain the need for government regulation in good times but insist on being rescued by the government in bad times (Kakutani, 2010, p. 2). Nevertheless, prescribing all of the liability upon the government or Federal Reserve is too unbalanced. The complex nature of the economic conditions related to the subprime crisis is larger than what any single stakeholder could instigate. Helping to fuel new mortgages, brokers sought to attract home-buyers with no money down agreements. Some likely acted of the premises that housing values and real incomes would gradually keep climbing to create a win-win situation for both parties. Again, to assign a moral indiscretion to a specific mortgage broker supplied with the best available public information to guide potential buyers is unsupported. It is not appropriate to directly attribute their actions to the subprime meltdown. But, as we continue to analyze behaviors we will see how many individuals took advantage of the economic zeal that fueled the subprime crisis (Cohan, 2009, p. 92-108). Much of what has been discussed points to the common belief of increasing prosperity and as well as a general unsupported belief in maintaining such high growth. There is quite a fine line between having sustained optimism for a bright future and a greed-like attitude that tries to hide the reality of an eventual economic decline. Would it be acceptable to morally blame society as a whole for overlooking the apparent signs of danger? Not fully. Yet, as more players in the market are outlined in the following sections we will see how the rules of the game may have deliberately hurt others. ETHICAL ANALYSIS OF KEY PLAYERS To expand upon the market condition section previously discussed the moral responsibility in the transactional loan process is analyzed next. There is a duty for each party to have transparency and truthfulness when completing a deal. Ideally, the consumer is obligated to pay loans they agree upon with the broker. As government leaders portray the promise for all Americans to have prosperity, home ownership became a reality for the most economically impoverished people. We begin to see a fabrication of falsely portrayed subprime loan applications by consumers captivated by these lucrative opportunities to have a new house. It would seem morally wrong for a person to falsify information, as most people should only want to acquire a loan they can manage with financial responsibility. However, the self-interest of satisfying their desire overcame the normal way of managing finances. There also presents a moral hazard to the broker who works for commission by getting people to sign agree ments and has no financial liability afterwards. Is the broker seeking the best interests in protecting customers? We realize the lack of concern by many brokers who overlooked the details. Ironically, as many of the brokers did not fully consider the unethical transactions, they are now the ones out of a job (Andrews, 2009, p. 133-148.). Furthermore, the lenders or banks are presented with ethical considerations as to how well they scanned applicants before providing loans. Were loan requirements not strict enough on purpose? It would seem a bad business practice to grant loans knowing customers will have late or no payments towards the principal of the loan. As we have learned, the banks ended up selling the bad loans to investors. The analysis up to this point seems to be pointing toward the idea that owning a home is becoming a morally acceptable idea and a basic right for everyone. Envision subprime loans as being a prescription drug. When placed in the hands of a diagnosed person in need of the drug, it can bring about social good, but if given to a teenager, who has no need for it, the drug can lead to destruction. This illustration shows how subprime loans require proper structuring to provide the most good. ETHICAL ANALYSIS OF FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS AND INVESTORS Containing the misfortunate subprime loans solely between the lender and consumer could have benefited and alleviated the crisis if the loans were able to be paid by the new homeowner. But, due to lenders not making any profit on the loans they are forced to sell bad mortgages by packaging them in the form of collateralized debt in hopes of selling to investors who believe the value of the mortgage assets will increase. Again, we are confronted with the moral issue of how transparent these debt packages are represented. Do investors deserve better warning of the extreme risk of buying mortgage debts? Who is ultimately ethically accountable for selling bad debt? Everyone seemed to be caught up in this euphoria where no one expected anything bad to happen. To break down some of the moral culprits of passing along bad loans, many financial agencies were persuading clients to invest in bad debt, while at the same time these organizations sold off the loans to avoid any further losses. The apparent misuse seems morally wrong as they knowingly caused harm to investors. The rating agencies are also tossed into the blame game. Wall Street firms knew how to game the system; they knew how to get the rating agencies (which were eager to collect big fees for their services) to ineptly rate dangerous bonds (Kakutani, 2010, p. 2). Who is to protecting the financial stability of the economy by inaccurately rating risky subprime loans? Too many people assumed continued economic growth and overlooked the likelihood of the bubble bursting (Mason, 2009, p. 81-90). Overall, much of the calamity of the mortgage meltdown is due to the collective failure of society in a business and government sense to foresee the collapse, making it difficult to assign re sponsibility. PSYCHOLOGICAL IMPACTS The various examples presented have illustrated the psychology involved in the real estate bubble (Schiller, p. 4). From Paul Masons (2009) book we not only have witnessed capitalisms tendency to expand the power of the market to push for the maximum freedom (p. 171), but the tendency for a double movement as ascribed by the Hungarian philosopher Karl Polanyi. As free market expansion oftentimes reduces the relationships between families, nations, and social classes to a mere commercial level based on money, a counter-tendency arises to defend common human values and community. The dynamics of the economy will require a willingness of ordinary people to impose limits, standards and sustainability on capital (Mason, p. 172). The current form of our markets have possibilities for limitless growth, yet the often selfish and unequal society in which we live in has created repeated financial distress. PHILOSOPHICAL IMPLICATIONS As many people point to banks for significantly contributing to the economic downfall, understanding how philosophers approach the situation is important to further our awareness of the problem. The premise of Immanuel Kants categorical imperative is based on the morality of the act, not outcomes, meaning an act may be done for the right reasons, even if it has bad consequences (Ciulla, 2003, p. 95). So, how can a lending institute be judged as unethical for issuing loans to help customers purchase a home? The morality failure, based on this stance would not fall on the bank. But, consider Kants statement that all rational beings stand under the law that each of them should treat himself and all others never merely as a means but always at the same time as an end in himself (Ciulla, 2003, p. 107). If the bank fails to appropriately evaluate the clients ability to pay back debt, then they are treating the client as a means for their own financial benefit and are eventually leading the ir clients to an ethical failure. On the same token, the brokers who never bothered to properly perform background checks on their clients were also satisfying their own financial desires, rather than helping customers make sound financial choices. John Stuart Mills utilitarian approach emphasizes multiplying happiness, or making life better for the majority of stakeholders in an organization, a community, or a country (Ciulla, 2003, p. 143). Therefore, Mill would view the lending institutions as providing moral value to the individuals seeking to gain home ownership. The general economy and government polices were allowing and expanding housing programs, in which there was a collective agreement that having people buy homes was a good strategy for the country. We now realize the greatest good often looks different in the short term than in the long term. In retrospect, too much emphasis may have been placed on the present and not enough concern on potential consequences of too much lending. The multiplication of happiness for those involved in subprime lending only lasted until the foreclosures and collapse of the banking industry began. Just as Kant and Mills viewpoints speak of the moral behaviors among the parties involved, Ayn Rand offers insight by arguing that every man is an end in himself, he exists for his own sake, and the achievement of his own happiness is his highest moral purpose (Ciulla, 2003, p. 47). Her position seeks happiness proper to man and does not advise seeking happiness through fraudulent schemes as this approach will lead to frustration. She believes moralitys purpose isnt to command you to sacrifice your interests for the sake of others but rather to teach you the rational values and virtues happiness in fact requires. (Ghate, 2009, p. 3). In hopes of restoring society to the place we were before the collapse, Rand would not place the primary blame on the people, but the immoral system in which they had to act. There should be a reevaluation of what genuine self-interest consists of and whether the pursuit for happiness is moral. DEATH PLEDGE As mortgages have become a norm in the American society, there is an underlying meaning to the origin. The word mortgage comes from the Latin words, mort and gage. Mort means death, and gage means a pledge to forfeit something of value if a debt is not repaid. The basics of mortgages have remained the same; high value real estate which cannot be funded by most people results in borrowing money to buy property. Many people are enslaved to meet the death pledge they signed. Borrowers should be aware of what they are doing and realize it is not always justifiable to blame the banks, as they ultimately cannot force an individual to take on a mortgage obligation. (Marples, 2008, p. 2) There seems to be a moral dilemma confronting families who still owe more on their mortgages than what their home is worth. Should they sacrifice to pay their mortgage even though their homes value may not recover for several years? Or should they simply walk away (Merrel, 2009, p. 2)? If they made an agreement with a lender to pay the loan, then on the surface it would seem morally right to continue paying for the home. After understanding the significance of a death pledge, we could argue mortgages are not ethical documents, they are legal contracts (Merrel, 2009, p. 2). So, if a person decides to stop paying their mortgage, they simply pledge the ownership of the home back to the lender. Nevertheless, realize a mortgage contract entails a promise to pay and walking away from a promise in a way leads to a breach of ethics. It seems that determining whether it is morally justifiable in walking away has to be examined on a case to case basis. In respect to the people who lost their homes due to unemployment or other valid reasons, they have a right to be upset for how the careless decisions of others hurt their American Dream. It has turned into just that, a dream, as society allowed people to believe they deserve a home they cannot afford. John Rawls, a Harvard philosopher, offers insight to the economic and moral issues societies confront regarding distributive justice. He argues as self-interested rational beings governed by principles that oppose discrimination, everyone should have equal liberties and fair distribution. He speaks of inequalities among social class wealth as only being just if and only if they are part of a larger system on which they work out to the advantage of the most unfortunate representative man (Ciulla, 2003, p. 158). Why should we be making life better for those who are already well of with nice homes and do nothing for those who are already underprivileged? Perhaps, as in the case of subprim e lending, there was an outreach by leaders to provide equal opportunity to the least advantaged persons. In order to learn from the U.S. financial crisis, we have to enforce action by people who see it as their duty to protect the American people. We have to focus as much on the regulators as on the regulations (Krugman, 2010, p. 2). Financial consumers need protection from being taken advantage of or else we will have failed to learn from our recent history and can expect to repeat it again. References Andrews, E. (2009). Busted: Life Inside the Great Mortgage Meltdown. New York, NY: W.W. Norton Company, Inc. Ciulla, J, ed. (2003). The Ethics of Leadership. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth. Cohan, W. (2009). House of Cards: A Tale of Hubris and Wretched Excess on Wall Street. New York, NY: Doubleday Publishing Group. Ghate, O. (2009, June). The Economy Needs Ayn Rand. BusinessWeek. Retrieved February 24, 2010, from businessweek.com/debateroom/archives/2009/04/the_ economy_ nee_1.html Kakutani, M. (2010, March). Investors Who Foresaw the Meltdown. New York Times, March 15. Krugman, P. (2010, March). An Irish Mirror. New York Times, March 8. Marples, G. (2008, September). The History of Home Mortgages. TheHistoryOf. Retrieved February 25, 2010, from thehistoryof.net/history-of-home-mortgages.html Mason, P. (2009). Meltdown: The End of the Age of Greed. London: Verso. Merrel, S. (2009, September). A Thorny Dilemma: The Ethics of Mortgage Walkaways. SmartNestEgg. Retrieved February 27, 2010, from smartnestegg.com/blog/2009/9/4/a- thorny-dilemma-the-ethics-of-mortgage-walkaways.html Muolo, P., Padilla, M. (2008). Chain of Blame: How Wall Street Caused the Mortgage and Credit Crisis. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley Sons, Inc. Shiller, R. (2008). The Subprime Solution: How Todays Global Financial Crisis Happened, and What to do About it. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Smith, V. (2009, April). IMF: Mortgage Crisis May Cost $945bn Worldwide. InfiniteUnkwown. Retrieved March 1, 2010, from infiniteunknown.net/2008/04/09/imf- mortgage-crisis-may-cost-945bn-worldwide

Hester Essay -- essays research papers

Throughout the Rocking-Horse Winner†, Hester was overly materialistic, emotionally cold towards her children and in self-denial over her own faults. Hester had expensive tastes and she insisted in keeping up the latest style. The â€Å"expensive and splendid toys† that filled the nursery were more than the parents modest income could afford. Paul asked for an explanation of luck. Hester responded by saying â€Å"it’s what causes you to have money†, quickly making a connection between luck and wealth. And while she discovered she had a knack for sketching â€Å"furs and dress materials† she adored, making hundreds of pounds per year did not appease her elegant tastes, for it still wasn’t enough to keep up her extravagant lifestyle. When Hester found that she had mysteriously acquired five thousand pounds, she quickly asked for the whole sum at once. This money was not used to pay off the debts the household so sorely needed; it was used to purchase more cozy and unneeded items. The â€Å"sprays of mimosa and almond blossom† emanated from the home and was more pungent than before. Hester fe lt that her financial state couldn’t afford to buy a car but ironically she purchases tutors for Paul and expensive items for their home. While Hester fancied lavish items, she also strived to be prestigious and gain social stature. This stature was always hard to preserve for â€Å"there was never enough money†. Hester toiled to maintain her superior status and was willing to sacrifice her money to buy â€Å"iridescen...

Functions of Management Essay example -- essays research papers

Functions of Management What are the four functions of management and how do they relate to my organization? The Management Process... as refereed to by our text describes four basic functions – Planning, Organizing, Leading, and Controlling. While each of these functions on their own play an important role in management applied correctly they can be key to the success or failure of your organization. The first of these functions is that of planning. Planning is more than merely setting goals and deciding on a course of action. The text explains planning as â€Å"developing rules and procedures, developing plans (both for the organization and for those who work in it), and forecasting (predicting or projecting what the future holds for the firm)†. The process of this first function is performed on many levels of the organization. In our organization the process of planning generally starts with the Senior Leadership Team and then works its way thru the organization. During this annual process goals are determined, plans are developed and budgets forecasted. As the process cascades thru the organization each functional area is identified. Tasks are aligned with goals, and goals are aligned with tasks. Projects are aligned with plans and plans aligned with budgets. The second of these functions is organizing. The text explains organizing as â€Å"identifying jobs to be done, hiring people to do them, establishing departments, delegating or pushing authority down to subordinates, establ...

Timken

The Timken Company Top management of Timken hires you as consultants to perform an independent analysis and recommend the best, in your opinion, course of action in the proposed acquisition of the Torrington Company. Your task is to write a report that will address their questions and concerns, in particular: 1. 2. 3. 4. How does Torrington fit with the Timken Company? What are the expected synergies? What is your stand alone valuation of Torrington? What is your with-synergies valuation of Torrington? Should Timken be concerned about losing its investment-grade rating? How do Timken’s financial ratios compare with those of other industrial firms in 2002? How would those ratios change if Timken financed the acquisition with debt? 5. What is the price Ingersoll-Rand is likely to accept? Is Ingersoll-Rand likely to want a cash deal or a stock-for-stock deal? 6. 7. Should Timken go forward with the acquisition at all? If Timken decides to go forward with the acquisition, how should they structure the deal in terms of the price offered and the method of payment? What is the recommended bidding and negotiation strategy? Draw on as many arguments, methods and approaches as possible. Clearly explain all assumptions or judgements you make. Where applicable, refer to relevant theoretical concepts. Please note that even though this is a real business case, it is the quality of your analysis that will be marked, not how well your analysis and recommendation fit the actual subsequent developments.

Ethics approaches Essay

Ethics approaches BY tealx021 Ethics in Communication After reading about the ethical considerations considering interpersonal and group communication, there are many similarities. The two differ in the sense of size. This leads to more considerations in the larger of the two, group communication, where there may be many different interpersonal relationships within the small group. However, for this analysis, like the book, I will focus on ethical considerations of the small group as a whole. Interpersonal relationships are unique in themselves, as each one is different han the next. One major ethical consideration in this context is fairness. When people are interdependent, or share mutuality, there are almost always issues of fairness or Justice that arise. These two issues are most commonly based off of individual’s feelings and relational satisfaction. In our culture, this sense of Justice or fairness can be attributed to the distribution of rewards in proportion to each partner’s contributions. Relationships are often times weighed on costs and rewards. When this cost-reward system is unbalanced in relationships, we often see issues rise. Another major consideration in interpersonal relationships is privacy and autonomy, or openness and closeness. In communication, this comes down to self- disclosure. Issues can arise if one partner in the relationship is disclosing too much or too little about themselves, and there is an unbalance between the two relational partners. One major issue in relationships is Jealousy, which can stem from any of these ethical considerations. In small-group communication, there are a few unique ethical considerations that arise. One major issue in small groups is groupthink. Groupthink is the practice of thinking or making decisions as a group in a way that discourages creativity or individual responsibility. Another unique ethical consideration is issues that involve symbolic convergence within in-groups and out- groups. Symbolic convergence can create or develop stereotypes or exclusion within and outside a small group setting. Small-group and interpersonal relationships do also share ethical issues in communication. One of these is the issue of responsibility, which can be constituted as individual responsibility or the other affects responsibility of the whole relationship, and each one. In small-groups, individual responsibility can be hampered by groupthink or Symbolic convergence. In interpersonal relationships, individual responsibility can be hampered by lack of fairness, or lack of interdependence based on self-disclosure. Much or this is based on context, but interpersonal and small group communication share these same ethical considerations. Many of these ethical issues surrounding interpersonal communication can be channeled well through dialogical ethics. Dialogical ethics involves approaching decisions by considering attitudes and behaviors, and illingness or ability of each participant to surrender ones self-interest. This involves having an open mind, and viewing you and the relational partner as equals, almost putting yourself in the other person’s shoes, setting aside your perceptual interpersonal relationships. I can attribute this to my own experience, as I feel many of the arguments I have with friends or family members would be solved if we each put ourselves in each other’s shoes. A good approach to small-group communication is the virtue ethics approach. This approach puts a lot of emphasis on character, and oesn’t put a set of rules in place that could potentially cause ethical issues involved in groupthink or stereotypes. This approach would hold people accountable based on character, and would promote creativity and good ideas within a small group. In my own experience in small-groups, everything comes down to virtue, including responsibility, prudence, etc. Many issues could be solved with this approach in a small group context. Both mentioned approaches would fit well in both interpersonal and group relationships, but I feel that I have placed them in their best-fit places.