Vandalism in Malaysia

$25,000 bail set in wild ride case Man charged in girlfriend’s assault By Dave Greenslit TELEGRAM & GAZETTE STAFF CLINTON — A man who allegedly beat, choked and raped his girlfriend before hitting her with her car in Bolton was ordered held on $25,000 bail yesterday. John D. Martineau, 31, of Tewksbury was arraigned in Clinton District Court on charges stemming from what the 21-year-old victim told police was a frightening ride from Lowell to Bolton early Monday morning. Police charged Mr.Martineau with aggravated rape, assault and battery with a dangerous weapon, assault and battery, three counts of assault with intent to murder, three counts of destroying property, larceny of a motor vehicle, leaving the scene of a personal injury accident, three counts of leaving the scene of a property damage accident and reckless driving. Judge Martha A. Brennan set bail and continued the case to Feb. 16. The victim was able to escape from Mr. Martineau near the intersection of Rou tes 117 and 85 in Bolton after jumping out of her car, which he had driven into the parking lot of the Country Cupboard variety store.She told police Mr. Martineau had dragged her with the vehicle before she broke free and ran to a home for help. According to a report from Bolton Police Officer Yvette D. Washington, the victim gave the following account of events that culminated in Bolton just after 3 a. m. Monday: She had gotten out of her car in Lowell during an argument with Mr. Martineau, but got back in after he threatened to harm her family and friends. Her 2006 Ford Taurus then ran out of gas, and the woman called her father to bring some. While waiting, she tried running away from Mr.Martineau, who caught her, threw her to the ground, and choked her. When her father showed up with the gas, Mr. Martineau convinced him his daughter was all right. Mr. Martineau then drove onto Interstate 495 South, at one point allegedly slamming his girlfriend’s head against the car win dow and breaking the rear-view mirror off the windshield, threatening to â€Å"cut her eyes out† with it. Mr. Martineau allegedly forced the woman to perform a sex act, then cut his wrists with the broken mirror because â€Å"he wanted her to watch him die. † The victim persuaded Mr.Martineau to get off the highway in Bolton by telling him she loved him and didn’t want him to die. In the parking lot of the store, she got part of the way out of the still-moving car, but Mr. Martineau allegedly grabbed her by the hair and jacket and dragged her with the car. She broke free and ran behind a Postal Service mailbox, which Mr. Martineau allegedly hit with the car before hitting her with the vehicle and knocking her to the ground. She ran to a home on Main Street, where Mr. Martineau allegedly plowed the car into the steps before backing into a split-rail fence and driving away.The woman, who lives in Lowell, was taken to UMass Memorial Medical Center — Universi ty Campus in Worcester, where she was treated and released. Mr. Martineau was later arrested at Lowell Memorial Hospital, where he went for treatment. In arguing for the $25,000 bail, Assistant District Attorney Erin Donnelly said Mr. Martineau had a long record, four cases pending in other courts, and a history of default. Lawyer Eugene Lumelsky, who represented Mr. Martineau for the arraignment, sought an unspecified lower bail, saying the suspect was a college graduate, worked in sales and had extended family in the area.

Hierarchical Team

A hierarchical team is a type of team organization structure in which the team is divided into hierarchies and there are many middle management (Mohr 1982). There is an overall manager of the team who is place at the top of the hierarchy. This manager is responsible for leading or controlling the managers in each hierarchy to make sure that the team’s objectives are met as well as the overall objectives of the organization. The manager works with the middle managers to make sure that the team is ran smoothly and that the organizational goals are being achieved by the team. There is a manager in each hierarchy who is called a middle manager who is in charge of their own department. This helps the department to be independent and therefore is able to deal with their own problems in their department without bothering what the other departments are doing. The manager who is in charge of this department is leads the department towards achieving team goals (Heckscher and Donnellon 1994). The manager is responsible of the whole department at large and in making sure that the team’s objectives are being achieved as well as the overall objectives of the organization. The middle managers communicate their progress to the overall team manager who is able to evaluate performance and decide if the team is achieving the intended objectives as well as the overall objectives of the organization. Because in hierarchical teams the team is divided into hierarchies (Robbins and Judge 2007), the team is able to run smoothly because each department has its own jobs which are allocated to it and the department are able to undertake their jobs independently. This helps in making sure that the department or rather the hierarchy undertakes their work perfectly as they are responsible for themselves and can not blame any other department or hierarchy in case they do not deliver. This makes each department to work hard to achieve their target so as not to be blamed in case the team fails to achieve the intended objectives as well as organizational objectives. The team members are able to interact as they work and therefore (Thareja 2007), are able to combine their skills and achieve the organizational goals easily. The structure below shows how a hierarchical team looks like. A team in an organization is very important as it helps the people in an organization to work as team in order to achieve organizational goals. People are also able to work in a friendly environment and therefore, they are able to create a good working environment as well as a more relaxed environment. When people work when they are relaxed, they are able to deliver better than those people who work under any tension (Thareja 2007). Therefore, people in the hierarchical team are able to deliver well than those people that are working individually because; the people in the hierarchical team are able to interact as they perform their duties. Advantages of hierarchical team 1.Division of work- each hierarchy within the hierarchical team is allocated certain jobs to undertake, therefore, they are able to undertake the tasks (Lim and Sambrook 2010) because that is what they are good at and therefore are able to deliver the best. 2.Flexibility- within a team, there are people who are able to perform more than one tasks. Therefore, in case someone is absent in a department, another person is able to perform their duties and therefore, work is able to continue smoothly without much problem. 3.The hierarchies within the team are able to share ideas. This will help in making sure that the organizational goals are met. 4.Because the departments are independent, they are able to make their own decisions which is best for them and which will help them achieve the team’s goals as well as organizational goals. 5.Even though the whole hierarchy is a team, each department is allocated their particular job, makes the department to feel the ownership of a success (Pugh 1990). For example, if a department in a team is allocated the work of advertisement, the hierarchy will feel good if there is an increased sale. 6.Working as a team even though in a hierarchy boosts the morale of the workers. This is because, they are able to interact as they work, and the work is shared amongst the hierarchies. 7.Because the team is organized in an hierarchical manner, leadership is shared in that, a middle manager is allocated for each department (Thareja 2007), this helps in smooth running of the team and that, not just one person who is responsible for the team but several people according to the number of hierarchies in that team. 8.The team is able to deliver better products because they are comprised of a mixture of people with different talents and therefore, these talents can be used to achieve organizational goals. Disadvantages 1.Work can be divided unfairly amongst the departments. The work that the whole team is supposed to undertake may be divided unfairly amongst the departments or the hierarchies (Amaral and Uzzi 2007). This therefore means that some hierarchies or departments may be allocated more jobs than the others thus making them work more than the other departments. 2.Arguments amongst the departments may rise. In case the team’s objectives are not met, the departments may start blaming one another and thus result to arguments and even destroyed relationships in the organization. 3.Because each department is able to make their own decision, coordination of that team may be difficult as the departments work independently. 4.Because the hierarchical team focus more on working as a team rather than an individual, some talents and skills of some workers may become stagnant because they may not be needed or used in the team (Burns and Stalker 1961). 5.Poor communication because, communication is vertical in that, the top manager in the hierarchy has to communicate through the hierarchies while the manager at the bottom of the hierarchy has to reach the top manager vertically. 6.If one department fails to perform its tasks, it may lead to the failure of the whole team in that the whole team may not be able to achieve its goals.

Legalizing Marijuana Marc Dalcin

Legalizing Marijuana Marc Dalcin Dr. Marie Carroll Ashford Intro To Ethics And Social Responsibility 08/10/12 Marijuana has been at the center of a heated debate regarding its legalization. It has received both criticism and praise in equal measure. Critics refer to marijuana as a â€Å"devil weed† while supporters have often referred it to a â€Å"miracle drug. † Despite the different references to marijuana, there has been a prolonged debate on whether it should be legalized for personal use or not.There are two approaches to the use of marijuana with one involving medicinal purposes while the other involves purposes of pleasure. Medical health is an important aspect of human life and the legalization of marijuana for medicinal purposes has the importance of improving human health. In the case of using marijuana for pleasure, there is the issue of abuse of drugs, which often results in lawlessness among users. Legalizing marijuana presents an ethical dilemma in the se nse that it is difficult to ascertain the intentions of the users hence the drug may end up being used for the wrong reasons (Burnham, 2011).This paper provides a comprehensive analysis of the ethical dilemma arising from the debate on legalizing marijuana and presents the use of deontological reasoning theory in solving the dilemma. The paper also includes a comparison between deontological reasoning and relativism with the eventual identification of the theory that best relates to the personal opinion with regards to the debate on legalizing marijuana. The question of legalizing marijuana Should the use personal use of marijuana be legalized? There are numerous uses associated with marijuana.AIDS and cancer patients find marijuana useful as a drug that restores appetite and fights nausea. Marijuana also has nutritional value because its seeds contain vitamins and can be used in preparing cooking oil (Rosenthal, Kubby & Newhart, 2003). Research studies also indicate that the mariju ana can be used in the manufacturing of clothes. The plant has been used in the manufacturing of paper and clothing material for a very long time and is considered produce higher amount of fibre compared to trees. Environmentalists have found the marijuana plant important in addressing the problem of deforestation and soil erosion.Marijuana is beneficial in the restoration of lost soil nutrients. To law enforcement agencies, marijuana is considered to play a major role in increasing the number of crime rates. A significant number of incarcerated criminals have at least used marijuana prior to their arrest. The above analysis on the use of marijuana and its impact clearly points out to the fact that one group will support the legalization of marijuana while the other will oppose such a move. However, the debate can be solved using two theories of deontological reasoning and relativism.Deontological Reasoning The theory of deontological reasoning proposes that actions are either corre ct or wrong in themselves without taking into account their consequences. The theory of deontological reasoning can be best explained with the use of an example of a murder case. In such a situation, a deontologist considers the act of murder as wrong based on the fact that it involves taking the life of another person. It is assumed that humans have the duty of preserving life hence one should never kill no matter the circumstances (Mizzoni, 2009).In a nutshell, this implies that the end does not justify the means. Generally, deontologists believe that human beings have the duty of upholding morality. People have the moral duty to do the right things and avoid doing things that are wrong. The consequences of an action are never considered in determining whether the action is right or wrong. An individual has to consider his or her moral duty in order to make moral decisions. In this case, the personal use of marijuana is considered right or wrong based on the moral duty of users ra ther than the consequence of the plant on its user.The theory of deontological reasoning is connected to three concepts including rights, duties and principles (Burnham, 2011). However, our discussion only focuses on duties in analyzing the debate on legalizing the personal use of marijuana. There is a brief discussion of the concept of rights with regards to the theory of deontological reasoning. If an individual has the right to life, other people have the duty of making sure that such a right is respected. This relates with the issue of legalizing the use of marijuana. From a doctor’s perspective, medical marijuana has medicinal value and can be used in preserving life through healing.In such a case, the government and law enforcement agencies have the duty of respecting the right to life by legalizing the use of marijuana in providing treatment (Gerber, 2004). Marijuana may also be used for a different purpose such as pleasure, which may eventually result in users going i nsane. In order to preserve the life of users, there is an urgent need to make it illegal for users to abuse marijuana. This is because it will reduce the number of cases related to drug abuse hence saving a significant number of the human population from getting insane or engaging in criminal activities.Insanity and criminal actions have may result in the loss of life. The theory of deontological behavior proposes two classes of duties. First, there are general duties, which are commonly identified as prohibitions. Examples of prohibitions include do not kill, do not steal, and assist the needy among other general duties. The second class of duties relate to duties arising from the fact that there exists specific social relationships. For instance, if an individual has made a promise, then he or she has the duty of keeping the promise.Additionally, if one is a parent, then he or she has the duty to provide for the children. In this case, legalizing the personal use of marijuana is considered under the class of general duties (Jebreal & Lukes, 2011). One argument is that marijuana should be prohibited because it involves abuse of substances. On the other hand, doctors with patients have the duty to provide them with treatment even if it involves the use of marijuana as a medicine. Aquinas notes that each person has duties related to personal actions. An individual has a duty to keep promises, but does not have the duty to ensure that promises are kept.According to the theory of deontology, people should be more concerned with fulfilling personal duties but never make attempts of bringing out the most good. This is because it may result in the violation of the concept of a duty. In this case, we only have the duty of meeting the needs of other people rather than maximize the good (Mizzoni, 2009). There are a number of actions that people may choose from but they are free to act as they please. Basically, this means that people have the option of using marijuana for whatever reasons regardless of its consequences. There are instances when duties conflict with each other.W. D. Ross notes that in such cases, one does not require rules in solving such a conflict. One is only required to use their judgment in arriving at a solution. However, there are cases whereby one lacks the criteria that can be used in making decisions (Mizzoni, 2009). Deontologists argue that identifying the intentions of actions can provide a solution. Ross argues that actions are determined to be wrong or right based on the intentions of the agent. Therefore, deontological reasoning justifies the legalization of marijuana on the basis that it is used to improve human health.The use of marijuana can only be considered illegal if users intend to harm others. Relativism According to the theory of relativism, an action is considered moral or immoral relative to the cultural norms of the agent. This means that an action is considered right or wrong based on the moral norms of the culture within which it is practiced. A particular action may be considered moral in one culture while immoral in another culture. Relativists are opposed to the use of universal moral standards in determining whether an action is right or wrong (Jebreal & Lukes, 2011).The United Kingdom may consider the use marijuana as morally wrong while Amsterdam considers it morally right. According to relativists, there is no standard framework to be used in resolving moral disputes such as the legalization of marijuana across different members of society. Relativism is different from deontological reasoning in the sense that upholds societal norms as the determining factor on moral issues. According to relativism, marijuana should be legalized or not based on what society considers being moral or immoral (Jebreal & Lukes, 2011).However, in the case of deontological reasoning, actions are considered to be right or wrong based on the moral duties of an individual. Whereas relativism plac es emphasis on society in solving ethical dilemmas, deontological reasoning places emphasis on the moral duty of an individual. In this case, a relativist may support the legalization of marijuana because it is commonly used among members of his or her society. The same person may oppose legalizing marijuana because it is uncommon to use marijuana or use of marijuana is considered immoral within his society.The theory of relativism raises a number of important issues related to legalizing marijuana. First, different societies have conflicting moral beliefs and that believes of people within a society are deeply determined by their culture. It is therefore important that we incorporate the relativism when arguing for or against legalizing marijuana. Second, the theory provides for the exploration of reasons that influence the differences in beliefs of different individuals. This ensures that we also challenge the beliefs we hold for or against the legalization of marijuana (Burnham, 2011). Marijuana should be legalizedMy personal opinion is that there should be the legalization of marijuana. After making comparisons between the theory of relativism and deontological reasoning, I have discovered that relativism contains views that are closer to my own views. The issue of legalizing or prohibiting marijuana should be determine on the basis of what society views to be right or wrong rather than the moral duties of an individual. The theory of deontological reasoning argues that individuals have the moral duty to do what is right and at the same time avoid what is wrong but such actions are never aimed at aximizing most good (Gerber, 2004). However, relativism argues that an action is morally good or bad based on the cultural norms of a society. In such a case, actions are either considered to be good or bad for the collective benefit of society. This means that marijuana should be legalized because it helps the society or it should be made illegal because it harms the society. There are two perspectives that can be used in supporting the use of marijuana. They include marijuana as a medicine and marijuana as an illicit drug. Medical MarijuanaSince 1972, medical marijuana has been considered an illegal substance in the United States and across a number of countries in the world. In the United States, the congress banned the use of medical marijuana on the basis that it was harmful to the health of consumers and even placed it in the first schedule of the Controlled Substances Act. Generally, the congress considered that the drug did not have any healthy gains for the human body. However, recent research studies on the effects of marijuana provided different results to the claims presented by the US congress.Theses research studies have led to the discovery that medical marijuana can be used as medicine and has the potential to heal a number of diseases (Burnham, 2011). Marijuana contains a chemical THC, which has been proven to be harmless to human body. The new discoveries provide enough reasons for the legalization of marijuana. Failure to legalize marijuana implies that a significant number of people will be denied access to proper medication. Marijuana as an illicit drug Illicit drug use is a major problem and many countries led by the US have found it very difficult to address the problem.Various governments have established a number of programs aimed at solving the problem including treatment and prevention programs, international narcotics control, and drug education programs (Rosenthal, Kubby & Newhart, 2003). Despite the efforts of government agencies to solve the problem of illicit drugs use, there is still an increase in the number of drug users. Research studies indicate that marijuana is the most commonly abused illicit drug. A perfect example is that in 1990, the US recorded approximately 6 million people using marijuana on a weekly basis or more.The increasing usage of marijuana as an illicit drug has bee n closely associated with crime rates all over the world. In 2002, the US reported that approximately 40 percent of jailed adults have at least tried using marijuana. This has the implication that the legalization of marijuana presents a big threat to law and order. Despite the fact that the use of marijuana has become a major problem, the war against its use has proven to be very costly compared to the benefits accrued from legalizing marijuana.For instance, the United States of America spends approximately 12 billion dollars in fighting the problem of marijuana. Legalizing the use of the same drug has the benefit of earning revenues for the government from taxation of marijuana. Instead of the government banning the use marijuana, it should legalize it but ensure that its cultivation, sale and purchase are regulated in order to control criminal activities associated with marijuana (Gerber, 2004). Legalizing marijuana is indeed an ethical dilemma given the fact that it can be used as medicine as well as an illicit drug.However, deontological reasoning proposes that an action is good or bad based on the moral duty of an individual rather than its consequence. The theory therefore proposes that the morality of legalizing the use of marijuana is a personal choice. On the contrary, the theory of relativism proposes that an action is morally ethical relative to the culture within such an action is practiced (Rosenthal, Kubby & Newhart, 2003). It is on the basis of the theory of relativism that I propose the legalization of the use of marijuana.The benefits of legalizing marijuana such as healing and economic value far outweigh the cost of prohibiting its use. References Burnham, A. (2011). Benefits of Legalizing Marijuana. New York: GRIN Verlag. Gerber, J. R. (2004). Legalizing Marijuana: Drug Policy Reform and Prohibition Politics. New York: Greenwood Publishing Group. Jebreal, R. & Lukes, S. (2011). Moral Relativism. New York: Profile Books. Mizzoni, J. (2009). Ethics: The Basics. New York: John Wiley & Sons. Rosenthal, E. , Kubby, S. & Newhart, S. (2003). Why Marijuana Should Be Legal. Chicago: Running Press. Legalizing Marijuana Marc Dalcin Legalizing Marijuana Marc Dalcin Dr. Marie Carroll Ashford Intro To Ethics And Social Responsibility 08/10/12 Marijuana has been at the center of a heated debate regarding its legalization. It has received both criticism and praise in equal measure. Critics refer to marijuana as a â€Å"devil weed† while supporters have often referred it to a â€Å"miracle drug. † Despite the different references to marijuana, there has been a prolonged debate on whether it should be legalized for personal use or not.There are two approaches to the use of marijuana with one involving medicinal purposes while the other involves purposes of pleasure. Medical health is an important aspect of human life and the legalization of marijuana for medicinal purposes has the importance of improving human health. In the case of using marijuana for pleasure, there is the issue of abuse of drugs, which often results in lawlessness among users. Legalizing marijuana presents an ethical dilemma in the se nse that it is difficult to ascertain the intentions of the users hence the drug may end up being used for the wrong reasons (Burnham, 2011).This paper provides a comprehensive analysis of the ethical dilemma arising from the debate on legalizing marijuana and presents the use of deontological reasoning theory in solving the dilemma. The paper also includes a comparison between deontological reasoning and relativism with the eventual identification of the theory that best relates to the personal opinion with regards to the debate on legalizing marijuana. The question of legalizing marijuana Should the use personal use of marijuana be legalized? There are numerous uses associated with marijuana.AIDS and cancer patients find marijuana useful as a drug that restores appetite and fights nausea. Marijuana also has nutritional value because its seeds contain vitamins and can be used in preparing cooking oil (Rosenthal, Kubby & Newhart, 2003). Research studies also indicate that the mariju ana can be used in the manufacturing of clothes. The plant has been used in the manufacturing of paper and clothing material for a very long time and is considered produce higher amount of fibre compared to trees. Environmentalists have found the marijuana plant important in addressing the problem of deforestation and soil erosion.Marijuana is beneficial in the restoration of lost soil nutrients. To law enforcement agencies, marijuana is considered to play a major role in increasing the number of crime rates. A significant number of incarcerated criminals have at least used marijuana prior to their arrest. The above analysis on the use of marijuana and its impact clearly points out to the fact that one group will support the legalization of marijuana while the other will oppose such a move. However, the debate can be solved using two theories of deontological reasoning and relativism.Deontological Reasoning The theory of deontological reasoning proposes that actions are either corre ct or wrong in themselves without taking into account their consequences. The theory of deontological reasoning can be best explained with the use of an example of a murder case. In such a situation, a deontologist considers the act of murder as wrong based on the fact that it involves taking the life of another person. It is assumed that humans have the duty of preserving life hence one should never kill no matter the circumstances (Mizzoni, 2009).In a nutshell, this implies that the end does not justify the means. Generally, deontologists believe that human beings have the duty of upholding morality. People have the moral duty to do the right things and avoid doing things that are wrong. The consequences of an action are never considered in determining whether the action is right or wrong. An individual has to consider his or her moral duty in order to make moral decisions. In this case, the personal use of marijuana is considered right or wrong based on the moral duty of users ra ther than the consequence of the plant on its user.The theory of deontological reasoning is connected to three concepts including rights, duties and principles (Burnham, 2011). However, our discussion only focuses on duties in analyzing the debate on legalizing the personal use of marijuana. There is a brief discussion of the concept of rights with regards to the theory of deontological reasoning. If an individual has the right to life, other people have the duty of making sure that such a right is respected. This relates with the issue of legalizing the use of marijuana. From a doctor’s perspective, medical marijuana has medicinal value and can be used in preserving life through healing.In such a case, the government and law enforcement agencies have the duty of respecting the right to life by legalizing the use of marijuana in providing treatment (Gerber, 2004). Marijuana may also be used for a different purpose such as pleasure, which may eventually result in users going i nsane. In order to preserve the life of users, there is an urgent need to make it illegal for users to abuse marijuana. This is because it will reduce the number of cases related to drug abuse hence saving a significant number of the human population from getting insane or engaging in criminal activities.Insanity and criminal actions have may result in the loss of life. The theory of deontological behavior proposes two classes of duties. First, there are general duties, which are commonly identified as prohibitions. Examples of prohibitions include do not kill, do not steal, and assist the needy among other general duties. The second class of duties relate to duties arising from the fact that there exists specific social relationships. For instance, if an individual has made a promise, then he or she has the duty of keeping the promise.Additionally, if one is a parent, then he or she has the duty to provide for the children. In this case, legalizing the personal use of marijuana is considered under the class of general duties (Jebreal & Lukes, 2011). One argument is that marijuana should be prohibited because it involves abuse of substances. On the other hand, doctors with patients have the duty to provide them with treatment even if it involves the use of marijuana as a medicine. Aquinas notes that each person has duties related to personal actions. An individual has a duty to keep promises, but does not have the duty to ensure that promises are kept.According to the theory of deontology, people should be more concerned with fulfilling personal duties but never make attempts of bringing out the most good. This is because it may result in the violation of the concept of a duty. In this case, we only have the duty of meeting the needs of other people rather than maximize the good (Mizzoni, 2009). There are a number of actions that people may choose from but they are free to act as they please. Basically, this means that people have the option of using marijuana for whatever reasons regardless of its consequences. There are instances when duties conflict with each other.W. D. Ross notes that in such cases, one does not require rules in solving such a conflict. One is only required to use their judgment in arriving at a solution. However, there are cases whereby one lacks the criteria that can be used in making decisions (Mizzoni, 2009). Deontologists argue that identifying the intentions of actions can provide a solution. Ross argues that actions are determined to be wrong or right based on the intentions of the agent. Therefore, deontological reasoning justifies the legalization of marijuana on the basis that it is used to improve human health.The use of marijuana can only be considered illegal if users intend to harm others. Relativism According to the theory of relativism, an action is considered moral or immoral relative to the cultural norms of the agent. This means that an action is considered right or wrong based on the moral norms of the culture within which it is practiced. A particular action may be considered moral in one culture while immoral in another culture. Relativists are opposed to the use of universal moral standards in determining whether an action is right or wrong (Jebreal & Lukes, 2011).The United Kingdom may consider the use marijuana as morally wrong while Amsterdam considers it morally right. According to relativists, there is no standard framework to be used in resolving moral disputes such as the legalization of marijuana across different members of society. Relativism is different from deontological reasoning in the sense that upholds societal norms as the determining factor on moral issues. According to relativism, marijuana should be legalized or not based on what society considers being moral or immoral (Jebreal & Lukes, 2011).However, in the case of deontological reasoning, actions are considered to be right or wrong based on the moral duties of an individual. Whereas relativism plac es emphasis on society in solving ethical dilemmas, deontological reasoning places emphasis on the moral duty of an individual. In this case, a relativist may support the legalization of marijuana because it is commonly used among members of his or her society. The same person may oppose legalizing marijuana because it is uncommon to use marijuana or use of marijuana is considered immoral within his society.The theory of relativism raises a number of important issues related to legalizing marijuana. First, different societies have conflicting moral beliefs and that believes of people within a society are deeply determined by their culture. It is therefore important that we incorporate the relativism when arguing for or against legalizing marijuana. Second, the theory provides for the exploration of reasons that influence the differences in beliefs of different individuals. This ensures that we also challenge the beliefs we hold for or against the legalization of marijuana (Burnham, 2011). Marijuana should be legalizedMy personal opinion is that there should be the legalization of marijuana. After making comparisons between the theory of relativism and deontological reasoning, I have discovered that relativism contains views that are closer to my own views. The issue of legalizing or prohibiting marijuana should be determine on the basis of what society views to be right or wrong rather than the moral duties of an individual. The theory of deontological reasoning argues that individuals have the moral duty to do what is right and at the same time avoid what is wrong but such actions are never aimed at aximizing most good (Gerber, 2004). However, relativism argues that an action is morally good or bad based on the cultural norms of a society. In such a case, actions are either considered to be good or bad for the collective benefit of society. This means that marijuana should be legalized because it helps the society or it should be made illegal because it harms the society. There are two perspectives that can be used in supporting the use of marijuana. They include marijuana as a medicine and marijuana as an illicit drug. Medical MarijuanaSince 1972, medical marijuana has been considered an illegal substance in the United States and across a number of countries in the world. In the United States, the congress banned the use of medical marijuana on the basis that it was harmful to the health of consumers and even placed it in the first schedule of the Controlled Substances Act. Generally, the congress considered that the drug did not have any healthy gains for the human body. However, recent research studies on the effects of marijuana provided different results to the claims presented by the US congress.Theses research studies have led to the discovery that medical marijuana can be used as medicine and has the potential to heal a number of diseases (Burnham, 2011). Marijuana contains a chemical THC, which has been proven to be harmless to human body. The new discoveries provide enough reasons for the legalization of marijuana. Failure to legalize marijuana implies that a significant number of people will be denied access to proper medication. Marijuana as an illicit drug Illicit drug use is a major problem and many countries led by the US have found it very difficult to address the problem.Various governments have established a number of programs aimed at solving the problem including treatment and prevention programs, international narcotics control, and drug education programs (Rosenthal, Kubby & Newhart, 2003). Despite the efforts of government agencies to solve the problem of illicit drugs use, there is still an increase in the number of drug users. Research studies indicate that marijuana is the most commonly abused illicit drug. A perfect example is that in 1990, the US recorded approximately 6 million people using marijuana on a weekly basis or more.The increasing usage of marijuana as an illicit drug has bee n closely associated with crime rates all over the world. In 2002, the US reported that approximately 40 percent of jailed adults have at least tried using marijuana. This has the implication that the legalization of marijuana presents a big threat to law and order. Despite the fact that the use of marijuana has become a major problem, the war against its use has proven to be very costly compared to the benefits accrued from legalizing marijuana.For instance, the United States of America spends approximately 12 billion dollars in fighting the problem of marijuana. Legalizing the use of the same drug has the benefit of earning revenues for the government from taxation of marijuana. Instead of the government banning the use marijuana, it should legalize it but ensure that its cultivation, sale and purchase are regulated in order to control criminal activities associated with marijuana (Gerber, 2004). Legalizing marijuana is indeed an ethical dilemma given the fact that it can be used as medicine as well as an illicit drug.However, deontological reasoning proposes that an action is good or bad based on the moral duty of an individual rather than its consequence. The theory therefore proposes that the morality of legalizing the use of marijuana is a personal choice. On the contrary, the theory of relativism proposes that an action is morally ethical relative to the culture within such an action is practiced (Rosenthal, Kubby & Newhart, 2003). It is on the basis of the theory of relativism that I propose the legalization of the use of marijuana.The benefits of legalizing marijuana such as healing and economic value far outweigh the cost of prohibiting its use. References Burnham, A. (2011). Benefits of Legalizing Marijuana. New York: GRIN Verlag. Gerber, J. R. (2004). Legalizing Marijuana: Drug Policy Reform and Prohibition Politics. New York: Greenwood Publishing Group. Jebreal, R. & Lukes, S. (2011). Moral Relativism. New York: Profile Books. Mizzoni, J. (2009). Ethics: The Basics. New York: John Wiley & Sons. Rosenthal, E. , Kubby, S. & Newhart, S. (2003). Why Marijuana Should Be Legal. Chicago: Running Press.

Attributes of the ideal leader in higher or K-12 education Essay

Introduction The educational institution exists and cooperates in a network of dedicated, goal-oriented peers, in an environment of high expectations and immense collaboration. Communicating daily with adult education professionals and with students, a substantial background and specific competencies must be gained in this kind of practice. Faculty members are confronted with a fresh generation of students that live and study in a digital environment. They are challenged to convey persuasive learning milieus that are both instructionally evocative and thoroughly appealing to these digital students. Their job involves directing, guiding, or teaching adults. The online curriculum the knowledge and skills you need for working more effectively with adult learners and is designed for busy, working professionals. As the select few of these days’ higher educational institutions create and enhance their vision to meet the needs of the changing student population into the twenty-first century, the skills and attributes required are also changing. This paper attempts to provide an overview of the skills and attributes perceived as important in this changing environment. It is essential that the leaders and managers of our higher educational institutions welcome all their roles, contribute to the responsibility with the environment, and be acquainted with and incorporate change (Kincheloe, 1991). What makes a leader ideal? What specific qualities make an individual suited to handling responsibilities, various roles and demands that are expected in an institutional setting catered to adults and the like? What training development model should be used to train those seeking such positions in institutions of higher learning? Every now and then a decision maker in an establishment pre-determines a need for training but savoir-faire trainers constantly evaluate the analysis data before jumping on to settle on the training objectives. Why? This is because intuition-based training interventions frequently detect symptoms rather than root sources. On top of that training is never the key to all performance problems. Around 80% of performance obstacles are environment-connected. Developing occupation aptitudes will not advance these institutional issues (Yukl, 2002). Considerations should also include the personality type of the individual, the hopes and aspirations the person have within him/herself; and the type of institution that the individual is placed into-the subculture prevalent that influences the decision-making processes of all the people or constituents involve. All of which and more, are indispensable factors for consideration. Training, as most people assume about it, is concerned about developing particular skills. The function and relationship of preparation to the place of work is implied. Training dubbed as performance improvement has been the focus in instructional professional which includes solving performance problems to attain business results. Performance improvement covers skills training and considers other issues as well, such as does the organizational structure (decision making, supervision, feedback) sustain the workflow and are the environmental working situations (equipment, light, interruptions) suitable. The notion of â€Å"performance improvement† is frequently an easier sell to management and trainees than â€Å"training† for the reason that the emphasis moves from the person to overall performance of the organization. The ISD model, occasionally alternatively called Instructional Systems Development Model, consists of five phases, usually illustrated as analysis, objectives, design, delivery and evaluation. This training model is a methodical approach to managing human resources. Those who study and make use of that data in exclusive contexts are rightly described as professionals; in them lies the heart and soul of the profession. Abstract professional learning, on the other hand, can be infuriatingly difficult to classify. It expands past distinct responsibilities to embrace the combination of practice and insight. It requires rudiments of art as well as science. Transmitting abstract learning by means of instruction has parallel distinctiveness. Teaching in the professional education organization entails more than delivering subject matter. Good instruction is an art form in its own right. A first-class teacher can prevail over a poor curriculum, while a great curriculum will not replace with for a poor instructor. Industrial-age institutions look for routine and habit accomplished through standardized measures. Complex responsibilities are split into simple steps that are assigned to organizational positions to guarantee that employees are both interchangeable and effortlessly replaced. Bureaucratic hierarchies are likely to esteem proven evaluation of specific aspects of complex managerial tasks. In view of this, the picture of leadership is in reality changing as the image of organizations changes. Analysis ascertains those who require training and what skills or performance improvements are designated. Aims and goals set the restriction for the instructional outline and help attain the appropriate learning outcomes (Kincheloe, 1991). At the heart of any profession is a body of expertise and abstract knowledge that its members are expected to apply within its granted jurisdiction. Those who discover and utilize that knowledge in unique contexts are rightly described as professionals; in them lies the heart and soul of the profession. A good teacher can overcome a poor curriculum, while a great curriculum will not substitute for a poor teacher. In the industrial-age organizations seek routine and habit achieved through standardized procedures. Complex tasks are broken into simple steps that are assigned to organizational positions to ensure that employees are both interchangeable and easily replaced. Here are aspects of the systems analysis approach to education that are useful. There is nothing inherently harmful in developing competency lists, provided they are kept general in nature and viewed with the appropriate level of circumspection. Competency maps take on a wide variety of forms. The competencies might be called knowledge areas, skills, attributes, attitudes, components, tasks, traits, or simply competencies. Once identified, numbered, and listed, they are usually broken down into sub-components, which are also numbered, so they might be associated with the broader competency area or cluster of competencies. The mapping aspect comes into play when the competency areas are charted to training and educational objectives and events, and then ultimately to desired leadership behaviors. Competency mapping is chiefly appealing to analytically oriented decision makers. Advocates for aptitude and competency mapping stress that one can utilize a metric to determine the relative accomplishment of an individual competency that will predict success in associated leadership behaviors. Advocates refer to competency mapping as adaptive because the list and the educational experiences that match the competencies can continually be revised. Advocacy of competency mapping seems to be spreading. Its aim is to advance a blueprint, map, or matrix of desired skills, knowledge, attributes, and attitudes at various levels of the organization. The map is then used to direct recruiting, hiring, and training assessment. Competency mapping has gained a following in the human resources community and fashioned a cottage industry of business consultants and sellers who profess expertise in its application At the heart of list-based methods like competency mapping is a supposition that specific qualities such as motives, values, and skills can be acknowledged and reproduced through training and education, resulting in effectively led organizations. The roots of this approach lies in trait theories of leadership that correspond with Taylorism. Education scholars Joe F. Donaldson and Paul Jay Edelson have noted that â€Å"trait theory was developed in the first part of the twentieth century and took a psychological approach to specifying the personality traits of effective leaders. Although research has shown no relationship between individual traits and effectiveness, this approach still finds modern expression† (Donaldson & Edelson, 2000). The trait approach has largely been supplanted by more sophisticated frameworks, yet leader competency mapping is proof positive that despite its dubious foundation the approach endures. Noted leadership author and scholar Gary Yukl has observed: â€Å"Early leadership theories attributed managerial success to extraordinary abilities such as tireless energy, penetrating intuition, uncanny foresight, and irresistible persuasive powers. Hundreds of studies were conducted during the 1930s and 1940s to discover these elusive qualities, but this massive research effort failed to find any traits that would guarantee leadership success. One reason for the failure was a lack of attention to intervening variables in the causal chain that could explain how traits could affect a delayed outcome such as group performance or leader advancement† (Yukl, 2004). Peter Northouse, author of Leadership: Theory and Practice observed the revival of an all-encompassing skills-based model of leadership distinguished by a map for how to reach efficient leadership in organizations (Porthouse, 2004). He recommended that the classification of specific skills which can be improved by training has an intuitive appeal: â€Å"When leadership is framed as a set of skills, it becomes a process that people can study and practice to become better at their jobs† (Northouse, 2004). He also suggests that although the skills-based approach claims not to be a trait model, it includes individual attributes that look a great deal like traits. The act of leadership is also an exercise of moral reasoning. In their book Unmasking Administrative Evil, Guy Adams and Danny Balfour caution against elevating the scientific-analytical mindset higher than all other forms of rationality. Even as the rise of â€Å"technical rationality led inevitably to specialized, expert knowledge, the very life blood of the professional,† it also â€Å"spawned unintended consequences in the areas of morals and ethics as the science-based technical rationality undermined normative judgments and relegated ethical considerations to afterthoughts† (Balfour, 2004). Distinguished scholar Ronald Heifetz on the other hand, developed a definition of leadership that takes values into account. He maintains that we should look at leadership as more than a means to organizational effectiveness. Efficiency means getting achievable decisions that execute the goals of the organization. â€Å"This definition has the benefit of being generally applicable, but it provides no real guide to determine the nature or formation of those goals. † (Heifetz, 1994). Heifetz went on to say that values such as â€Å"liberty, equality, human welfare, justice, and community† are inculcated with first-rate leaders (Heifetz, 1994). It is a necessity then, the infusion of these principles into the leader and from the leader into the organization. Reference: 1. Joe L. Kincheloe, Teachers as Researchers: Qualitative Inquiry as a Path to Empowerment (New York: Falmer Press, 1991), p. 77. 2. Draft US Army HR System Project Plan, Fort Leavenworth, Kans. , 21 January 2004. 3. Joe F.Donaldson and Paul Jay Edelson, â€Å"From Functionalism to Postmodernism in Adult Education Leadership,† in Handbook of Adult and Continuing Education, ed. Arthur L. Wilson and Elisabeth R. Hayes (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2000), p. 193. 4. Gary Yukl, Leadership in Organization (5th ed. ; Upper Saddle River, N. J. : Prentice Hall, 2002). 5. Peter G. Northouse, Leadership Theory and Practice (Thousand Oaks, Calif. : Sage, 2004), pp. 35-52. 8. Guy B. Adams and Danny L. Balfour, Unmasking Administrative Evil (Armonk, N.Y. : M. E. Sharpe, 2004), pp. 31-36. 9. Ronald A. Heifetz, Leadership Without Easy Answers (Cambridge, Mass. : Harvard Univ. Press, 1994), pp. 21-22. 10. R. L. Shaw and Dennis N. T. Perkins, in Tara J. Fenwick, â€Å"Putting Meaning into Workplace Learning,† in Handbook of Adult and Continuing Education, ed. Arthur L. Wilson and Elisabeth R. Hayes (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2000), p. 296. 11. James G. March, A Primer on Decision Making, How Decisions Happen (New York: The Free Press, 1994), pp. 96-97.

Deep Vein Thrombosis Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 2500 words

Deep Vein Thrombosis - Essay Example This condition was chosen because it was interesting that there are so many different ways that DVT can develop. DVT is defined as a blood clot that appears in the thigh or lower leg. (National Health Lung and Blood Institute, 2009). The blood clot goes deep into the body and it is a result of blood thickening and then clumping together. When a blood clot goes deep into a vein, it can break off and move through the individual’s blood stream. Many people have heard about embolisms and this is what the loose clot is called. The blood clot can block blood flow to the lungs and heart at any time When it blocks off blood flow to the lungs, it is called a pulmonary embolism (PE) (National Health Lung and Blood Institute, 2009). PE can become so severe that it can cause damage to other organs and eventually will cause death. There are many situations in which DVT can begin. In some situations, a blood clot can happen after surgery. When an individual leads a very sedentary lifestyle without a lot of movement, the blood flow can become sluggish, which can allow the blood to clot in the veins. Some causes happen because of an inherited condition, hormone therapy, or taking birth control pills (National Health Lung and Blood Institute, 2009). Most doctors and researchers say that there are only a few risk factors that they have been able to find in this situation. Some of the risk factors include injury to a deep vein after surgery, obesity, and having heart problems. Also, when people get older, they have a tendency to be more sedentary and DVT has been shown to happen in people over 60. The signs and symptoms of DVT are very subtle and most people will not know that they are ill. The other challenge is that only about 50% of people have symptoms before something larger begins to happen. Some of the signs and symptoms are: 1. Legs swelling or swelling of a vein in the leg. 2. Pain or tenderness in the leg, especially when standing or walking. 3. The leg feels warmer in one area than in the rest of the leg. 4. A read or discolored area in the skin appears. 5. PE—which can begin with â€Å"coughing up blood, an unexplained shortness of breath, pain when deep breathing or rapid breathing with a fast heart rate†.

Understanding of Organizational behavior Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 500 words

Understanding of Organizational behavior - Essay Example al psychology studies behavior within the organization covered by psychology and its subfields, organizational behavior can include those that are within the areas of sociology and economics, among others. The first top issue in organizational behavior today is the manner by which woman still encounter the glass ceiling in their career path. This is true in the case of Wal-mart employees. When women are prevented to advance on account of their gender and that it is a conventional practice of an organization, it is a discriminatory behavior. It can be addressed using frameworks available that have been developed as a result of extensive studies done on similar organizational behavior theme in the past. The fact that it still persists speaks volumes about the attitude and policies of organizations and policymakers in business today. Secondly, there is the case of equitability of wages. Executive officers tend to get higher percentage of pay raises in comparison with the rank and file employees. This is what is happening at Hostess, for example. The dynamics by which organizations dispensed with this policy deserves attention especially that many believe it as valid, cost-effective and e fficient. An in-depth analysis of this issue in the context of organizational behavior could lead to viable models that would achieve organizational efficiency and profitability while implementing income equitability. Finally, I would like to cite the case of the corporate greed. Decision makers are hard-pressed to deliver the maximum profit to its shareholders. Hence, all other considerations such as social responsibility and ethics are never prioritized, if at all. The dynamics of the interaction between profit and policies, shareholders and managers, and, organization and society are covered by organizational behavior and could similarly be addressed within its framework in instances severe corporate greed. In my fathers appliance repair business one of the major roles I play is

Migration Assignment Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 500 words - 2

Migration - Assignment Example Individuals may migrate because of social reasons such as family miss understandings, political turmoil, poverty or the intense desire for adventure. In its content, ‘the Bridge’ journal looks at some of the reasons why gender has been one of the core reasons for migration in many parts of the world. Gender roles, inequalities and relations highly influence migration in the current generation (Jolly S., Reeves H 2005 pg. 1). Gender oppression has been a key fight in many parts of the world. The current system of education provides equal opportunities to all people regardless of their gender. Women have the power to manage big institutions and to own property worth million and billions of dollars. This is unlike in the past where men were the dominant species and women were required only to act like companions and servants of the man. Gender movement erupted from the discovery of various abilities by oppressed parties which include both women and men depending on the envi ronment. It is not logical to say that only women are prone to oppression in the modern world. Every form of gender is prone to oppression that can in turn lead to migration. Migration is currently viewed as a problem caused by development but if deeply analyzed; sex segregation in the world’s labour market is one of the major causes of migration. Policies of gender migration in relation to labour markets provide different opportunities to men and women which at time cause unskilled women to more risky migration conduit (Jolly S., Reeves H 2005 pg. 4). Due to this fact, cases of human trafficking have become common in many parts of the world with Africa and Asia being the most affected regions. Economic imbalance, gender oppression and lack of employment cause many women to be lured into human traffic business with them being the commodity of trade. Their desire for a new