Twitter Emerges as a Digital Marketing Tool Case Study

Twitter Emerges as a Digital Marketing Tool - Case Study Example Thousands of businesses in the United States are using tweeting as part of their marketing strategy. A survey revealed that over 88% of businesses in the U.S tweet messages to their customer base. The online connectivity of smartphones has made it easier than ever to follow tweets in real time. Key Marketing Issues Digital Media – consumers have become more accustomed to receiving their daily news through electronic media channels. One of the fastest growing media channels are social networks such as Facebook and Twitter. Electronic Marketing – Electronic marketing has become more popular than ever in the 21 century. In 2011 the global online advertising industry generated $71 billion in revenues (Plunkett Research). Social network – Social networks have grown in popularity during the past few years. Facebook is the industry leader with over 845 million users (Facebook). Twitter has become more popular among business owners due to its ability to receive followers without having the need of being in the network of friends. Personal Case Analysis The case study showed the growing tendency of people being in love with social network websites. The interesting thing about the article was that it showed how companies are taking advantage of this lifestyle change among consumers. I think that companies should use Twitter because it is a cost effective way to market to a growing population of consumers that use the services of Twitter on a daily basis. People in the Unites States have become addicted to their smartphones. These devices can be used by people to follow tweets in real time from any location. Interactivity is a feature that brings a lot of excitement to consumers. Case Questions 1) Why is Twitter appealing to companies? Twitter is very appealing to companies because it provides firms with a cost effective marketing medium that can be used to reach thousands of customers instantly. Advertising on Twitter is very cheap in comparison with the advertising costs of traditional media channels such as television and radio. The size of the Twitter population is another attractive feature of the website. There are over 175 million users of Twitter (Carlson). Twitter gives companies the ability to interact with its users. The use of Twitter can be very effective to target younger buyers between the ages of 18 and 35 years of age. 2) How can Twitter be used to strengthen customer relationships and to gather customer feedback? Twitter is a great website because it connects people and businesses with each other. Customers that are interested in the products or services of a company can follow the latest company news using Twitter. Customer relationships can be reinforced by creating loyalty programs in Twitter that allow customers to receive special deals through the twitter feeds. Twitter can also be used as a tool to collect secondary data. â€Å"Secondary data is the data that have been already collected by and readily av ailable from other sources† (Managementstudyguide). 3) What are some of the drawbacks of using Twitter as a marketing tool? Twitter can be a very effective marketing tool that can be implemented at a low cost, but there are certain drawbacks associated with its use. The use of Twitter for marketing purposes is limited to the reach of the medium. A lot of people are not users of social media websites. Other channels such as television and the written press have greater reach than Twitter. The use of Twitter is not as popular among senior citizens as it is among teenagers. Using Twitter as a sole marketing strategy does not let companies achieve adequate penetration among all demographic groups. Another drawback of the use of Twitter

Legal Implicaiotn of human resource management Essay Example for Free

Legal Implicaiotn of human resource management Essay A union is an organization of workers, acting collectively, seeking to promote and protect its mutual interests through collective bargaining. However, before we can examine the activities surrounding the collective bargaining process, it is important to understand the laws that govern the labor-management process, what unions are and how employees unionize. Although the current percentage of the workforce that is unionized has declined steadily, there are still many employees who feel that the workforce is primed for a positive response by employees to a new effort in organizing. The main reasons for union organizing are: higher wages and benefits, greater job security, influence over work rules, compulsory membership and being upset with management. Among various reasons why employees join a union, we see one common factor: management, specially the first-line supervisor. If employees are upset with the way their supervisor handles problems, upset over how a coworker has been disciplines, and so on, they are likely to seek help from a union. In fact, it is reasonable to believe that when employees vote to unionize, it’s often a vote against their immediate supervisor rather than a vote in support of particular union. CASE: In the provided case, the employees are upset with company since employer rolled out its plan to organize employees into teams, change job titles, work assignments and the pay structure. Beside that employees were told â€Å"this is how it will be. † I am working as the top HR Manager and have to deal with this situation. First of all I would learn some basic legal implications of union organizing. The legal framework for labor-management relationships has played a crucial role in its development. There are two important laws that have shaped much of the labor relations process. Wagner Act: Also knows as the National Labor Relations Act of 1935, this act gave employees that right to form and join unions and to engage in collective bargaining. The Wagner Act is cited a shifting the pendulum of power to favor unions for the first time in U. S labor history. This was achieved, in part, through the establishment of National Labor Relations Board (NLRB). The Wager Act provided the legal recognition of unions as legitimate interest groups in American society, but many employers opposed its purposes. Some employers, too, failed to live up to the requirements of its provisions. Thus, the belief that the balance of power had swung too far to labor’s side, and the public outcry stemming from post-World War II strikes, led to passage of the Taft-Hartley Act (Labor- Management Relations Act) in 1947. The Taft-Hartley Act: Amended the Wagner Act by addressing employers’ concerns in terms of specifying unfair union labor practices. Realizing that unions and employers might not reach agreement and that work stoppages might occur, Taft-Hartley also created the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service (FMCS) as an independent agency separate from the Department of Labor. FMCS is a government agency that assists Labor and management in settling disputes. The Wagner and Taft-Hartley Acts were the most important laws influencing labor-management relationships in the United States, but there are other laws that influence the labor organizing. Specifically, these are the Railway Labor Act; the Land rum Griffin Act; Executive Orders 10988 and 11491; the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act of 1970; and the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 (discussed in previous module) is as relevant to labor organizations as it is to management. Title VII of the act is focused on this subject. In the provided case, it seems like there is already union getting into shape. The labor laws do permit us as HR Manager to defend ourselves against the union campaign, but we must do it properly. I would follow the following guidelines of what to do and what not to do during the organizing drive. * If your employees ask for your opinion on unionization (as my supervisor is asking me this question), should respond in a natural manner. For example, â€Å"I really have no position on the issue. Do what you think is best. * You can prohibit union-organizing activates in your workplace during work hours only if they interfere with work operation. This may apply to the organization’s e-mail, too. * You can prohibit outside union organizers from distributing union information in the workplace. * Employees have the right to distribute union information to other employees during breaks and lunch periods. * Don’t question employees publicly or privately about union-organizing activities- for example, â€Å"Are you planning to go to that union rally this weekend? but if an employee freely tells you about the activities, you may listen. * Don’t spy on employees’ union activities, for example, by standing in the cafeteria to see who is distributing pro-union literature. * Don’t make any threats or promises related to the possibility of unionization. For example, â€Å"If this union effort succeeds, upper management is seriously thinking about closing down this plant, but if it’s defeated, they may push through an immediate wage increase. * Don’t discriminate against any employee who is involved in the unionization effort. Be on eh lookout for efforts by the union to coerce employees to join its ranks. This activity by unions is an unfair labor practice. If you see this occurring, report to your boss or to HR. Company might slow want to consider filing a complaint against the union with NLRB. Keeping all the above points checked, I will also keep in mind that union organizing drives may or may not be successful, but when they do achieve their goal to become the exclusive bargaining age, the next step is to negotiate the contract or demands. Now, I’ll get myself ready along with my first line supervisors, for the next expected step: collective bargaining. This typically refers to the negotiation, administration, and interpretation of a written agreement between two parties that covers a specific period of time. This agreement, or contract, lays out in specific terms the conditions of employment that is, what is expected of employees and any limits to management’s authority. Although collective bargaining is mostly used in public sectors, however it is also common in private sector. My employees are upset because of three months old change; based on my supervisor’s comments I assume that union has been certified; I might come up with a new set of interpretation of this change between my management and employees. I will make sure that my management and the union must negotiate in good faith over these issues. I would follow the following collective bargaining process outline in order to resolve these issues: Preparing to Negotiate: Once a union has been certified as the bargaining unit, both union and management begin the ongoing activity of preparing for negotiations. We can consider the preparation for negotiation as composed of three activities: fact gathering, goal setting, and strategy development. Information is acquired from both internal and external sources. With all the collection of this background information in hand, and tentative goals established both union and management must put together the most difficult part of the bargaining preparation activities, a strategy for negotiations. This includes assessing the other side’s power and specific tactics. Negotiating at the Bargaining Table: Negotiation customarily begins with the union delivering to management a list of â€Å"demands. † By presenting many demands, the union creates significant room for trading in later stages of the negotiation; it also disguises the union’s real position, leaving management to determine which demands are adamantly sought, which are moderately sought, and which the union is prepared to quickly abandon. Real negotiations typically go on behind closed doors, each party tries to assess the relative priorities of the other’s demands, and each begins to combine proposals into viable packages. Next comes the attempt to make management’s highest offer approximate the lowest demands that the union is willing to accept. Contract Administration: Once a contract is agreed upon and ratified, it must be administered. Contract administration involves four stages: (1) dissemination the agreements to all union members and mangers; (2) implementing the contract: (3) interpreting the contract and grievance resolution: and (4) monitoring activities during the contract period. Providing information to all concerned requires both parties to ensure that changes in contract language are spelled out. The stage of contract administration is ensuring that the agreement is implemented. All communicated changes now take effect, and both sides are expected to comply with the contract terms. The most important element of contract administration relates to spelling out a procedure for handling contractual disputes. These contracts have provisions for resolving specific, formally initiated grievances by employees concerning dissatisfaction with job-related issues. As an HR Manager for a company with 1500 employees, who are quite upset with our management and are unionizing, I have tried to come up with a plan to resolve this issue. First of all, I gathered the legal data in this respect, I proposed some guidelines to avoid unionizing and last, I have discussed the plan in detail to resolve the issue in provided case. I would like to comment that although historically, the relationship between labor and management was built on conflict and the nterests of labor and management were seen as basically at odds-each treating the other as the opposition. But times have somewhat changes. Management has become increasingly aware that successful efforts to increase productivity, improve quality, and lower costs require employee involvement and commitment. Similarly, some labor unions have recognized that they can help their members more by cooperating with management rather than fighting them which is quite positive for both management and employees.

Law Of Evidence Analysis Of Similar Fact Evidence Law Essay

Law Of Evidence Analysis Of Similar Fact Evidence Law Essay The law of evidence is a system under which facts are used to determine the rights and liabilities of the parties. Evidence proves the existence of facts in issue or infers them from related facts. One of the fundamental considerations of criminal evidence law is the balance of justice to the accused against wrongful convictions, ensuring a fair trial and fairness to the victim. Since stakes in criminal trials are generally high, prosecution would have to prove the accuseds guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Since similar fact evidence as evinced in s  11(b), 14 and 15 of the Evidence Act(EA) can be highly prejudicial to the accused, and yet play an important role in proving culpability, it should be reformed to clarify its scope of application under the EA and reflect the common laws prejudicial propensity balancing test. 2. Similar Fact Evidence A. Background Similar fact evidence is not directly connected to the case but is admitted to prove the existence of facts in issue due to its general similitude.The worry that the trier of facts would convict the accused based solely on evidence of prior conduct has generally led to the inadmissibility of such evidence in the trial as this is severely prejudicial. This concern is amplified in bench trials. Studies have suggested that judges were as influenced as laypersons when exposed to inadmissible evidence, such as prior convictions, even when they held that these evidences were inadmissible.  [6]  This is despite strong confidence in the judges ability to remain neutral to the inadmissible facts.  [7]   Hence, the accuseds past similar offence or behaviour is inadmissible as similar fact evidence based on pure propensity reasoning would colour the courts ability to assess the evidence [objectively].  [8]   Nonetheless, the mere prejudicial effect of such evidence does not render it inadmissible. It may be highly relevant, especially when such evidence is used to determine whether the acts in question were deliberate or to rebut a defence that could have been available.  [9]   B. EA Under s  5 of the EA, a fact is only relevant if it falls within one of the relevancy provisions  [10]  stated in s  6 to s  10 of the EA. These provisions govern specifically the facts in issue, i.e. determinant facts that would decide whether the accused is guilty according to the substantive law governing that offence.In addition, s  11(b) was enacted to be the residuary category for the relevancy provisions. In contrast, similar fact evidence is primarily administrated by s  14 and s  15 as it is concerned with conduct that is merely similar in nature to those facts in issue  [13]  . s  14 is applicable only when the state of mind of the accused is in issue. Similar fact evidence is admissible to prove mens rea or to rebut the defence of good faith.  [14]   s  15 deals with similar fact evidence that forms a series of similar occurrences to prove the mens rea of the accused,  [15]  and enables the prosecution to produce evidence to rebut a potential defence otherwise open to the accused.  [16]   Admission of similar fact evidence under the EA is based on a categorization approach  [17]  , where such evidence is admissible pursuant to the exceptions stated in the EA  [18]  . Hence, similar fact evidence should only be admissible to prove the mens rea of the accused under s  14 and 15.  [19]   Significantly, Singapore, India, Malaysia and Sri Lanka have identical s  11, 14 and 15 provisions in their respective Evidence enactments. With the exception of the Indian Evidence Act  [20]  , the three sections have not been amended since the 19th century.  [21]   C. Case Law Interpretation of Similar Fact Evidence in EA Singapore courts have not strictly adhered to the draftmans intention in recent cases.  [22]  The court has incorporated common laws balancing test  [23]  where the judge would balance between the probative and prejudicial effect of the similar fact evidence.  [24]   In Lee Kwang Peng v PP  [25]  , scope of similar fact evidence was extended to prove actus reus. Pursuant to s  11(b), the court was of the view that the section embodied  [26]  the balancing test. Hence, similar fact evidence is admissible to prove both mens reas and actus reus.  [27]  Although readily admitting that this would be contrary to the draftsmans intention, then Chief Justice Yong held that the EA should be a facilitative statute rather than a mere codification of Stephens statement of the law of evidence  [28]  . The courts, until Law Society of Singapore v Tan Guat Neo Phyllis  [29]  (Phyllis Tan), were generally of the opinion that they had the discretion to exclude evidence substantially unfair to the accused.  [30]   D. Under the Criminal Procedure Code Act (2010)  [31]  (CPC) s  266 of CPC, dealing specifically with stolen goods, allows previous convictions of the accused to be admitted to rebut his defence of good faith and/or prove mens rea. However, notice would have to be given to the accused before adducing such evidence  [32]  . E. In Comparison to Common Law Unlike the EA, admissibility of criminal evidence at common law is exclusionary. As long as the evidence is logically probative, it is admissible unless it contravenes clear public policy or other laws.  [33]   In Makin v A-G for NSW  [34]  , Lord Herschell formulated the two-limbed rule governing the admissibility of similar fact evidence. Under the first limb, the prosecution is not allowed to adduce similar fact evidence for pure propensity reasoning. However, under the second limb, evidence of the accuseds past conduct is admissible if relevant to the facts in issue via the categorization approach.  [35]   Boardman v PP  [36]  reformulated these rules by incorporating the balancing test. Under this test, the probative force of the similar fact evidence must outweigh the prejudicial effect. Furthermore, such evidence should be strikingly similar, such that it would offend common sense if the evidence is excluded.  [37]   However, the requirement of striking similarity was deemed to be too narrow in DPP v PP  [38]  . Instead, sufficient probative force could be gleaned from other circumstances  [39]  . Nonetheless, similar fact evidence used to prove identity must be sufficiently special to portray a signature or other special feature that would reasonably point to the accused as the perpetuator of the crime.  [40]  Hence, similar fact evidence is admissible to establish actus reus  [41]  . F. Defects of EA Singapore courts have incorporated common law principles and extended the applicability of similar fact evidence to prove actus reus. This has resulted in inconsistencies between the draftsmans intention and the courts approach. Further, there are some ambiguities that require clarification. First, there are difficulties superimposing the Boardmans balancing test into s  11, 14 and 15  [42]  as the EA was drafted to suit the categorization approach. The court would have to admit evidence falling under either section even if it may not be very probative or is highly prejudicial. Hence, s  14 and s  15 address only the probative part of the balancing test and leave no room for prejudicial effect considerations.  [43]  As a result, judicial discretion to exclude very detrimental evidence was developed.  [44]   Second, although allowing similar fact evidence to prove actus reus would require the judge to evoke an additional step of inference  [45]  , limiting the use of this evidence to prove mens rea would allow extremely probative evidence to be excluded  [46]  . Third, admissibility rules under the EA do not distinguish situations where the accused adduced similar fact evidence unintentionally. An injurious consequence would result if the prosecution is entitled to use such evidence.  [47]   Fourth, under s 15, a single act, no matter how probative, is inadmissible.  [48]  However, this does not take into account the consideration that an act may be capable of supporting the argument based on the rarity of circumstances  [49]  . Fifth, the courts have admitted similar fact evidence pursuant to s  11  (b) although it may not be pertinent to the facts in issue. Hence, EA should be amended to provide safeguards against such usage of s  11(b). Lastly, in light of Phyllis Tan  [50]  , more protection against admissibility of similar fact evidence should be incorporated into the EA. 3. Possible Options A. Survey of the other Jurisdiction (1) Australia Uniform Evidence Acts  [51]  (UEA) Under UEA, propensity evidence and similar fact evidence are governed by the tendency rule in s 97 and the coincidence rule in s  98. (a) Tendency Rule Evidence pertaining to the character, reputation, conduct or a tendency that the accused possessed is inadmissible unless (a) notice is given to the accused and (b) the evidence has significant probative value. Although UEA does not state how probative the evidence has to be, probative value of the evidence is defined the extent to which the evidence could rationally affect the assessment of the probability of the existence of a fact in issue.  [52]  Operation of s  97 would be invoked when the evidence is adduced for the purpose of proving the accuseds inherent tendency to act in a particular way.  [53]   (b) Coincidence Rule As a general rule, evidence of related events which must be substantially and relevantly similar  [54]   would be inadmissible unless notice is given and the court is convinced that it possesses significant probative value  [55]  . (c) Criminal Proceedings A safeguard was inserted in relation to criminal proceedings under s  101 where the probative value of either the tendency or coincidence evidence would have to substantially outweigh any prejudicial effect. However, the degree of probativeness need not  [56]  be of such a degree that only one conclusion, i.e. culpability of the accused, could be drawn  [57]  . (No rationale explanation test) (d) Analysis UEA clearly adopts the balancing test approach, where the probative effect of the evidence must substantially outweigh the prejudicial effect on the accused. Furthermore, the introduction of the notice system would reduce the prejudicial effect as the accused not be unduly surprised. However, as pointed out by the Australian Law Reform Commission, there is much ambiguity in what constitutes significantly probative and when the probative effect will substantially outweigh the prejudicial effect. Significantly, in Australia, the trier of fact and law are different. Heavy reliance on the judges discretions, added with the ambiguity and wide application of the balancing test, would increase the risk of prejudice in bench trials. (2) India Statutory Amendments Some amendments to s  11, 14 and 15 of The Indian Evidence Act  [58]  , upon which the EA was modeled on  [59]  , had been made pursuant to a review in 2003.  [60]  However, the changes made were very minor.  [61]   (a) Section 11 An explanation, inserted after s  11(2)  [62]  , qualified the type of evidence rendered relevant under s  11 such that the degree of relevancy is dependent on the opinion of the Court  [63]  . (b) Section 14 Clarifications to illustration (h) of s  14 were made such that the similar fact evidence has to show that A either had constructive or actual knowledge of the public notice of the loss of the property.  [64]   (c) Section 15 The changes merely show that the acts made, pursuant to s 15, must be done by the same person.  [65]   (d) Analysis It would appear that the amendments to the Indian Evidence Act do not have any substantial impact on the law. However, the amendment of s  11 explicitly mentions that the degree of relevancy of facts is subjected to the opinions of the court, which suggests an approach more in line with the balancing test. (3) England and Wales Criminal Justice Act 2003  [66]  (CJA) The admissibility of criminal evidence is presently governed entirely  [67]  by the CJA. Part II of CJA addresses the admissibility of bad character  [68]  evidence, which is defined as a persons disposition for a particular misconduct. Evidence of the defendants bad character can be adduced if it falls under one of the seven gateways under s 101(1)  [69]  . Significantly, under s 101 (1) (d), bad character evidence is admissible if it is relevant to an important issue between the defendant and the prosecution  [70]  . This includes the propensity to commit a particular type of offence which the accused is charged with or the propensity to lie  [71]  . Moreover, past convictions may be admissible to prove the defendants propensity to commit the crime he was charged with.  [72]   Regardless, s  101 (3) allows the court to exclude evidence, falling under s 101  (1)(d), upon the application of the defendant if the court views that admission of such evidence would infringe on the fairness of the proceedings.  [73]   The scope for the admissibility of bad character evidence has widened under the CJA.  [74]  In fact, evidence of bad character has changed from one of prima facie inadmissibility to that of prima facie admissibility  [75]  . Although, under s  103, bad character evidence would be inadmissible if it does not heighten the culpability of the accused, suggesting that the evidence must have some probative force, it appears that the CJA has abandoned the balancing test. Hence, similar fact evidence in the form of bad character evidence would be inadmissible if it lacks probative value in the establishment of the defendants culpability. However, s  101 (1), with the exception of s  101(1)(e), merely requires the evidence to be probative, without the need to outweigh prejudicial effect. 4. Proposal The EA would require more than a mere amendment. Hence, the type of reform advocated under the Indian Evidence Act should not be adopted. However, a radical change from the categorization approach to the balancing approach, following UEA, would give the court too much discretion. This is worrying as judges may not be entirely indifferent to inadmissible facts when deciding the case. On the other hand, the approach under the CJA would be contrary to Phyllis Tan  [76]  and potentially allows highly prejudicial similar fact evidence to be admissible as long as the prosecution can show some probative value which points towards the guilt of the accused. Hence, a hybridised model should be adopted where the categorisation approach under s 14 and s 15 is kept, but admissibility of such evidence must be subjected to the balancing test. A. Amendments (1) Changes to the Headings s  5 to s 16, under the general heading of Relevancy of facts, could be further sub-divided. First, s  5 to s  11 should be placed under a sub-heading of Governing Facts in issues  [77]  . Second, s  12 to s  16 could be placed under Relevancy of other facts sub-heading. This sub-division of the relevancy provisions would clarify the functions of each section and discourage courts from admitting similar fact evidence which does not have a specific connection with the facts in issue via s 11(b). (2) Incorporating balancing test Most importantly, EA should be amended to include the balancing test with guidance drawn from the UEA, such that the probative value of the similar fact evidence should substantially outweigh the prejudicial effect. However, the definition of substantially outweigh should be left undefined and allowed to develop under the common law. The courts could draw assistance from the Australian case law. (3) Proving Identity A provision could be inserted to the EA allowing similar fact evidence to prove that the accused was responsible for the offence. In addition to the balancing test, the provision should also reflect the proposition that that such similar fact evidence must satisfy the threshold test of being strikingly similar to the offence, almost akin to a signature or special feature of the accused. However, it is submitted that the extension of similar fact evidence to prove actus reus should be limited to the situation where the identity of the perpetuator is in doubt. B. Clarifications (1) Similar fact evidence produced by the accused mistakenly It is proposed that such evidence should subjected to a higher standard of balancing test where the probative value substantially outweighs prejudicial effect. (2) Only prior convictions are allowed Prior acquittals should not be admissible as similar fact evidence as this would be unduly prejudicial to the accused. Furthermore, this could result in the undesirable situation whereby the accused is subjected to a second round of trials with regards to the prior charges. In relation to the type of prior convictions that should be allowed, the EA should incorporate the definitions found in s 103(2)  [78]  and s  103(4)  [79]  of the CJA. (3) Clarification of s. 15 s  15 should be extended to include single act or conduct of the accused to rebut the defendants defence of accident. However, in light of a potential danger of placing too much importance on a single episode, a qualification, such as the no rationale reason  [80]  test, should be implemented along with the extension of s  15. 5. Additional Safeguards A system of notice, as seen in UEA, should be included into the EA. This reduces the prejudicial effect as the evidence would not be a surprise. Furthermore, this approach would be in line with the CPC, which has already adopted such a procedural reform. 6. Conclusion Regarded as one of the most difficult area of the law of evidence, similar fact evidence can serve as a double-edged sword. It has the potential to convict the accused although the facts do not relate to the facts in issue and is highly prejudicial to the defendant. In light of the rapid development of the rules governing the admissibility of similar fact evidence under the common law and the recent trend of common law countries codifying the test of admissibility into statutes, the EA should be reformed to reflect these developments, instead of relying on case law which can lead to inconsistency and uncertainty. Further, as information of a persons past is easily obtained with present technological advancements, safeguards against similar fact evidence should be incorporated so as to ensure a fair trial.

We Must Have the Right to Choose Euthanasia :: Free Euthanasia Essay

We Must Have the Right to Choose Euthanasia There are many sides to the dilemma of whether or not euthanasia should be carried out. There is the question of morality, the question of active versus passive euthanasia and the question of when euthanasia should be put into use. None of these questions are totally cut and dry. There seem to be more gray areas within this issue than there are black and white. Yet when you look at the problem on a personal level with the actual individuals involved, some of those gray areas almost disappear. People are put on this earth to live. When it gets to the point where the quality of a person's life gets so bad that they can no longer function in the world, there is no reason to force that person to stay alive. Euthanasia is therefore a necessary evil for those whose practical life is in effect over due to a terminal illness or otherwise life devastating condition. If a person is in unbearable pain and close to death or is in a vegetable state and no longer able to function, their life is by all practical means over. There is no reason to keep them alive. The only way to end their physical life is by euthanasia. The question is whether to do this by way of active euthanasia or passive euthanasia. Many are against active euthanasia because in this case you actually kill the person rather than letting them die. But both methods are used for the same end which is to end someone's life without further pain for the patient as well as for the family. The only choice to make after this fact is established is which of these means better carries out the end. James Rachels, a philosophy professor, says that, "if one simply withholds treatment [in the way of passive euthanasia], it may take the patient longer to die, and so he may suffer more than he would if more direct action were taken and a lethal injection given." (Rachels, p.111) This defeats the purpose of euthanasia which is to end suffering. Therefore, in cases where euthanasia is going to be carried out, active euthanasia is the better choice.

Evil and an STN God :: Philosophy of Religion Essays

Evil and an STN God The problem of evil makes theists discern a reason for an STN God to allow evil and suffering in the world. The basic setup for the problem of evil is that either a God who is all knowing, all powerful, wholly good, eternal, and creator of this universe but separate from it (STN) or evil exists. Atheists believe that since evil exists then there is no STN God. Theists branch into two categories, either believing in God, but not an STN God or believing that God has a reason for allowing evil into the world. The latter type is a narrow theist and they use a theodicy to solve the problem of evil, the best of which is the ontological defense. However, the ontological defense does not solve the problem of evil. The problem of evil stems from the contradicting beliefs that either an STN God exists or evil exists (93).1 The problem of evil can be expanded into two arguments against the existence of an STN God: the logical and the evidential arguments (93).1 The argument from the logical problem of evil is simple. The basic form of this argument is that if an STN God exists, then evil cannot exist (93).1 Since there is evidence that evil does exist an STN God cannot exist (93).1 The evidential problem of evil is based more on how any greater good can come from the evil (99).1 In the argument from the evidential problem of evil, there are times when an STN God could have prevented intense suffering without interfering with a greater good (99).1 An STN God would prevent any suffering that would not interfere with a greater good and since suffering has occurred that does not interfere with a greater good an STN God cannot exist (99).1 The problem of evil is solely a problem for theists. In order for a theist to keep their beliefs in an STN God they must find a way to solve the problem of evil by using a theodicy (103).1 Or they can change their beliefs so that they no longer believe in an STN God, but just a God (108).1 The ontological defense appears to be the most successful theodicy at solving the problem of evil. This defense essentially says that it is impossible for good to exist in the world without evil. The ontological defense is the strongest defense because it merely puts forth the concept of opposites and does not try to explain any other reasoning for why evil exists or why God puts evil in the world.

Assessing Learners Needs in Education Essay example -- essays research

Units 101 &105 In this essay I shall be examining the importance of accurate initial assessment of learner’s needs. In order to do this it is necessary to correctly identify my learners so that appropriate teaching methods can be structured for them. From there, I shall explore how to best support learners throughout their period of study, both in terms of educational support, and in terms of developing their self confidence. The students I teach are studying toward a 2 year diploma in Creative Sound Engineering & Music Technology at Deep Blue Sound (DBS). It is common for the learners to come from a fairly narrow section of society. Broadly speaking, learners are male, and fall into the 16-25 age range, although there is also at least one learner in his late forties. Group sizes average between 8 and 14. The learner’s first point of contact, and assessment, comes through their application. This will provide us with clues to the potential needs of the student, including their age (and need for supervision), current understanding of the subject, and any appropriate experience or qualifications they may have. From here candidates are invited to an interview, where they are given a full tour of the facilities along with an overview of the structure of the course. The interview stage allows us to assess both their suitability for the course, both in terms of attitude and ability, and gives us an insight into their expectations and requirements, and their potential barriers to learning. For example, those who are not school leavers may well have obstacles to learning that their school-leaving counterparts do not share. As Armitage (1999) observes: â€Å"(Having a continuous learning experience from the age of 5) is generally not the case for the adult learner who may not have been involved in a formal education experience for some time and whose knowledge and expectations of education may only be based on their own school experience. Equally, the adult re-entering the education system at any level has many more outside responsibilities and pressures than the younger FE or HE student.† Applicants will also be tested at this stage for computer literacy. During the enrolment procedure, learners are assessed for literacy using the Smog Readability Formula (McLaughlin, G. 1969: 639-646), in order to bring to light, amongst other things, potential learning dif... ...o all handouts and project briefs in electronic format, so that his computer is able to read them back to him. Once this trust has been established, the line of communication between student and teacher becomes much more free-flowing, effectively facilitating the tutor’s ongoing assessment of the class. In conclusion, in order for us to guarantee a successful and enjoyable learning experience for the student, we must accurately assess the individual needs of the learner, and be aware of how dynamic these needs can be. Through maintaining open channels of communication between students and staff, and by providing the student with a safe place to learn, we can adapt our teaching styles to grow with the changing needs of the learner, as well as providing helpful and meaningful support for them, ensuring they receive the most effective training possible whilst studying on the course. Bibliography Armitage, A. (1999) Teaching and Training in Post-Compulsory Education, 2nd Ed, King’s Lynn: OUP. P63 McLaughlin, G. (1969), SMOG grading: A new readability formula. Journal of Reading, 12 (8) 639-646 Petty, G. (2004), Teaching Today, 4th Ed, Cheltenham: Nelson Thornes Ltd. P201

Evil and Suffering Essay

The problem of evil and suffering is perhaps the greatest of all challenges to religious belief. It is the difficulty of reconciling the existence of wickedness in the world with the existence of an omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent God. It is best explained in the inconsistent triad; a vertex dating from Epicurus and Augustine that acknowledges the main problem believers face; how can there be a deity that is all good, powerful and knowing if evil exists, as the problem of evil itself is a contradiction within the idea of a deity. The problem of evil is an extensive problem. Whether malum culpae; moral evils we inflict upon one another (murder), or malum poenae; evil caused by natural occurrences (earthquakes) it is the direct cause of the suffering we endure each day. Different religious perspectives require different answers; the ‘problem of evil’, which in itself has numerous debatable aspects, is therefore interpreted in different ways by atheists, agnostics and theists. To theists particularly, the existence of evil in our world poses more than a merely philosophical or apologetic problem; it creates a very personal religious one, as although our painful experience may not challenge our belief that God exists, what may be at risk is our confidence in a God we can freely worship and love, and in whose love we can feel secure. Some suggest that evil is merely the name we give to inexplicable, nonsensical occurrences that defy explanation; that is why they are evil. However, some believe that evil is necessary, as it is merely a deprivation of good that provides contrast and allows us to appreciate the good God has given us. Give an account of two solutions and consider the view that they fail to solve the problem of suffering. [32] The problem of evil has been reconsidered and reformulated many times since the time of Epicurus; the main theodicies stemming from the Free Will Defence, which states that evil is necessary to defend man’s free will. Augustine based his theodicy on the teachings in Genesis, primarily believing that every God made organism is ‘good’. He did not believe it an illusion like Mary Baker Eddy, but alike Aquinas, views it as a ‘privatio boni’; a deprivation of good, originating from Adam’s disobedience in the Garden of Eden. He held that we deserved punishment through natural evil, and it was this that produced a distance from God where moral evil could flourish. He believed that God is justified in allowing evil to stay, as He will then be merciful and save some in Christ, as well as gaining justice through condemning some to hell. However, the challenge of evolutionary theory opposes Genesis on two points. Firstly, it hints to an instant creation rather than a process of evolution; stating that the world began perfectly, which completely contradicts all evolutionary theories and evidence modern scientists have gathered that support an earthly progression from simplicity to complexity. Secondly, Darwin’s theory of the Selfish Gene, that every creature, in the long run, acts to maximize the number of its descendants, challenges his theory of original perfection. There is also a logical error, as according to Augustine, evil seems to have created itself out of nothing! If the origin of evil is Adam, and God is the creator of Adam, is God not then the origin of evil? Also, the appeal to free will as the source of evil is illogical in a world where there was no knowledge of good and evil. If the creatures chose to disobey they must have known evil, which means it must come from God. Finally, hell appears to be a part of the design of the universe, implying that God anticipated that evil would enter, which adds a very controversial aspect of theist understandings of God. A well-known view is the Irenaean theodicy, revived by Hick in his book Evil and the God of Love in 1966. In contrast to Augustine’s theodicy, the key idea of the Irenaean works is that the human race was not created in a state of perfection but in a state of imperfection but leading to a state of perfection. The basis of this theory stems from the biblical teachings in Genesis 1, stating that first of all ‘God created man in His own image’, aiming also to make men in his likeness in the second stage of life. The means to attain this ‘likeness’ is through free choice, which in turn implied the potential to disobey. This is commonly known as the Vale of Soul making; condensed by Hick into the epistemic distance (a distance that allows us to be responsible and to have the free choice to make that leap of faith to be with God). This is pictured by Michelangelo’s ‘Creation of Adam’, in which Adam is viewed very much in imago dei. Kierkegaard also illustrated the act of attaining true love rather than merely being compliant through the parable of the king and the peasant girl. Scholars such as John Mackie have challenged this theory logically, as surely if there is an opposite evil for all good, then God himself must face equal evils at the end of the cycle. He also conjured up the Paradox of Omnipotence; based on the question that can God create rules, which bind himself?; and also, the thought that suffering (such as innocent children dying), can never be an expression of God’s love. Many theists would, however, support that evil is merely there to test our faith, but D Z Phillips contradicts this point, saying that ‘It is never justifiable to hurt someone in order to help them.’ Many follow Irenaeas’ theory, as it is a universalised concept of heaven, however that feature in itself makes it unjust. There is, therefore, no incentive for this ‘Vale of Soul Making’, as it questions God’s justice; denying genuine freedom and removing any point of moral effort.