Medical Ethics Abortion Essay Example for Free

Medical Ethics Abortion Essay Most moral issues in medicine and healthcare will instigate lively debate, but no subject seems to inflame tempers more than the question of abortion. The gulf between pro-life and pro-choice can be an uncompromising stance of deeply held beliefs and principles. On the one hand, there is the claim that the foetus is a human being with the same right to life as any other human being, and abortion is therefore nothing less than murder. On the other hand, it is argued that a woman has a right to choose what happens within her own body, and is therefore justified in deciding to have her foetus removed if she so wishes. Even a liberal view is problematic; these tend to take the view that it is permissible for an abortion to take place before a certain stage in the foetuses development, but not beyond that given point. Such an arbitrary perspective does seem difficult to quantify; how can anyone determine the criteria that would navigate a decision that finds termination acceptable today but morally reprehensible tomorrow? It is sometimes argued that the foetus reaches personhood well before birth. â€Å"By the tenth week, for example, it already has a face, arms and legs, fingers and toes; it has internal organs, and brain activity is detectable.†[1] But does this undermine a woman’s right to self determination—can it still be reasonable for her to choose abortion, given its level of development? We shall explore this question; not from the perspective of whether the foetus is human, but from the premise â€Å"that the woman’s rights over her body are more important than the life of the person or part person in her womb.†[2] A Woman’s Right to Self-Defence Judith Jarvis Thomson presents the following hypothesis:[3] a woman becomes pregnant and then learns that she has a cardiac condition that will cause her death if the pregnancy continues. Let us grant the foetus personhood, with a right to life. Obviously the mother too has a right to life, so how can we decide who’s right to life is greater? A way of answering this question could be to say that an abortion is an act of aggression with the sole intention to kill. Whereas to do nothing would not be an attempt by anyone to murder the mother, rather to just let her die. The passivity of the latter could be seen as morally preferable than directly killing an innocent person. Thomson argues that â€Å"It cannot seriously be said that†¦she must sit passively by and wait for her death.†[4] There are two people involved, both are innocent, but one is endangering the life of the other. Thomson believes that in this scenario a woman is entitled to defend herself against the threat posed by the unborn baby, even if ultimately this will cause its death. I feel Thomson is correct in her appraisal. If an impartial judgement was sought by an individual as to whose life has greater worth; the foetus or the woman, they might not feel able to choose—both lives could be seen to hold equal value. But there is nothing objective about the woman’s situation—her life is endangered. If a person threatens my life—even if they are not conscious of their actions—I have a right to kill them, if that is the only course of action I can take to repel the attack. The scenario becomes less clear when we consider if a woman holds the same right to defend herself if the continuation of her pregnancy causes her serious health problems that are not terminal. Again, I would assess the situation in terms of an attack. Do I have a right to kill an assailant if he attempts to wound me? The answer, I think, is dependent upon degree—the injury that would be inflicted. It seems reasonable that the degree of retaliation should be proportional to the severity of the attack. Similarly, a woman has the right to terminate her pregnancy if its continuation instigates a degree of illness that is severe enough to warrant that decision. The problem then is quantifying such comparatives. It might seem reasonable to nominate the woman involved as the person best qualified to make that decision, but shouldn’t such judgments emanate from an objective source? After all, should I be able to ‘take the law into my own hands’ and choose whatever reprisal I thought necessary against my attacker? A Woman’s Right to Ownership A woman holds ownership of her own body; therefore she may abort her foetus if that is what she chooses â€Å"it is in a very real sense her own—to dispose of as she wishes.†[5] Professor Thomson analogises: it is not that the woman and foetus are like two tenants occupying a small house that has been mistakenly rented to both of them—the mother owns the house.[6] But not all claims of ownership hold an automatic right to dispose of their property. John Harris gives an example[7] suppose I own a life-saving drug, and have nothing planned for its use other than placing it on my shelf. If I meet a person who was dependent on that drug otherwise they will die, I would not be morally entitled to withhold the drug—it would be wrong of me to exercise that right. What Harris is expressing is that a woman may have the right to do what she wishes to her own body, but it would be wrong of her to exercise that right. The question then is; does the value of ownership of your body take precedence over the value of the foetus? Property is sometimes commandeered during war, and this action is usually justified because national security is thought to take priority over an individual’s right to ownership.[8] Another compelling, and I think decisive, argument comes from Mary Anne Warren. She states that ownership does not give me a right to kill an innocent person on my property, furthermore, it is also immoral to banish a person from my property; if by doing so they will undoubtedly perish.[9] If one does not accept that a foetus is a human being, then the woman may have it removed from her body, similarly to having a kidney stone taken out. But if the foetus is believed to be a person, then I do not think any argument of ownership can hold up against the soundness of the given examples. A Foetuses Right to its Mothers Body Can a woman’s right to choose abortion take priority over the foetuses right to life? Professor Thomson argues that â€Å"†¦a right to life does not guarantee having either a right to be given the use of or a right to be allowed continued use of another person’s body—even if one needs it for life.†[10] Thomson goes on to give an example[11], that if she was terminally ill, and the only thing that would save her life was the touch of Henry Fonda’s cool hand on her fevered brow, she would have no right to expect him to travel to her side and assist her in this way. No doubt, Thomson adds; that it would be frightfully nice of him, but she holds no right against him that he should do so. An obvious criticism is to argue that a woman has a special responsibility to her foetus, simply because she is its mother—a responsibility that ‘Henry Fonda’ does not owe, so the analogy, is rendered useless. But Thomson postulates that â€Å"we do not have any such ‘special responsibility’ for a person unless we have assumed it, explicitly or implicitly.†[12] Thomson therefore argues that if a pregnancy is unwanted, and the woman holds no emotional bond to the foetus, there is no attachment and so no responsibility. A possible dispute to Thomson’s idea is to suggest that the ‘special responsibility’ is bonded through genes rather then emotion. If a child is born and the mother abandons it, her culpability is held through their ‘mother and baby relationship’ rather then what the mother ‘thinks’ of her baby. Another argument that can give claim by the foetus to its mother’s body is one of contract.[13] It could be said that by voluntarily engaging in sexual intercourse a woman—even if using contraception—risks the chance of pregnancy. By understanding the possible consequences of her actions, she must be seen as responsible for the existence of the foetus, because no method of contraception is known to be infallible. Since the woman is accountable for bringing the foetus into the world (albeit in her womb) she assumes an obligation to continue to provide nourishment for its survival. Michael Tooley offers an example that he believes analogises this argument[14] there is a pleasurable act that I practice. But by engaging in it, it can have the unfortunate risk of destroying someone’s food supply. This will not cause the person any problem, as long as I continue to make such provisions, even though it causes me immense trouble and expense. Tooley says that he arranges things so that the probability of the ‘pleasurable act’ having such an effect is as small as possible (contraception). But he says that if things do go wrong, he is still responsible for the person needing food, and therefore obligated to supplying the food needed. Tooley believes that once we engage in an activity that can potentially create a child, then we assume responsibility for its needs, even if bringing that child into existence was accidental and precautions were taken to prevent that outcome. Professor Thomson offers her own powerful analogy in contrast to the above view: If the room is stuffy, and I therefore open a window to air it, and a burglar climbs in, it would be absurd to say, â€Å"Ah, now he can stay, she’s given him a right to the use of her house—for she is partially responsible for his presence there, having voluntarily done what enabled him to get in, in full knowledge that there are such things as burglars, and that burglars burgle.† It would be still more absurd to say this if I had had bars installed outside my windows, precisely to prevent burglars from getting in, and a burglar got in only because of a defect in the bars.[15] Abortion, Due to Rape As already stated, most views against abortion base their position from the value they place on the foetuses life. Even so, in the case where pregnancy had occurred through rape, most opponents of abortion would believe that there would be sufficient justification for termination. Obviously, there is something paradoxical about this—if the foetus is valuable because it is human, it is obviously no less human because its mother had been raped. So how can some opponents of abortion hold such contradictory ideas? Janet Radcliffe Richards’ explains that when a woman is forced to continue pregnancy until childbirth, â€Å"†¦the child is being used as an instrument of punishment to the mother, and that talk of the sanctity of life is being used to disguise the fact.†[16] The only thing that a woman that wants to abort for reasons of accidental pregnancy has done differently, is to of engaged willingly to sex—and that is what she is being punished for.[17] Richards’ offers an interesting approach to the apparent inconsistency stated, although I don’t find its supposition altogether convincing. I think the ‘double-standards’ described, portray an individual that holds only a relative opinion to the value of life that is held by the foetus. That is, the foetus is human, with rights, but not as human and not as much rights as an adult human being. And this is how I feel critics of abortion consider priority to women in rape cases. A Father’s Right To what degree, if any, does the father’s opinion count on whether his unborn child should die at the hands of the mother? After all, the foetus is very much a part of him—sharing his genetic make-up. It is noted by John Harris[18] that a man is not entitled to violate a woman for the purpose of impregnating her—that is rape—so then it follows that he must not violate her by forcing his wishes for a pregnancy to continue until birth. The counter argument is that by agreeing to sex, a woman has tacitly agreed to carry the man’s child. Ultimately the woman’s opinion must take priority over the man’s—because she has to carry the foetus, but, once a foetus is formed, one can have a degree of sympathy for the man’s situation. If copulation had taken place for the purpose of impregnation, then why should the man suffer a feeling of loss just because his partner changes her mind? Where contraception is used, his argument may be weakened—they did not intend parenthood. But if both were planning for a baby, is it fare that once that child exists, the mother can take it away from its father, even though he has done no wrong? A Right to Death If a pregnancy is terminated during its early stages, the foetus will undoubtedly die. But if an abortion takes place later in pregnancy, and by some miracle survives, the mother has no â€Å"right to secure the death of the unborn child.†[19] If the baby was still unwanted, the â€Å"woman may be utterly devastated by the thought of a child, a bit of herself, put out for adoption and never seen or heard of again†[20] but she can only demand her separation from it; she may not order its execution. I guess there would be few opponents to this assertion; but it is interesting to understand why. If a person accepts the permissibility of abortion, how is it so different to kill a child that survives its attempted termination? Presumably the foetus has acquired rights that it didn’t hold inside the womb, or perhaps the woman loses her rights during that transition. It seems strange that location should alter the foetuses perspective so drastically—after all, it is the same being. It could be argued that it is independence that qualifies the foetus for its right to live. When it no longer needs its mother for survival, and is not ‘reliant’ upon her in any way, she loses the right to decide its fate. Professor Thomson’s explanation is somewhat different; she too agrees that there is no justification for a woman to order the death of a foetus that lives following an abortion, but her reasoning is not dependent upon any acquisition or loss of rights. Thomson argues that a termination is just the right for a woman to detach the foetus from her body. This is not an act of murder (even though its death is inevitable during its infancy) but an entitlement to liberation, whatever its outcome.[21] Professor Thomson presents an account that would be reasonable if the act of abortion was purely an attempt of separation. But in fact the procedure used is an attempt, not only to detach and remove the foetus, but to kill it.[22] If the abortionist fails in this task, then Thomson allows the baby a right to live. But as the method of termination is designed for the foetus to die, I believe it renders Thomson’s point unsound. Conclusion Professor Thomson concedes that â€Å"It would be indecent in the woman to request an abortion, and indecent in a doctor to perform it, if she is in her seventh month, and wants the abortion just to avoid the nuisance of postponing a trip abroad.†[23] So, even staunch defendants of feminist ethics feel compelled to consider the foetuses interests once its development reaches a mature stage. It could be argued that the foetus has become a baby, and abortion is therefore tantamount to infanticide. I believe that anyone can exercise their right to self-defence if their life is threatened, and a woman can use her prerogative against the unborn baby at any stage of its development without recrimination. However, I feel that a woman’s right to expel her foetus for any other reason has only relative justification. Relative: because a woman’s rights to abort become less valid as the foetus develops. There is, in my opinion, a necessary correlation between foetal development and a woman’s right to termination. A woman may exercise her choice without compromise during early pregnancy, because the foetus is nothing more then potential, but justification becomes less palatable as potential becomes actualised. Can a woman really hold the same rights to ‘choose what happens within her own body’ when the foetus is twenty five weeks old, as she did when it was ten weeks old? As previously mentioned, arbitrarily choosing a point in the foetuses life and exclaiming ‘before this point the thing is not a person, after this point it is a person,’ does appear contrived. But its comparison with ‘before this point a woman can choose, after this point she can’t; does seem vindicated against less satisfactory views. The purpose of this essay was to assess a case for abortion that was not dependent on the foetuses right to life, but instead to appreciate a woman’s right to choose. I don’t believe that either position can be considered without respecting the rights of the other. Therefore, in my opinion; a woman holds considerable rights; but they are only relative to the foetuses level of development. BIBLIOGRAPHY Dwyer, Susan, The Problem of Abortion. London: Wadsworth Publishing Company, 1997 Glover, Jonathan, Causing Death and Saving Lives. London: Penguin Books, 1997 Harris, John, The Value of Life. London: Routledge, 1985 Info on Abortion â€Å"Abortion†, Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopaedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion#Other_means_of_ abortion Richards, Janet, The Sceptical Feminist. Harmondsworth: Pelican, 1982 Sherwin, Susan, No Longer Patient. Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 1992 Thomson, Judith, â€Å"A Defence of Abortion†, Philosophy and Public Affairs, Vol. 1, No. 1, 1971: pp. 47-66 Tooley, Michael, Abortion and Infanticide. London: Oxford University Press, 1983 Warren, Marry Anne, â€Å"On the Moral and Legal Status of Abortion†, The Monist, 1973

Anthropogenic Factors Leading To Climate Change Environmental Sciences Essay

Anthropogenic Factors Leading To Climate Change Environmental Sciences Essay There is great uncertainty surrounding the science of global warming and climate change. The Earths history is full of abrupt climate changes [1]. The Intergovernmental panel on climate change at the Kyoto protocol determined in 2007 that most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations [2]. Furthermore, based on the assumption that significant anthropogenic warming has taken place over the past 50 years over each continent except Antartica, it has been concluded that anthropogenic climate change is having a significant impact on physical and bilogical systems globally [3]. Climate change is occuring on all continents and in most oceans. Changes in the natural system since 1970 have been occuring where temperature increase has taken place. These changes cannot be explained by natural climate variations alone. This implies that climate change is primarily attributable to anthropogenic factors. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) conclude that the earth is warming and that humans are probably the cause. Technologies to decrease greenhouse gas emissions and strategies for carbon sequestraion have been found to be essential as species extinction has been found to be related to climate warming [4]. German Biologist Josef Reichholf contradicts the conclusions of the IPCC stating that there have been much faster climate changes in the past and that these did not automatically lead to a global extinction of species [5]. However the IPCC found that climate change is primarily based on anthropogenic factors but with the help of technologies, the effects could be minimized. This essay will focus on four aspects of anthropogenic factors believed to be contributing to climate change. These will explore factors such as burning of fossil fuels and deforestation. Some of the natural factors which may cause climate change will be described, such as the effects of volcanoes. Introduction: Climate change has become one of the major global issues of our times. The Earths climate is changing rapidly, due to a rise in the average temperature of the global which has a subsequent impact on a variety of geographical factors. These include rising sea levels, melting of polar ice caps, flooding of land, hotter days and colder nights, and heat waves. All these phenomena bear a threat to the Earth, its ecosystems and its inhabitants, most importantly the human race. Problems such as global food shortages, natural disasters and health risks are on the rise posing severe threat to millions of lives. The risk of floods, hurricanes and heavy rains leaves major chunks of population living in potential danger of becoming homeless at any time. Changing weathers render portions of land arid and foodless, creating food security threats. A growing population only aggravates the problem. The impact of climate change is thus extremely hazardous, and it becomes important to ide ntify the root of this problem. Climate change is a direct product of global warming. As heat from the sun reaches the Earth, some of it is absorbed by the surface and the atmosphere, and the rest is reflected back into space. However, due to global warming, more and more of this heat is being trapped into the Earths atmosphere, resulting in high temperatures. The Earths surface has warmed by more than 0.8 degree Celsius in the past century and almost by 0.6 degree Celsius in the 1970s-2000s [5]. Causes: The rise in temperature is attributable mainly to human activities which are termed anthropogenic factors. Global warming has increased over the years due to human activities of burning of fossil fuels which release harmful gases, deforestation and emission of chemicals. Other concerns are the use of gases such as Chlorofluorocarbons in refrigerators and aerosol sprays and the means of transport. Most of this damage has occurred after to the heavy industrialization over the past three centuries, from 1750 the time of industrial revolution. The impact was scientifically proven and presented by the Intergovernmental Panel for Climate Change (IPCC) in a series of reports. In 2007, the IPCC published its last assessment on the subject in which it asserted that human factors have in fact contributed widely to the resultant climate change. It is very likely that human factors are responsible for sea level rise, changing wind patterns, risk of heat waves and droughts. In fact, had it not been for the anthropogenic factors, the solar waves and volcanoes would more likely have cooled the Earth rather than warming.[6] The IPCC incorporates into its findings the concept of radiative forcing, a term which empirically measures the impact of each factor on the climate change. Radiative forcing is defined as How the energy balance of the Earth-atmosphere system is influenced when factors that affect climate are altered. The word radiative arises because these factors change the balance between incoming solar radiation and outgoing infrared radiation within the Earths atmosphere. This radiative balance controls the Earths surface temperature. The term forcing is used to indicate that Earths radiative balance is being pushed away from its normal state.[7] Thus, if a factor has a positive forcing, it means that it is contributing to an increase in overall temperature. Typically, carbon dioxide has a forcing measure of more than 1.5 watts per square meter, which is the largest forcing caused over this period. GHGs:Greenhouses gases have increased by about 70% ever since 1750, bearing direct relation with the problem of global warming.[8] These include carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide. The emission of carbon dioxide gas has contributed 80% to the heating up of the Earths atmosphere.[9] Carbon dioxide is produced due to the burning of fossil fuels, such as natural gas and coal. Humans burn fuel for cooking, for deforestation, for protection from the cold. The industrialization has led to the use of fossil fuel in industries, for running of machines, and in cars. In fact, the burning of fossil fuel contributes towards 80-85% of the carbon dioxide in our atmosphere. Methane is another gas being emitted in the process which all have served to increase the greenhouse effect. Methane is produced from the cultivation of rice, from the burning of coal and from cattle, It has increased by 145% due to human activity. These gases increase the concentration of particles in the atmosphere, which prevents heat from the sun to reflect back into the space. As a result, most of the incoming radiation becomes trapped in the atmosphere, heating up the Earths surface. Deforestation: Deforestation is another issue created by the needs of fossil fuel, agricultural land, food and space. In most developing countries, the basic need for fuel is satisfied by forest wood. Hence, forests are being burnt down by rural families on a daily basis. In addition, as agricultural land becomes less and less for the needs of growing population, people extend their space by clearing up the forests. However, the land beneath forests tends to be unproductive and devoid of natural chemicals of fertile lands. It serves as source of food for a few years, after which it becomes unfertile and useless, its nutrients get depleted, and exposure to heavy winds leave it deserted. Forest removal results in various problems such as destruction of natural ecosystems, wildlife extinction and aggravation of floods and natural hazards [10]. Forest removal not only contributes to warming due to increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide, but also, it decreases the evapotranspiration efficiency, and decrease roughness of earth surface. Both of these factors contribute to warming of the Earth. Climate change as a natural phenomenon: There is another school of thought which repudiates the claims made by IPCC regarding the climate change. According to this school, anthropogenic factors cannot be held responsible for the overall climate change, which is infect a natural phenomenon. Kininmonth in his book Climate Change: A Natural Hazard provides an alternative explanation for climate change by saying that the IPCC in its global warming model ignores the regional variation in Earths climate. Earth is a sphere, and radiation from sun is absorbed differently by different portions. The tropics absorb more incoming heat, whereas outgoing radiation is far greater than incoming radiation at the poles. Hence, the Earth is not heating up as a whole due to the effect of radiation. Moreover, circulations of the ocean current and atmosphere help distribute this energy through Earth, leaving tropics cooler as well. The excess heat in the tropics is also absorbed by the enormous ocean laye r of the tropical oceans which serve as an energy reservoir. Therefore, the resulting climate change is not caused by the anthropogenic factors, rather it is a natural variation which Earths atmosphere is prone to. Kininmonth has argued that it is a flaw in the computer models of research that has led us to blame human activities as the causal factor.[11] Similarly, it is also asserted that deforestation actually leads to both negative and postive radiative forcing. If forests are replaced by grassland, it has a cooling effect which counters the heating effect discussed earlier. Thus, deforestation may or may not be a negative concern.[12] It has also been a finding that volcanic eruptions may be a natural factor contributing to climate change. Research models developed at the Max Planck Institute of Technology showed that while volcanoes have a cooling effect on global troposphere, they may lead to a clear winter warming pattern of surface air temperature over Northern Hemisphere continents.[13] Implications and Solutions: Yet, despite the debate on the real cause of climate change, it is evident that the change is in fact occurring and the threats it poses are very real. They have strong implications, and the future may be very tumultuous for many regions of the Earth.These particularly leave developing countries vulnerable to the problems of agriculture and population growth [14]. In order to cope, it is necessary to adapt ourselves to the situation. This does not only require measures to prevent global warming, such as banning CFCs but also to become less vulnerable to its impacts by eliminating factors that aggravate the situations. Some of such measures proposed include improving agricultural management, development of efficient irrigation systems, access to sanitation and health facilities for everyone, and development of buffer systems against floods and rising sea levels. Preventive measures include development of greener technology, environment-friendly means of tra nsportation and technology for efficient utilization and redistribution of energy [15]. Conclusion: In order to mitigate and solve the problems of global warming, it is essential to identify the realistic measures that can be taken. Given the current state and rate of industrialization in our globe, it ibis very difficult to curb the production of greenhouse gases and the process of deforestation. Population growth is another factor which needs to be plugged into the overall equation of sustainable growth. In addition, and more importantly, we should identify exactly where the problem lies, and if in fact some other factor aside of anthropogenic factors is responsible for climate change. Further research needs to be carried out to understand the natural causes of climate change, as promoted by the second school of thought. References: [1] Carey, J. Shapiro, S. (2004) Global Warming Business Week http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/04_33/b3896001_mz001.htm. [2] Aldy, J.E. and Stabins, R.N. (2008) Climate Policy Architectures for the Post Kyoto World, 50, 7-17. [3] Rosenzweig et al (2008) Attributing physical and biological impacts to anthropogenic climate change, Nature 453, 353-357 http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v453/n7193/full/nature06937.html. [4] Thomas C. D. et al (2004) Extinction risk from climate change, Nature 427, 145-148 http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v427/n6970/abs/nature02121.html. [5] Stampf, O. and Traufetter, G. (2007) German Biologist: Global Warming Is Good ForUS. http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/may2007/090507germanbiologist.htm. [5] Campbell-Lendrum D. et al. (2007) Global Climate Change: Implication For International Public Health Policy. Bulletin of the World Health Organization (BLT) [6] Pachauri, R.K. and Reisinger, A. (2007) Climate Change 2007: Synthesis Report: Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Geneva, Switzerland: IPCC, 104. [7] How do Human Activities Contribute to Climate Change and H ow do They Compare with Natural Influences? (2007) http://oceanservice.noaa.gov/education/pd/climate/factsheets/howhuman.pdf [8] Meyer, M. D. (2010) Greenhouse Gas and Climate Change Assessment. Journal of the American Planning Association 76, 402-412. [9] Hamburg S. P. et al. (1997) Common Questions about Climate Change. United Nations Environment Program- World Metereological Organization. [10] Boyd D. The race to save   the worlds forests.http://www.fanweb.org/patrick-moore/dboyd.html [11] Kininmonth, William. (2004) Climate Change: A Natural Hazard. Multi-Science Publishing Co. Ltd. [12] Edouard, D. L.(2010) Climatic Impact of Global-Scale Deforestation: Radiative versus Nonradiative Processes. Journal of Climate 23, 97-112. [13] Wolfe J. Volcanoes and Climate Change. http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/Volcano/ [14] Mintzer, Irving M. (1993) Confronting climate change: risks, implications, and responses. Victoria, Australia: Press Syndicate of the University of Cambridge. [15] Hardy, J. T. (2003) Climate Change: Effects, Causes and Solutions. John Wiley Sons Ltd.

Analysis Of National Interest And Foreign Policy Politics Essay

Analysis Of National Interest And Foreign Policy Politics Essay At the heart of any national interest lays its security, in order states to survive they must protect their security, by any means available to them, the treats to national security can be both external and internal. External treats can include any treat that comes from competing nations and enemies of the state. Internal treats can come from groups with political aims of overthrowing the government, even though the aim of security in national interest doesnt always mean protecting the states territorial boundaries, nor the repulsion of foreign attack. In some cases nation may be required to sacrifice some of its territory, or renounce some of its claims, in order to preserve another, more intrinsic element of the state(Orme,5). States create economic developments by promoting foreign investment, modernising their economy from low-income based economy to high-income based economy, such as building infrastructure, investing in technology, research and development. Without social development economic development cant be fulfilled. States invest in education, access to public health, gender equalities, and civil societies. States dont further their national interest by becoming self centred , in this day and age where the world is a global village states cant afford to ignore the rest of the world, therefore states look far beyond their states and consider other factors that are important to their national interest, economically, socially and politically. The above mentioned characteristics identifies national interest of a state and its components, the question is how do states promote their national interest?, states promote their national interest through foreign policy, thus foreign policy is the sum of an actors goals and purposive actions in global politics. Foreign policy consists of those discrete official actions of the authoritative decision makers of a nations government, or their agents, which are intended by the decision makers to influence the behaviour of international actors external to their own polity. In practice, foreign decisions are not made by single leaders in isolation, but it is a cumulative process that involves, interest groups, domestic issues, bureaucracies, leadership, and so on. Therefore foreign policy is the means and national interest is the end. Countries conduct their foreign policy through many channels that are available to them, namely diplomacy, force, track11 diplomacy, communication, and so on. Countries when shaping their foreign policy take into account many factors that are important, such as, geography, the size of the population, the level of economic development, political tradition, domestic environment, internal environment, military capability, and national character. Diplomacy: Diplomacy is the main channel through which foreign policy is conducted, diplomacy has existed throughout the history from the ancient Greeks to the African tribal systems all used diplomacy to solve disputes and to defuse potential conflicts. Diplomacy involves negotiation to manage relations among states. It is perhaps the most prominent tool in foreign policy available to actors for managing disputes. Diplomats in foreign offices and ministries often argue exhausting peaceful efforts to achieve goals before resorting to war and try to achieve compromises with adversaries to prevent conflict(Mansbach, Rafferty :363). Countries that have the means such as the United States appoint ambassadors virtually anywhere in the world to represent their interest, poor countries that dont have the means rely on their UN ambassador to meet and discuss issues in New York with other UN ambassadors from all over the world. Over time diplomats come and go but countries maintain diplomatic missions abroad. The role of the diplomats is to assess their countrys objectives given its actual and potential power to gauge other states objectives in light to their power. Diplomats must also assess the extent to which their countrys objectives are compatible with those of other countries and then decide whether to use persuasion, compromise, or treat of force to pursue their countrys end. (Mansbach, Rafferty: 365). Force: If diplomacy fails then the use of force is the last resort. It is the choice of last resort because of the destructive nature of wars, on humans and economies. The following are the three strategies for managing conflict that require the treat to use military force; defence, deterrence, and compliance. Each of these involve to a different degree, using force in a different way. Defence is to repel an attack, defence may be passive or active, passive defence employs civil defences, bunkers, hardening of weapons systems, and increasing weaponry systems. While active defence involves directing military force against a potential or an actual attacker and may include missile defence, pre-emptive and preventive war. In pre-emptive strike state anticipates an imminent attack and strikes first to gain the upper-hand, whereas in preventive strike it anticipates an attack in the distant future, and therefore attacks the adversary before they gain the capability to strike. Deterrence is to prevent an enemy to attack in the first place. Deterrence is less expensive than defence, because it may not always lead to war, but the threat of war may influence an adversary to take a different course of action, rather than confrontation. Actors usually exercise the three Cs of deterrence, namely communication, capabilities and credibility, which means actors communicate to their adversary and inform them the path they have chosen will indeed lead to conflict, and demonstrate their capabilities if they dont change course, third the treats must be credible. Compliance unlike deterrence, which involves the passive use of force, compliance also called coercive diplomacy, uses limited force to make an actor alter its behaviour or undo certain thing already done. Successful compliance convinces an enemy of the following. There is urgency about complying with the demand to alter its behaviour The coercing actor is more highly motivated than the opponent; and The consequences of staying the course will be escalation and still greater pain for the adversary. This is called bargaining in simple terms, if the enemy fails to comply, the coercing actor must decide whether to back down or intensify the use of force. This is precisely what the United States and its allies are doing in relation to Iran, to convince the Iranian regime to abandon their nuclear ambitions. Track II diplomacy: States use un-official channels to conduct their foreign policy and further their national interest, these include cultural exchanges, people to people movements, conducting this type of diplomacy states show that their government is not hostile to the others. For example some may argue that if the line that divides the Indian sub-continent was removed and the follow of people is allowed between Pakistan and India that would have reduced a lot of the tension between the two nuclear armed nations and could create an atmosphere of understanding, co-operation, interaction and mutual respect. Communication: Communication is a major instrument of foreign policy, it can be in the form of propaganda, or what is called external publicity, the purpose of propaganda is to inform people and governments abroad of the policies, achievements, institutions, and values of the state concerned and to convert international public opinion, as far as possible, to its own point of view (Bandyopadhyay: 24). For example United States uses Voice of America to broadcast their messages, in many different languages around the globe. Other components that contribute the making of foreign policy are Geography and Size: shaping foreign policy states consider their geographic locations, and also the size of their population. Level of economic development: states take into account when shaping their foreign policy according to their economic capabilities. Political tradition: how states conduct their foreign policy is dictated by the political tradition of that state Domestic environment: International environment: Military strength: military capability is the ultimate decision to go to war. National character: In considering all these factors mentioned above. Foreign policy is the means in which national interest has to be promoted, and according to the realist, the success and failure of foreign policy must be judged, by, if the national interest of the state was promoted. Realist argue, the nature of international politics, revolves around power, in a self help environment; states seek to further their national interest by acquiring sufficient military capabilities, to deter attacks by potential enemies, any actor in international politics their aim is to demonstrate their power, or to maintain their power, or to further their power, with power actors can only maintain their position and influence by it. Thus the priority of every state is to promote national interest and for that matter to acquire power. I agree with the realist point of view when it comes to power and prestige, Americans dominate the rest of the world not because they have the largest population in the world, but they are the strongest nation, economically, militarily, technologically and the US president is often referred to as the most powerful man in the world. American influence in the world touches every part of this globe, shaping policies, furthering their interest.

The American Dream in Arthur Millers Death of a Salesman :: Death of a Salesman

The American Dream in Arthur Miller's Death of a Salesman Material happiness provides the ambition behind seeking the "Arthur Miller's Death of a Salesman ." In Death of a Salesman by Arthur Miller, Willy Loman's determination to live up to his "American Dream" and to seek material happiness only takes his life. What is the "American Dream"? The "American Dream" cannot be defined. I know that my "American Dream" consists of a Porsche, a large house, and a happy family. Willy Loman's definition does not differ greatly from mine although while trying to pursue this dream, Willy's mind slowly drifted further and further away from reality. The "American Dream" is the idea that any man or woman can make his or her own fortune, despite his or her past. Willy is trying to achieve success through this thought, believing that being "well liked" and working hard will be enough to ensue his success. Willy was wrong. Social class is a major factor in Death of a Salesman. Willy is a salesman. Willy believes that success comes from being well liked and popular and has tried desperately to instill his notions to his two boys Happy and Biff, Willy's biggest aspirations in life. His wife Linda is extremely supportive and is Willy's only connection to reality. While raising his boys and trying to instill his "American Dream", he fails to teach them any sense of morality, leading them down to what he feels is the wrong path. At one point, he defends Biff for stealing just because he was an amazing football player. "Loaded with it. Loaded! What is he stealing? He's giving it back, isn't he? Why is he stealing? What did I tell him? I never in my life told him anything but decent things." (Pg 41. Act 1) Willy's goal throughout life was to climb out of his social class. As a salesman, Willy was a failure and he tried desperately to make his sons never end up like him. As a result, he loses his mind and his grasp on reality. Throughout the story, Willy often has flashbacks of the conversations that he and his brother Ben once had and the author intertwines them in past and present very nicely.

What Will Calixta do? Oh, What Will She Do? :: essays research papers

In the story â€Å"The Storm†, Calixta is the mother of a young boy and the wife of man who seems to be a wonderful husband. Bobinot, the husband, and Bibi, the child, go to the store and become stranded there as a storm passes through. What Calixta didn’t know was that she was going to get a visit from a friend, whom she hasn’t seen for a long period of time, while her family is at the store. As the storm begins, Alcee, the friend, approaches Calixta’s home and asks permission to wait on the gallery as the storm passes. As he waits for the storm to pass, the history between Calixta and Alcee is revealed when he mentions the time during Assumption where he kissed and kissed Calixta, but that was all that happened. During the storm, emotions are running wild and the attraction between Calixta and Alcee is so magnetic that it seems to intertwine their desires. Needless to say, they made love, and after the storm Alcee left and Bobinot and Bibi came back hom e shortly. The question that needs to be asked is will Calixta invite Alcee back into her home on occasions, knowing what she did with him in her family’s home, and also, will Calixta tell Bobinot or act as if nothing ever happened?   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Calixta is a woman who seems to be searching for pleasure; men aren’t the only humans that deserve pleasure. She loves her husband but seeks to explore pleasure elsewhere. Alcee was an old flame who seemed to still be in love with Calixta, and she probably still felt an attraction towards him. There are many assumptions that can be made about her future actions. She could feel guilty and realize what she did was wrong and disgraceful towards Bobinot and confess her actions to him. Calixta could completely ignore Alcee, never invite him back into her home, and never tell Bobinot, because she doesn’t want to cause trouble in her home. Telling Bobinot what happened could cause a separation, but not telling him is morally wrong. Calixta may keep her actions a secret and only invite Alcee into her home when her husband and child are gone. I feel that Calixta will continually invite Alcee into her home, whether her husband and son are home or not home, and not tell Bobinot what happened. She will probably keep him close, as a friend and as a secret lover, so she will have someone to confide in other than her husband and have a lover to give her pleasure whenever she desires.

Comparing Hitler and Napoleon Essay -- Compare Contrast Hitler Napoleo

Comparing Hitler and Napoleon There were differences between Hitler and Napoleon, however I feel there were more similarities. They were both immigrants in the country they ended up ruling, both conquered most of Europe, both had radical views about fighting, and both were very quick in their fighting. However, the most significant similarities between the two leaders is how they were accepted as monarchs in a previously democratic society, and what they did for the countries after becoming monarchs. Hitler and Napoleon were accepted as monarchs for three major reasons. Both countries were hoping for the returning strength of the monarchy. The people of Germany and France were tired of inflation, and threats of invasion, and both militaries preferred aggressive patriots at their head instead of a politician. Both countries needed someone because they were both in economic chaos. Both men were intent in building a new type of state with a new social order. Both enjoyed the advantage of more or less unlimited power, yet they assumed this power very carefully and legally. When they assumed power they did much for their countries. They both pursued vigorous economic plans that balanced each countries' budgets, which had not been done in years. Napoleon balanced the budget in 1802, the first time it had been balanced in over seventy years, and Hitler managed to balance Germany's budget by 1938. Both men ended unemployment in their countries with nationwide projects, ho...

From Strategy to Business Essay

Strategy scholars have used the notion of the Business Model to refer to the ‘logic of the firm’ e how it operates and creates value for its stakeholders. On the surface, this notion appears to be similar to that of strategy. We present a conceptual framework to separate and relate the concepts of strategy and business model: a business model, we argue, is a reflection of the firm’s realized strategy. We find that in simple competitive situations there is a one-to-one mapping between strategy and business model, which makes it difficult to separate the two notions. We show that the concepts of strategy and business model differ when there are important contingencies on which a well-designed strategy must be based. Our framework also delivers a clear distinction between strategy and tactics, made possible because strategy and business model are different constructs. Ó 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. Introduction The ï ¬ eld of strategy has evolved substantially in the past twenty-ï ¬ ve years. Firms have learned to analyze their competitive environment, deï ¬ ne their position, develop competitive and corporate advantages, and understand better how to sustain advantage in the face of competitive challenges and threats. Different approaches – including industrial organization theory, the resource-based view, dynamic capabilities and game theory – have helped academicians and practitioners understand the dynamics of competition and develop recommendations about how ï ¬ rms should deï ¬ ne their competitive and corporate strategies. But drivers such as globalization, deregulation and technological change (to mention only a few) are profoundly changing the competitive game. Scholars and practitioners agree that the fastest growing ï ¬ rms in this new environment appear to be those that have taken advantage of  these structural changes to innovate in their business models so they can compete ‘differently’. IBM’s Global CEO Studies for 2006 and 2008, for example, show that top management in a broad range of industries are actively seeking guidance on how to innovate in their business models to improve their ability to both create and capture value.1 In addition to the business model innovation drivers noted above, much recent interest has come from two other environmental shifts. Advances in ICT have been a major force behind the recent 0024-6301/$ – see front matter.interest in business model innovation. Many e-businesses are based on new business models e Shafer, Smith and Linder ï ¬ nd that eight of the twelve recent business model deï ¬ nitions they present relate to e-business.2 New strategies for the ‘bottom of the pyramid’ in emerging markets have also steered researchers and practitioners towards the systematic study of business models. Academicians working in this area agree that ï ¬ rms need to develop novel business models to be effective in such speciï ¬ c and challenging environments (see work by Thompson and MacMillan, as well as by Yunus et al. in this issue), and socially motivated enterprises constitute a second important source of recent business model innovations. Advances in ICT and the demands of socially motivated enterprises constitute important sources of recent business model innovations. While it has become uncontroversial to argue that managers must have a good understanding of how business models work if their organizations are to thrive, the academic community has only offered early insights on the issue to date, and there is (as yet) no agreement as to the distinctive features of superior business models. We believe this is partly because of a lack of a clear distinction between the notions of strategy, business models and tactics, and the purpose of this article is to contribute to this literature by presenting an integrative framework to distinguish and relate these three concepts. Put succinctly:  Business Model refers to the logic of the ï ¬ rm, the way it operates and how it creates value for its stakeholders; and  Strategy refers to the choice of business model through which the ï ¬ rm will compete in the marketplace; while  Tactics refers to the residual choices open to a ï ¬ rm by virtue of the business model it chooses to employ. To integrate these three concepts, we introduce a generic two-stage competitive process framework, as depicted in Figure 1. In the ï ¬ rst stage, ï ¬ rms choose a ‘logic of value creation and value capture’ (i.e., choose their business model), and in the second, make tactical choices guided by their goals (which, in most cases, entail some form of stakeholder value maximization). Figure 1 thus presents our organizing framework: the object of strategy is the choice of business model, and the business model employed determines the tactics available to the ï ¬ rm to compete against, or cooperate with, other ï ¬ rms in the marketplace. The article is organized as follows. In the next section we deï ¬ ne and discuss the notion of business models and present a tool to represent them, while the following section considers the stage two ‘choice’ in our framework, presenting and discussing the notion of tactics in relation to that of business model. The following section then moves back to examine the ï ¬ rst e strategy e stage, after which we revisit our process framework to integrate the three notions. We discuss the connection between strategy and business model, arguing that both notions can be clearly separated. A detailed example is developed in the following stage, followed by some concluding remarks. Business models Although the expression ‘business model’ has gained in prominence only in the last decade, the term has been part of the business jargon for a long time, its origins going back to the writings of Peter Drucker. Although (as Markides points out) there is no widely accepted deï ¬ nition, Magretta deï ¬ nes business models as ‘stories that explain how enterprises work’, and follows Drucker in deï ¬ ning ‘a good business model’ as the one that provides answers to the following questions: ‘Who is the customer and what does the costumer value?’ and ‘What is the underlying economic logic that explains how we can deliver value to customers at an appropriate cost?’ While not formal, her implicit idea is that a business model is about how an organization earns money by addressing these two fundamental issues e how it identiï ¬ es and creates value for customers, and how it captures some of this value as its proï ¬ t in the process. Amit and Zott’s deï ¬ nition, in contrast, is less broad (as it focuses on e-businesses) but more precise. Reviewing the contributions of several theories – including virtual markets, Schumpeterian innovation, value chain analysis, the resource-based view of the ï ¬ rm, dynamic capabilities,  transaction cost economics and strategic networks – they point out that each contributes elements to the notion, but that none, by itself, explains business models completely. They analyze a sample of U.S. and European e-business models to highlight the drivers of value creation, and present the following integrative deï ¬ nition: ‘A business model depicts the content, structure, and governance of transactions designed so as to create value through the exploitation of business opportunities.’ The content of a transaction refers to the goods or information exchanged, as well as to resources and capabilities required; the structure refers to the parties that participate, their links, and the way they choose to operate, and governance refers to the way ï ¬â€šows of information, resources and goods are controlled by the relevant parties, the legal form of organization, and the incentives to the participants.5 In this issue, they build on this deï ¬ nition to propose an ‘activity system perspective’ for the design of business models, arguing that activity systems capture the essence of business models and proposing two sets of aspects for designers to consider: design elements (content, structure and governance) that describe the activity system’s architecture, and design themes (novelty, lock-in, complementarities, and efï ¬ ciency) that describe its sources of value creation. The common thread across all of these approximations to the notion of busin ess model is well captured by BadenFuller, MacMillan, Demil and Lecocq in their deï ¬ nition ‘the logic of the ï ¬ rm, the way it operates and how it creates value for its stakeholders’, and we adopt their deï ¬ nition as the starting point for our argument. To make progress toward understanding business models, we ï ¬ nd it helpful to use the analogy of a machine e by which we mean a mechanical device that transmits energy to perform tasks. (Of course, real organizations are different from machines in many important respects, but the comparison is helpful, especially to our thinking in contrasting the notions of strategy and business models.) Any given machine has a particular logic of operation (the way the different components are assembled and relate to one another), and operates in a particular way to create value for its user. To be more concrete, different automobile designs have different speciï ¬ c logics of operation – conventional engines operate quite differently from hybrids, and  standard transmissions from automatics – and create different value for their ‘stakeholders,’ the drivers. Some may prefer a small car that allows them to navigate congested city streets easily, while others may prefer a large SUV with a powerful engine to enjoy the countryside to the fullest. Automobiles are made of parts – wheels, engines, seats, electronics, windshields, and the like. To assess how well a particular automobile works – or to create a new one one must consider its components and how they relate to one another, just as, to better understand business models, one needs to understand their component parts and their relationships. (We return to this analogy during the paper: readers will gain more value from it if they understand the design and building of the car as representing strategy; the car itself as the business model; and the driving of the car as the available set of tactics.)