Feminism and Cultural Identity Essay Example for Free

Feminism and Cultural Identity Essay Barbie, a worldwide viral doll known for her interest in adult-fashioned roles, indirectly constitutes the way American girls should grow up to be. With the creation of this doll came the thirst and need to sell it. Therefore, just one version of the Barbie doll is not sufficient. Mattel Inc., famous for its numerous toy creations yet infamous for its many controversies, has made Barbie’s boyfriend, sister, cousin and even her dog. Consequently, Mattel created Barbie collectibles that included the â€Å"Barbie Dolls of the World†. In this collection, the creation â€Å"the notorious PR Barbie† as Frances Negrà ³n-Muntaner states in Barbie’s Hair: Selling Out Puerto Rican Identity in the Global Market, has developed confusion, furiousness and also indifference in the Puerto Rican society. In Sandra Cisneros’ essay, Barbie Q, Barbie’s values are as she physically is, merely plastic. She is a â€Å"mean-eyed† fashionista boyfriend stealer with emphasis on the stealing part. Barbie has made society assume that girls and women’s interests are only based on their looks and men. At the same time, girls around the world are getting brainwashed into thinking that is what they were made to do and how they are meant to be. Because Barbie dolls are used by young girls who may be in the process finding who they are, these girls may grow up with these sexist values in their lives. With this being said, young girls are offered a very superficial way of life, the life of a Barbie, which may be pretty and cute from the outside but it’s a very fake one. With this, society has created a twisted way of how a girl or woman should be like. On this essay’s last paragraphs describes where the protagonists dolls come from; a flea market. The doll she had probably was damaged by a fire, but as she describes the damages it shows that in a way the child accepts not only the doll’s flaws, but her own. With this, she will not let society define perfection. And the search for perfection will be her own, not what society has taught. Another essay that embarks the same issue with Barbie dolls is the previously mentioned by Frances Negrà ³n-Muntaner. In this essay, Negrà ³n, states that when Mattel brought the new Boricua personage to the â€Å"Barbie Dolls of the World† collection, Puerto Rican people from both the island and migrants in the United States had distinct yet connected opinions of the doll. Island intellectuals criticized the doll’s Americanized ideal of what a Puerto Rican should be and is like, this being a wavy-haired mulatta. Still, Puerto Ricans living on the island bought the doll and made it one of the most sold. On the other hand, Islanders now living in the United States considered the doll â€Å"straight-haired and white†. The Puerto Rican Barbie offers young girls a misconception of what a Puerto Rican really is. The Puerto Rican Barbie was conceived almost in the 21st century with the mannerisms of a 19th century jà ­bara (a country-side woman). The idea behind â€Å"Barbie Dolls of the World† was that American girls learned about different cultures in the world. Since Barbie’s are sold worldwide, there is an issue that is developed instantly. The American corporation Mattel has a big dilemma: making sure that the conception of the dolls is loyal to the culture it corresponds, an issue that they did not pay attention with proximity for the Puerto Rican Barbie doll. Thanks to this doll, people from around the world perceive Puerto Rican identity as country mulatto men and women. When in reality, Puerto Rico’s race is a mix of African, Spanish and Taà ­no (natives): â€Å"The lingering impression that the Puerto Rican Barbie was essentially white and that its â€Å"mulattoness† was a cultural masquerade was reinforced by the box’s ethnic â€Å"origin† story for Puerto Ricans: ‘My country was discovered in 1493 by Christopher Columbus who claimed it for Spain.’ In only mentioning that the island was discovered by Columbus, Mattel and its allies connote that all Puerto Ricans are fundamentally Europeans and banish the influence of Natives and Africans to the back of the bus.† The doll’s box, to a certain point, limits the explanation of the Puerto Rican race and the consumer to his or her understanding and knowledge of the Puerto Rican culture, or any culture for that matter. The owner of the Barbie doll, or society passes to believe what the box primarily says. Usually, stereotypes are a general knowledge of a country or a culture. This not being the case on the Puerto Rican conception of the Barbie doll, she is put as an olive skinned, jà ­bara with a bomba dress, that in reality looks like a European dress with encaje (lace). If the doll was a jà ­bara (low class countryside woman) with a bomba dress, why did it have lace when it is a sign of a high-class European wardrobe? â€Å"The doll’s main concern is for you to ‘like the special white dress I am wearing. It is very typical of a dress I might wear to a festival of a party.’† states Frances Negrà ³n-Muntaner. The Puerto Rican doll is a complete stereotype of what a Puerto Rican is. If the box said that the doll is wearing a traditional outfit, or explained how our culture developed, it would be a different story. Nevertheless, the doll is put in a 19th century context when it was almost created within the new millennium. Clearly, Puerto Ricans must have passed through modernization or what Puerto Rican intellectuals call â€Å"Americanization†. Also, the doll’s features are the ones of a mulatto, when Puerto Ricans have a mixture of African, Taà ­no and Spanish. Puerto Rican’s ethnic background is omitted with this doll. However, the most controversial issue with this doll wasn’t its skin color or its â€Å"fiesta† wardrobe, it was its hair, as the essay’s title says: â€Å"Barbie’s Hair†. Frances Negrà ³n-Muntaner shows various Puerto Rican opinions on the doll’s hair but the most outrageous states as follows: â€Å"Lourdes Pà ©rez, a Puerto Rican Chicago-based, San Juan-raised interior decorator, was horrified at what she saw: ‘I don’t care that she’s white. Puerto Ricans come in all colors. But when I saw that hair, I thought ‘Dios mà ­o’, we just passed a terrible legacy to the next generation.â⠂¬â„¢ Despite exasperated responses from some Puerto Rico-based (white) men- â€Å"[t]his woman is saying that the prevalent lack of respect, the lawlessness, drugs, driving conditions, domestic and child abuse aren’t as terrible a legacy as a straight-haired Barbie† Lourdes Pà ©rez then was pointed out by Louis Aguilar as a Puerto Rican woman who probably spent countless hours straightening her hair before going to the office or school. She was described as a woman ashamed of her griferà ­a. Pà ©rez contradicts herself in the previous quote because she emphasized, â€Å"Puerto Ricans come in all colors† and yet criticized what big hair the doll had. Puerto Ricans, as previously informed, are a mix of 3 bloods: Taà ­no, Spanish and African. Therefore, the issue that the Puerto Rican Barbie’s hair provoked is illogical. What Mattel should have worked on better, were its features and the box historical background. Because Barbie is a globalized toy, it is impo rtant that the company portrays the culture correctly so people won’t generalize when in contact with another culture. The representation of Barbies as women helps re-create stereotypes because girls that play with these dolls are in the stage of life where they are in the process of formation as a human being. The doll’s profession or wardrobe will be what the child wants to grow up and be or know. Barbies as women are key to generalization and dolls should be what a kid wants it to be, not what a company wants women to be. In a way, Negrà ³n-Muntaner suggests in â€Å"Barbie’s Hair† that cultural stereotypes affect not only how people around the world view Puerto Ricans but also how Puerto Ricans view themselves. A sort of indifference has been created with this doll. Puerto Rican folk know that the doll’s historical background is completely disfigured yet they still go out and buy the collectible Barbie. That is to say, Puerto Ricans have passed to not care about how other people view them. People around the world see Puerto Ricans like the doll; peasants wearing bomba dresses with European lace, that meant the person is in a higher social class. It’s a bad combination of what we are. By reading these materials it has been clearly learned that it is very important that people know have a deep sense of they are and where they come from. Also, not to generalize a culture with a doll meant for a specific country. It is essential that we, as Puerto Ricans, become proud of our roots and get to know where we come from. We cannot limit our knowledge of what a Puerto Rican is and where he or she comes from to a doll. It is also necessary that girls own up to a Barbie, not the other way around. A Barbie is not a paradigm of what a girl should grow up to be. We are not perfect or plastic and we are not meant to be it either. This is where society fails. Most people don’t let their children know that they are perfect in their own way. It is most important that we let others know the wrongs that come from generalization and stereotypes. These, along with prejudice, paralyze and deactivate intelligence because people won’t let it flow or let he or she get influenced by other cultures and learn. [ 1 ]. Mulatto is the race mix of Spanish and Taà ­no. [ 2 ]. African-Puerto Rican dance that the lower class performed. [ 3 ]. Known as big kinky hair passed African folk.

Culture As Eldridge And Crombie Commerce Essay

Culture As Eldridge And Crombie Commerce Essay Culture, as Eldridge and Crombie (1974, cited in Burnes, 1996, p.112) stated, refers to the unique configuration of norms, values, beliefs, ways of behaving and so on, that characterize the manner in which groups and individuals combine to get things done. Every organization has its own unique culture even though they may not have tried to change, manage or manipulate it. Rather it will have been probably changed, managed or manipulated , based on the values of the top management or core people who build and/or direct that organization. Over time individuals (particularly the organizations leaders) attempt to change, manage or manipulate the culture of their organizations to fit their own preferences or changing marketplace conditions.Then this culture influences the decision-making processes, it affects styles of management and what everyone determines as success. When an organization is created, it becomes its own world and its culture becomes the foundation on which the organization will exist in the world. In the past decade, more and more companies have attempted to make significant changes in the way that they manage their businesses. In a world where rapid change has become the norm, a variety of forces have driven organizations to undertake task of changing their culture (Heifetz Hagberg, 2003). 1.1 Definition of Organizational Culture: There is no single definition for organizational culture. A variety of perspectives ranging from disciplines such as anthropology and sociology. Some of the definitions are listed below: Organizational culture is a series of understandings about action that is organized, and find expression in language whose nuances are special to the group (Becker and Geer 1960, cited in Michelson, 1996, p.16 ). Organizational culture is a series of understandings and meanings shared by peoples that are relevant to special group which are passed on to new members, and are tacit among members (Louis 1980, cited in Michelson, 1996, p.16). Organizational culture is a system of knowledge and standards for believing, evaluating and understanding etc that serve to environmental backgrounds (Allaire and Firsirotu 1984, cited in Michelson, 1996, p.16). Basic assumptions and beliefs have deeper level that are: learned responses to internal integrations problems and survivals problems in groups external environment; are shared by members of an organization; that operate unaware; and that define in a basic taken -for-granted mode in an organizations view of itself and its environment (Schein 1988, cited in Michelson, 1996, p.16 ). 2.0 CHANGING ORGANIZATIONAL CULTURE: All the organizations culture isnt static: because the internal and external factors influence culture change, so culture will change. According to Burnes(1991, cited in Burnes, 1996, p.115): assumed that culture is locked into personal values, beliefs and norms of organization, because these conceptions change is difficult. This type of organic culture will be slow if there isnt major shock to the organization. Its a big problem whether organizational culture can be changed or not. In the following, this problem will be discussed: analyzing whether culture can be changed, and if it does, in what way. 2.1 Culture can be Changed: Many people take a more considered view while sharing the belief that culture can be changed. Schein(1985,cited in Burnes, 1996, p.117) who is one of the more influential, believed that before any attempt is made to change an organizations culture, it is first necessary to understand the nature of its existing culture and how this is sustained. He argued that it can be achieved by: For new members, analyzing the process of employment and induction; Analyzing responses to critical events which are often translated into unwritten in history of organization. But rules of behavior are still very strong. Beliefs, values and assumptions of guardians and promoters of organizations culture are analyzed; Paying especial attention to puzzling characteristics which have been observed. Scheins approach is to treat culture as an adaptive and tangible learning process, and emphasizes the way in which an organization communicates its culture to new members. For a variety of reasons, organizations may find that their existing culture is unsuitable or even harmful to their competitive needs. In such a situation, many organizations have decided to change their culture. After a survey carried out in 1988 by Dobson (1988, cited in Burnes, 1996, p.116), Dobson states that these organizations sought to change culture by shaping the beliefs, values and attitudes of employees. Dobson identified a four-step approach to culture change based on these companies actions: Step 1 To change the composition of workforce, organization can change policies of recruitment, selection and redundancy so that prospects of promotion and employment are dependent on those controlling and displaying the beliefs and values that organization wishes to promote. Step 2 Organization may reorganize the workforce in order to make employees and managers who display the required traits to occupy positions of influence . Step 3 Organization can effectively communicate the new values by using a variety of methods such as one-to-one interviews, briefing groups, quality circles, house journals, etc. Step 4 Organization can change systems and procedures that related with rewards and evaluations. Many peoples advocating culture change adopt a similar approach. Some of these underestimate the difficulty involved in changing culture. For example, Egan(1994, cited in Burnes, 1996, p.117) took just four pages to show how organizations could quickly, and with apparent ease, identify and change their cultures. Gordon et al.(1985, cited in Burnes, 1996, p.117) conclude that : this type of generic approach to culture has been criticized as being too simplistic, and putting forward recommendations which are far too general to be of use to individual organizations. Schwartz and Davis (1981, cited in Burnes, 1996, p.118) suggest that: it should compare the strategic significance(importance to the organizations future) of the change with the cultural resistance when an organization is considering any form of change. They term this the cultural risk approach. They argue, it is possible for an organization to decide with a degree of certainty whether to ignore the culture, manage round it, attempt to change the culture to fit the strategy, or change the strategy to fit the culture. Though Schein (19841985, cited in Burnes,1996, p.118) believes that culture can be changed, he also argues that there is a negative side to creating a strong and cohesive organizational culture. Shared values make organizations resistant to certain types of change or strategic options regardless of their merit. Although many peoples believes the advisability of culture change and strong cultures in some situation, and someone question this , there are also people who believe that culture can not be changed or managed at all. Meek (1982, cited in Burnes,1996, p.119) commented that: culture as a whole can not be manipulated, turned on or off, although it needs to be recognized that some [organizations] are in a better position than others to intentionally influence aspects of ità ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ ¦ culture should be regarded as something an organization is, not something it has: it is not an independent variable nor can it be created, discovered or destroyed by the whims of management. Filby and Willmott(1988, cited in Burnes, 1996,p.119) also questioned the notion that management has the capacity to control culture. They point out that this ignores the way in which an individuals values and beliefs are conditioned by experience of exposure to the media, social activities, and previous occupationa l activities. A further factor against the feasibility of managing/changing culture is the ethical dimension. Van Maanen and Kunda(1989,cited in Burnes,1996, p.120) argued that: managers attempt to control what employees feel and what they say or do behind the interest in culture. Their argument is: culture is a mechanism for training emotion that is a method of guiding the way people are expected to feel. It can be conceived that they attempt to change culture. Cooper (1998) conclude three views relevant whether culture can be changed : Root Metaphor: If peoples believe that culture is a root metaphor, they believe that there is no instant means about changing a culture which will be developed and which is passed on from generation to generation of the workforce. Cultural change will happen only through the hundreds of forces acting between all the actors, but slowly. It cannot be pre-determined. External and independent variable : If peoples believes that culture is an external and independent variable, they believe that there is little one can do to change a culture in the face of external social behaviours, values and beliefs that employees bring into the work place. Internal variable: If peoples believe that culture is an internal variable, they believe that the culture can be directed and changed. However some focus on the more visible symbols and artifacts, many on peoples behavioral patterns, and others on peoples underlying behavior norms, values, and beliefs. 2.2 How to Change Culture: There are many solutions to changing culture, some prescriptive (directive) others more philosophical (enabling) (Cooper,1998). The need for a change in culture is invariably precipitated by some significant, even critical, external environmental change. 2.2.1 Management Directed : Culture change through the actions and behavior of leaders rather than a process they prescribe a set of actions to create an environment. Peters and Austin (1985,cited in Cooper,1998) equates business and leadership with show business and thus the need to create the right atmosphere. So they advocate shaping values, symbolizing attention even to the point of saying it is the opposite of professional management . Drama can be just for impact and creating stories that get told time and time again, such as the when the founder of McDonalds ordered all managers chair backs to be sawn off so they would be more inclined to get out and meet the customer. Consensus building based on sharing: developing high-trust between individuals; allow time for people to change; to set the direction but allow the employees to work out the details, more direct intervention, provide the training to develop the new skills needed. Within atomized organization, managers will be both the bearers of culture as well as its promoters. 2.2.2 Management Enabled: According to Schein(1985, cited in Cooper,1998):organization need leadership to help the group learn new assumptions and unlearn some of its cultural assumptions when culture becomes dysfunctional. Leaders encourage groups to undergo group cue. The aim is to surface the unconscious assumptions and values of the group as a prelude to changing them to meet the needs of a new environment. Schein had process models: General Evolutionary Process [this is change from within a group that is natural and inevitable and passes through predictable stages]. Adaptation, Learning, or Specific Evolutionary Process [here the environment causes responses by which the group learns and adapts]. Revolutionary Process [in this power is a key variable]. Managed Process [here there is a focus on what can and cannot be changed].         Schein proposes that leaders are responsible for which model to adopt and for ensuring the group knows and agrees which model it is using. Burnes (1996) conclude: If organizational culture lack clear fuidelines, managers must make themselves to choice based on their own circumstances and perceived options as to whether to attempt to change their organizations culture. If organization lacks strong or suitable cultures which bind their members together in a common purpose and legitimate and guide decision-making, managers may find it difficult either to agree among themselves or to gain agreement from others in the organization. 3.0 MANAGING ORGANIZATIONAL CULTURE Cultures are hardly planned or predictable; they are the natural products of social interaction and develop and emerge over time. Someone believes that cultures can be shaped to suit strategic ends. Even if cultures can be managed is this necessarily a good thing? This is the tendency for culture to be promoted as a device for increasing organizational effectiveness. Culture spans the range of management thinking. Organizational culture has been one of the most enduring buzzwords of popular management. Why? Perhaps most importantly culture penetrates to the essence of an organization it almost analogous with the concept of personality in relation to the individual and this acute sense of what an organization is its mission, core values seems to have become a necessary asset of the modern company. There is the contentious question of whether or not organizational culture can be managed or not. While there may be no definitive answer to the question. According to Bate (1994,cited in Willcoxson Millett, 2000, p.97): there exist two basic approaches to culture and strategy: conforming (maintaining order and continuity) and transforming (changing and breaking existing patterns). The effectiveness of the chosen approach to organizational culture and strategy at any given time is dependent on contextual factors that relate to both the internal and the external environment. Thus, context determines a culture needs to be maintained or changed, but the strategies adopted are very much determined by the perspective subscribed to by the manager or change agent. In dealing with the management of organisational culture, it is firstly necessary to identify as fully as possible the attributes of the existing or new target culture the myths, symbols, rituals, values and assumptions that underpin the culture. Allen et al.(1985, cited in Willcoxson Millett, 2000, p.97) concluded that: action can be instigated in any of several key points of leverage: recruitment, selection and replacement -organization ensure that oppointments strength the existing cultures or support a culture change, that can affect culture management. Organization can change the culture by using removal and replacement; socialization -which is especially critical in fragmented organisational cultures. An existing or new culture can be provided by induction and subsequent development and training for acculturation and for improved interpersonal communication and teamwork; performance management/reward systems -organization can highlight and encourage desired behaviors which may (or may not) in turn lead to changed values through using performance management/reward systems. leadership and modelling executives, managers, supervisors can reinforce or assist in the overturning of existing myths, symbols, behaviour and values, and demonstrates the universality and integrity of vision, mission or value statements; participation it is essential that participation of all organization members in cultural reconstruction or maintenance activities and associated input, decision making and development activities if long-term change is to be achieved in values, not just behaviors. interpersonal communication an existing organizational culture can be supported much by satisfying interpersonal relationships. Satisfying interpersonal relationships integrate members into a culture; effective teamwork supports either change or development in and communication of culture; structures, policies, procedures and allocation of resources need to be congruent with organizational strategy and culture and objectives. The above constitute a number of many strategies and leverage points that can be used in organizations to manage an organization in terms of its overall culture. The management of culture is based on a understanding of the tacit and explicit aspects that make-up the existing culture. 4.0 MANIPULATING ORGANIZATIONAL CULTURE: Culture determines what a group pays attention to and monitors in the external environment and how it responds to this environment. Thus, as Bate (1994, cited in Willcoxson Millett, 2000 ) notes, for those who take an anthropological stance, organisational culture and organizational strategy are inextricably linked and dependent each other. Culture is not a separable aspect of an organisation, it is not readily manipulated, and it is not created or maintained primarily by leaders. For the peoples who called as scientific rationalists, organisational culture is one aspect of the component parts of an organisation, a aspect that can be measured, manipulated and changed as organisational variables such as skills, strategy, structure, systems, style and staff. Organisational culture is primarily a set of values and beliefs that articulated by leaders to guide the organisation, translated by managers and employees into appropriate behaviours and reinforced through rewards and sanctions. Scientific rationalist peoples thus tend to talk about culture as if it is a definable thing the culture of the organisation; the organisation has a service culture and their strategies for change focus on modular, design-and-build activity often related to structures, procedures and rewards. 5.0 CONCLUSIONS: Organizational cultures are created or changed by people. In part, an organizations culture is also created and cahnged by the organizations leadership. Leaders at the executive level are the principle source for the generation and re-infusion of an organizations ideology. What constitutes organisational culture and its perceived role in organisational are argued, resting on perceptions of culture either as a historically-based, change-resistant, deep social system which underpins all organisational strategy and action, or as just one aspect of the total organisational system, manipulable though surface structures such as rewards. The model adopted will determine which of the key points of leverage are deemed most likely to achieve the desired outcome of cultural maintenance or change. The perspective adopted will determine the focus of cultural change, development or maintenance activities. There are no definitive answers to questions about whether culture can be changed, managed an d manipulated or not. There are different views about this question. The view of yours based on your knowledge, experience about organizational culture. Although there are no definitive answer to question, you can conclude a answer which fit your view through analyzing of this paper.

Nozicks Wilt Chamberlain argument

Nozicks Wilt Chamberlain argument Explain and evaluate Nozicks Wilt Chamberlain argument. In Robert Nozicks famed Anarchy,State, and Utopia Nozick uses the example of a basketball player who becomes considerably richer than the rest of the population to demonstrate that liberty is incompatible with any patterned theory of distributive justice. This argument, if successful, would be a considerable challenge for Rawls because his theory prioritises liberty in his conception of justice but also requires some redistribution of wealth (as determined by the difference principle). If Nozick is right that a patterned theory (of which the difference principle is one) is incompatible with liberty then the Rawlsian project collapses into a libertarian theory because the first principle (liberty) must be favoured over the second redistributive principle. First I will argue that the Wilt Chamberlain argument is not question-begging because it assumes self-ownership and not absolute property rights (the latter is what the patterned theory must deny) and attempts to derive the latter fr om the former. Second I will argue that interpreting liberty as self-ownership does entail the incompatibility of liberty and a patterned theory as long as we do away with a Lockean proviso on initial acquisition. Nozick categorises theories of distributive justice by two classifications. The first classification is whether a theory is historical or ahistorical which is the distinction between whether a theory takes into account past actions/events/circumstances (historical) or not (ahistorical). The more important distinction that Nozick makes between varying theories of distributive justice is between patterned and unpatterned theories. A patterned theory of justice is one in which distributive shares are determined or correlated with some variable. For example a utilitarian theory of justice would be a patterned theory of justice because it would distribute social goods according to how much utility they promote. An unpatterned theory would not determine who is to get what by reference to some variable in the world. The best (and seemingly the only) way to interpret an unpatterned theory of justice is to not determine who is to get what but by what means who can get what; we may call this a procedural theory of justice. Nozicks argument against patterned theories of justice is that they are incompatible with liberty and uses the example of Wilt Chamberlain to argue for this point. In an imaginary world we assume a patterned theory of justice. Although it doesnt (and shouldnt as the example is meant to show that all patterned theories of justice are incompatible with liberty) matter which patterned theory we choose we will assume an egalitarian theory. So in the initial situation (from here on D1) we assume that the social goods in society have been distributed equally. In D1 Wilt Chamberlain, a famous basketball player, strikes an agreement with his club that for every ticket sold he will receive 25 cents (Nozick 1997:208). As a result of this Wilt Chamberlain becomes very wealthy and so upsets the patterned theory because society becomes more unequal (from here on D2). About this case Nozick can be interpreted as arguing the following: Ex hypothesi in D1 each person is justly entitled to their share of goods. This entails that no person in D1 has a claim of injustice against any other person(Nozick 1997:208-9). If everyone is entitled to their goods then they are to be at liberty to do with them whatever they want i.e. they have absolute property rights. An egalitarian principle denies that each is to be at liberty to do as they wish with their goods because it upsets the patterned theory of equality (as it does in D2). Therefore an egalitarian principle of distributive justice is incompatible with liberty. As there is no good reason to think that any other patterned theory of justice cannot be upset by liberty then any patterned theory of justice is incompatible with liberty. The essential point that Nozick is trying to make is that if each person is entitled to their goods in D1 then how can it be possible for an unjust situation to occur in D2 after each person voluntarily gives money to Wilt Chamberlain in order to see him play? As Nozick puts it, how can an unjust situation arise from people transferring their money to Wilt when each customer had no claim of justice on any holding of the others before the transfer ?(Nozick 1997:209). An initial objection may be that in society people will always freely trade (i.e. not have their property taken coercively in order to maintain a distributive principle) in accordance with that distributive principle. This objection misses the point because all Nozick is trying to show is that a patterned theory of justice is in principle incompatible with liberty. That is, any patterned theory of justice doesnt necessitate a respect for liberty. A more serious problem for Nozick arises in trying to establish (2) because it seems to beg the question against the patterned theorist. For exactly what the patterned theorist denies is that each individual has absolute property rights over the goods that have been distributed to him. When goods are redistributed after D2 in order to correct the unpatterned distribution that Wilt and his customers caused then this is not a violation of Wilts liberty because he had no absolute rights over his goods. If he had no absolute rights over his goods then when his goods are taken from him then Wilt cannot complain that his liberty has been violated. His liberty to do with his goods as he wishes is only his right to do with his goods as he pleases and if he has no absolute rights over his goods (which is exactly what the patterned theorist denies) then his liberty has not been violated under any circumstance in which it is taken e.g. not violated when in accordance with the patterned theory. In order to establish the incompatibility of liberty and any patterned theory non-question-beggingly then Nozick must give independent support for absolute property rights. Nozick does give independent reasons for absolute property rights and these are not reasons that the patterned theorist necessarily denies. Whilst the patterned theorist necessarily denies absolute property rights they dont necessarily deny the principle that each person is the owner of their own bodies i.e. the principle of self-ownership. Even if Nozick fails in his attempt at this he has not begged the question against the patterned theorist because the denial of self-ownership is not what the patterned theorist has denied in the Wilt Chamberlain argument, rather, what he has denied are absolute property rights. If self-ownership does entail absolute property rights then the patterned theorist must, by modus tollens, deny self-ownership as they necessarily deny absolute property rights. But you dont beg the qu estion against an opponent by asserting a conditional that entails the denial of your opponents point otherwise all of philosophy would be question-begging! Rather Nozick has provided a new argument and it is for the patterned theorist to deny this in order to deny the Wilt Chamberlain argument. If Nozick is to demonstrate that liberty is incompatible with any patterned theory then in order to avoid begging the question Nozick must give independent support to the idea of absolute property rights. If people are forbidden from exercising their right to property (e.g. their right to keep their property despite it being incompatible with a pattern) then we may say their liberty has been violated just as we say that a person whose right to speech has been violated has also had their liberty violated. So conceived liberty is just a collection of rights;we are at liberty to do something so long as we have a right to do that thing and no-one prevents us from exercising that right. An example that supports this conception of liberty is given by Ryan (Wolff 1992:93) where we would think it absurd to say that a professors liberty has been violated by him being prevented from transferring his tenure to his children. We think that his liberty hasnt been violated because he had no right t o transfer his tenure in the first place. Therefore our liberties are dependent on our rights. Liberty is violated when a right is violated and if peoples right to property is absolute then taking it from them without their consent violates their right to that property and so their liberty too. When we say that property rights are absolute we do not mean that people have the right to use their property literally however they want for that would give people a right to throw their spears at somebody without provocation. Rather we mean that people may use their property however they wish as long as they dont interfere with others using their property as they wish and crucially that they may use their property despite it not maintaining a patterned distribution. Can Nozick give independent support for absolute property rights (and not merely postulate them)? His attempt at this starts with the thesis of self-ownership (Kymlicka 2002:107): 6. Persons have the right to decide how they use their bodies as long as they dont interfere with anybody else using their body. Self-ownership is essentially an absolute property right to your own body; we are to be at liberty to use our bodies in any way we wish as long as we respect the like rights of others. Self-ownership seems intuitively a very plausible starting place for any normative theory. If it is denied then either other people have a claim on our bodies or nobody has a claim on our bodies or their own bodies. If people dont have the right to decide what they should do with their bodies then in what sense is slavery wrong (slavery that is better than no slavery, to cut short the utilitarian response)? Self-ownership seems to have enormous explanatory power for our moral intuitions as it explains why slavery, murder, rape, kidnapping and almost any other use of force is seen as wrong. An initial implication of this is that it would be wrong in a world where people are born with different numbers of eyes to take, without consent, peoples eyes in order to achieve a more equal distribution of eyes (C ohen 1995:70). This is one way in which a patterned theory would violate rights and thus liberty but Nozick wants to take aim at all patterned theories not just some. For example Rawls patterned theory would guarantee the right to freedom of speech and freedom of thought which are both guaranteed by self-ownership. Nozick wants to attack the Rawlsian redistribution of private property (i.e. property that is not identical to your own body) and show that violations of these private property rights (and thus liberty) is tantamount to denying self-ownership.The point is as follows: 7. If (6) is true then anyone can gain an absolute property right to any part of the world as long as they dont worsen the condition of others. (7) follows from (6) because (6) implies that we may do anything we wish as long as we dont interfere with others doing what they wish. It doesnt matter exactly how we acquire a piece of property only that it seems we must use our bodies. For how else could something that was not originally ours become ours? If this is the case then we may acquire property because we acquire property through the use of our bodies and we have the right to use our bodies as we want. The clause in (7) is introduced in order to try and stop the acquisition of property which deprives another of that right to it. For when we acquire a piece of land then it comes ours and it is up to us if others are to be able to use it and thus no-one else can have a say over how that piece of land is to be used. Nozick thinks this is acceptable as long as we hold a proviso on exactly when we may acquire a piece of land. We may only acquire a piece of land if the acquisition of that piece of land materially worsens the co nditions of anybody else who would use that piece of land. We only worsen the condition of others if they have less of what they need than if we had not acquired the piece of land that we did. For example we may not take the only full water hole in an area and deprive others of the water in it because we are clearly worsening the conditions of others. He doesnt specify exactly what happens to someones property once the Lockean proviso is violated just saying that there become stringent limitsà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ ¦on what he may do with his property(Nozick 1974:180). He seems to doubt that we could even call it that persons property. If the argument is successful it will show that people can gain absolute property rights and thus that patterned theories are unjust because they involve violating those property rights and thus liberty in order to maintain a pattern. The problem with the above argument is that the self-ownership thesis does not entail (7). Specifically it doesnt entail the Lockean proviso and the proviso seems completely ad-hoc. If Nozick admits that our ability to acquire property is dependent on how it affects the materials that others can have access (and thus their welfare) to then how is this different to weakening the property rights in order to achieve greater utility via a patterned theory? Nozicks proviso seems arbitrary in that he gives no reason why we should select his Lockean proviso over another. If we should limit the acquisition of property because of its harmful effects on others then why shouldnt we accept another Lockean proviso such as one that maximises the welfare of others? I believe that Nozick specifically selects that principle because of his interpretation of interfering in (6). For he wants to forbid acquiring property when that interferes with others acquiring property. This seems to be a mistaken int erpretation of the interfering which seems to be essentially depriving another of a negative liberty rather than a positive liberty. The distinction between positive and negative rights is essentially the distinction between what others have a duty to do and what they have a duty not to do. For example my right to not be killed is a duty that others have to not murder me and so is a negative duty whilst my right to an education is generally conceived as a duty that my lecturers have to come and lecture me about distributive justice. So I have a negative right if I have a right that people dont do something to me whilst if I have a positive right I have a right that someone provide something to me. Interfering is naturally construed as violating negative rights such as when we say that people have a right not to be interfered with. So we should interpret the self-ownership thesis as saying that we may do as we want with our bodies (including using them to acquire property) as long as we dont stop others using their bodies as they wish (including them acquiring property). So our negative right to use our body as we wish is somebody elses duty to not stop us from using it as we wish. We do not have a positive right to use our body as we wish and thus nobody has a duty to help or assist us in someway of using our bodies as we wish. This means that we have the negative right to acquire property and so everybody has a duty to restrain from stopping me acquiring property unless in doing so I am violating the negative right of someone else to acquire or maintain property. When I acquire property it does stop others acquiring property but this is nothing to the point, since you had no right to that plot (Narveson 1987:62). For nobody had a right to that piece of land until I got there and it became mine and when it becomes mine then nobody may violate my right to that property. So Nozick makes the mistake of assuming that by acquiring a piece of land I am interfering w ith somebody elses right to that piece of land. But in actual fact I am not violating anybodys right to that piece of land because I only have the duty of not violating anybody elses right to property but nobody had a negative right to that piece of property because it was me who first acquired it. So self-ownership guarantees that I may acquire property using my body and that I may acquire property as long as I dont interfere with the property rights that others already have and as interfere is violating a negative right we dont interfere with someone else acquiring property by acquiring that property because they had no positive right to a piece of land rather only the negative right that someone else not stop them acquiring a piece of land. Thus self-ownership does not require a Lockean proviso in order to acquire property because the mere depriving someone of a piece of land doesnt constitute interference. The implications for the Wilt Chamberlain case is that each person acquir es a right to that piece of property and that we may use our property in anyway that we wish as long as we dont violate the negative rights of someone else to their property. In the Wilt Chamberlain case nobody is violating anybody elses right to property by buying tickers because nobody is stopping anybody else using their property as they wish and therefore the redistribution to maintain the pattern violates the negative rights of Wilt to his property. As we have identified the violation of a right as correspondingly the violation of a liberty then it can be said that redistribution violates the liberty of Wilt by violating his liberty to do with his property as he wishes. In conclusion it seems that the Wilt Chamberlain argument does provide a good argument to show why patterned theories of justice are incompatible with liberty. We first identified that the violation of a right to do something is best described as the violation of a liberty to do something. Then we argued that in order for Nozick to avoid begging the question against the patterned theorist he must give independent support to the idea of absolute property rights which give somebody the right to use their property even if it upsets a distributive pattern. Nozick tries to argue for absolute property right from the basis of self-ownership which is the idea that each person is to have the right to use their body as they wish (which includes using it to acquire property rights) as long as they dont interfere with others using their bodies as they wish. Nozicks Lockean proviso on acquisition is not entailed by self-ownership because interference is defined only as the negative right to acqui re property and we are not violating somebody elses right to that piece of property by acquiring it because they only had the negative right of the opportunity to acquire it and not the positive right to somebody else not taking it for themselves. As self-ownership guarantees that people may acquire and use property as they want as long as they dont violate the negative rights of others to their property then the taking of Wilts property (his money) is a violation of his absolute property rights and is therefore a violation of his liberty. Bibliography Nozick,R., Anarchy,State, and Utopia 1974 Wolf,J., Robert Nozick: Robert Nozick: Property, Justice and the Minimal State 1991 Cohen,G.A., Self-ownership,freedom and equality 1995 Narveson,J., The libertarian idea 1987 Kymlicka,W., Contemporary political philosophy 1990

Shallow Persecutions :: essays research papers

In April of 1999, two students shot 15 fellow students and a teacher in Columbine High School. A few years before that, a teenage boy committed suicide in his bedroom. What do these two have in common? In both instances, their choice of music was to blame. Alternative music has been the center of a lot of controversy as well as a scapegoat for many adolescent tragedies. This type of music is meant to be different and it is being persecuted because artists do not fall into the categories of R&B and pop rock. Music is the artist’s livelihood and religion. Condemning the music is breaching both an artist’s freedom of expression and religion. Millions of teenagers listen to alternative rock groups such as Marilyn Manson and Nine Inch Nails every day. These same teenagers walk into their schools every morning and don’t blow their classmates’ heads off. These same teenagers don’t go home and blow their own brains off. However when these things do happen, parents all over the country start protesting against the entire genre of alternative rock. Alternative rock has become a national scapegoat for adolescent violence. But is it really to blame? The parents that protest are probably the same ones that deny that the teens lashed out because of bad parenting. Of course it can’t be that because parents such as themselves are all perfect. This sort of attitude is precisely why teenagers respond to their environment so violently. Parents refuse to get help because they’re afraid of how they as parents would be perceived. Some parents even refuse to admit that there is a problem in the first place. With this view, parents often search for something else that might have caused such violent behavior. That is where alternative rock comes in. Parents say that it breaches hate, violence, and anti-Christianity. However, are they really protesting these issues or the way the artists look? Ricky Martin’s Livin’ La Vida Loca glorifies a prostitute but there wasn’t a huge uprising over it. He even makes a music video that is near pornographic. Ricky Martin is off the hook because he has a pretty face. He can do anything and sing anything he wants as long as it is legal. On the other hand, if Marilyn Manson calls their CD â€Å"Anti-Christ Superstar,† the whole country erupts in disbelief. This shallow hypocrisy is enough to make anyone sick.

The Truth of War Exposed in A Farewell to Arms Essay -- Farewell Arms

The Truth of War Exposed in A Farewell to Arms The soldier takes his last breath as he faces the menacing glare of the beast known as the enemy gun.   Emotions run through him as he awaits the final blow that will determine his destiny.   Memories flash through his mind, none of which will be of any significance once he leaves this world.   Out of the barrel of the gun, had suddenly come terror, murder, and chaos, all at once.   "I say it's rotten.   Jesus Christ, I say it's rotten." (Hemingway 35)   Summarized in two sentences is Ernest Hemingway's personal attitude towards World War I.  Ã‚      In A Farewell to Arms by Hemingway, the characters criticize the war and views it as the source of their misery.  Ã‚   Instead of finding the patriotic and courageous hero engaged victorious battle scenes, this novel portrays the so-called hero as a brazen who lacks any ambition.   This is the story of war seen through the cynical eyes of a Red Cross ambulance driver who lived the horrors.   Through a combination of ironic, cynical and apathetic tones, Hemingway's contempt towards World War I is reflected in the nature surroundings and the voice of his characters. Primarily, Hemingway attempts to expose the truths behind the war through his characters by using a tone of cynicism.   In the dialogues and streams-of-consciousness, characters repeatedly avow their reprobation for the war. "Abstract words such as glory, honor, courage, or hallow were obscene." (185)   These words that once held meaning has now lost its significance.   No longer is the war about patriotism or courage; instead it is replaced by a certain crookedness, the national glories lost somewhere in-between the madness.   War is now where the soldiers  ... ...; and to achieve national glory, spirits are broken repeatedly until the point where they only wish to die.   The result is war, an outcome of the cruel and senseless world where violence is the backslash of violence.   There is no glory here; there is only condemnation.   The cynical words of Hemingway's characters are his own, the apathetic attitude of Fred is meant to represent himself, and the irony of the destruction on nature, is just one more reason why Hemingway opposes the war.   Hiding behind his characters, it's the diary of Hemingway himself.    Works Cited Hemingway, Ernest. A Farewell to Arms. 1929. New York, NY: Scribner Paperback Fiction, 1995. Nagel, James. "Catherine Barkley and Retrospective Narration." Critical Essays on Ernest Hemingway's A Farewell to Arms. Ed. George Monteiro. New York, NY: G. K. Hall & Co., 1994. 161-174.

Ihor’s Campaign Essay examples -- Epic Poem Poetry Essays

Ihor’s Campaign Slovo o polku Ihorevi, Ihoria syna Sviatoslavlia, vnuka Ol’hova, or The Tale of Ihor's Campaign, Ihor the Son of Sviatoslav, Grandson of Oleh is â€Å"an epic poem written in the 12th century by an anonymous author† who was most probably from Kyviv or Chernihiv (Hordynsky and Stech 2001). â€Å"From the tenor of the poem, it can be deduced that the author was a mature, experience man, perhaps serving in one of the princely retinues and was versed in the manners and customs of his day† (Kuzych 2000). The original was discovered in 1795 by Graf A. Musin-Pushkin in the archives of Yoil in the Transfiguration Monastery in Yaroslavl, Russia, and was published in Saint Petersburg in 1800 with the assistance of the paleographers A. Malinovsky and Mykola Bantysh-Kamensky (Hordynsky and Stech 2001). â€Å"The single preserved copy was apparently hidden after 1240 when the Mongol incursions into Ukraine began† (Kuzych 2000). The only original copy is claimed to have been burned in 1812 when Moscow was seized by Napoleon’s troops (Wikipedia 2005) and the lack of a genuine script â€Å"allowed a number of skeptical critics in the early 19th century to consider the work a falsification of a later date† but many scholars, â€Å"particulary Mykailo Maksymovych, demonstrated connections between the Slovo and Ukrainian folk poetry† (Hordynsky and Stech 2001). â€Å"The subject of the poem is the unsuccessful campaign mounted in the spring of 1185 Ihor Syviatoslavych of Novhorod-Siverskyi against the Cumans and its central theme is the fate of the territories of Rus’† (Hordynsky and Stech 2001). The lyrical poem combines historical subject matter with â€Å"dreams, laments, natures’ reaction to the hero's fate, monologues of princes, other motifs and ... ...ble platinum coin form the Millennium Commemorative Coin Set† portraying the author composing the poem while watching Ihor’s battle take place (Kuzych 2000). In 2000 Ukraine indirectly honored the epic poem by minting a â€Å"commemorative 5-hryvnia silver coin minted for: ‘The 900th Anniversary of the Novhorod-Siverskyi Principality’† and depicted a prince leading an army in front of the old Rus’ fortress (Kuzych 2000). Works Cited Hordynsky, S. and M. R. Stech (2001). Encyclopedia of Ukraine. http://www.encyclopediaofukraine.com/display.asp?AddButton=pages\S\L\SlovoopolkuIhoreviIT.htm Kuzych, I. (2000). Commemorations of "The Tale of Ihor's Campaign.† The Ukrainian Weekly No. 40. http://www.ukrweekly.com/Archive/2000/400024.shtml Wikipedia: The Free Encylcopedia. The Tale of Igor’s Campaign. (2005). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Tale_of_Igor's_Campaign

Army Standards and Ethical Dilemmas Essay

The inconsistent application of Army standards leads to unethical decisions on a daily basis. Despite an emphasis on Army values at all levels, military leaders open themselves up to make unethical decisions when they don’t adhere to set standards. Despite the Army having clear standards on height/weight, APFT, the tattoo policy, and reporting requirements, leaders often take it upon themselves to ignore the standard or create their own. Leaders have the responsibility to maintain and enforce standards which are driven by regulations. If military leaders would consistently enforce these standards, ethical dilemmas and unethical decisions would be significantly reduced. Army Standards and Ethical Dilemmas Standards are necessary within an organization to promote discipline, production, and efficiency. Recently, the Sergeant Major of the Army visited the Sergeants Major Academy and the focus of his presentation was really about Army Standards. The Sergeant Major’s message got me thinking about Army standards and the inconsistent application of these standards throughout the Army, specifically the ethical dilemmas that arise due to this inconsistency. If an organization’s standards are applied inconsistently, that organization’s culture changes and allows room for unethical application of those standards. In the Army we see this inconsistent application of standards in the areas of height and weight standards, the APFT, the tattoo policy, application of punishment through the UCMJ, and in unit reporting. Standards First, we must define what a standard is. Standards are methods that define what success is in a training event, such as an APFT or marksmanship qualification. Standards are the rules for conduct in the work place and while off duty. Standards are rules or guidelines for proper wear and appearance in the uniform. In the Army we have regulations, training manuals, and unit standing operating procedures that spell out the â€Å"standard† for everything we do without exception. The Army even has a standard for organizational values, LDRSHIP. A tool that should make consistent application of standards easy for leaders is the acronym LDRSHIP: loyalty, duty, respect, selfless service, honor, integrity, and personal courage. Despite regulations and despite Army values, our leaders, Army wide, have difficulty in enforcing standards consistently the result for these leaders, often times, is making unethical decisions which have a negative effect on the force. Our challenge as leaders is to do a much better job of enforcing standards, as well as consistently applying the standards in order to reduce ethical dilemmas. Height/Weight and APFT The Army clearly spells out its policy or standard for both height/weight and physical fitness standards in AR 600-9 and in FM 21-20. In AR600-9, the standard for how much a Soldier can weigh, based on his or her height and age is spelled out. If a Soldier exceeds the height/weight screening table, then the Soldier is taped to assess the amount of body fat the Soldier has. If the Soldier exceeds the allowed body fat percentage, AR 600-9 specifies what actions are to be taken by the commander. Some of the consequences include, counseling by the Soldier’s supervisor, nutrition counseling, the Soldier should be flagged and barred to re-enlist until meeting the height/weight standard, ultimately the Soldier should be chaptered out of the Army if he or she is unable to meet the standard. Just like AR 600-9, FM 21-20 specifies the Army standard for both the conduct of the APFT as well as the standard for passing the APFT. Additionally, the Army has specified that a Soldier that doesn’t pass the APFT should be flagged and not eligible for promotion until that Soldier meets the standard. One would think that such straight forward standards would be easy to follow and adhere to as an organization, but quite the opposite has been true throughout the Army the application of standards has been difficult. The first example that comes to mind is the measuring techniques that are spelled out in AR 600-9 that determine a Soldier’s body fat. I have been in the Army for twenty-one years and have been subject to the tape test my entire career; I can tell you that measurement methods have been inconsistent at best. Sometimes, there are the appropriate numbers of people doing the taping, but often times there is just one person doing the taping. Sometimes, the person doing the taping measures the Soldier correctly and other times the person may tape in such a way as to give the Soldier an advantage. As far as the grading of the APFT goes, although FM 21-20 specifies the correct way to do a push-up or sit-up, the actual scoring for these events are wildly inconsistent from grader to grader. Sometimes these inconsistencies hurt a Soldiers score, but often these inconsistencies give an unfair advantage to a Soldier over his or her peers. The inconsistencies in grading the APFT and measuring a Soldier’s body fat are magnified by those leaders who don’t even bother and just â€Å"pencil whip† the results of both. What a unit or leader does or does not do to Soldiers who fail the APFT or do not meet the standards of AR 600-9 is where possible ethical dilemmas arise. I was the height/weight NCO for a company for almost four years, and we never chaptered a Soldier for height/weight. However, it was not because I or any other NCO didn’t do what is required by AR 600-9. Soldiers were not chaptered primarily due to end strength, bottom line we needed Soldiers. Commanders were unwilling to adhere to standards in order to retain more Soldiers. This is a classic example of inconsistent application of standards that led to the unethical decision of retaining Soldiers that could not meet the Army standards for height and weight. Tattoo Policy Another area of inconsistent application of an Army standard is the Army’s policy on tattoos. For years, the Army’s policy on tattoos prohibited those in the Army or those seeking to enter the Army from having tattoos that were visible below their wrists or visible above the neckline while in uniform. In order to meet recruiting requirements, this policy was lifted and those entering the Army were allowed to have tattoos that were visible above the neckline and below the wrist. Now that the Army is drawing down, the standard is reverting back to the old policy of no tattoos visible above the neckline and below the wrist. If a Soldier with such tattoos desires to stay in the Army, that Soldier will have to pay to have the tattoo removed. Personally, I agree with the policy of no visible tattoos and think such tattoos present an unprofessional appearance. However, I don’t think the Army should have changed the standard to allow such tattoos in the first place, regardless of the recruiting requirements. What has resulted from this policy change or unethical decision is that a significant number of Soldiers who were allowed to join with these tattoos, are now being required to either pay to have the tattoos removed or get out of the Army. If there is no â€Å"grandfathering in† of this policy, then the Army has made an unethical decision to force these Soldiers out or to pay, from their own pockets, to have these tattoos removed. The Army allowed these Soldiers into the Army when the Army needed them, now that the Army is downsizing these Soldiers are being forced out or forced to remove the tattoos. Where were the Army values in this decision? Application of UCMJ Having been a first sergeant, I have been a part of many UCMJ proceedings and have witnessed how Soldiers of different ranks are treated differently. I have witnessed First Lieutenants that have been convicted of DUI get moved to a new unit and later get promoted to Captain. I have also witnessed Sergeants First Class get DUIs that have been demoted and forced to retire. What is ethical in having the same standard, yet having a totally different application of punishment for the same offense? This same argument can be made for two Soldiers of the same rank committing the same offense, and receiving totally different punishments. This usually happens when the Soldier’s chain of command states what a great Soldier they are, request leniency on the Soldier because the Soldier has a family, or is in financial trouble. It is ultimately the decision of the commander to decide punishment of a Soldier, but I contend that it is unethical and unfair to give different punishments to Soldiers for the same offense. Soldiers know what happened when two specialists who went AWOL both came out of their Article 15 hearings and while one is still a Specialist, and the other is now a Private First Class. This type of unequal treatment is unethical and unfair, and has a negative effect on the command climate and unit morale. Official Reporting Another area of unethical activity that is widespread throughout the Army is n official reports, both to the next higher headquarters, clear up to the Department of the Army. A very common occurrence of this false reporting occurs when mechanized or aviation units report their operational readiness rates. Commanders at all levels are under tremendous pressure to report a readiness rate within the Army standard for their type of unit. A commander whose unit’s OR rate is not up to standard, has a high likelihood of being relieved. All too often, these commanders succumb to the pressure and submit false reports to maintain the illusion of preparedness. Conclusion If an organization develops a standard, then those standards should be both enforceable and enforced upon all in the organization. If an organization creates a policy and then changes the policy, the organization should build in exemptions to that policy that prevents the change from being unfair to those already in the organization. If an organization’s standards are applied inconsistently, that organization’s culture changes and allows room for unethical application of those standards. In the Army today and through the years we have seen inconsistency after inconsistency in the enforcement of Army standards. The creation of the Army values and focusing to ensure that all Soldiers know the acronym LDRSHIP was supposed to help with ethical decisions and prevent inconsistent application of Army standards. I think as a whole the Army is getting better in these regards, but we have a long way to go. Continued ethics training from basic training through the war college will help, but consistent application of standards is the key to keep leaders from making unethical decisions.