Ethics Paper Essay Example for Free

Ethics Paper Essay There are many factors to consider when implementing a strategic plan including considering stakeholders needs, the needs of the company, as well as the needs of the employees; however, one factor that is often overlooked is the need and desires of the consumers. This act includes fulfilling the social responsibility to benefit their community to implement economic growth or other equally important acts to benefit the society as a whole. It is a task in its own to balance the needs of the involved parties, and, unfortunately, sometimes the best decisions get trampled by the stakeholders agendas, and the community as a whole suffers. As a part of the community, the company has certain ethical and social responsibilities that are expected of them. These responsibilities are unwritten rules that are often implemented by the competitive nature of the business. Some standalone companies can continue with business without the support of their local community while other companies are unable to profit without the outside influencing factors of the community. If the community is directly affected by the interactions of a business, a social responsibility should be personalized to benefit the surrounding environment. Unfortunately, more often than not, social and ethical responsibilities are often overlooked by the company in order to benefit the stakeholders, and detrimental factors are swept under the run in order to provide a bigger return to investors. McDonalds is one of the biggest companies worldwide that fail to comply with social and ethical responsibilities. Though McDonalds is known as the pioneers of the fast food industry, and remain the highest grossing fast food chain for roughly the past 30 years (Whitt 2010). ETHICS PAPER 5 3 Although the sales have remained among the highest in the United States as well as other competing countries, McDonalds continues to cut corners to turn an even larger profit. This company developed an uniform production method by mass producing every ingredient form the hamburger meat to their French fries. These issues include using frozen beef patties instead of fresh ground beef and developing a genetically-modified potato rather than using locally grown produce to ensure that all McDonald’s fries have the same uniform taste† (Whitt 2010). Along with using ethical ingredients for their friend, McDonalds also uses questionable practices when it comes to their meant. Research shows â€Å"a typical fast-food hamburger patty contains meat from more than one thousand different cattle, raised in as many as five countries† (Gibson, 2014). The unknown origin of this meat would make contaminated product hard to trace and even harder to prevent in the future. Aside from the unethical choice of using genetically mutated produce, McDonalds has failed to uphold the social responsibility of the wellbeing of their consumers. With a company that cashes in over $30 billion dollars a year in sales, you would think that they would be able to afford to revamp their menu with healthier lifestyle choices. Instead, they chose to market meals that contain 1,250 calories and 66 grams of fat per serving (McDonald’s Nutrition, 2014)- that is over 300% of the recommended American consumption per meal. Along with neglecting their contributions to obesity, raised cholesterol, heart disease, McDonalds has embraced the American addiction of greasy cheeseburgers and fries and has gone as far as increasing the original serving portion by more than 24% (McDonalds Nutrition, 2014). ETHICS PAPER 5 4 Efforts can be made by the McDonalds cooperation to undo the severe damage that the company has inflicted on the society. Their efforts can be shifted to focus on offering healthier alternatives to the famous greasy burger and fries combination they have profited on. The first improvement could be on using all natural ingredients including produce grown from local farms. This change would eliminate the producers being collected from hundreds of different locations and reduce the risk of potential diseases and the spreading of harmful pesticides, all while making an effort to support their local producers. Along these same lines, McDonalds can also chose to use fresher and leaner meats and cook them in olive or coconut oil instead of the fat or lard that is currently used. These small alternatives can be implemented immediately in order to show their efforts to fulfill their social and ethical responsibility. Making an effort to improve their nutritional options means that they are investing in a better future for the consumers. Unfortunately, the questionable ingredients and lack of concern of the diet offered is only a small piece of McDonalds unethical and blatant disregard of their social responsibility. In order to ensure the stakeholders agendas, McDonalds currently upholds an endless list of labor related issues, as well as legal battles, backlash from the negative impact on foreign countries, and nonchalant approaches to backlash and lawsuits. It is painfully obvious that McDonalds is only interested in continuing the profits for their stakeholders, at any and all cost†¦. including the health and wellbeing of their consumers. ETHICS PAPER 5 5 References Gibson, A. (2014). McDonald’s: A Good Image with Bad Ethics. Retrieved from http://www. neumann. edu/academics/divisions/business/journal/review_08/gibison. pdf Schlosser, E. (2004) Special report on slow food. In J. Johnson (Ed. ), Global Issues, Local Arguments. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education. Whitt, R. (2010). McDonald’s: A Good Image with Bad Ethics, Dallas Observer. Pennino, M. (2012). Nuggets of wisdom; Author paints picture of out Fast-Food culture. Intelligence Journal. McDonalds Nutrition. (2014). Retrieved from http://nutrition. mcdonalds. com/getnutrition/nutritionfacts. pdf.

U.K. Economy Essay -- Economics Fiscal Policy Essays

U.K. Economy The UK government currently has four main macroeconomic aims that it is pursuing. These aims are those of low unemployment, low inflation, and high and stable economic growth as well as a favourable balance of payments current account position. This essay will concentrate on the government’s success in the first three of its aims listed above and how these macroeconomic aims can or have been achieved using fiscal and monetary policy. Fiscal policy is used to affect aggregate demand by altering taxation and government spending; monetary policy also affects aggregate demand by the manipulation of interest rates and the supply of money. Economic growth is the prime measurement of a country’s economy as it reflects improvements in standards of living. It is defined as an increase in the productive potential of the economy and is usually measured in terms of rate of change of real gross domestic product (GDP), which is the value of output produced within an economy over 12 months. It must be remembered that for each year, the percentage change in GDP is shown therefore any positive figure will represent a growth in the annual GDP level. The swift growth the UK experienced from 1982 to 1988. This growth in GDP decreased from the 5.2% level experienced in 1988 to 2.2% in 1989 and fell to its lowest in 1991 at –1.4%. This is due to the recession that hit the UK during this period. After the negative year of growth in 1991, the UK economy began its recovery from the recession and consequently there was a healthy growth in GDP from 1992, which lasted up until 2001. In 2000 the GDP growth figure stood at 3%, this is mainly due to the increase in consumer spending and capital investment that occurred during this year. The most satisfying aspect of this economic growth is the fact that at the time it coincided with the achievement of the government’s second macroeconomic aim of low. Last year however the economy grew by just 1.7%, which is the lowest for a decade. This low rate of UK economic growth coincided with the position of the manufacturing sector, which in 2002 was in a deep recession and is to the manufacturing industry to call for a further interest rate cut, to help push the value of the pound down, so that UK manufacturing export demand can increase. Inflation is the general a... ...enting the economy from entering a recession. Nevertheless this is where we can see the difficulties in making these policies due to trade offs that occur, as a rate cut in theory should lead to the rate of inflation to rise even further however this is a risk worth taking to end the current manufacturing recession as well as strengthen consumption even further. Revising an expansionary fiscal policy (fall in taxation, increase in government spending) would also be advisable. This will further boost aggregate demand and as supply side economists may argue, shift aggregate supply to the right effecting growth (a rise) unemployment (a fall), inflation (a fall), thus these goals to be met. It must be remembered that both policies have time lags connected with them, in particular fiscal policy, for which they are greater. A decision to change an instrument must therefore be consistent, as it may not always have the desired effect instantly. Bibliography www.statistics.gov.uk www.bized.ac.uk/ www.hm-treasury.gov.uk http://www.tutor2u.net www.telegraph.co.uk/business http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/economy/default.stm Economics – Sloman.

Arendt And Freedman: Political Freedom

Political freedom is an ideal for both Arendt and Friedman. As political theorists they offer not only definitions to understand what political freedom is for them, but what necessary preconditions must exist in order for their ideal to be vitalized. Arendt explains political freedom as the right to be a participator in government. She implies that this means more than voting for a representative or having the opportunity to run for office. Arendt advocates that political freedom requires equal participation on behalf of all citizens and the involvement in politics is the most important part of an individual’s life. Friedman states that political freedom is the absence of coercion with the necessary precondition of economic freedom. Arendt and Friedman have different understandings of what political freedom is, but within their differences are similarities. Understanding what Arendt does not view as political freedom is essential in understanding what is political freedom because it helps in establishing the necessary means involved in obtaining political freedom. † should be no reason for us to mistake civil rights for political freedom, or to equate these preliminaries of civilized government with the very substance of a free republic. (Arendt P220) Arendt has established civil rights as something other than political freedom. Civil rights apply to liberation and not political freedom because civil rights do not necessarily assume the presence of freedom. Civil rights can be granted to a population under the rule of a tyrant in the form of a law, but when the population is not part of the formation of such a law then political freedom does not exist. According to Arendt, the presence of poverty does not permit the presence of political freedom. If individuals are forced to focus their efforts to fulfill biological needs such as food and shelter then they cannot possibly be political. Capitalism also prevents the existence of Arendt’s political freedom because capitalism is based on consumption. When the members of society are focused on obtaining goods and material possessions they become just as preoccupied as those in poverty. So capitalism creates greed and creates unnecessary needs and desires that inhibit political freedom. Political freedom requires an absence of as many social conditions as it does a presence of other conditions. Political freedom, as discussed in â€Å"The Revolutionary Tradition and Its Lost Treasure,† obliges the presence of a population who thinks in terms of â€Å"we† rather than â€Å"I. † When everyone in a society acts for a better community and thinks in terms of the community, they will be able to exist politically free. When the focus of the individual shifts from the private interests created under capitalism to a public interest necessary for political freedom, more will be done to benefit society as a whole as opposed to individuals in a private realm. Learning to escape the private realm and understand that of the public means to understand the possibility of a greater good found in working together rather than many separate smaller goods held by only certain individuals. When there are individuals with separate smaller goods there has to be individuals with their own separate failure and lack of essential good. Milton Friedman does not offer the same definition for political freedom, thus his means for obtaining political freedom are also separate from Arendt’s. Friedman presumes that economic freedom must exist in order for political freedom to exist, and the means to true economic freedom is through the capitalist free market. Friedman writes, â€Å"History suggests only that capitalism is a necessary condition for political freedom. † (P10) The free market should take care of it self, be free from forced government intervention, and thus establish an environment in which coercion does not rule. Friedman believes that it is the power instilled in Washington D. C. that is responsible for the current coercion through their economic power. The economic power of the government is derived through the process of taxation, a process of coercing the citizens of the state to fund an organization against their will to do the jobs that capitalism, when left to its own devices, will achieve. Friedman suggests that government should focus on military effort, and not issues unrelated. He says: This danger we cannot avoid. But we needlessly intensify it by continuing the widespread governmental intervention in areas unrelated to the military defense of the nation and by undertaking new governmental programs – from medical care for the aged to lunar exploration. Friedman P202) So Friedman believes that government intervention leads to the collapse of political freedom. He goes on to discuss his fear of intervention. I believe that we shall be able to preserve and extend freedom despite the size of the military programs and despite the economic powers already concentrated inWashington. But we shall be able to do so only if we awake to the threat that we face, only if we persuade our fellow men that free institutions offer a surer, if perhaps at times slower, route to the ends they seek than the coercive power of the state. Friedman P202) Political Freedom for Friedman is then merely the absence of government coercion and the presence of an economically free population that, through the free market, can actually take care and supervise themselves. Friedman is relying on the same factors to create political freedom that Arendt sees as inhibiting freedom. That is, he sees a capitalist free market as the necessary means to actually bring people voluntarily together, not coercively. Friedman says:Exchange can therefore bring about co-ordination without coercion. A working model of a society organized through voluntary exchange is a free private enterprise exchange economy – what we have been calling competitive capitalism. (Friedman P13)So Friedman is actually advocating that capitalism is not as competitive as it appears, and that it actually requires citizens to work together and thus benefit each other through their actions. This is similar to what Arendt signifies as thinking in terms of â€Å"we† rather than â€Å"I,† yet it is the exact ingredient that Arendt classifies as creating the â€Å"I. † It is peculiar that such contrasting opinions and explanation actually lead to the same ideal. Friedman and Arendt offer opposing means of obtaining political freedom, but there are similarities in what their means accomplish before the existence of political freedom. Both want a society in which individuals do something for each other, they work together for a greater good. The difference is that Arendt wants the cooperation to be based on politics while Friedman wants the cooperation based on free enterprise. Friedman wants less government involvement because he understands such involvement to be the basis of coercion. Friedman would rather have individuals voluntarily come together than be forced to come together. He sees political freedom as being free from the control of the state, free to evolve independent of government influence, and free to decide how to evolve. Friedman wants the government to have limited power because free enterprise will thrive in the absence of government intervention. Economic freedom will be created in the free enterprise and political freedom is the result. Another similarity between Arendt’s and Friedman’s differing views is the requirement of economic freedom. Although it is quite a major aspect for Friedman, Arendt does not focus directly on the topic. Arendt is just as much a supporter of economic freedom because she acknowledges that a state dealing with poverty and the fulfillment of basic needs cannot deal with political freedom. Economic freedom is the absence of such struggles and the presence of a means to be politically free. The similarity through presence of economic freedom is divided by the role of government. For Friedman political freedom is the absence of coercion, namely governmental coercion, not the presence of a highly involved government that Arendt advocates. Arendt’s political freedom is not the absence of government, merely the absence of representative government. She sees the concern of private life being too dominate under a representative system because, † the voter acts out of concern with his private life and well-being, and the residue of power he still holds in his hands resembles rather the reckless coercion with which a blackmailer forces his victim into obedience than the power that arises out of joint action and joint deliberation. (Arendt P 273) She is saying that representation leads to the problem of coercion, and it is coercion that Friedman sees necessary is not existing in the existence of political freedom. Without a direct democracy at the basis of a highly involved government political freedom is impossible because there is too much corrupt behavior and focus on private interests when the majority elects a minority to make the decisions for the state. Arendt envisions a society in which all of its members equally partake in the decision making of the government and they all work for the good of each other, not for a private good. Arendt establishes the aspects of life that have been private in the past as needing to be public in an effort to prevent corruption and maintain political freedom. Friedman does not advocate the same direct democracy that Arendt envisions. Instead, he expects the free market to essentially rule itself and take on the duties of Arendt’s government in the form of free enterprise. He sees the government as the cause of the coercion and presumes that the power should be taken out of the government. So this is an opposite response to Arendt’s view that the government should become larger, so large that all citizens are involved and have an equal say, thus preventing the possibility of coercion. Both Arendt and Friedman see coercion as preventing political freedom and both offer different means of ridding society of coercion. Political freedom is not an easily definable term. It is much like love, god, and friendship in that it has different meanings for different people at different times. Political freedom is about both the means of obtaining the ideal as well as the ideal itself. Friedman and Arendt present what they presume to be the means and the ends of political freedom, but neither is completely right or entirely wrong. It does not seem possible to create a set definition as to what political freedom is, much less what the appropriate means of obtaining political freedom are. It seems more important to try to distinguish certain common traits of what political freedom is rather than attempt to create a set definition. The common traits shared by Arendt and Friedman are that economic freedom and absence of coercion are necessary for political freedom. Political freedom, for both theorists, requires the action of a public community and not private individuals. They do not agree about the role of government, nor do they agree on the form government should take. Although it is important to distinguish what are and are not characteristics of political freedom, it is more important to understand that political freedom cannot be defined. Political freedom can be speculated about, but will not be truly comprehended until it is actualized. Only when political freedom exists will it be understood.

Introduction to French Translation and Interpretation

Translation and interpretation are the ultimate jobs for people who love language. However, there are a lot of misunderstandings about these two fields, including the difference between them and what kind of skills and education they require. This article is an introduction to the fields of translation and interpretation. Both translation and interpretation (sometimes abbreviated as T I) require superior language ability in at least two languages. That may seem like a given, but in fact, there are many working translators whose language skills are not up to the task. You can usually recognize these unqualified translators by extremely low rates, and also by wild claims about being able to translate any language and subject. Translation and interpretation also require the ability to accurately express information in the target language. Word for word translation is neither accurate nor desirable, and a good translator/interpreter knows how to express the source text or speech so that it sounds natural in the target language. The best translation is one that you dont realize is a translation because it sounds just like it would if it had been written in that language to begin with. Translators and interpreters nearly always work into their native language, because its too easy for a non-native speaker to write or speak in a way that just doesnt sound quite right to native speakers. Using unqualified translators will leave you with poor-quality translations with mistakes ranging from poor grammar and awkward phrasing to nonsensical or inaccurate information. And finally, translators and interpreters need to understand the cultures of both the source and target languages, in order to be able to adapt the language to the appropriate culture. In short, the simple fact of speaking two or more languages does not necessarily make a good translator or interpreter — theres a lot more to it. It is in your best interest to find someone who is qualified and certified. A certified translator or interpreter will cost more, but if your business needs a good product, it is well worth the expense. Contact a translation/interpretation organization for a list of potential candidates. Translation vs. Interpretation For some reason, most laypeople refer to both translation and interpretation as translation. Although translation and interpretation share the common goal of taking information that is available in one language and converting it to another, they are in fact two separate processes. So what is the difference between translation and interpretation? Its very simple. Translation is written — it involves taking a written text (such as a book or an article) and translating it in writing into the target language. Interpretation is oral - it refers to listening to something spoken (a speech or phone conversation) and interpreting it orally into the target language. (Incidentally, those who facilitate communication between hearing persons and deaf/hard-of-hearing persons are also known as interpreters. So you can see that the main difference is in how the information is presented — orally in interpretation and written in translation. This might seem like a subtle distinction, but if you consider your own language skills, the odds are that your ability to read/write and listen/speak are not identical — you are probably more skilled at one pair or the other. So translators are excellent writers, while interpreters have superior oral communication skills. In addition, spoken language is quite different from writing, which adds a further dimension to the distinction. Then theres the fact that translators work alone to produce a translation, while interpreters work with two or more people/groups to provide an interpretation on the spot during negotiations, seminars, phone conversations, etc. Translation and Interpretation Terms Source languageThe language of the original message. Target languageThe language of the resulting translation or interpretation. A language  - Native languageMost people have one A language, although someone who was raised bilingual may have two A languages or an A and a B, depending on whether they are truly bilingual or just very fluent in the second language. B language  - Fluent languageFluent here means near-native ability — understanding virtually all vocabulary, structure, dialects, cultural influence, etc. A certified translator or interpreter has at least one B language unless he or she is bilingual with two A languages. C language  - Working languageTranslators and interpreters may have one or more C languages — those which they understand well enough to translate or interpret from but not to. For example, here are my language skills: A - EnglishB - FrenchC - Spanish So in theory, you can translate French to English, English to French, and Spanish to English, but not English to Spanish. In reality, you only work from French and Spanish to English. You wouldnt work into French, because you recognize that my translations into French leave something to be desired. Translators and interpreters should only work into the languages that they write/speak like a native or very close to it. Incidentally, another thing to watch out for is a translator who claims to have several target languages (in other words, to be able to work in both directions between, say, English, Japanese, and Russian). It is very rare for anyone to have more than two target languages, although having several source languages is fairly common. Types of Translation and Interpretation General translation/interpretation is just what you think — the translation or interpretation of non-specific language that does not require any specialized vocabulary or knowledge. However, the best translators and interpreters read extensively in order to be up-to-date with current events and trends so that they are able to do their work to the best of their ability, having knowledge of what they might be asked to convert. In addition, good translators and interpreters make an effort to read about whatever topic they are currently working on. If a translator is asked to translate an article on organic farming, for example, he or she would be well served to read about organic farming in both languages in order to understand the topic and the accepted terms used in each language. Specialized translation or interpretation refers to domains which require at the very least that the person be extremely well-read in the domain. Even better is training in the field (such as a college degree in the subject, or a specialized course in that type of translation or interpretation). Some common types of specialized translation and interpretation are financial translation and interpretationlegal translation and interpretationliterary translationmedical translation and interpretationscientific translation and interpretationtechnical translation and interpretation Types of Translation Machine translationAlso known as automatic translation, this is any translation that is done without human intervention, using software, hand-held translators, online translators such as Babelfish, etc. Machine translation is extremely limited in quality and usefulness. Machine-assisted translationTranslation that is done with a machine translator and a human working together. For example, to translate honey, the machine translator might give the options  le miel  and  chà ©ri  so that the person could decide which one makes sense in the context. This is considerably better than machine translation, and some argue that it is more effective than human-only translation. Screen translationTranslation of movies and television programs, including subtitling (where the translation is typed along the bottom of the screen) and dubbing (where the voices of native speakers of the target language are heard in place of the original actors). Sight translationDocument in the source language is explained orally in the target language. This task is performed by interpreters when an article in the source language is not provided with a translation (such as a memo handed out at a meeting). LocalizationAdaptation of software or other products to a different culture. Localization includes translation of documents, dialog boxes, etc., as well as linguistic and cultural changes to make the product appropriate to the target country. Types of Interpretation Consecutive interpretation  (consec)The interpreter takes notes while listening to a speech, then does his or her interpretation during pauses. This is commonly used when there are just two languages at work; for example if the American and French presidents were having a discussion. The consecutive interpreter would interpret in both directions, French to English and English to French. Unlike translation and simultaneous interpretation, consecutive interpretation is commonly done into the interpreters A and B languages. Simultaneous interpretation  (simul)The interpreter listens to a speech and simultaneously interprets it, using headphones and a microphone. This is commonly used when there are numerous languages needed, such as in the United Nations. Each target language has an assigned channel, so Spanish speakers might turn to channel one for the Spanish interpretation, French speakers to channel two, etc. Simultaneous interpretation should only be done into ones A language.