Individualism

Capitalism: Does it cause or alleviate poverty? By: Zahoor Khan zahoor_660@hotmail. com To tackle the issue of poverty has been remained a massive challenge in the known history of human civilization for all global economic isms of the world. Each economic ism has its own strategies to address this issue. Capitalism tries to resolve the issue of poverty on the basis of demand supply forces.

Capitalism is generally considered to be a philosophy of economic systems that favors private ownership of the means of production, creation of goods or services for profit or income by individuals or corporations, competitive 1 markets, voluntary exchange, wage labor, capital accumulation, and finance . There may be two possible solutions of the issue of poverty in Capitalism. Firstly, each individual economic agent has monetary incentives to work and perform various economic activities. Thus monetary incentives stimulate the economic agents towards the performance of various economic activities.

This may be considered as an indirect solution of poverty in context of Capitalism. Secondly, individuals possess ownership rights. They can possess various productive resources and have the right to use these resources for production and consumption purposes. Each economic agent (Consumer Producer, Government) is assumed to be rational and will therefore try to optimally utilize their resources in their best interests. Thus, this behavior works as an automatic stabilizer in the 1 http://en. wikipedia. org/wiki/Capitalism economy to resolve the economic issues including the issue of poverty of all masses.

The in-depth analysis of the system reveals that both possible solutions of the issue of poverty suggested by the system are factitious. The first solution is viable if fortunately all people become part of the labor force in an economy. This solution does not take into consideration children, housewives, old men and women, insane, and permanently disable people that from where they can access to the basic facilities (food, shelter, hospital…). The second solution is based on the assumption that all the people of the economy possess some productive resources, which is unrealistic.

This assumption may be questioned in many ways: From where the people will get the economic resources? What will be the way of acquisition of resources? All the people cannot participate in the labor force, then how these people will acquire economic resources etc. One other possible way may be the intervention of government, to take some steps towards the solutions of the issue. This method is feasible as compared to the earlier methods. Unfortunately, this method is not very effective to address the issue because of many hurdles.

Poverty is a multidimensional phenomenon which cannot be effectively addressed only with the help of the government. This issue requires multidimensional measures at the micro, Meso and macro levels. The issue of poverty is considered as a social issue in Capitalism. The society, in capitalism is divided on the basis of ‘have’ and’ have not’. The upper class, ‘the capitalists’ controls the entire economy on the basis of their capital while the ‘worker class’ cannot own capital irrespective of their efforts in the process of production. Thus capitalists accumulate more and more wealth on the basis of their capital.

This phenomenon naturally intensifies the earning gap between the two classes. The ultimate outcome of this process will be in the form of macroeconomic evils i-e income inequality, poverty, accumulation of wealth. The issue of poverty gives sub-birth to many social and economic issues. Some important of them may be in the form of income disparity, class conflict, and deprivation. The philosophical foundation of Capitalism can make it more clear that whether the system has the required potential to resolve the issue of poverty effectively or otherwise. Capitalism is based on three philosophical pillars. i.

Materialism ii. Individualism iii. Hedonism. Capitalism as a living ideology believes in a materialistic world view. According to this philosophy all human needs and desires are subject to material satisfaction i-e whatever is needed/desired will be satisfied in this material world because there is no concept of the world hereafter. So unlike an Islamic consumer, a capitalist consumer will be always conscious about his material utility and will therefore try to spend all his money on material commodities. The second important element of Capitalism’s philosophical foundation is “individualism”. Individualism refers to ndependent behavior of economic agents to accomplish their economic goals. According to this concept all people’s interests are independent from each other’s. Each individual has to work for his own personal goals. Thus, the resulting outcome of this behavior will be in the form greed, unconsciousness about other’s rights, immorality in business practices, weakness of social bond etc. The last foundation of Capitalism, as a living ideology is ‘Hedonism’. Hedonism refers to a philosophy where one’s become pleasure seeker and ‘self-centered’ while to accomplish various goals. Hedonism is the logical consequence of ‘Individualism’.

Looking into the philosophical foundations and ideological structure of capitalism it seems that the capitalism is a byproduct of human reason which promotes individualisms, self satisfaction as a supreme priority, greed, unconsciousness about other’s rights and unconsciousness about the overall welfare of the society. In the light of these logical consequences resulting from the Capitalism, The system will ultimately worse off the poor and marginalized people, followed by the increasing gap between the poor and rich and thus the extreme level of living standards and provision of many social and sub-economic issues…

The facts of the case are:

• Jean safari was investigating a serious error made by a Japanese worker at the Japanese subsidiary of a US multinational.
• A component had been inserted upside down, and the entire batch has been pulled out of production to be reworked.
• The cost of repairing is on the high side.
• The director claimed not to know who was responsible for the damage. The group did not tell him the specific woman involved.
• The whole group has accepted responsibility of the event.
• The woman concerned tried to resign from work but her coworkers coax her back again, the groups is aware that she is new and they did not help her enough or look out for her or see that she was properly trained.
• The entire group decided to take responsibility and apologize to jean.

Stating the Problem

The problem in this case is that Jean needs to find the culprit who fixed the component upside down.

Setting the Objectives

The objectives of this case are to find out the culprit and for the culprit to be punished in order to avoid future reputation of the same event.

Identifying the Areas of Consideration in this Case

The problem in this case is that jean wants to know the culprit in order for her to punish the person involved to avoid any similar case in the future, but the plant manager regards this as not important if the culprit has realized her mistake, but on the other hand, Jean Safari thinks its important for her to find out the person, and take an action against her.

Jean Safari is a UNIVERSALIST and believes in INDIVIDUALISM also meaning she is concerned about the rules of the firm and the person involved should be punished individually, but the plant manager and the remaining workers are PARTICULARIST and they believe in COMMUNATALISM, they believe in the relationship they have with one another and they work as a group which makes them COMMUNTALIST in nature.

Universalist:

In Universalist culture, the rules apply equally to the whole ”universe” of members, regardless of relationships General rules, codes, values and standards ”What is good and right can be defined and always applied” In a Universal society such as the U. S. , rules and contracts are developed which can apply in any situation. There is a belief that what is good or true can be discovered, defined, and applied to every situation.

Because of their Universalist approach, in a business situation Americans will want to rely on a contract to communicate the terms of an agreement and to define the relationship between the parties. PARTICULARISM: Particularism is based on logic of the heart and human friendship. China is a particularistic culture where people look at relationships and circumstances in a specific situation to decide what is right. For the Chinese, the legal contract communicates a starting point for an agreement. As circumstances change so too should the terms of the agreement.

For the Chinese, the situation and the particular individuals involved are what define relationship.

Individualism:

Individualism is a theory maintaining the political and economic independence of the individual and stressing individual initiative, action, and interests also conduct or practice guided by such a theory. Individualism places great value on self-reliance, on privacy, and on mutual respect. Negatively, it embraces opposition to authority and to all manner of controls over the individual, especially when exercised by the state.

As a theory of human nature, individualism holds that the interests of the normal adult are best served by allowing him maximum freedom and responsibility for choosing his objectives and the means for obtaining them.

Communatalism:

Communitarianism is an ideology that emphasizes the connection between the individual and the community. That community may be the family unit, but it can also be understood in a far wider sense of personal interaction, of geographical location, or of shared history.

Proposing Three Alternative Course of Actions ST Alternative:

The first alternative would be to use PUNISHMENT (SUSPENSION) because if the culprit is being suspended from work he would not be paid for those days that he wont be around because it would be considered he is not working for the main time he would not be around this would help in disciplining of other workers in the organization and it would avoid further mistakes and lack of concentration and new employees would be watched thoroughly and all the existing workers would help the new ones and get them on track to do the new job. nd

Alternative:

The second alternative could be CONSIDERATION, the culprit could be considered so as to allow the worker with the impression he would not repeat the same mistake again.

The advantage of this is the worker would be happy to work in the firm knowing that the firm considered him and this also would motivate him/her and other coworkers but also consideration might also have a negative effect, if the workers know that they are always considered when they make a mistake every worker would make a mistake and would expect to be considered employees will develop a sense of rebellion in response to punishment rather than seeing it as a deterrent to a particular activity. rd

Alternative:

The third alternative should be WARNING a culprit could be seriously warned not to attempt doing such offence again and if he repeats it a serious action would be taken against him/her I this way the culprits and the other co workers would be very careful in their dealings in the firm, the disadvantage of this might be, some workers would not adhere to the rules and regulations of the firm knowing that the highest thing that can happen would be a warning letter.

Choosing and Recommending the Best Solution

The best solution to this case is WARNING and SUSPENSION because if the culprit is warned she would not repeat such offence again in future since it would be clearly stated that if the offence is done again a serious action would be taken, if the culprit is punished this would make other workers scared and some might even leave the organization which would be at the risk of the organization in general, and also if the worker is suspended this would bring a huge difference in the attitude of workers in the organization since they know that a serious action would be taken against them therefore they would be more careful when they are doing the job.

Bibliography

1. http://www. via-web. de/universalism-versus-particularism/.
2. http://www. via-web. de/universalism-versus-particularism/:
3. http://www. via-web. de/universalism-versus-particularism/ media, d. (2012, september 5).
4. http://www. meez. com/community. dm? furl=http%3A//forums. meez. com/forums/serious-topics/6221608-individualism-vs-communalism. html.
5. http://www. meez. com/community. dm? furl=http%3A//forums. meez. com/forums/serious-topics/6221608-individualism-vs-communalism. html:
6. http://www. meez. com/community. dm? furl=http%3A//forums. meez. om/forums/serious-topics/6221608-individualism-vs-communalism. html mitchel, c. (2011, august 6).
7. http://www. theaustralian. com. au/national-affairs/opinion/individualism-versus-communalism/story-e6frgd0x-1226109346928.
8. http://www. theaustralian. com. au/national-affairs/opinion/individualism-versus-communalism/story-e6frgd0x-1226109346928:
9. http://www. theaustralian. com. au/national-affairs/opinion/individualism-versus-communalism/story-e6frgd0x-1226109346928 webstar, m. (2013, february 3).
10. http://www. merriam-webster. com/dictionary/particularism.
11. http://www. merriam-webster. com/dictionary/particularism:

It was once said that “the only living societies are those which are animated by inequality and injustice. ” A man named Paul Claudel wrote this in his work, Conversations dans le Loir-et-Cher, and he criticizes the ability to have a functional society. Societies are meant to organize the values of people into a system with uniform laws and expectations; however, societies can never fully achieve this. Claudel only sees societies with dysfunctional characteristics like inequality and injustice. There are always exceptions to the social order because all people are individuals with different life experiences that help define who they are.

Hawthorne also criticizes the Utopian ideals that societies often hold in his novel, . The main character, Hester goes astray from the rules of her Puritan town and must wear a scarlet letter on her chest to declare her sin. The scarlet letter isolates Hester from the pressures to conform to society, giving her the opportunity to find her individualistic moral perspective in life and she shares this revelation with Dimmesdale. Hawthorne conveys this concept of individualism through the motif of spheres.

Initially, Hawthorne conveys Hester’s isolation from society which is brought on by the scarlet letter, by putting her in her own sphere. The most noticeable feature of Hester as she exits the prison is the elaborate scarlet letter that is embroidered on her chest. Immediately, Hawthorne mentions that the letter “[takes Hester] out of the ordinary relations with humanity and [encloses] her in a sphere by herself” (46). The language here shows the isolation brought on by the letter because Hester no longer has the same relations with humanity, which in this case signifies the uniform Puritan society.

Her interactions with others are altered now that she is by herself. The letter puts Hester in a different world, away from that of society and causes her to be alone. Even people that do not understand the reason for Hester’s isolation participate in it. The children of the town only understand that Hester is “shut out from the sphere of human charities,” but they do not know why and yet when they see “the scarlet letter on her breast, [they] scamper off with a strange contagious fear” (72). This furthers the idea that Hester is completely ostracized from society because even those that are naive of the letter’s meaning will not accept her.

Hawthorne illustrates the isolation Hester experiences, as a result of wearing the scarlet letter, with the symbol of the sphere. Along with the negative aspects of isolation, Hester realizes that being in her own sphere takes away many societal pressures to conform to a set of beliefs. When Hester starts to come back in contact with society, she still feels as if she does not belong. Hester feels that all contact she has with others demonstrates that she is “as much alone as if she inhabit[s] another sphere” (74). Even though she is physically in contact with others, Hester is still alone.

She no longer has to conform to the beliefs of her Puritan town because she “communicate[s] with the common nature” in different ways than “the rest of human kind” (74). Because she is isolated, Hester “[stands] apart from [society’s] moral interests, yet close beside them,” meaning she can take a step back to look at the views of the majority, but she has the option to make her own choices (74). Even though she feels separated from society, Hester can still feel the influence of its beliefs. This idea is also illustrated with the location of Hester’s cottage.

The cottage is on the outskirts of the town, yet still within its limits and this parallels the influence that society has on Hester. The remoteness of the cottage “put it out of the sphere of social activity,” yet Hester still had to go into town to sustain herself with supplies. Therefore, just as the cottage keeps Hester at a distance from the town, the letter takes her away from many pressures to conform to the values of society. Hester sees that the accepted beliefs and morals of society are not the only options as a result of being isolated from the sphere of their influence, due to the scarlet letter she wears.

Hester’s isolation and realization that she does not have to follow society, give her a new perspective on the beliefs of individuals and she shares this with Dimmesdale. Hawthorne conveys this through their temporary coexistence in the same sphere. Through her isolation, Hester realizes that individuals can have their own belief systems away from those of society and uses this to find peace with her sin. Dimmesdale however, never experiences public shame or isolation and struggles to find peace with his sin.

He does not see leaving the town as an option like Hester does because he feels that “Providence hath placed” him in a specific “sphere” where he needs to live out his “earthly existence” and he has no choice in the matter (180). Dimmesdale does not see that there are other options besides those of society, but Hester exposes him to this idea. While they are in the forest together, she gives him a new perspective to consider; that the ways of society do not always work for everyone. At the time when both Hester and Dimmesdale can see things from this perspective, “they [feel] themselves, […] inhabitants of the same sphere” (173).

They are in the sphere together because even though they may not possess the same moral values in the end, at this time they both understand that they have options apart from societal beliefs. Even though they both have the same perspective they have to pursue their separate spheres in distinct ways. As Dimmesdale walks home “his inner man [gives] him […] evidences of a revolution in the sphere of thought and feeling,” indicating the changes already taking place from what Hester instilled in him (198). The revolution in Dimmesdale’s thoughts and feelings takes place because Hester enlightens him to the idea of individual belief systems.

He sees things in a whole new way with many more possibilities now that he can choose for himself what he wants to believe. He clearly undergoes a “total change of dynasty and moral code” due to the ideas Hester exposes to him in the forest. Both Hester and Dimmesdale see new possibilities in individual beliefs due to Hester’s isolation and realization that society’s beliefs are not perfect. Although both Hester and Dimmesdale learn that individuals can have their own belief systems through Hester’s isolation and relief from the pressures of society, they must ultimately find their own individual spheres.

After being exposed to a new perspective by Hester, Dimmesdale has time to think and realizes that he is not the same as her. Dimmesdale knows that they can not reside in the same sphere and Hester, too, realizes this at the procession. As Dimmesdale walks by, Hester understands that he is “remote from her own sphere, and utterly beyond her reach” (218). Hester hoped that her influence over Dimmesdale when she enlightened him would continue on in his decisions and they would reside in a sphere together, but this was not the case.

Just as Hester needed to find her place apart from the influence of others, Dimmesdale did as well. In order to find peace, Dimmesdale needed to find his own moral code and sphere and when he did, he reached “an epoch of life more brilliant and full of triumph than any previous one, or than any which could hereafter be” (227). This great success that comes from finding his own sphere shows how strongly Hawthorne believes in the individual and the pathway to get to individualism.

Dimmesdale can not be any more at peace with his life than he is when he discovers his individualized moral system. Hawthorne also shows his support for individualism when he breaks the forth wall and speaks directly to the reader. He says the only thing to be learned from the minister’s experience is to “be true! Be true! Be true! Show freely to the world if not your worst, yet some trait whereby your worst may be inferred” (236). With this, Hawthorne wants people to find peace within themselves and says they need to expose themselves fully to the world to do so.

In the novel, Hester experiences public shame and shows it freely to the world whereas Dimmesdale keeps his sin hidden. That is why Hester is able to be at a better peace with herself and her sin whereas Dimmesdale’s fate is to only be peaceful in death. There can be no set sphere for all of society because of different life experiences. Hester and Dimmesdale both find separate, individualized belief systems, apart from those of society, due to the public shame and isolation Hester experiences wearing the scarlet letter.

Hawthorne uses the motif of spheres to convey the message that society can not meet the needs of all individuals. The spheres in the novel never function properly when they attempt to envelop the moral perspectives of more than one person. Society tries to only have one uniform set of beliefs for all, but this is unsuccessful because everyone has their own thoughts and feelings based upon experience. Just as Claudel said, the only way societies can exist is with flaws; Utopian and Puritan ideals are unattainable. Hawthorne values individualism and the differences between all people.

Empress Luxury Lines Angela D. Davis Strayer University Management 500 Dr. Prakash Menon April 29, 2012 Abstract This critical analysis case of Empress Luxury Lines is based on circumstances of ethical dilemmas and challenges of top level managers and their employees faced with decisions on what anyone person or persons would do against making ethical decisions. In this case study, we note that the employee has to make choices for doing what he believes is right for him even though it may cause possible termination.

Despite of the needed computer upgrade for the Empress Luxury Liner for Empress, top management issues was to find other ways to limit cost. The luxury liner had fallen on hard times due to numerous factors some of which was not controllable by this business. In this case analysis we will explore how right or wrong decision making can create ethical dilemmas for a business. Faced with such dilemmas, we will try to understand how in decision making for the employees, managers, CFO’s affects the business entity.

Empress Luxury Lines ANALAYZE ANTONIO’S ETHICAL DILEMMA Antonio Melendez, a two year employee of Empress Luxury Lines was starting to feel as stated by Daft, “finally found a way to fund the computer system upgrade he’d been requesting ever since he’d taken the job two years ago” ( 2010, p. 150). Antonio, being that he was only on the job two years, and Kevin Pfeiffer, the new hire, the ethical decision dilemma for them was in facing the truth about the power surge damaged that struck the ship to its onboard computer system.

Antonio knew that the risk in defrauding the insurance company of the true nature of what happened to the computer system onboard the ship could have dire consequences for him and Kevin. Kevin told the truth to his supervisor Phil Bailey, of the $15,000 computer damaged and was told to report back only to his boss Phil Bailey. Kevin did exactly what he believed would be great news of the minimum fixable damage, but Phil was not happy. Instead, Kevin was instructed to remove and destroy all the wires and the cables and haul them elsewhere so that the insurance adjuster upon arrival would not know the difference in the damage.

Kevin refused choosing to make the intelligent ethical decision to not due as instructed and to not become part of a fraud scheme or the culture of top management habitually submitting fraudulent claims. Antonio appreciated Kevin’s integrity of making the best decision to not do as he was asked to do for Empress and his boss Phil Bailey. Antonio knew of years before he was hired, Empress Luxury Lines in the 1990’s, were a healthy business. The cruise liner had unprecedented demand by consumers to sail on its luxury liner. Unfortunately, with external threats of unforeseen causes, such as the 9/11 attacks in the U.

S. , the Hurricanes of 2005, and the Norwalk Virus outbreak, Empress’s volume of tourist booking travel by ship fell off drastically. Empress had to refund monies to its clients for cruises they could not use due to these uncertainties. In essence, contingency planning was enacted to respond to the unexpected conditions of weather, terrorism, and medical emergencies. The current rising demand of fuel cost to sail the cruse liner, slashed into the luxury liner’s profits. This is why Antonio could not or did not see his fervent request to have monies to upgrade the ships computer system was not accepted.

Until the damage of the computer system was verbally reported to Bailey, then the accepted practices of Empress by top management of fraud which was readily the condone nature, the assurance of Kevin, or Antonio being protected under the Whistle-blower act was essentially an ignored, systemic practice and rooted in the business climate culture from top to bottom. CREATE AND DESCRIBE TWO STRATEGIES In this case analysis the strategies to best describe how to address Antonio’s ethical dilemma would be by using two approaches in ethical decision making.

The approaches that can best address Antonio’s in this case study are the Utilitarian Approach and the Individualism Approach. These approaches best describe how Antonio should handle the situation at hand. The utilitarian approach by definition Daft , “ the ethical concept that moral behaviors produce the greatest good for the greatest number” (2010, p. 132). This approach Antonio is ethical decision maker and he understands the consequences of actions and plans to benefit for the greater good for Empress.

If Antonio chooses to use this approach he has the pulse of the organizations systemic practices but he has to figure out how to lead by example while limiting potential dire results for Empress by reporting what really happened to the insurance adjuster and authorities. If Antonio decides to stay quiet and do nothing he knows the risk and the ethical investigation that could ensue by law. The decision to do nothing hurts but if this is his decision, to help defraud the insurance company, the upside is that Empress will have a upgraded and repaired computer system.

I would equate the 2008 fraud case involving the SBA Program of widespread fraud with the HUBZone Empowerment Contracting program similar to how systemic practices of obvious fraud with rewarding contracts to business firms who were not eligible to receive such funding. Bruce Causseaux, a senior level specialist stated, “Three main factors worked to encourage the fraud, he says: the lure of several billion dollars of federal contracting, an SBA control process that largely relied on inadequately verified self-certified information and a clear message that, even if caught, the punishment would not match the crime” (Wilson, 2008 p. 0). This article exemplifies the seriousness that when it all goes wrong, in the utilitarian approach the benefit yielded still the lesser of a potentially disastrous result. The individualism approach’s by definition Daft, “the ethical concept that acts are moral when they promote the individual’s best long-term interest” (2010, p. 132). This approach helps Antonio because he believes in the fundamental rights of individuals in the ethical decision making process.

If Antonio chooses to avoid the systemic behavior by Empress because it will impede on a persons right then he would be ethically deciding to go against the grain of behavior even though he knows he may lose his job by telling the truth. The issue with this approach who determines the legitimacy of what is ethical or not about the way the cruise liner decides to conduct its business. Antonio/s plan of action hangs on the real balancing act of being loyal only to himself, to the health of the company and or lastly, for the greatest good of Empress.

Antonio has to really be comfortable in which ever decision ethically he will make. ASSESS THE PROS AND CONS The pros and cons of the utilitarian approach if Antonio so believes is the best approach he has the option to weigh the differences looking at how his decision will effect his fellow coworkers. For this case analysis, I believe the utilitarian is better suited for Antonio because this approach is not a selfish approach but more in line with having the thoughtfulness of care and concern for others and how his ethical decision could harm everyone.

Antonio does not consider he is just a lone wolf in this decision process because he sees the dilemma as equal parts to be held by together by the belief of all. Antonio relies on the method of substance process quantitatively in his overall objective to be fair for the consideration of the whole in making a just, moral, and pro ethical decision. The utilitarian approach con is in understanding and recognizing the cost benefits of his decision. This approach does not allow for room to be appeasing to all of his coworkers and this approach can cause harm. The end does not always justify the means as this approach states.

In the con of this approach, can Antonio assume the result of perhaps not being ethically honest could yield a positive result no matter of the facts presented to the insurance adjuster? This may happen and he is still left with the decision did he do his best in rising above the fray to do his ethical duty. The pros and con of the individualism approach on the pro side is Antonio will be respecting the rights of his coworkers and doing what is best for the common good of Empress. Antonio will also be protecting his rights as an individual which is a benefit for him.

Antonio has to be careful in upholding for pro rights to not step over the rights of others. A con of the individual approach is could be the true meaning in defining a person’s fundamental rights. This is a con of this approach because in the U. S. we have included our U. S. Constitution the Bill of Rights. If Antonio thinks this is the best approach because the Empress sails in international waters Antonio has to have consideration for the international laws of other countries which the U. S. Constitution with the Bill of Rights won’t apply.

Another con of this approach is that it is a selfish approach and can entice Antonio to consider only his needs and not the concerns of others. DECIDE ON WHICH STRATEGY TO TAKE Given the two approaches of utilitarian and individualism, I would choose the individualism approach for this case analysis if I was in Antonio’s position. I am not a selfish person by nature and in making business decisions I know that the ability to think in ethical decision making when a problem presents itself one has to be ready, willing and able to perform the task of airing on the side of fairness.

I have had similar instances as Antonio in being the one who has to be concerned for his self but by being this way, you ultimately do decide for the good all in the process of ethically doing what is best for the future long term health of the company. Individualism by behavior alone can ensure fellow coworkers that action done ethically for the best business ethical decision outcome is in the best interest of the whole. This action inspires cohesiveness and conformity in our feelings of our behavior.

In their book If Your Life were a Business, would you Invest in It? (2003), Eckblad and Kiel states, “When we acknowledge these feelings in ourselves and reflect on them, we often find their origin in one or more situations where we wish we had had the courage to have challenged someone or done something differently” and “businesslike thinking and planning are no guarantee that there will be “good” or courageous people in either jobs or our live” (Eckblad & Kiel, 2008, p. 37). The individualism approach has worked well for me in my business endeavors and personal life. My willingness to be fair, but yet knowing what ever decisions I make whether they are ethically based on a ethical dilemma or not, I firmly understand that not all decisions I chose to make was good for the whole and that you can not know the true value of the dilemma in your decision choice of how it will relate to other employees or coworkers. This is the dilemma for Antonio.

I do think his best method of approach would be using the individualism approach for Empress Luxury Lines. He will not please all but he will be ethically making the best decision for the greater good of the company. References Daft, Richard L. (2010). Management. Mason, OH: South-Western Cengage Learning. Eckblad, John, & Keil, David (2003). If your Life Were a Business, Would You invest in It?. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill. Wilson, Sarah (2008, November), Fraud Rattles SBA Program. Entrepreneur, 30.

Community vs. Individualism Individual and community are two words whose meanings contrast each other. An individual is one who is self-sufficient and not reliant on outside forces to get whatever task complete. A community however, is a group of individuals whose sufficiency is intertwined with one another, and therefore can rely on each other. In her narrative essay, “Community and Diversity”, Rebekah Nathan unveils the individualistic society that was her college experience. She describes life as a freshman from her own point of view and examines the characteristics of the student population at her university.

She uses her own experience as a microcosm of university life throughout the country, but her account does not represent all schools appropriately. She says, “They (students) genuinely want to have a close community, while at the same time they resist the claims that community makes on their schedule and resources in the name of individualism, spontaneity, freedom, and choice”(Nathan 233). Her description exposes the student body as being largely individualistic, which is not always the case.

In this essay, I will argue that not all campus life in universities today is individualistic, because there is still a great deal of community amongst the student body. To begin with, saying that campus life is geared towards being an individual is not always true. Students go out of their way to join clubs and participate in study groups and review sessions. They want to come together and form an alliance for academics or just to be social. In her essay, Nathan claims that our nation as a whole is becoming an advocate of “individualism”.

While this may be true, it in no way means that university life is affected by this. People come to college to not only further their academic quest, but to expand their horizons and to network with their peers. For example, an incoming freshman has the capability of joining a learning community related to their interests or what they think their future major might be. If a business major wants to get involved outside the classroom, there are a number of options available to them, such as an academic service learning program, or joining a business fraternity.

The variety of choices one has is overwhelming, and these programs and clubs would not be available if they were underused, they would simply turn over. Equally important, is the fact that in today’s classrooms, group work is often either encouraged or required. Professors expect classmates to get along and collaborate (just not when their teaching), either during an assignment in class or for a project assigned to work on outside the classroom. How so then, as Nathan puts it, are students getting more and more individualistic? In his essay, James Surowiecki explains that there is power in the form of the small group.

He says “small groups have the opportunity to be more than just the sum of their parts” (441). This means that a group can outperform even the smartest of its individuals on their own. That said it isn’t hard to see the benefit of community values in an academic workplace, rather than individualism. A good example of this is if you were to put five students in a group to complete a series of math equations. If it took the smartest individual thirty minutes to complete twelve problems, it would likely take much less time for the group, including that same individual, to finish the task.

For this reason, privatizing the campus experience is not beneficial to the learning process, rather it is harmful. Integrating students from group work keeps them from building social skills that they will need in the real world after college, and it additionally gives students an absence of the cognitive diversity one could discover while working in small groups. Moreover, if an institution wants to inspire a common education goal amongst its students, there are several ways it could initiate it.

For one, the university could instill living learning communities into the student housing. This allows students with the same majors or interests to live in the same suites, as well as giving them the some of the same core classes. Consequently, students can share information about classes and even form study groups without even leaving their dorms. Another way to instill a sense of academic community throughout the campus is to organize free events such as study sessions and reviews for certain classes.

For example, offer a math tutoring session available to all students with refreshments, or maybe even ice cream, would be a great way to attract people and get them involved with not only in their studies, but with the campus as well. A university could even go as far as providing incentives for good work, such as raffling off high end electronics and skateboards. The cost of the raffle ticket: “A” papers. On the other hand, Nathan argues, “Rather than being located in its shared symbols, meetings, activities, and rituals, the university for an undergraduate was more accurately a world of self-selected people and events” (237).

This cannot be said for American universities as a whole. Many if not most colleges have strong on-campus communities starting at the roots of student living; the dorms. Every week you will find a plethora of activities and events going on no farther than the students’ downstairs lobby. From events like “Residents Fest”, where the different dormitories face off in multiple competitive events, to comedy shows and entertainers that come to the campus auditorium and perform live for the students, free of charge and welcome to everyone on campus.

At the same time, there is still room for individualism in a functional community. Any given community that is profiecient needs individuals to lead operations. In our everyday society, we rely on politicians and small businesses led by headstrong individuals. But the individualism that is essencial for these people is also essencial for the community as a whole, much like that which is found in university life. Resident Assistants or, “RA’s”, are hired in order to not only control the students living in on-campus housing, but to bring them together as one solid body.

It is not uncommon for RA’s to request input of those students living on their floor during floor meetings. For example, most RAs give each room on their floor living agreement forms. Nathan remembers, “After pizza, M&Ms, and yet another icebreaker game, the RA introduced our charge of creating a joint compact and handed out cards and pens, asking each person to write down something in the way of a rule or a ‘don’t’ that she would like to obtain for the hall” (234).

On it, residents are allowed to make rules for their specific suite to make sure everyone gets a say in what goes on in their living space. They want everyone involved with the building they are living in, but also to know that the RA is ultimately the one in charge over them. Interestingly enough, Surowiecki points out, “One of the real dangers that small groups face is emphasizing consensus over dissent” (444). This concept could lead floor members to agree more readily with the majority, rather than be the black sheep to stand out and argue against it.

Without doubt, college campuses around the country display a strong sense of community. In the classrooms students display cooperation with each other in the form of groups and in-class discussion, and review sessions before tests are no rare occurrence. There are a variety ways to get students involved, and it seems that many are eager at the opportunity to gather and strive for academic improvement. From learning communities to social events and clubs, there is no lack of student involvement on campus for many universities.

Although Nathan says “The university community was experienced by most students as a relatively small, personal network of people who did things together,” this is simply not true everywhere across the country (237). While there are hints of “individualism” in the student body, it is overwhelmed by the power of the community that is found in most universities across the states. This is good thing, because an emphasis on “individualism” could affect the development of cognitive diversity which is a valuable characteristic in society, especially on a college campus.

Surowiecki states, “Diversity of opinion is the single best guarantee that the group will reap benefits from face-to-face discussion” (446). By this, he is saying cognitive diversity sparks a flame in the classroom, whether it through arguing or open discussions with classmates and teachers. If students were not exposed to such diversities in the classroom, they would be unprepared to face them in the real world. Besides, giving students a strong sense of community is almost always more effective than the alternative.

Works Cited: 1) Surowiecki, James. “Committees, Juries, and Teams: The Columbia Disaster and How Small Groups Can Be Made to Work. ” Emerging: Contemporary Readings for Writers. Ed Barclay Barrios. Boston, MA. Bedford/St. Martins, 2010. 439-452. Print. 2) Nathan, Rebekah. “Community and Diversity” Emerging: Contemporary Readings for Writers. Ed Barclay Barrios. Boston, MA. Bedford/St. Martins, 2010. 439-452. Print.

“Individualism and the Early Modern Period” For much of the world, the Early Modern period (from about 1500-1700) was a revolutionary time, marked by political, scientific and literary transitions. Politically, nations began to resist outside rule and establish their own national languages. Scientifically, the idea of a heliocentric universe (rather than a geocentric one) began to gain favor as Polish astronomer Nicolas Copernicus challenged tradition and church doctrine. In Europe, the invention of printing brought about a literary explosion.

Books and texts could be mass-produced, making them much more affordable. Suddenly, one did not have to be of a certain socioeconomic status to have access to books. Writers saw the incredible potential of printing and ran with it, incorporating newly-available vernacular languages into their writing. The printing press opened up a world of seemingly endless possibility. The Early Modern period was marked by a resistance to (and sometimes rejection of) the status quo. Traditions were challenged, questioned, and sometimes abandoned.

It was this heady atmosphere that gave rise to individualism. Individualism The American Heritage Dictionary defines individualism as “a social theory advocating the liberty, rights, or independent action of the individual. ” The Early Modern period represents a shift in emphasis from the group dynamic (most notably the church) to the worth of the individual person. The thoughts, desires, goals and value of the individual gained significantly in importance, and one of the areas in which this shift is most readily apparent is in the world of literature.

Niccolo Machiavelli was not necessarily revered as a writer during his lifetime, but from a literary standpoint, he was definitely a man of his time, and he illustrates this in his 1513 work, The Prince. Machiavelli and The Prince Machiavelli grew up during the peaceful Italian Renaissance, as Florence was becoming one of the leading cities in the areas of art and philosophy rather than placing an emphasis on military might and political savvy. Consequently, when King Charles VIII of France invaded Italy, the Florentines offered little resistance.

Machiavelli, who became an employee of the Florentine Republic in 1498, helped his fellow citizens form a militia to avoid a similar defeat. It didn’t help; Spain invaded in 1512, and the Florentines again failed to offer much resistance. Machiavelli began writing his book, The Prince, the year after the Spanish invasion. The book, which is still reviled in some circles, is a treatment of the use of power to create, control, and protect a principality. It illustrates Machiavelli’s belief that Florence needed a strong ruler to avoid any more humiliating defeats.

The Prince and Individualism The author’s approach to individualism is quite straightforward. In The Prince, Machiavelli writes of the need for a ruler who is unafraid to use his power to advance his own causes. The ruler, according to Machiavelli, was to be cruel when necessary, deceitful when warranted, and willing to use terror to keep people in line (including his own). The author uses historical examples to illustrate his belief that a ruler establishes his strength by first establishing ironclad control over his own people — by force, if necessary. Had Moses, Cyrus, Theseus and Romulus been unarmed,” he writes, “they would not have had their institutions respected by the people for very long. ” (Machiavelli, p. 1505) Machiavelli’s view on individualism is hard and fast; the individual – that is, the prince – comes first, above all others. Machiavelli also uses tone to great effect in The Prince. The author did not seem to consider his book to be a piece of literature. Rather, he intended for it to be a how-to guide for an effective ruler.

His formal tone is apparent right away in his opening “Dedicatory Letter,” in which he states his qualifications for writing such a treatise (Machiavelli knew Pope Alexander VI, King Louis XII, and Girolamo Savonarola among others, and considered himself eminently qualified to speak to the proper uses of power): “I have not found among my possessions anything I cherish more or value so much as my knowledge of the accomplishments of great men, which I learned through long experience in contemporary affairs and continuous study of antiquity. (p. 1503) Here, too, does Machiavelli’s approach to individualism show through; he is telling the new prince that his thoughts and ideas matter, and that they should be taken seriously if not heeded outright. Machiavelli vs. Other Early Individualist Authors Although Machiavelli probably would not be considered on the same literary plane as William Shakespeare or Petrarch, it is instructive to compare their differing approaches to individualism.

Shakespeare, though known primarily as a playwright, was also the author or more than 150 sonnets. In them, Shakespeare approaches individualism in a much different way than Machiavelli, focusing on the importance of emotion. His “Sonnets” focuses on love, sexual desire, and finally, heartbreak. Petrarch’s “Canonziere” also places emphasis on the feelings of the individual. Canonziere” is a love poem in which the narrator sings praises of the love of his life, Laura, lamenting her death, and holds out hope for a reunion after he himself passes away. Machiavelli’s view on individualism is starkly different from Shakespeare, Petrarch, and other individualistic authors of his day, but in its own way, it is just as representative of the times. What can The Prince offer us?

While few current world leaders would want to be referred to as Machiavellian (a term now used to describe ruthless, unscrupulous behavior), many leaders have followed some of the teachings of The Prince, whether knowingly or not. Even our own leaders seem to heed Machiavelli’s advice on promise keeping – the idea that it is acceptable to break a promise if keeping it places one at a disadvantage. Nearly five hundred years after The Prince was published, its approach to individualism still resonates today.