Free will Vs. Determinism Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 750 words

Free will Vs. Determinism - Essay Example the power to make decisions, take steps and establish a specific code of conduct regarding their activities related to the personal and professional obligations without any natural and social impediments or hurdles. Consequently, causality of change and movement is reliant of people’s personal ambitions and aspirations. On the contrary, determinism vehemently focuses upon the very principle that man is dependent of some external forces in all his activities, and these external forces, related to past and present, determine his future actions, conducts and the fate as well. Since both these terms have direct connection with individual and collective life of the people, their study is certainly of vital importance for comprehending with and exploration of natural and social phenomenon existing in the universe at large. Belief in supernatural powers as well as metaphysical objects is also contingent to the intellectual investigation of the scope and magnitude of free will and det erminism. The question arises why the issue of free will vs. determinism is the problem. Since philosophers and theorists appear to be at conflict on the issue, and have presented their notions in favor of as well as against free will and determinism, it has invited the curiosity of the thinkers for the further investigation of the topic. In addition, though the theorists including Halboch, Campbell, James and others have attempted to reject Schlick’s theory of free will, yet none of them could articulate the alternate framework contrary to that of Moritz Schlick; nor the theorists could managed to give solution to nullify the free will in a comprehensive way. It is therefore the debate still serves as a moot point even this day. Another reason for being this issue a problem includes the imperative significance of the subject, which maintains direct relationship with the disciplines related to logic, philosophy, human psychology and political science. Several theories have been

Anti Americanism in The Middle East Essay Example for Free

Anti Americanism in The Middle East Essay Anti Americanism in the Middle East is caused by various factors. Some causes are genuine and others are a result of peer pressure or influence by the leaders and radicals. Since the attacks on Washington and New York, the conventional concept and wisdom about the motivation that fuelled such deadly terrorism is gelled. This violence that we are often told is a reaction to misguided and misinterpreted American policies. For many years, some American actions such as its constant support for Israel and for the unpopular, oppressive and marginalizing Arab regimes has supposedly produced profound hatred and grievances throughout the people of Middle East. These grievances and hatred have come to a boil gradually over time, and this explains the constant Arabs attack on America and its allies by the Middle East nations. As much as anti-Americanism is largely spread among Middle East people and governments there is something that is highly misleading in this concept. Middle East’s Muslim and Arab hatred of America is not just, a response to the actual united states policies. The American policies have been highly pro-Muslim and pro Arab over the years. It is clear that such animus is obviously as a result of self-interested incite and manipulation by different influential groups within middle east countries, groups that employ anti-Americanism as a strategy and foil to shift public attention and interest from more serious issues within the middle east society (Katzenstein Keohane, 2007). Anti Americanism is sometimes blamed and associated to the former president George Bush. Bush is a lightning rod behind the anti American feelings in the Middle East. This is because of the multiple wars happened during his tenure in office. Another cause is the American policies systems and power fuel resentment in the world. People from the Middle East are annoyed by the fact that as much as America is a super power it does very little to solve world issues. America has a reputation of backing policies which increase the gap between the poor and the rich. Another cause of anti Americanism in the Middle East is the fact that they have put themselves above the law. The American soldiers have killed many innocent people in the Middle East and no action has been taken against them. When the Islam leaders kill innocent people America leaders arrests and even kill them. Amerce is always bulling the Islam nations by discouraging the building of nuclear yet they have nuclear bombs themselv es. The American leaders like Bush have never been summoned ti the International Criminal Court for charges against Humanity despite the fact that they have caused the death of very many innocent people. The Americans have killed many people with drones which is very inhuman and no action has been taken against them (Hollander, 2004). Anti Americanism in the Middle East is also caused by the fact that America has created a worldwide impression that people from the Middle East are terrorists. People from the Middle East are linked with terrorist activities by America. This has influenced people from other nation’s perception on the Middle East people. When American soldiers attack the Middle East countries they don’t expect them to fight back. The American soldiers kill innocent women and children and when the nations engage in war they are regarded as threat to security. Anti Americanism is caused by the relentless support America gives Israel. The American government has supported Israel in almost all its wars against the Middle East nations. This has proved that America is totally against the Middle East nation and consequently causing the constant hatred between the Middle East people and America. The Washington foreign policy seemed to support the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq (Rubin, 2002). Americans prize personal empowerment and prize individualism more than the Arabs in the Middle East. The cultural values in America completely differ with the ones in America. Americans are Christians and the Arabs are Muslims. The countries don’t go along because some things that Arabs practices are considered irrelevant by the Americans. The religious and cultural difference between the two countries has also boosted the anti Americanism. Another factor that has led to the anti Americanism in the Middle East is the conflicting attitudes and policies toward military and security issues. The war in Iraqi and other countries in the Middle East has led to increased tension and negativism from the middle east people. Also the American foreign policy contributes to the hatred. The foreign policy seems to be selfish and against the Middle East. In the American foreign policy it is clear that America has no intention of working together with the Middle East. The foreign policy depic ts Middle East as the threat to world security. Anti Americanism is also contributed by the elite politicians and leaders who incite and preach against the Americans. This makes the people to have hatred towards America without particular reason. The Muslim leaders consider America as the major national threat. This incitement increases anti Americanism as people are influenced by the leaders’ sentiments (Lacorne, 2010) The Media has also contributed to the increasing anti Americanism in the Middle East. The media constantly programs which depict Americans as the enemies. The media portrays America as gods of war who are jealous of other nations. America does not support when the Middle East countries explore the nuclear weapons. The media keeps covering the programs which show the man less American drones roaming in the Middle East. This makes people to have continuous hatred against Americans. The drone issues have increased anti Americanism because it shows they are ready to kill people from Middle East at any time. The Arabs feel like Americans are denying them their freedom rights. They feel that they are always under threat and this makes them to be unsettled. Some tv reporters have been recorded inciting the general public against America. Recently the media majored on the coverage of the anti Muslim video that was released from America. This video clearly showed that some Americans hate the Muslims who are mainly found in the Middle East. The video has also been a major cause of anti Americanism especially with the media paying attention to it (Crockatt, 2003). There is also anti Americanism in the Middle East because there are those children who have been left homeless and orphaned because of the killings and bombings made by the American soldiers. These children grow up with total hatred against the Americans. There are also many people who were victims of the wars and some are friends and family members to people who the American drones killed. This causes people to be bitter thus increasing anti Americanism. The children grow up knowing that America is the cause of their sorrows. They consider Americans as selfish nation which only focuses on its national interests and gains on the expense of innocent peoples life. Anti Americanism has become a culture in the Middle East children are told by their parents that America is bad and they grow up with fixed minds against Americans. This perception is passed from generation to generation in the Middle East (Crockatt, 2003). For many years, anti-Americanism has become and served as a strategy of last resort which unsuccessful, failed political personnel, institution and movements in Middle East strive to improve their reputation and standing. America is accused for so much that goes bad in the Middle East and the general Arab world. This in most cases is used as an explanation or reason for social oppression, political and economic underdevelopment. By issuing responsibility and excuse for their own mistakes and shortcomings to America, Middle East leaders distract their peoples attention from internal differences and weaknesses that form their real grievances. And hence instead of pushing for equality for women, greater privatization, democracy, freedom of speech, due process of law , civil society or other relevant developments issues which are sorely needed in the Middle east, the leaders focus on hating America (Hollander, 2004). Also during the Cold War it was popular for people in the Middle East to portray American policies as anti-Arab. This was despite the concrete evidence in the contrary. This rhetoric became a common convenient strategy for radical regimes and movements to create legitimacy of their own and to refer to their opponents as Western (American) puppets. The nationalist and Islamist Radical Arab regimes also accused America backed governments of ignoring human rights and being antidemocratic to its people, This is despite the fact that the radical regimes in the middle east such as Syria, Libya, Iraq, and Iran have worse records as much as human rights is concerned (Crockatt, 2003). There are various explanations as to why the American actions have been disregarded in Middle East countries. First, whatever the level of U.S failure to comprehend Middle East, the Middle Easterners have greater inability to understand the Americans. Throughout the Middle East movements and leaders have always expect Americans to attack and kill them since they are enemies. This has caused greater tension between the Middle East and America. Secondly, it is vital to understand how tightly news and information is controlled in countries of the Middle East. It isn’t surprising at all those masses, which are shut off from the accurate information to constantly feed on biased antagonistic views which are always hostile and against the Americans. The people who have the capacity to present more accurate picture or information in this case are discouraged by censorship, peer pressure, and fear of being branded American agents. There are also the efforts to reduce all the American policies to a single issue: America support for Israel. The policies and true nature of Israel are also distorted in this context. This element and issue is significant to the salience and anti-Americanism rhetoric. Some people radical Arabs believe that Israel as a country is an evil agent which seeks to dominate the entire Middle East by destroying Islam and killing Arabs. This explains why Arabs view America’s support to Israel as evil. However, the truth, is that America has merely assisted Israel survive constant efforts from Middle East forces to subdue it. The American-Israel relationship was most ambivalent during Israels first years of existence, the United States totally refused to supply ammunitions and other aid. This relationship only intensified during the occurrence of hostile actions from the Arab Middle countries, which aligned with Soviet Union to sponsor the anti-American terrorism. The radicals also want to ensure that America fails in its peace efforts. It also explains why terrorism is always increased by people from the Middle East whenever it seems that American diplomatic pursuit of unity and peace might become successful. This explains why when Israel withdrew from Lebanon, motivated by America, was rebuked as a sign of weakness and a mark that the Israels enemies should start violence against the state. Also The Attacks in September were planned and organized at a time when peace process seemed to be closest to success. According to political analysts it is not an accident that Middle East anti-Americanism was at its peak at the moment when America was proposed to back and support creation of independent Palestinian nation which had its capital in east Jerusalem (Ceaser, 2003). Anti-Americanism is also useful in the oppressive Middle East’s Arab regimes It allows Middle East leaders to distract people’s attention from their own problems and failings. Instead of the leaders responding to important demands and issues such as, higher living standards; democracy, corruption, human rights, and incompetence, Arab rulers accuse America for their own ills and misfortune and refocus their anger against America. Middle east Arabic states like Saudi Arabia and Egypt have over the years obtained weapons and protection from America but the leaders still promote popular anti-Americanism by state controlled media and government policies . Iraq for example has used the anti-Americanism policy as a strategy in its efforts to; escape sanctions, get back to the Arab world, and rebuild its military strength. America is accused for murdering the Iraqis through sanctions, and no one remembers Iraq’s forceful seizure of Kuwait (Hollander, 2004).   The Middle East anti-Americanism has also proved very useful for other people besides the politicians. Anti Americanism allows journalists and intellectuals to vent and focus their anger against the government-approved enemy (America) instead of risking to criticize failure and injustices that they encounter at home. Anti-Americanism has also become useful for the general public. Holding America responsible and accusing them for everything that is wrong in their countries and lives helps them to explain how their world operates and why life seems not to improve for them (Revel, 2003). The major reason behind the prevalence of Middle east anti-Americanism is that it has been a useful strategy and tool for the radical leaders, moderate regimes and revolutionary movements to build their domestic support and pursue personal goals which have no significant costs. As a strategy in the middle east, anti-Americanism seems to provide something for every person. For the radical Islamists in the Middle East, anti-Americanism has been a method of mustering popular favor from people despite all attempts to implement a theocratic revolution fail as a result of being rejected by the masses. The Islamists in the Middle East have focused on anti Americanism instead of fostering xenophobia or channeling their battle from one that is among the Muslims in the Middle East to a struggle between all Muslims and Americans who purportedly disagree with Islam and seeks to destroy the Muslims (Revel, 2003). Conclusion Anti Americanism in the Middle East is bound to get worse as the leaders and the elite use it as a tool for distraction or reason for underdevelopment and excuse of underperforming. America has tried to win out the heats and interest of the people of Middle East but their efforts have been in vain. Even when the Americans act in good faith or in favor of the Middle East people the radicals still find a way to demonize their actions and used it against them. The Middle East media system is also another major cause because the content covered is highly manipulated to show America as the enemy. The internal conflicts experienced in the Middle East countries have posed impossible challenge and dilemmas for American policy makers. When America helps some friendly Arab governments such as Saudi Arabia and Egypts, it is blamed of sabotaging revolutionary movements against them. When America pressures Middle East governments to improve their positions on human rights or democracy, it is blam ed and accused of imperialism. Anti Americanism is there to stay in the Middle East since it has grown into and accepted public culture and believe system. It is also supported my religion differences, Where majority of Americans are Christians and people from the Middle East are Muslims (Gentzkow Shapiro, 2004). References Gentzkow, M. A., Shapiro, J. M. (2004). Media, education and anti-Americanism in the Muslim world.  The Journal of Economic Perspectives,18(3), 117-133. Revel, J. F. (2003).  Anti-Americanism. Encounter Books. Katzenstein, P. J., Keohane, R. O. (Eds.). (2007).  Anti-Americanisms in world politics. Cornell University Press.Hollander, P. (Ed.). (2004).  Understanding anti-Americanism: Its origins and impact at home and abroad. Chicago: Ivan R. Dee. Rubin, B. (2002). The real roots of Arab anti-Americanism.  Foreign Affairs, 73-85. Lacorne, D., Rupnik, J., Toinet, M. F., Turner, G. (2010).  The rise and fall of anti-Americanism: A century of French perception. Macmillan. Crockatt, R. (2003).  America embattled: September 11, anti-Americanism, and the global order. Psychology Press.Katzenstein, P. J., Keohane, R. O. (2007). Varieties of anti-Americanism: A framework for analysis.  Anti-Americanisms in world politics, 9-38.Ceaser, J. W. (2003). A genealogy of anti-Americanism.  Public Interest, 3-18. Source document

Slavery in Shakespeares The Tempest :: Tempest essays

Slavery in The Tempest  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚     Slavery occurs on a widespread basis in The Tempest. Occurrence of slavery to many of the characters, all in different ways, helps to provide the atmosphere for the play. The obvious slaves are not the only slaves, as Prospero has basically got everybody entranced when he wants, to do whatever he wants with them. He can also control the way that they think.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚   The first and most obvious slave is ariel. Ariel is an airy spirit who is promised his freedom by Prospero if his job is done well. His job was to entrance the visitors to the island under Prospero's control. "What Ariel! My industrious servant, Ariel!" That is what Prospero said in act 4, scene 1, line 33. He was talking to his slave, Ariel, who entranced the visitors to the island.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚   Another example could be Alonso, the king of Naples. Since he is not in Naples, but on Prospero's island, and under his control, he is a slave in a way. In act 3, scene 3, lines 95-102, Alonso admits complete and utter loss of control. "O, it is monstrous, monstrous! Methought the billows spoke and told me of it; The winds did sing it to me; and the thunder, that deep and dreadful organ pipe, pronounced the name of Prosper; it did bass my trespass. Therefore my son i' th' ooze is bedded; and I'll seek him deeper than e'er plummet sounded and with him there lie mudded." He is telling us that Prospero is in control of him.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚   Prospero, Trinculo, and Stephano are in control of Caliban, the deformed son of Sycorax, and therefore Caliban is their slave. "Monster lay-to your fingers; help to bear this away where my hogstead of wine is, or I'll turn you out of my kingdom. Go to, carry this. In act 4, scene 1, lines 250-253, Stephano told Caliban to carry something for him, or he would be out of his kingdom. He treats Caliban like dirt because he is their slave.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚   In act 4, scene 1, lines 262-265, Prospero is describing how all of his former friends are now pretty much under his control, even though they don't know it, and enslaved to Prospero. "At this hour lies at my mercy all mine enemies. Shortly shall my labors end, and thou shalt have the air at freedom."   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚   In act 5, scene 1, lines 7-10, it states "Confined together in the same fashion as you gave in charge, just as you left them-all prisoners, sir, in the line grove which weather-fends your cell.

Hamlet Second Soliloquy

In the last scene of act I Hamlet is told by the ghost that his father has been murdered by Uncle Claudius, the brother of the deceased king. Hamlet once mournful and grim turns revengeful, he promises the ghost to â€Å"sweep† to revenge. But he is tormented with doubts. The ghost has taken its toll on Hamlet but has not been convincing enough, he cannot fully trust it given that it might also be an evil spirit willing to make him change course, misleading him to murder an innocent man and be â€Å"damned† as Hamlet puts it in his words full of fear and anxiety.For such reasons Hamlet conceives a plan, he is going to wear a mask of madness, or put on ‘the antic disposition’, which Hamlet considers will make things easier for him: Hamlet under the mask of madness intends getting people talk more freely in his presence and thus he might easily find the truth about his uncle. But, far from working his plan turns to be counterproductive. Soon, Hamlet draws eve n more attention to himself, the royal court is intrigued by his strange behavior and King Claudius summons Hamlet’s school friends Rosencratz and Guildernstern asking them to go spy on him.Hamlet is suspicious of his own friends and soon conceives a new idea to trap his uncle: the reenactment of his father’s murder under the cover of a play called â€Å"The Murder of Gonzago†. In this particular soliloquy, which comes right after, the audience is waiting to see a more determined Hamlet ready to avenge his father’s murder: indeed it has been a while since Hamlet promised to act. Instead we are presented with an even more confused character, not only uncertain of the world surrounding him but also himself. Shakespeare through the soliloquy paints Hamlet’s character.Thus, the audience finds out that Hamlet is self-loathing -Hamlet’s opening words: expression of self-disgust: â€Å" O what a rogue and peasant slave am I! †, Hamletâ€℠¢s self-critic is obvious here, he reduces himself to the state of a slave. The Prince must really be mad at himself. Shakespeare’s choice of the word â€Å"slave† might signify Hamlet’s inaction, passiveness, just like a slave is chained to his master and incapable of acting against his will, so is Hamlet attached to the shackles of thought and meditation, which impede him from acting, acting freely. -The first layer’s acting has left Hamlet with a sense of amazement. How come the actor can get himself to cry for something that is imaginary, for â€Å"Hecuba†, dead thousands of years ago and Hamlet, who has real, true reasons to cry proves unable to express his anguish over the loss of his father and the incestuous remarriage of his mother: â€Å"can say nothing, – no not for a king†. -Hamlet suggests here that his inability to express himself is like a betrayal, for Hamlet seems to have forsaken his duty of avenging his father. He c alls himself â€Å"A dull and muddy-mettled rascal, peak Like John-a-dreams, unpregnant of my cause†.The choice of the adjective â€Å"dull† reminds the audience of what the ghost told him in Act I. If Hamlet didn’t take revenge the ghost said that he would be â€Å"duller than the fat weed/ That roots itself on Lethe wharf†. Hamlet seems to be accusing himself of not having the player's passion, of not hating Claudius strongly enough, of not loving his father strongly enough. Hamlet is mad at himself not because he hasn’t killed Claudius but because he hasn’t said anything. So Hamlet instead of plotting against Claudius dwells on himself.Another character trait is being developed by Shakespeare, one that the audience is very much familiar with since Hamlet’s first soliloquy where he extrapolates his own grief over Denmark, the world in general. It is Hamlet’s egocentric side. -Note the abounding number of personal pronouns (I, my, me) used by Hamlet in the soliloquy. It is as if the world revolved around him. When Hamlet shows the actor’s passion and enthusiasm about his role it is only to stress on his own lack of passion. It is as if the actor were a tool that Hamlet makes use of in order to urge himself into action. The soliloquy is presented as a dialogue between Hamlet and himself. The prince is willing to work himself into a state of passion, revengefulness: â€Å"Am I a coward? † The use of the future tense at the end of the soliloquy when Hamlet confirms his intentions concerning the mouse trap is also significant, in sense that Hamlet seems like convincing himself that he will finally do something, that he has a plan, he projects himself into the future trying to influence it â€Å"I’ll observe his looks, I’ll tent him to the quick (†¦) I’ll catch the conscience of the king.At some stage he seems to imagine someone insulting him, â€Å" Who calls me a vi llain, breaks my pate across, plucks off my beard and blows it in my face†. This helps building his rage which culminates when he remembers Claudius in the following lines†Bloody bawdy villain! Remorseless, treacherous, lecherous, kindless, villain! Oh, vengeance† Note the emotiveness of the passage, Hamlet breaks into an emotional climax; he is outraged at the simple thought of his father’s murderer.One could imagine him spitting these words out loud with his finger pointed at an imaginary Claudius accusing him of all of his crimes and ultimately stabbing him with an imaginary dagger with† vengeance† in his mind. -But, this is only an imaginary vengeance or Hamlet trying to rehearse in order to get himself in the mood. In the lines that follow Hamlet’s focus is again back on himself and how pathetic the whole buildup of passion has been† What an ass am I†.The prince thinks that it is not fit for him to curse himself, as he sou nd like a â€Å"whore† or a â€Å"drab† or a male whore â€Å" a scullion†. Hamlet here is putting on his misogynist character, he cannot tolerate women that in his opinion are all â€Å"whores†, like his beloved Ophelia who betrayed him, or his mother who betrayed his â€Å"dear† father. This negative vision, attitude toward women is consistent with Hamlet who in his first soliloquy has already made a sweeping condemnation of the latter â€Å"Frailty thy name is woman†. So the prince’s main target in this soliloquy is himself.He is concerned with questions related with whether he is a coward or not, whether he should act or continue â€Å" like a whore unpack my heart with words†. We could therefore ask ourselves what purposes this passage serves in the play apart from characterizing Hamlet. -It has little dramatic value given that there is no action. The tension is released, Hamlet is alone on stage meditating yet again and a part from the bits where he gets over agitated the tension in the passage is kept at the minimum. -The passage has also little value in terms of its contribution to the plot.The plot hardly advances in the soliloquy, the mouse trap idea that Hamlet comes up with at the end has been conceived earlier when he asked the first player to prepare for the Murder of Gonzago right before the soliloquy. -The passage therefore rather confirms the plot and serves as a means of delaying the Murder of Gonzago as well as the eventual Hamlet’s murder of Claudius. The mouse trap seems to be the first practical idea that Hamlet has ever had since the beginning of the play. It is a relatively reliable plan which would help him find out whether or not his uncle has anything to do with his father’s death.But the audience wonders if this is not simply another excuse for not acting. Indeed, if Hamlet really wanted to kill his uncle the soliloquy would be unnecessary. Hamlet’s characte r is pretty ambiguous. On the one hand he considers that his uncle is the most sinful person that has ever existed â€Å"Bloody bawdy villain, remorseless, treacherous, lecherous, kindles, villain†. On the other hand, this enumeration of adjectives that negatively qualify his uncle is counterbalanced by the fact that the ghost might also be a misleading â€Å"devil†, a possibility which Hamlet reconsiders at the end of the soliloquy.This uncertainty that revolves around Hamlet’s character brings us back to the central question of the soliloquy: is Hamlet a coward? Is he ever going to act? The later developments of the play reinforce the doubt. -It is also important to mention the theme of appearance versus reality that is embedded in the central figure of the soliloquy, that of the actor. For Hamlet the actor stands for â€Å"conceit†, or in other words deception, which Hamlet despises and is disgusted with. In this sense Uncle Claudius, the ultimate liar and deceiver of the play is certainly viewed by Hamlet as an actor as well.Ironically enough, in order to uncover the truth and show Claudius’ deceptive nature Hamlet resorts to deceit as well by conceiving the mouse trap. For Hamlet therefore deception is a way of revealing the truth, and he certainly views theater as a powerful tool capable not only of putting masks on but also dropping the others. But, what is more striking is Hamlet’s obsession with the idea that there is often a disconnect between what people appear to be and what they really are â€Å"is it not monstrous.. †.Note the mocking tone with which he relates to the actor’s job, one filled with admiration as well, given that Hamlet finds himself unable to do the same for his genuine reasons. In the case of his uncle, Hamlet has been told by the ghost that he is a serpent, but the ghost itself under his father’s outfit could also be the devil. Hamlet cannot trust anybody, especially not women who he associates with deception; he is disgusted with human nature â€Å"that one can smile and smile and be a villain†, which is again ironic when Hamlet realizes that in his world lies and deceit take a necessary part of the daily life.So the passage is the occasion for Shakespeare to further characterize Hamlet, to show his exacerbated feelings towards himself and those who deceive. Two of Hamlet’s character traits are confirmed in the passage: he is self-loathing and egocentric. Also, this passage explores one of the fundamental themes of the play: the theme of appearance versus reality. Also, Shakespeare through the figure of the actor, and the play within the play demonstrates and acclaims the powers of theater.

Agency Problem in SOEs of China

Agency problem is a worldwide problem wherever it is in western countries or China. It is inevitable during the development of the firm†s organization. As long as the interests between the owner and management are not aligned, the conflict is existed. Many western firms have established the rules and incentive systems to prevent â€Å"agency problem†. Somehow it works. We find it is not enough to overcome the problem. China has undergone a long period economic reform. During the reform, how to improve the SOEs performance is a hot focus. In the past, all the SOEs were controlled by the government, what the companies† doing were decided by the government, then on one side the executives did not take the full responsibility for the company; on the other side, the officer blamed the managers for the bad performance. There are no clear boundary on the space of freedom and responsibilities. (see Georges Enderle) The â€Å"agency problem† became even worse because of this phenomenon. Now China has tried a lot of methods to establish the modern organization of SOEs. The boundary between the government and the executives of SOEs has been clearly set. Some SOES have been published. However we find that the â€Å"agency problem† still exist more or less and the business ethics do be involved. And business ethics can play a virtually important role in dealing with the â€Å"agency problem during the economic reform. 2. Definition of † agency problem† Before we go further, we need to define what is agent and what is agency problem. Agent is the entity where Management represents owners; the agency relationship is the relationship between the principal and the agent, in which the agency acts for the principal. And what is agency problem? The agency problem results from the separation of management and the ownership of the firm. Agency problem can be clarified as the followings: Agents may consume excessive perks. Agents may shirk (not expend their best efforts). Agents may act in their best interest (instead of the interest of the principal). 3. Why does â€Å"Agency Problem† happen? On the very beginning, most firms were based on the family and their management was the members within the family, and there was not agency problem at all, because the management and ownership were aligned, no interest conflict. As the firms grow, it seems they need high management skills and the existed relationship within the management restricted the growth of the firms. Furthermore, it was much more difficult to raise new equity. Then they hired the professional managers to act as the owners. The agency problem is followed as this organization comes out. Due to the interest is not alignment between the managers and the owners, more or less the managers will pursuit their own profit instead of the owners, which we thought is unethical because of the space of freedom and responsibility are not matched. (see Georges Enderle) and we will discuss later. Although the goal of the firm is the maximization of shareholder†s wealth, in reality the agency problem may interfere with the implementation of this goal. The agency problem results from the separation of management and the ownership of the firm. For example, a firm maybe runs by the professional managers who have little or no ownership in the firm. Because of this separation of the decision-makers and owners, managers may make decisions that are not in line with the goal of maximization of shareholder wealth. They may approach work less energetically and attempt to benefit themselves in terms of salary and perquisites at the expense of shareholders. The cost of â€Å"Agency problem† is obvious. There are the monitoring costs, bonding costs and the residual loss. Monitoring costs are costs incurred by the principle to monitor the actions of the agents (Ex. Annual report to shareholders). Bonding costs are costs incurred by the agent to ensure they will act in the best interests of the principals (binding employment contract). The residual loss is the implicit cost when management and shareholders† interests cannot be aligned, even when bonding and monitoring costs are incurred. We will spend considerable time in monitoring managers and trying to align their interests with shareholders. Managers can be monitored by auditing financial statements and bonded by managers† compensation packages. The interests of managers and shareholders can be aligned by establishing management stock options, bonuses, and perquisites that are directly tired to how closely their decisions coincide with the interest of shareholders. The agency problem will persist unless an incentive structures set up that aligns the interests of managers and shareholders. In other words, what is good for shareholders must also be good for managers. If that is not the case, managers will make decisions in their best interest rather than maximizing shareholder wealth. 4. Does incentives or regulations eliminate the † Agency Problem†? A high level of compensation can result from a pay-for-performance system in which the executive has performed extremely well, or it can be the result of the agency problem, Where the executive is taking advantage of the system. Keep in mind that an executive compensation committee, appointed by the firm†s board of directors, generally recommends the CEO†s compensation package. Also keep in mind the board of directors, although elected by the shareholders, is generally nominated for election by the CEO and thus may be more sympathetic to the CEO†s desires than to the shareholders† best interests. This opens the door for † good old boy† networks to take care of their own and set up a compensation package that rewards, regardless of performance, without attempting to align managers† and shareholders† interests. So it is essential to establish a good controlling and monitoring system, but since it does not work so well or we have not find a perfect mechanical system to prevent it up to now. How should we do then? It is the ethical behavior that † doing the right thing†. A difficulty arises, however, in attempting to define â€Å"doing the right thing†. The problem is that each of us has his or her own set of values, which forms the basis for our personal judgments about what is the right thing to do. Every society adopts a set of rules or laws that prescribe what it believes to be † doing the right thing.† In a sense, we can think of laws as a set of rules that reflect the values of the society as a whole, as they have evolved. However, not all the â€Å"agency problem† has been against the law. As the individuals, they have a right to disagree about what constitutes â€Å"doing the right thing† and we will seldom venture beyond the basic notion that ethical conduct involves abiding by society†s rules. And some of the ethical dilemmas that have arisen with regard to the † agency problem†. These dilemmas generally arise when some individual behavior is ground to be at odds with the wishes of a large portion of the population, even though the behavior is not prohibited within law. Ethical dilemmas can therefore provide a catalyst for discussion. † Is ethics really relevant?† the answer is â€Å"Yes.† First, although business errors can be forgiven, ethical errors tend to end careers and terminate future opportunities. Because unethical behavior eliminates trust, and without trust businesses can not interact. Second, the most damaging event a business can experience is a loss of the public†s confidence in its ethical standards. 5. The agency problems in SOES do involve business ethics dimension. By the definition of the â€Å"agency problem† in the SOEs in China, the managers assigned or appointed are the agents, who manage the assets of the principal.(the country) They have a lot of authorities regarding personnel, funds and fixed assets etc., but they don†t have the corresponding responsibilities. The situation is a result of the mismatch of the space of freedom and responsibility as indicated by Georges Enderle. According to what Prof. Georges Enderle said, the space of freedom and responsibility should match with each other. On one hand, it is unfair for someone to be held responsible for something if he or she doesn†t have the freedom to make decision on it. On the other hand, it will be dangerous for someone to only enjoy the space of freedom without any or less constraints or responsibility. Sooner or later, he or she will abuse the authority to achieve for his or her own interests by hurting others. During the reform of the SOEs organization, the managers are granted with even more authorities for them to better manage their companies. But unfortunately, some managers undertake some unethical or even illegal activities to act against their companies and the country, which has caused a huge loss for our country. It was reported that total lost assets of the country amounted to about RMB 50 billion to 100 billion during the 1990†³s. The main reasons are that the managers of the SOES take advantages of their prevailed positions to gain personal interests for themselves. But they don†t really worry about the loss because they will not be responsible for that. Please read the following case: XXX Company is one of the largest SOES in Guizhou Province. Started from the 1980†³s, the company went into a very difficult situation, making a greater loss every year. Oct. 27, 1999, an extremely shocking news exploded the company: Guifang Jing, the 54-year old, female financial manager were involved in corruption of over RMB7 million. Very soon, she confessed that it was she that took advantage of her position and her professional knowledge to manipulate the financial statements and embezzle the company†s assets. At the beginning, she got involved in the bank accounts transaction directly by using as excuse that the cashier was not familiar with it. She hid 325 bank accounts in total, which amounted to RMB 57 billion in total. At the meantime, she played a lot of tricks in distorting the bank checks and gained RMB12 billion in total. After she embezzled so much money, she started to have an abnormal mentality. One time, when she found that the company still had some cash balance in the bank, she felt very sorry for not having taking out for herself†¦. One day when she was on the business trip, one financial clerk of the company found that one bank check of several ten thousand RMB was missing and he reported to the general manager and the latter reported to the police. Guifang Jing smelt that the police would start investigate very soon. After pondering over for several nights, she eventually recovered her conscience and decided to give herself to the police. Let†s analyze the case. It is true that she broke the law. But if her business ethics had been good enough, she would have not got involved in such illegal and unethical behavior. She was assigned and trusted by the shareholder to have the authority to manage the company assets, but she betrayed her company by abusing her space of freedom, especially when the company was in such a difficult situation. At that time she should have used her professional knowledge and cooperated with her colleagues to improve the financial performance of the company. Another reason was that there was no healthy corporate culture in the company. Employees were not encouraged and rewarded for making contributions to the company. So nobody really cared about the company. That kind of environment gave Guifang Jing opportunities to corrupt such a great amount of money. Upon knowing that the police would investigate the missing bank check, she decided to confess to the police to avoid more serious punishment. Actually, she was at the first stage of Konhlber-Inspired Typology of Ethical Dilemmas. If she had been in a higher stage, for instance, Stage 4 Conform to rules, laws, code, and conventions, or even higher, Stage 5 Follow principles based on respect for people and their rights, she would have not got involved to this crime. But we must be clear that the case of Guifang Jing was only one of the similar cases that happened in the SOEs in the country. Obviously the companies and the whole country need to take action to improve the business ethics, to foster a good and ethical business environment. So far, we have understood why the incentives and regulations cannot and will not solve the agency problems. The agency problems do involve business ethics dimension. Then there is a base for business ethics to play an important role in dealing with the agency problems. As common sense, human acquires knowledge through education, formal or informal. Without education (in a broad sense), people cannot understand the nature and the society. They won†t have their values developed in the process of learning and practice. Of course, they won†t act according to the social behavior orders and norms. Business ethics aims to discuss the business conduct/activities that raise moral issues and to improve â€Å"the ethical quality of decision-making process at all levels†: micro-, meso-, and macro-level (Enderle) through education.