External Factor Are Affecting the Ecosystems free essay sample

The word ecosystem refers to the combined physical and biological components of an environment; these organisms form complex sets of relationships and function as a unit as they interact with their physical environment. Ecosystems are constantly changing naturally, and they’ve got a specific and stable climax, equilibrium. Living as well as non-living factors may have an impact in an ecosystem such as the impact of humans in ecosystems by hunting, fishing, agriculture etc. r climate change may affect an ecosystem and dare it to adapt to the conditions. Will human’s activity affect the equilibrium of the arctic wolves ecosystem? Equilibrium refers to balance, so†¦ will human’s activities affect the balance of the physical and biological components of the tundra? Human activities, which affect the arctic wolf’s ecosystem, the tundra, are pollution, chemical contamination and overdevelopment. All of them are harmful to the ecosystem. Pollution affects in directly the tundra, habitat of the Arctic wolf. We will write a custom essay sample on External Factor Are Affecting the Ecosystems or any similar topic specifically for you Do Not WasteYour Time HIRE WRITER Only 13.90 / page Pollution leads to Global Warming and this affect the global temperature, as a result ice melts and the tundra is affected because its an ecosystem nearly made up on ice, so eventually the ecosystem would be endangered and also the species that are contained in the ecosystem. Lately, thousands of â€Å"green† organizations have been generated to promote the green habits and to try to reduce pollution worldwide, reducing also the vulnerability of the tundra biome. Their projects consist in reducing wastes of any kind of energy source and saving any resource we get. This will involve social aspects also in the way that our society must take part and have an impact into world pollution, which will finally affect the tundra ecosystem; it has lately become popular to be ecofriendly. This ecologic movement has also affected the fashion industry which lately looks for looks with more pure materials, not much synthetic ones, also they’ve preferred clothing with pure cotton, even not only the materials of clothing are involved but the message in the clothing’s have taken a very special impact in the society. Hunting, affects directly and indirectly to the ecosystem of the Arctic wolf, it affects the interaction of living organisms by hunting the animals. The overhunting of species such as the musk ox and caribou in Alaska and North America were even near of extinction. This would create unsustainability on the ecosystem because there would not be equilibrium in the food chain and all the animals that have any relationship with the specie would me affected by don’t having a predator or a prey. Hunting in the tundra has had a very negative effect because important species suck as the musk ox have nearly got to extinction. By 1950, herds in North America were reduced by ninety percent, so this made the American population realize what was really going on in their country. They were loosing biodiversity and so laws were created to protect animals. This had an economic impact, because musk ox’s (prey of the arctic wolf) leather was part of the market so it has also a social impact, not only from for hunters but for the fashion industry which had a relation with musk ox’s fur and leather. Chemical contamination also affects the Arctic Wolf’s ecosystem. Lately, Petroleum and Coal or Natural Gas, Iron, Lead or Zinc mines and mineral exploration and exploitation and extraction are increasing worldwide especially in the Arctic. The development affects the Caribou, which are one of the main species present in the Arctic wolf habitat. Overdevelopment indicates to the building of roads and buildings in the tundra, this lead to more circulation. Fragile tundra areas of plants are taken out for the creation of these roads. Without plants to give nutrients to the soil, earth will stop being rich and will abolish the community of flora in the tundra. After discussing all the direct and indirect human impact in the environment, hunting, chemical contamination and overdevelopment are certainly harmful for the ecosystem. These activities attempt to the balance of the ecosystem by attempting against the living organisms that live in the tundra, ecosystem of the arctic wolf and by attempting against the non-living factors in the ecosystem such as climate. Even tough there are solutions for these activities to reduce or to stop, they are not completely efficient. In my opinion after all my investigation, apart from the pollution affecting indirectly to the tundra, the other activities are not a major concern for the arctic wolf’s ecosystem. As seen, human activities impact in the arctic wolf’s ecosystem is not positive (although they don’t damage much the tundra) toward the ecosystem. My final conclusion will be that external factors are definitely against the equilibrium of the arctic wolf’s ecosystem.

The Male Identity in Scorsese Movies essays

The Male Identity in Scorsese Movies   essays When audience members look at films they want to put reality on the shelf and enjoy a well written movie. Martin Scorsese has always captivated and fascinated his audience members for many years. His types of movies tend to have a male leads while the female characters are sometimes not as developed or have an integral part to the plot itself. In "Raging Bull" and in "The Age of Innocence" we see two representations of male characters with very different but yet similar issues. These two movies are very different on the surface because both take place in two separate time periods. One movie is about a famous boxer while the other follows a New York socialite when people where divided into classes based on how much money they earned. Director Martin Scorsese does a great job in controlling the flow of information in this movie. The beginning of this scene shows the main character Jake La Motta and his brother, Joey sitting around a diner table. We start to hear a very strange dialogue between Jake and hes telling his brother to hit him as hard as he can to show that he can take it. He is doing this to show how he can beat anyone in the ring and prove his manhood. He is also trying to show his brother how he can take punches without feeling much pain. His brother complies with his request and we have the camera going from brother to brother showing him being punched and his brother receiving each violent blow to the face. This whole scene follows the classical continuity rule of editing which talks about match on action. This is done when Joey punches his brother and in the next shot we see his fist continuing that motion in a very smooth cut. We then see them sitting opposite one another which gives th e shot and reverse shot technique. We see behind both shoulders of these actors as the action is talking place. Each shot feels very rhythmic and flows very naturally in the space and time provided. The costume...

UK Shouldn't leave European union Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 3000 words

UK Shouldn't leave European union - Essay Example British are of the fact that the weak stance of the Euro zone due to the economic hardships is burdening UK. They are paying for the stability of other countries which are the members of the EU. The cost of this union is very high and the heritage of UK is at stake due to the policies which have been enforced on Britain by EU. This report suggests that UK should remain a part of the EU to ensure a more stable future and dominance on the Euro Zone. This will improve its economic strength and the power of dominance which has been a part of the heritage of UK. INTRODUCTION EUROPEAN UNION (EU) The European Union is an alliance between some of the European nations to support each other in maintaining the stability which arise due to the economic or the social / societal hardships in an economy. The European Union came into existence in the year 1993. A treaty was signed by the members called the Treaty of Maastricht. The base of this alliance was formed in 1958 by European Economic Commun ity (EEC) which was the result of signing of the Treaty of Rome. A BRIEF HISTORY OF THE ENGLISH AND THE EUROPEAN NATION United Kingdom (UK) and the European Union (EU) have a history which goes back in time. Both the regions have their own significant importance with respect to the business situations. UK operates under the currency of British Pound and the EU states use the standardised currency Euro all across the nation. The history of these states has always been complicated. The current scenario of the states is making problems for the strategic alliance between both the countries. The economic turmoil and the period of recession are forcing a strategic alliance between both the nations. UK has always been on the stronger side due to the British reign and the supremacy of the queen. The strategic personnel of UK and the think tanks which make the strategic decision of the countries progress are of the view of breaking the strategic alliance with the EU. In this report the areas emphasising on the importance of this alliance have been discussed. The current economic factors which are the main detrimental factors of the problems will also be discussed in this report. The economic recession has brought hardship on many nations. We will see that what strategies have been adopted by the UK & EU states. UK wants to break the alliance which has been developed. The factors which have led behind this decision and the study that whether this decision will be or will not be feasible for the states of this region or not. Breaking an alliance at this point may cause a disruption in the complete system and may require the re-establishing of the strategic goals which the region wants to implement. Whether Britain should or should not leave the European Union. If not then what are the factors which will affect the states if this alliance breaks. The alliance would have brought some sort of advantage to the UK and EU nation both. The recommendations should be analysed aft er the detailed study of the topic to present a best possibly applicable conclusion. A POLICY POSITION- UK SHOULDN’T LEAVE EU The votes in the Parliament have emphasised on the point that Britain does not plan to stay a part of the European Union. The current course of action of the representative is showing a trend that Britain will leave the EU by the time the next parliamentarian

Active Listening Paper Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1000 words

Active Listening Paper - Essay Example Active Listening is the most superior listening in which listener strives to pay maximum attention to what is being said and conveyed. Active listening is characterized by a prompt feedback to the speaker on what is perceived or understood of his vocals and actions. Gordon (2002, p.81) states, â€Å"Situations requiring the use of emphatic listening are almost limitless in groups and organizations.† The empathy to the speaker is the basic requirement for active listening. The active listening is a very significant contributor towards a better team work in organizations where communications are a major concern to achieve business objectives. In order to highlight the importance and interplay of various active listening aspects, a fictitious organizational communication scenario is sketched in the following lines. The scenario depicts, evaluates and analyzes a conversational session between the writer, who is a Marketing Manager in a network consultancy firm and listening to Mr. John who is a customer support supervisor. Mr. John is required to brief me on the issues pertaining to some major clients and seeks to have some advice on applicable solution. I have got some previous reservations on Mr. John’s approach and working towards achieving organizational objectives in the field of customer support. The first obstacle to my active listening objective was to overcome my general perception about the speaker and to concentrate objectively on the currents issues being discussed by Mr. John. It was necessary for me to avoid any preoccupations to ensure empathic comprehension of the issues and formulation of workable solutions. In order to make Mr. John comfortable I welcomed him warmly to show my concern and interest in the issues and spared enough time to listen in detail. Secondly, I appreciated Mr. John’s efforts that he

Relationship between French and Industrial Revolutions Essay

Relationship between French and Industrial Revolutions - Essay Example Another characteristic f the revolution is the population growth that it sparked. Following the revolution, the western population increased six times within two decades (Stanley, 24). This revolution saw the creation of factories, the rise of the working class, modernization and the rise of unions and organizations that effectively fought for the rights of the workers. However, the revolution also came with negative impacts on the society. Child labor and deaths, as well as an upsurge of diseases such as cancer are some of the negative impacts. French revolution on the other hand was a period of radical social and political transformations, which had a great impact in France as a country and the whole of the Europe community (Stanley, 20). The monarchial system was eliminated and a new political system was established. With the revolution, the aristocratic and religious privileges that were enjoyed by the ruling class ended, and a system that encompassed the creation of equality of all people was established in its place. The principles of enlightenment and of individual rights were effectively established, eliminating the traditional hierarchy system (Stanley, 48). Hunger and poverty, which was widely spread amongst the population, was a major cause for the unrests that eventually saw the revolution take place. The relationship between the French and the industrial revolution is most notable in the effects both created. It is through both that the reality of modernity in the western world was realized. The common characteristic of these revolutions is that they created new structures in the society, which paved way for modernization and equality (Stanley, 39). The French revolution transformed the country from the aristocratic monarchial leadership to a people led system of government. This way, it created a channel through which the common man could be heard, and through which their needs could be identified. A characteristic relationship between the two rev olutions is that they affected every individuals in the countries they took place. The two revolutions also affected all the aspects of the society, transforming the whole traditional society into modernity. The industrial and the French revolution are credited with sparking modernity in the whole of Europe and America (Stanley, 60). The European middle class was made by the two revolutions, in that the industrial revolution created jobs for the people, which granted them income and wealth. The French revolution on the other hand brought many changes in the political and governance system that opened up opportunities for the people in agriculture as well as in industries that eventually developed. This way, the revolutions served to establish the working class and improve the lifestyle of the people. The two revolutions marked a beginning of a different lifestyle for the people (). Both revolutions are related in the sense that they had a great impact in determining the future of th eir countries and the future generations (Stanley, 55). The present political, social, and economic systems in Europe can be traced back to the French and the industrial revolutions. The current workers and labor organizations, as well as many organizations that fight for human rights in the modern world can effectively trace their roots to the two revolutions. A major relationship between the two revolutions is the economic concepts that the two revolutio

Economic Advantages and Disadvantages of a One Global Currency

Economic Advantages and Disadvantages of a One Global Currency Introduction The recent history of currency exchange rates includes 3 huge changes starting from the end of the XIX to the end of the XX century. Pure gold standard has been the basis for trading between nations during 1879 and 1914 (Abdel-Monem, n.d.). At the beginning of World War I, this standard ceased to exist and in 1920 countries permitted greater exchange rate flexibility (Jereissati, 1999), which however, did not last long and after the end of the World War II the Bretton-Woods system has been implemented. This standard has been created as a result of numerous meetings between the World War II winning states with the final conference taking place at the Hotel in Bretton Woods, New Hampshire. The standard took the name of this last conferences venue (Grabbe, 1996, as cited in Tucker, 2008). In August 15, 1971 Richard Nixon in his speech announced that the price of dollar will be no longer fixed against gold. This has put an end to the Bretton-Woods system and has set-off a new era in international monetary system. The main feature of this new system is that it is neither a pure gold standard nor a pure exchange rate float, but rather a system in between these two extremes (Meese, 1990). This standard exists until today and has been strongly undermined during the latest financial crisis. In this respect, the idea of having a single global currency is widely discussed as an alternative monetary system. This literature review outlines advantages and disadvantages of a single global currency. The Single Global Currency The Concept of a Single Global Currency Single global currency, as one can see from the example of Euro, signifies that countries, where this currency would be implemented, should be the members of a monetary union with one central bank, common currency, a coherent and binding financial policy. Scandinavian Currency Union (SCU), which included Denmark, Norway and Sweden, established a common currency unit, although central banks in each of those countries retained control over monetary policy and did not experience significant loss of independence (Bergman, 1999). The single global currency is a much more complicated issue. History recognizes a lot of monetary unions of different size, both formal and informal. However the most successful example came from the European Union, which is the Economic Monetary Union (EMU). There are also two proposed single currencies, which potentially may come near the Euro. They are the GCC monetary union currency and the Asian Monetary Unit. Economic Advantages of a Single Global Currency The advantages of a global currency are as follows. First of all, single currency will eliminate transaction costs, which are linked to international financial operations. This will affect both: ordinary citizens who plan to spend money abroad and multinational corporations undertaking international transactions. Different currencies create a lot of inconveniences and barriers. Exchanging one currency for another always involves currency exchange fees, as banks, which provide such currency exchanges, require commissions for their services. In the scale of countries or even monetary unions such expenditures on currency exchange fees may reach high amounts. By eliminating the need for currency exchange the monetary unions may save resources (Buiter, 1999, as cited in Bonpasse, 2008). For instance, the European Commission (EC) has estimated that due to a single currency across the European Union 13 to 20 billion of Euro were saved per year (Grauwe, 2007). Moreover the difference between the currencies exchange rates becomes an obstacle for a free flow of trade. As the barrier of different currencies will disappear, the number of international transactions will increase. Bordo and James (2006) said that neighboring countries, which are members of a common monetary union, tend to trade more frequently with each other. In a study conducted by Micco, Stein, and Ordonez (2003) they found out that trade between EU members increased by 8 to 16%, after EMU was created (as cited in Lane, 2006) Currency risks nowadays are one of the major disadvantages of the modern international financial system. Everything, ranged from a natural disaster to terroristic attack, may affect the value of the currency and as a result cause loss. Foreign investors, as well as stock holders, have to hedge their risk, which also demands additional expenditures. Implementation of the single global currency will eliminate the risk of loss, due to currency fluctuations. Moreover Bonpasse (n.d.) points out that the adoption of a single global currency will save 400 billion of US dollars annually in foreign exchange transaction costs, which come from trading 3.8 trillion US dollars every trading day. Currency misalignment is a process when central bank increases or decreases the value of its currency against another for different purposes. The most known cases of currency manipulation are the cases of China and Japan. Both countries artificially undervalued their currencies, which made their exports more competitive. As the value of Yen and Yuan decreases, the prices on Japanese and Chinese products will consequently fall. This has created a great advantage for Japanese and Chinese products in the market. Today the low value of these currencies, which has nothing to do with the real situation, has created huge difficulties for the economies of Europe and USA. Japan and China, based on all criteria related to the IMF definition, have been persistently manipulating their currencies to gain an unfair competitive advantage (Preeg, n.d.). Obviously with a single global currency, currency manipulation by individual countries would be impossible. Moreover there will be no need of such k inds of unfair methods. It is easy to perceive that problems of contemporary monetary system are currency rate fluctuations. As most of the currencies are free and are not fixed to any value, there is a huge possibility for currency speculations. For instance, speculative opportunities of FOREX market may have a great impact on economics of countries and their financial situation. The speculative attack on the Swedish Krona in 1992 is a perfect example. The Central Bank of Sweden had to raise the interest rate of its currency which caused devaluation of the Krona. Receiving income from currency speculations is getting money out of nothing. The next benefit from implementing a single global currency will be the elimination of currency speculations existence. The single global currency will present a different choice for speculators: if they wish to speculate, they will need to choose another commodity, as the money of the people will no longer be for sale (Bonpasse, 2006). Another problem of todays financial system is international reserves or foreign exchange reserves. As the possibility of a currency crash is high, due to currency risks and currency speculations, every country holds assets in various foreign currencies, which are considered as reserve currencies. Mainly it is the US dollar, not so often it is the Euro or the UK pound. However after implementing the single global currency, this hedging method will be unnecessary. As the central bank will abandon the foreign exchange reserves, it will save a considerable amount of money. In 1992 the European Commission estimated that the future Eurozone members might be able to reduce their total international reserves by one-half or $200 billion (Bonapasse, 2008). Disadvantages of a Single Global Currency Turning to disadvantages of a Global Currency, the most negative side of it is that countries will lose the ability to control their financial policy. Today every country is able to determine their monetary policy independently. In order to have an influence on the economy, nowadays central banks of every country through influencing exchange rates and adjusting interest rates, may increase or decrease economic activity. However in case of a single global currency, changes in a local countrys finances, will demand changes in the global scale. So with the Global Currency countries will lose flexibility in their monetary policy. A uniform policy template to provide macroeconomic stability, will constrain a countrys ability to make independent interest rates and exchange rate policy (Bonpasse, as cited in Wenzel, 2007, p17). Another significant disadvantage of having a Global Currency is connected with the difference in economies of different countries. While there are only a few developed states with strong economies, the rest of the countries of the world have rather weak economies, for instance the majority of African countries or some South American countries. In the world with a common currency, the weak economies shall pull down the rest, more well off countries. If one of the members will face a crisis, the others will have to spend their resources in order to stabilize the situation. A perfect example could be the debt crisis, which recently has occurred in Greece. While the EU/IMF bailout package wasnt enough, Germany had to loan about 110 billion Euros in order to save the country from bankruptcy. In addition the crisis had a chance to spread to other countries, as it reduced confidence in the economies of other EU members. Conclusion: Is The Single Global Currency Implementable? Global Currency as a financial system has been first mentioned back in the end of XIX century. The reasons why this system still has not been implemented are rather social and political, than economical. The first obstacle is national identity. Most of the nations consider their currencies as a national symbol, equal to the flag and the anthem. Obviously people will hardly discard their own national symbol, their source of pride. Some people are tempted to view such symbols as they do their flags and national constitutional documents, and the loss of such symbols can be considered as a national loss (Bonpasse, 2008). Just imagine how hard it will be for Americans to abandon dollar and accept a currency with absolutely neutral name and with neutral images and signs. In case of a Global Currency it should be absolutely neutral, as Euro is. Political barriers also should be taken in to account. In the conditions where political tensions between two countries are possible, implementing a single currency is a huge problem. For instance, it is difficult to imagine how USA, Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea and Iran, countries which have experienced significant political tensions, would negotiate in order to accept a single currency. Or it is difficult to say how it is going to work between countries which are in state of war like North and South Korea. In addition, due to political discords, such issues as supply and printing of the Global Currency would be problematic. As an independent central bank is demanded, the first dispute within the countries would be about the location of the central bank. Every member of the global monetary union would try to pull the blanket over. It is hard to believe that after gaining membership to the global monetary union, countries would not start attempting to gain greater influence o n the central bank and hence the monetary policy. Though the process of globalization seems to be unstoppable, we are still far away from being even close to a Global Currency. In my point of view, implementation of the single global currency can be compared to the legends about Eldorado or dreams of Utopia. There is no doubt that Global Currency has more benefits than costs. The loss of control of the monetary policy is a really low price for the other advantages of this idea. Throughout the history mankind tried to give birth to a global government. League of Nations and UN could serve as examples. Esperanto as a worldwide language also has been a great proposal, which could simplify the understanding between nations. But both concepts were not successful up to this time. Unfortunately the single global currency is an idea of such type. Although globalization and the Internet did bring people around the world closer to each other, maybe we are still to different to buy food with the same money. Maybe social and cultural difference s play much bigger role in our life, than we think. USSR made an effort of erasing these differences, but where is the USSR now?

Capital Punishmennt Essay

Merriam-Webster online dictionary (2011) defines capital punishment as punishment by death for a crime. There are many factors that go into the process of capital punishment and it must start with a crime followed by an arrest, trial, conviction, appeals process and ultimately the execution of the individual. Through the many stages of the process there numerous individuals who are affected, including the criminal and their family, the victim and their family, jury, judge, witnesses and administrators or physicians who perform the execution. In this paper I will look at the ethical issues of capital punishment using the following ethical theories: utilitarianism, Kantian ethics, and the rights and justice theory. In each of these theories I will examine how advocates and opponents to capital punishment can use the theories to validate their position on capital punishment. I will conclude my paper with my position on capital punishment using one of the theories I listed above. According to Boatright (2012) the principle of utilitarianism is the basic premise of pleasure over pain. Utilitarianism considers the impact an event and outcome will have on everyone and they use the fifty-percent theory as the tipping point in decision making. If the pleasure of an event has more benefit than the pain then a decision can be made. Utilitarianism only considers the benefits and consequences when taking into account whether the death penalty is ethical and disregards the natural rights or self-worth of a person when deciding if the death penalty is ethical (Bedau, 1980). The pleasure over pain principle in capital punishment must consider the impact it will have on everyone involved and according to Boatright (2012), â€Å"Utilitarianism requires that we calculate utility not only for ourselves but for all person affected by an action.† When deciding whether or not capital punishment is just an individual must look at the benefits and consequences of everyone involved and determine if capital punishment is ethical. I do not think that one person can make this decision as it would require them to think on behalf of individuals or groups who they may have a conflicting interest with. An example of this would be a sibling of a murder victim deciding if the offender should receive the death penalty. Their feelings on the issue would differ from the offender’s family and create a conflict of interest when using the fifty-one percent theory. I will now examine the utilitarian principle of consequentialism and how it relates to the ethical issue of capital punishment. A consequentialist argument uses deterrence as a benefit of how the death penalty can promote their stance (Douglas and Wilkinson, 2008) and executing a murderer would serve as a possible consequence for the killing of another human being. This may serve as a deterrent to future killings but that is not always the case. Out of 238 paroled offenders who committed murder, less than 1% went back to prison for committing another murder (White paper on, 2012). This statistic shows that the death penalty does not serve as a deterrent to future killings and thus the theory of capital punishment serving as a deterrent holds no merit. Examining the ethical issue of capital punishment must also look at a cost-benefit analysis that uses a monetary value rather than the classic utilitarianism principle of pleasure over pain (Boatright, 2012). According to Boatright (2012) an application of a cost-benefit analysis needs to place a value on human life. The issue with using a cost-benefit analysis of capital punishment is that not everyone may value human life the same. A person who commits a murder may not value human life the same as someone who does not kill. The family of a victim may find that the life of the killer has no value to them and in contrast the family of a murderer may value the life of the offender as more valuable to them. The cost of capital punishment also needs to be examined when using a cost-benefit analysis. The total cost per execution was $216 million more than life imprisonment (White paper on, 2012). In addition to the cost to execute an individual in a capital offense case there is the cost of trials, the process of appeals and attorney fees that need to be examined. In California the cost of a death penalty prosecution is up to twenty times more expensive than the cost of a life in prison without parole case (Williams, 2011). Also according to Williams (2012), â€Å"the least expensive death penalty case cost $1.1 million more than the most expensive life without parole case.† The cost of the death penalty is more expensive than a life in prison without parole sentence and twenty offenders could be given a life in prison sentence for the amount that it takes to execute one offender (Williams, 2011). I have come to the conclusion that the utilitarianism principle does not justify capital punishment. The pleasure over pain principle requires us to consider the impact on everyone and it does not require us to ignore our interest but we must place our interest no higher and no lower than anyone else (Boatright 2012). When I looked at the cost-benefit analysis I could not justify the use of capital punishment due to the massive costs that a capital punishment case incurs as opposed to the cost of a life imprisonment case. I will now look at the ethical issues of capital punishment using Kantian Ethics. According to Boatright (2012) the first principle of Kant is universalizability which is to, â€Å"act only on rules that you would be willing to have everyone follow.† The second principle of Kant is respect for persons which indicates one should respect other people and ourselves as human beings (Boatright, 2012). Kant was in favor of capital punishment for the crime of murder and based his view of the death penalty on the theory of retributivism (Potter, 2002). When an individual commits the crime of killing another individual they violate Kant’s first principle and do not follow the rules that everyone is following; namely the right to life which I will cover later in this paper. The killing of an individual also violates the second principle of respect for persons. According to Kania (1999), â€Å"each of us agree not to kill others in exchange for the security that others will not kill us or those dear to us.† Kant subscribes to the term â€Å"isu taloinis† which means the wrong doing is punished by a similar punishment and also believes that the death penalty is the only right way to punish a murderer because the punishment should be the end goal (White paper on, 2012). Kantian Ethics also involves autonomy which means self and law (Boatright, 2012). Autonomy relates to Kant’s principle of respect for persons and a society living autonomously involves creating their own rules and acting freely. This principle is seen in the laws that society has developed to prevent the killing of an innocent person. In the United States it is illegal to commit the act of murder which is different from the killing of a person. The killing of a person may occur during self-defense when an individual fears that their life is in danger. According to Potter (2002) Kant says in a general statement that all murderers should be executed and death is the punishment that must be carried out on the wrongdoer. Violating the principle of universalizability, respect for persons and autonomy all justify the use of capital punishment in Kant’s view. The third ethical theory I will look at is Rights and Justice. I will first examine the rights theory and how it relates to the ethical issue of capital punishment. Rights are part of many of the ethical issues in society and the term rights can be used in many different ways (Boatright, 2012). According to Bedau (2012), a human being has the right to life simply by being born and it is a violation of rights to murder another person. The violation of the right to life does not mean that we are authorized to violate another’s right to life. The judges and juries take another person’s life in their hands during a capital punishment case and by sentencing an offender to execution violates their right to life. Bedau (2012) states, â€Å"Even if a person has committed murder and has therewith intentionally violated another’s right to life, the criminal still has his or her own right to life.† The legal rights are in force to protect us from having our right of life taken away, and if our right is violated we do not have the rights to take someone else’s right to life. In contrast to the paragraph above John Locke argued that a person’s right to life can be forfeited if a person violates the right of life of another person. Locke goes onto say that the execution of a murderer does not violate their right to life (Bedau, 2012). Based on this argument Locke would be an advocate of the death penalty. Since the offender forfeited their right to life they no longer have their own right of life. Locke further states that a person forfeits their right to life when they commit a criminal act that deserves death (Bedau, 2012). The ethical issue of capital punishment and the justice theory coincide using the retributive justice theory. Justice involves the righting of wrongs and retributive justice involves the punishment of wrongdoers (Boatright, 2012). The justice retribution theory indicates that a criminal must and deserve to be punished and that the punishment must fit the crime (Bedau, 2012). The punishment of the crime may be different in each state or country as not all states and countries have the right to sentence an offender to the death penalty. The issue with the theory that the punishment must fit the crime is that each person may have a different viewpoint on how to punish the same crime. For the act of murder one could argue for the death penalty while another person may argue that death penalty is unethical based on their ethics. This leads to some confusion in the retribution theory as each person may have their own idea of proper punishment and retribution. According to Roberts-Cady (2010), â€Å"A retributivist would argue for the death penalty based on the claim that death is what a murderer deserves.† The retribution theory also values that a punishment should be exactly the same as the crime committed which is known as the eye for an eye principle (Roberts-Cady, 2010). Using the eye for an eye principle, a murderer would be subject to the same act they committed and subject to death themselves. It does not involve a judge or jury sentencing them to the death penalty and I interpret it as an automatic sentence for the murderer. The eye for an eye principle supports that murderers ought to be put to death (Bedau, 2012). An advocate of the death penalty using the retribution theory would find that capital punishment is just in cases involving murder. The issue with the above reasoning is that it is sometimes not possible to apply the eye for an eye principle in every situation. It would not be possible to punish an individual or group of individuals who commit mass murder that has more victims than offenders. An example of this would be the execution of the hijackers who flew planes into the World Trade Center killing thousands of individuals. The number of victims of this act far outweighs the number of hijackers that were aboard the planes. According to Bedau (2012) the execution of a mass murderer is morally inadequate as retribution cannot be served upon the offender given their inhumane and heinous acts. Another counter-argument for the eye for an eye principle is the equivalent to the crime is not always morally acceptable (Roberts-Cady, 2010). For example if a person were to be sexually assaulted, the retribution to the offender would entail being sexually assaulted in return. This would force the victim to decide if their offender should be subject to the same offense they endured and the victim may not be willing to make that decision and prefer to leave the punishment up to the justice system. The legal system in the United States takes this decision off of the victim and places it on a judge and jury. Although the victim will have to testify and recount the crime they would not deciding the fate of the offender. According to Robert-Cady (2010), â€Å"For certain heinous crimes, either the punishment would be roughly equivalent and immoral, or it would not be roughly equivalent.† The justice and rights theory seeks justice for those whose rights are violated but it is not applicable in all situations. If we are looking at capital punishment strictly from a rights perspective the right to life is violated when a person is murdered but what right do we have to take someone else’s right to life? Retribution and justice involve the righting of a wrong and uses the eye for an eye principle which is not always applicable to the crime committed. Using the rights and justice theory I came to the position that capital punishment is not ethical as I do not believe that I have the ethical grounds to take someone else’s right to life. The retribution theory is not clear enough for as I believe life in prison without parole would be just as effective as the death penalty. In this paper I have examined how utilitarian, Kantian ethics, and the rights and justice theory apply to the issue of capital punishment. I presented both an advocate and opponent view to the death penalty and whether capital punishment is ethically just according to each theory. Prior to researching this topic I considered myself as an advocate of capital punishment as I felt it was the most effective way to serve as a deterrent to murder and also a just punishment. I also consider myself a subscriber to the utilitarianism theory and choose to look at the big picture of an issue and how it affects everyone. I also look at situations using the cost-benefit analysis which allows me to make an informed decision. After researching the ethical issue of capital punishment and applying the information to my beliefs I realized that my stance on the death penalty conflicted with my utilitarianism view. In the utilitarianism section of the paper I came to the conclusion that capital punishment was not ethical. I also presented the cost-benefit analysis of capital punishment and the cost of an individual is much more expensive than sentencing a person to life in prison without parole. I have come to the conclusion that based on my utilitarianism view that capital punishment is not ethical. References (2012). White paper on ethical issues concerning capital punishment. Ferney-Voltaire, France: World Medical Journal. Bedau, H. A. (1980). Capital punishment. Matters of life and death, 1033-66. Boatright, J. R. (2012). Ethics and the conduct of business. (7 ed.). Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Pearson Education Inc. Capital Punishment. 2011. In Merriam-Webster.com. Retrieved May 8, 2011, from http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/capitalpunishment House, R. (2009). The death penalty and the Principle of Goodness. International Journal Of Human Rights, 13(5), 680-688. Kania, R. E. (1999). The Ethics of the Death Penalty. Justice Professional, 12(2), 145. Potter, N. T. (2002). Kant and capital punishment today. The Journal of Value Inquiry, 36(2), 267-282. Roberts†Cady, S. (2010). Against Retributive Justifications of the Death Penalty. Journal of Social Philosophy, 41(2), 185-193. Wilkinson, D. J., & Douglas, T. (2008). Consequentialism and the death penalty. The American Journal of Bioethics, 8(10), 56-58. Williams, C. J. (2011, June 20). Death Penalty Cost California $184 Million a Year, Study Says. Los Angeles Times. Retrieved from http://articles.latimes.com