How Americans Were Seduced By Annexation Of Hawaii History Essay

How Americans Were Seduced By Annexation Of Hawaii History Essay In the title of this paper, I am making an overt reference to a recent publication of Dr. Andrew J. Bacevich, retired US Army colonel and professor of History and International Relations at Boston University. In this title, Bacevich provided a contemporary analysis of the roots of militarism in American society, and the over reliance that America places of its military capabilities when it comes to world affairs. It may seem odd at first, but Americas eponymous militarism and its current experiences in the current Global War on Terror have direct parallels with the US involvement in the 1893 overthrow of the Hawaiian Kingdom. The US involvement in the forcible removal of the Kingdoms sovereignty has been described as Americas first experience with regime change.  [2]  In this paper, I will be documenting how Hawaii was in fact a sovereign nation within the family of nations; a status which changed with the US militarys intervention in the overthrow of the existing government in 1893. I will be framing this military intervention in the context of international laws and the United States own codes on war. In addition, the annexation of the strategically important Hawaii in the context of the impending Spanish American war will be discussed, as it has clear corollaries with the current US oil wars. (Just like the US-led invasion of Iraq in 2003, Americas participation in the overthrow of Haw aiis sovereignty in 1893 brings up questions of legality regarding international law.) To begin the analysis it is useful to look at the two frames of looking at Hawaii as an entity today: Hawaii as the 50th State In researching this paper, I have gained a new understanding in the history of the Hawaiian Islands, which is very different from the standard narrative which is generally taught. In fact, what is clear is that there are now two distinct narratives that in play when it comes to conceptualizing Hawaii. The first is that Hawaii is the 50th state of the United States of America, having won statehood in 1959. It is an idyllic land of beaches, tiki bars and a haven for surfing and brown girls in hulu skirts. One of the main texts consulted in this research was the Russs The Hawaiian Revolution. This monograph was published in 1959, the year that Hawaii became a US state. This is the authors preface as it succinctly describes how America frames its conception of Hawaii: No commercial company would touch this book because popular appeal is lacking in the pages. It is simply not the kind of book which would ever become a bestseller. Upon submitting a preliminary draft, at his request, to a reader of a New York publishing house, I received the following comment: What the commercial market wants on Hawaii is romance. I cannot quite see how you can appropriately put out this book with a jacket showing a scantily clad brownish maiden and a blurb assuring the reader that he or she might get some pointers as to how sin thrives in Hawaii. And that is what the public wants.    [An interesting aside to this is that this institution has one copy of this book, which was acquired in 1977 and in the intervening 33 years, I am the forth individual to check this item from the library.] Hawaii as a sovereign nation under US occupation In contrast to this way of looking at Hawaii, is to view Hawaii as a sovereign nation which is not a part of the United States and instead has been under illegal occupation since 1893. This is certainly not the way that Hawaii is portrayed in mainstream education and media, but does make sense of and explains the growing Hawaiian sovereignty movement. It is testament to the power and hegemony of the United States that what is in reality a colonial possession is perceived to have ceded its powers voluntarily and become a US state. To understand this narrative of Hawaii is to understand neo-colonialism at work. The United States clearly had a renewed vigour of Manifest Destiny in the late 1800s. At this time there was a push westwards to the Pacific coast, in search of cheaper labor, land and raw materials. Native people impeding this were fought, through the Indian wars all the west to the western coast. At this time there was great interest in the vast market of China and the Orient. Japan was a growing imperial power. The US was gravely concerned with European colonial powers and the nascent Japanese colonial powers influence on China, as this was in large part an untapped market. Hawaii as a military outpost Today Hawaii is one of the most militarized places on earth. It has tens of thousands of troops and more than 150 military installations on the island. More than a third of the land is controlled by the US military. It had become a popular retirement location for military personnel, and real estate prices are several times the national average. It is home to The  United States Pacific Command  (USPACOM), which has responsibility for over half of the worlds surface. The idea of the American military base is a fundamentally symbol of power for the US. A recent count of US military installations across the globe places the number of foreign bases at over 700  [3]  . A US presence in Germany or the detention facilities at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba are facts of the modern world. In his recent critique of the modern American empire, Chalmers Johnson, seeing these bases as a symbol of empire, draws parallels between the current spread of mid- and large-sized US military bases with those of the British Empire and the Roman Empire at the heights of their powers.  [4]  Given these parallels, it is evident why the label of empire has been applied to the American experience. This notion of empire changed the image of America from within and to the outside world, with the 1898 annexation of Hawaii was an important first step in the creation of this new empire. Fundamental to the US domination of Asia was to have a military outpost far out in the Pacific. In John Hustons WWII documentary Report from the Aleutians he shows a map that illustrates how the Aleutian Islands and the Hawaiian islands were the two strategic outposts from which the Pacific coast of the United States was protected.  [5]  In essence the strategy was to establish naval superiority by bringing the war to them, and have these outposts operating as vanguards against attack. Ernest May emphasizes the shift in Americas foreign policy when it came to the Hawaii question by comparing views expressed about Hawaii with those expressed twenty-odd years earlier about the Dominican republic: As of 1870 they had still seen the United States as an experiment: the only consequential nation without a monarch and a privileged aristocracy, and the only one that attempted to reconcile national and local interests by means of a federal system.  [6]   Central to the debates and discourse that occurred around the 1890s was the Monroe Doctrine from several decades earlier. By the 1890s The Monroe Doctrine of 1823 seemed to offer justification for actions taken involving Hawaii, Cuba, The Philippines, China and Central and South America. Ultimately, the Spanish-American war of 1898 was an important focal point that sharpened attitudes towards how America should approach her role within the wider world. To understand this, it is useful to revisit the Monroe Doctrine of over half a century earlier and to explain why it became so important at the close of the century.   The Monroe Doctrine was declared in a few paragraphs of President James Monroes seventh annual message to Congress on December 2, 1823. Monroe warned European countries not to interfere in the Western Hemisphere, stating that the American continents are henceforth not to be considered as subjects for future colonization by any European powers.  [7]  This made clear to the rest of the world that any such colonization would amount to an act of aggression and would be responded to with force.    The Monroe Doctrine thus became the foundation of future U.S. foreign policy, and it set out to separate the New World from the Old World. Although this Doctrine met with tacit approval from Great Britain, it was not initially taken as seriously as it would be later in the century due to the image at the time of Americas week naval power. Alongside the resurgent interest in the Monroe Doctrine, there also was a movement towards a new Manifest Destiny a phrase normally ascribed to an earlier period of westward territorial expansion. American historian and philosopher John Fiske wrote an influential article in 1885, published in Harpers magazine entitled A New Manifest Destiny. Referring to the frontier against barbarism Fiskes piece which advocated Christianizing and civilizing the barbarians was rapturously received by audiences at the time, on the lecture circuit.  [8]   It is interesting to contrast Fiskes optimistic and expansionist world-view with the prevailing traditionalist American sentiment of isolationism. A prime example of this was in the US restrained response to The Chilean Controversy of 1891. In late 1891 two US sailors on shore leave from the cruiser USS Baltimore in the Chilean port of Valparaà ­so were killed by rebels (who later would form the new post revolution government.) Despite registering his indignation at the attack, President Harrison remained non-confrontational. Responding to this diplomatic incident he states in an internal memo: It has been my desire in every way to cultivate friendly and intimate relationships with all the Governments of this hemisphere. We do not covet their territory.  [9]   President McKinleys future Secretary of State John Sherman in 95 echoed these sentiments when he wrote that he hopes that our people will be content with internal growth, and avoid the complications of foreign acquisitions.  [10]  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚   It is in the context of the above tensions between the expansionist and traditionalist mindsets that Hawaii and its intertwinement with the United States came about. The background to the US involvement in Hawaii began with trade treaties cementing a relationship going back a half century based on missionaries and whaling fleets  [11]  . In return for the United States permitting Hawaiian sugar to enter the American market freely, the Hawaiian government agreed not to lease or dispose of any of its territory to any other power. It also lead to the granting to the US of a naval base at Pearl Harbor. Interestingly the Treaty explicitly acknowledged Hawaii as a sovereign state. Overall, however, the effect of this treaty was to dilute the countrys independence and make her dependent on the United States.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚   At this point Hawaii was a sovereign independent state the Hawaiian Kingdom and was governed under a single ruler (King David KalÄ kaua.) It had international recognition and had entered into treaties and conventions with the nations of Austria, Belgium, Bremen (presently Germany), Denmark, France, Germany, Hamburg (presently Germany), Italy, Hong Kong (former colony of England), Japan, Netherlands, New South Wales (former colony of England), Portugal, Russia, Samoa, the Swiss Confederation, Sweden, Norway, Tahiti (colony of France), United Kingdom, and the United States of America.  [12]  In 1887, the King was forced to promulgate a new constitution which would drastically reduce his powers and transfer the balance of power to the American, European and Hawaiian elite on the islands. It changed the voting rights of the population and disenfranchised Asians from voting. This came to be known as the Bayonet Constitution as a result of the King being under threat of being deposed by the armed militia and politicians representing the elite what came to be known as the Reform Party. This Party favored annexation with the United States. In the end this led to the permanent cession of Pearl Harbor and its surrounds to the United States. This experience of having a naval military installation in a foreign territory or host country was to be the blueprint for the future expansion of the American Empire. This uneasy alliance continued until 1893 when Queen LiliÊ »uokalani, sister of the King ascended to the throne and went about drafting a new constitution which would restore the monarchys powers. As a reaction to this, elite mostly American residents on the island created a Committee of Safety which had for its purpose the removal of the Queen, and ultimately to cede to the United States through annexation. A provisional government was assembled and a coup dà ©tat took place aided in large part by the presence in Hawaii of a detachment of uniformed US marines who came aboard from their cruiser, the USS Boston which was in Honolulu Harbor at the time. The presence of these armed US soldiered who were there ostensible in a neutral capacity to protect US citizens in Hawaii was sufficiently intimidating for the Queen to surrender, leading to the abolition of the monarchy. What is particularly interesting about this whole episode and ensuing controversy is that it marked a period of introspection and conspicuous concern for the image that America was projecting to the world. President Harrison had favored annexation but when President Cleveland assumed office again in 1993 for his second term (the first term being directly before Harrison) he strongly opposed annexation on moral grounds. In a message to Congress dated December 18, 1893 he states that all things relating to the transaction (the treaty of annexation of Hawaii) should be clear and free from suspicion. He conceded in the same message that the Provisional Government (of Hawaii) owes its existence to an armed invasion by the United States. The tone of this message makes it clear that President Cleveland thought the annexation of the islands to be unconscionable and would impugn the American people and the image of the country internationally.  [13]  In fact President Cleveland ordered an investigation into the overthrow by former Congressman James Henderson Blount.   It was concluded by Blount in 1893 that the United States diplomatic and military representatives had abused their authority and were responsible for the change in government. However, a U.S. Congressional investigation under Senator John Tyler Morgan into the overthrow, one year later cleared the US military of wrongdoing.  [14]  At this point Cleveland changed his position, recognizing the Provisional Government and the nascent Republic of Hawaii. The United States had failed to annex the Hawaiian Islands by treaty. The Hawaiian question remained, and continued to be debated. It could be said that at this point America had to position itself internationally, wrestling with ideas between its traditional moral repugnance at the idea of colonial interference and a growing notion that it should take all outlying territory necessary to (its) own defense.  [15]  That last quotation is attributed to the very influential Henry Cabot Lodge speaking to the US Senate in 1895. In this speech he forewarned of Japanese encroachment of the islands which would cause a threat to the United States.  [16]   Lorrin A. Thurston, leader of the 1893 coup, further pushed the cause for annexation by emphasizing the Japanese threat. He circulated a pamphlet  [17]  in 1897 warning of Japanese immigration to Hawaii and the threat that the huge numbers of arrivals to the islands would pose.   Eventually they would be dominant in numbers and being an energetic, ambition, warlike and progressive people would pose a serious threat. Walter LaFeber summed up the years leading up to this writing:   Ã‚   Jingoistic congressmen, expansionist-minded naval officers, and militant-minded newspaper editors frequently attempted to conjure up the specter of British, Japanese, or even Russian control of these islands.  [18]   The following year in 1898 the new President McKinley was in favor of a Treaty of Annexation, but this failed in the Senate. A congressional joint resolution was obtained this year, and on the authority of this joint resolution Hawaii was annexed, becoming a US territory officially in 1900. This was an important turning point, as effectively this was the first instance of the new American Imperialism. It is also important in that the basis for the annexation was not a treaty but rather a joint resolution (even a treaty of cession by the self-imposed government officials of the Bayonet Constitution would be suspect.) To compare this with today, the United States had as much right to annex Hawaii in 1898 as it has today to annex Iraq or Afghanistan. This is a fundamental point at the heart of the issue the overthrow was illegal under international law. But in the context of the Islands use as an outpost during the 1898 Spanish American war, that is what happened. In his doctoral dissertation on the issue, Dr. Keanu Sai writes Congress could no more annex the Hawaiian Islands in 1898 as a matter of military necessity during the Spanish American war than it could annex Afghanistan today as a matter of military necessity during the American war on terrorism.  [19]  Dr. Sai, who himself served as a US Army officer, gave an example of how Americas involvement in the Hawaiian overthrow would be perceived now. He explained how if he landed in South Korea as a US Army officer without a status of forces agreement or consent by that government, it would be an act of war.  [20]  When the US Marines came ashore in 1898 wielding Gatling guns and Howitzers to protect the insurgents, this was thus an act of war. Military occupation is currently regulated by the Hague and Geneva Conventions, and US Army Field Manual 27-10. Section 358 of this manual states: Occupation Does Not Transfer Sovereignty: Being an incident of war, military occupation confers upon the invading force the means of exercising control for the period of occupation. It does not transfer the sovereignty to the occupant, but simply the authority or power to exercise some of the rights of sovereignty. The exercise of these rights results from the established power of the occupant and from the necessity of maintaining law and order, indispensable both to the inhabitants and to the occupying force. Section 369 of the same field manual entitled Local Law and New Legislation states that the penal laws of the occupied territory shall remain in force. It is for this reason that in the current War on Terror US lieutenants can be seen to be acting in temporarily municipal capacities as Afghani town mayors etc. Clearly neither of the above regulations was observed by the US in Hawaii. The political crisis of the Spanish American war provided the motive and the opportunity to annex Hawaii. From this point onward the military buildup in Hawaii took off in earnest. To keep the war outside the continental US and to protect shipping posts, a large navy was to be created with naval outposts at Hawaii, Guam, Subic Bay and Pago Pago in Samoa. By attaining Hawaii unlawfully, the US has demonstrated that military, economic and political motives came first. Hawaii did indeed continue to prove to be the strategically valuable military outpost that it was presented as in the 1890s. At no time more so than during WWII. The war was fundamentally a global war between different colonial powers about who gets to control what. After the war ended, the United Nations was set up and charged with tackling the question of colonialism itself. The 1950s saw a wave of colonialist movements and clearly the US began to see Hawaii as being in danger of falling outside of the US sphere of influence. Statehood was voted upon in 1959 and Hawaiis ties to the US were formalized. At this time the minority of the population were Hawaiians whose sovereignty had been taken away, and the vote was passed by the very people who benefited from the illegal regime change. These people were the settlers from the US, the Asian laborers they had brought to the Islands and US military personnel stationed and living there. Clearly the interests of the native Hawaiians was placed at the forefront in this vote for statehood (a concept the UN refers to as a duty of sacred trust.) The ballot for statehood gave the whole experience the veneer of democracy. Article Six  of the United States Constitution  makes treaties made by the US a part of the supreme law of the land, the constitution. As a signatory to the United Nations and by acting in contravention of its codes, the US was thereby violating both international and domestic (constitutional) law, in order to further its military and strategic aims. In his (of the time) groundbreaking work The Tragedy of American Diplomacy, William Appleman Williams shoes how America has used informal empire to influence and shape weaker states into an American political and economic mold. At the time of publication, Appleman Williams in his conclusion chapter references the then ongoing Vietnam war and he draws parallels with this and the way the United States acted in the past (Hawaii and the expansionism era of the 1890s.) It is interesting to now be able to draw parallels with the Bush Doctrine as evidenced in the Global War on Terror. Williams comments on the Open Door policy for foreign expansionism which helped America out of the slump of 1893 (in essence, the scramble for China.) This foreign policy advanced by U.S. Secretary of State John Hay allowed imperial powers to equally access the Chinese market, without in fact colonizing it. (It was a great fear of the U.S. that China would be colonized thereby threatening U.S. commercial interests.)   He provided a revisionist interpretation of the debates occurring in the 1890s: at the time it was imperialist vs. anti-imperialist Williams shifts this analysis to colonialist vs. anti-colonialist. This analysis provides us with further proof that the American experiment differed in substantial ways from the colonial empires of the Old World. His analysis also questions the then pervading narrative of Americas altruistic exceptionalism as being the primary driver in entering into foreign wars. Again, parallels can be drawn between more recent US Oil wars. In an inte resting contemporary development on the Hawaii situation, President Clinton in 1993 (100 years after the overthrow) signed a congressional joint resolution into law, known as the Apology Resolution. It acknowledges that the overthrow of the Kingdom of Hawaii occurred with the active participation of agents and citizens of the United States and further acknowledges that the Native Hawaiian people never directly relinquished to the United States their claims to their inherent sovereignty as a people over their national lands, either through the Kingdom of Hawaii or through a plebiscite or referendum  [21]   To conclude, it is evident that a marked shift in occurred in the American foreign policy and militarism in the 1890s, culminating in the Spanish-American war. Americas approach to the Hawaii situation and the ultimate annexation of the islands was a turning point, and was clearly the first real evidence of the new American empire. I have reviewed debates and accounts from the time and later, influential revisionist writers such as Appleman Williams who makes comparisons to the then current Vietnam situation. I have reviewed and discussed recent literature from critics of current U.S. wars and drawn comparisons between Hawaii in 1898 and current conflicts over 100 years later. The conclusion is that although the symbol or form of empire is different it is still there.

Essay --

Fate plays an important role in Romeo and Juliet. Who thought this four letter word would play such a big part in this play? In this play we see that the characters believe fate is what rules their lives, and that it is their reality. Their lives lie in the hands of fate. It always brings trouble, especially between the Capulet and Montague families. The fates of both Romeo and Juliet were predetermined in the prologue when it said â€Å"a pair of star crossed lovers take their life.†(Prologue) As their love for each other progresses, so does the ominous signs of death that show up. Characters start having premonitions and dreams of their unhappy ending. Even after the omens and signs, the lovers loved each other so deeply that they did not care about them as they just easily dismissed them. We as the audience know that Romeo and Juliet will die in the end, and their fate is shown and unraveled throughout the plot. Because as the audience we know the fate of Romeo and Juliet from the beginning, we are always hoping that they will take different paths of life. However, both their fates a...

Vengeance of the Gods :: essays research papers

What is an epic? An epic is an extended narrative poem recounting actions, travels, adventures, and heroic episodes and is written in a high style. The Odyssey, by Homer, is definitely one of the greatest classic epics known to man. This tale contains numerous epic elements such as in media res or â€Å"in the middle of things† to grab the reader’s attention and make the reader keep reading to get the full story. Throughout the story, Homer included the epic element of divine intervention where the gods play a role in the outcome of actions of mortals. The theme of hospitality to strangers is also present in this celebrated epic. The Odyssey is worthy of being an epic because of these three conventions.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Homer uses the epic element in media res to pull the reader in by starting in the middle of the story. The reader is then filled in by flashbacks or the main character re-telling his tale. By using this convention, Homer keeps the reader curious and interested and makes the reader keep reading until he or she finishes understanding the whole plot. In The Odyssey, the reader does not know half of Odysseus’ journey until he enlightens Alkinoos and Arà ªte as to what events took place before he was washed ashore on Kalypso’s Island. The reader always expects for the story to go directly to Odysseus, but instead the story follows the gods. Homer used in media res to show respect to the gods by starting the story â€Å"In the bright hall of Zeus†¦Ã¢â‚¬  (I. 42). The author depicts conservation between Zeus and Athena about the fate of Odysseus to show that the gods always come first even before the main character. Homer uses the curiosity of the r eader to his advantage by starting out Odysseus’ long journey home in media res.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Divine intervention is another major component of this epic. At the beginning, Homer placed the role of the gods to determine the fate of Odysseus. â€Å"With this Athena left him/ as a bird rustles upward, off and gone. / But as she went she put new spirit in him, / a new dream of his father†¦Ã¢â‚¬  (I. 368-371). Without the involvement of the grey-eyed goddess Athena, Telemakhos would never have gain the courage to journey out into the world to find the fate of his father. Throughout the epic, Athena appears on earth disguised as everything from a little girl to Odysseus’s old friend Mentor to spin Odysseus’s long journey home.

RIP Bradley Nowell :: essays research papers

-T hose of you who were fortunate enough to meet Bradley Nowell, saw a man who liked to smile and sing. He did these two things with the greatest of ease. The man we knew liked to pick up a guitar, not needles, but on the 25th of May in 1996, many of us were shocked by the news of his tragic death. Just seven days earlier, he married the beautiful Troy Dendekker. Things were lookin absolutely bright for him. It was rumored that he even woke up extra early on the morning of his death to walk his dog on the beach because he felt just great to be living. Hours later after he woke up, he was found dead from a heroin overdose in his San Francisco motel room. W hat went wrong I thought to myself? I remember hearing the news of his death on a local radio station. I've been a Sublime fan since my senior year of high school. The single "Date Rape" made the Chicago airwaves and I was hooked. I did a little research and I discovered that Bradley had been in and out of rehabilitation centers since 1992. Many people that I've talked to about Bradley's death really didn't seem to care. Being a huge Sublime fan, I was angered by their ignorance. Most of the time I heard people say that it was Bradley's fault for taking the drug in the first place, but I came to realize that it really wasn't his fault. Troy Nowell says in the VH1 documentary on Bradley that obviously the drug was "bigger than both of us (Bradley and Troy)". She said he hated what he was doing, and tried to stop numerous times, but the world is ignorant to the fact that this drug, heroin, is extremely physically addictive. Bud Gaugh, the drummer of Sublime, said he used to hug, sweat, and cry with Bradley during his fight with heroin. If it were his choice, Bradley would've stopped using it, but heroin took a hold of his nerves and his entire body. W e need to remember the Bradley who gave us three absolutely spectacular albums and a voice that stopped the world, not the one who stuck needles in his arm. There is not a day that goes by that I don't think about him a good twelve hours during the day.

Edward Snowden Essay

On June 6, 2013 The Guardian newspaper printed a story alleging that the National Security Agency (NSA) was collecting telephone records of millions of Verizon customers in a top secret government sanctioned program. This would be just the first glimpse at the many disturbing actions revealed by a man named Edward Snowden, a former Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) employee and NSA contractor who used his computer prowess and security clearance to collect information about how the United States government has been monitoring its own citizens. Mr. Snowden’s actions have prompted the government to file criminal charges against him including theft of government property and espionage. This situation raises serious questions about the legality and ethicality of government surveillance programs as well as security of personal information. There has always been a debate over the trade-off between privacy and security, and this is a perfect example of that discussion. This is an issue that affects anyone who utilizes the technological advancements of today, regardless of the criminality (or lack thereof) of their actions. To better understand this issue we must first take a look at the laws that govern surveillance and the laws that protects our individual freedom from unwarranted surveillance. Two of the most important documents that focus on these issues are the Fourth Amendment to the US Constitution, which protects Americans against unwarranted surveillance, and the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, which was instituted in 1986 as an update to the law governing government wiretapping programs. Since the issue at hand regards government surveillance in general and the Fourth Amendment was written to protect Americans from this act, it is worth quoting in full: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to  be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. According to Jackson Lears (2013), the Board of Governors Professor of History at Rutgers University and Editor in Chief of the Raritan Quarterly Review, this Amendment was â€Å"written by men who had rejected imperial power and were determined to prevent its reassertion in their new nation†¦Nothing could more flagrantly violate those requirements than the NSA dragnet† (p. 4). Although our Constitution was written almost 230 years ago, and the men who wrote this document could not have possibly foreseen the technological advancements that would be made in that time (i.e. the telephone, nuclear weapons or the Internet), they were witness to the abuse of government power and tried to institute broad principles to mitigate the possibility of their new government becoming corrupt in that way. The problem our country faces, however, is that in order to regulate this type of behavior it must first be known, which until Edward Snowden appeared had only been considered speculative, and then addressed (Richards, 2013, p. 1934). The government has made attempts, however feeble, at implementing additional laws to prevent this type of abuse of power in the past, but has not kept up with the times when it comes to updating these safeguards. The Supreme Court ruled in 1928 that warrantless wiretapping was not illegal, but that ruling was overturned in 1967 and it was not until 1968 that Congress passed legislation governing wiretapping. In the same fashion, the Electronic Communications Privacy Act was passed in 1986 as an amendment to the Wiretap Act, but has not been updated in the nearly 30 years since it was enacted (Freiwald & Mà ©tille, 2013, p. 1291). The only two times Congress has clarified what may or not be done in conjunction with the Electronic Communications Privacy Act was in 1994 with the passing of the Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act and the Patriot Act (passed in 2001 only 6 weeks after the attacks on September 11), which both â€Å"further eased the restrictions on law enforcement surveillance† (Freiwald & Mà ©tille, 2013, p. 1292) and â€Å"ensured[d] that providers of telecommunications services maintained the accessibility of their systems to wiretapping (Freiwald & Mà ©tille, 2013, p. 1293). Friewald and Mà ©tille (2013) also explain that â€Å"surveillance that proceeds outside the bounds of the ECPA (and related statutes), either by virtue of not being historically covered, or by  virtue of being too new to be included, can proceed without any judicial review, so long as a court has not yet held that the Fourth Amendment requires regulation (p. 1295-1296). The question we must ask is whether or not this type of surveillance is necessarily dangerous or if it is necessary to protect our country and national security. According to Neil Richards (2013), â€Å"First, surveillance is harmful because it can chill the exercise of our civil liberties†¦Second, we must recognize that secret surveillance is illegitimate and prohibit the creation of any domestic-surveillance programs whose existence is secret†¦Third, we should recognize that total surveillance is illegitimate and reject the idea that it is acceptable for the government to record all Internet activity without authorization† (p. 1935-1936). The first idea that Richards raises deal with our civil liberties such as freedom of speech. When people are constantly under the fear of government surveillance, they may be less likely to speak their mind when they disagree with public policy because they may fear retaliation or retribution for their dissent. The second point of secret surveillance deals with the idea of accountability for those who are performing the surveillance. If a blank check is written by Congress for surveillance with no oversight as to what surveillance is being performed, then there can be no guarantee that the people performing the surveillance are not violating our personal privacy. If the government wants it’s people to trust them, then they should be comfortable with the idea of â€Å"trust but verify†. Finally, the idea of total surveillance is the most concrete example of the violation of the Fourth Amendment which requires probably cause as a basis for any intrusive action by the government. I am not against the idea of surveillance, especially in the dangerous world we live in, but at the same time we must find a balance and understand our limits. In order to preserve our individual freedoms we must be willing to accept a certain level of insecurity and a certain level of personal responsibility. The level of personal responsibility we must accept is to be willing, and able, to defend ourselves without relying on the government to do it for us all the time. One example of this is the attacks of  September 11, 2001 where 4 planes were hijacked and used as weapons. Out of these 4 planes, only the passengers of one, United flight 93, were willing to stand up for themselves against the hijackers. If the hijackers knew that the passengers on each and every plane would have acted with the bravery and heroism of those on the United flight, I doubt they would have hijacked any of them. As far as accepting a certain level of insecurity goes, that is just a part of life; there is no way we can prevent every horrible thing from happening. I understand the human desire to prevent bad things from happening, but what cost are we willing to pay for it? If we want to prevent car accidents that occur from deer running into the road, does that mean we should kill all the deer? In the words of Benjamin Franklin, one of our Founding Fathers and signatories of our Constitution, â€Å"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.† References Lears, J. (2013). EDITOR’S NOTE. Raritan, 33(1), 1-6. Retrieved from EBSCOhost. Richards, N. M. (2013). THE DANGERS OF SURVEILLANCE. Harvard Law Review, 126(7), 1934-1965. Retrieved from EBSCOhost. Freiwald, S., & Mà ©tille, S. (2013). REFORMING SURVEILLANCE LAW: THE SWISS MODEL. Berkeley Technology Law Journal, 28(2), 1261-1332. Retrieved from EBSCOhost.

Why Do People Use Drugs?

PSY215: DRUGS AND DEPENDENCY ESSAY ONE WHY DO PEOPLE USE DRUGS? LACHLAN SLOAN 30790798 Throughout history, people have used different kinds of drugs to alter the way they feel or experience consciousness. Ritualistic use of drugs has been commonly practiced by various cultures such as the mushroom induced trance state utilised by Native American Indians to commune with the Great Spirit. Pacific Islanders drink Kava as a means of connecting with the supernatural, healing illness and welcoming guests to the community.Whilst Indians referred to being consciously high as the state of ‘Shiva’ and associated this process with the worship of one of their prime deities, Shiva. Over time the ritualistic use of drugs has integrated as a part of modern society which can be observed in celebrations such as weddings and birthdays where alcohol is commonly consumed. As there is such a vast range of drugs and influences available with many established uses and categorisations the proce ss of determining why people use drugs becomes intricate very rapidly.Norman E Zinberg developed a theory on drug use which is a widely accepted public health model. The basis of this theory argues that it is not possible to understand drug use, the effects or the outcomes of the drug experience unless you take into account the interrelationship of factors between: the drug, the environment and the individual (Zinberg, 1986). For the purpose of this analysis various aspects of influence have been categorised based on Zinberg’s theory to coherently convey why people use drugs.The categorizations are as follows: Individual (cognition, genetics, and physical/psychological state), drug (perceived functions of drug use in society/specific purpose for using a particular substance, drug related expectancies and compulsive use) and environment (social/contextual level). Boys et al (2001) recorded among a study of 364 participants that had used cannabis over the past year that, the tw o most popular reasons for using the drug were to ‘just get really stoned or intoxicated’ (90. 7%) and ‘help you to relax’ (96. 8%). People using drugs often state that they use them to feel ‘good’.What makes these people feel ‘good’ is the way in which the chemicals in these drugs influence cognition. This state of feeling ‘good’ and or being high is attained because most drugs act on the limbic system in the brain, referred to as the ‘pleasure centre’. The presynaptic terminal releases the neurotransmitters Dopamine, Noradrenaline and Serotonin via nerves located at the terminal. These neurotransmitters are released and travel to the post synaptic terminal where specific receptor sites are located on the nerve cell for each neurotransmitter.Here nerve action potential is developed via neurotransmitter action on the receptor site. Prevalent drugs act by blocking, mimicking or stimulating the release of ne urotransmitters via the presynaptic terminal. When Dopamine levels are increased, mimicked or reuptake is permitted (blocked) the reward pathway in the brain is affected which when stimulated creates feelings of pleasure and euphoria (pleasure is associated with reward). The ingested drug is hence associated with pleasure and reward and the person is influenced to continue using the particular drug.Current cognitive-motivational theories of addiction assert that prioritising appetitive, reward-related information plays an inherent role in the development and continuation of substance abuse (Field & Cox, 2008; Franken, 2003; Wiers et al 2007). A study focused on reward-related attentional processes among 682 young adolescents (mean age= 16. 14) had participants complete a motivated game in the format of a spatial orienting task as a behavioural index of appetitive-related attentional processes and a questionnaire to index substance (alcohol, tobacco, and cannabis) use.Correlational a nalysis showed a positive relationship between substance use and enhanced attentional engagement, with cues that predicted potential reward and non- punishment (Ostafin et al, 2013). Research since the mid 1960’s has established that genetics play a modest (yet relevant) role in the development of drug use problems in some individuals (Pickens, 1988; Farrell & Strang, 1992; Hill, 1993). It has been conveyed by Mcgue (1994) that genetics have an influence on a person’s disposition to use drugs.After a review of literature on genetics research in relation to alcoholism, Mcgue established that genetic factors exert a moderate influence on male and female risk for alcoholism. It has been suggested by Hansler (2001) that mental illness motivates sufferers to take drugs (prescription and recreational), this process can cause drug problems (when a person takes drugs in the hope of escaping their symptoms or becomes dependent on a prescription drug). Examples include a person suffering from social anxiety ingesting cocaine in order to temperamentally enhance their sociability when going out with friends.Most of the evidence, however, seems to indicate that these factors can lead to problems; that is, biological, social and/or environmental factors predispose a person to have both a mental health and a substance abuse problem. Aesthetics and physicality are also motivators for drug use. A person will ingest substances to alter the physical nature of their body, primarily due to the fact that they are not satisfied with a particular aspect of their physical self. Examples include; performance enhancing drugs (steroids), Viagra and antibiotics.In beginning the process of analysing the perceived functions of drug use/specific purpose for using a particular substance, psychoactive drugs are the first place to start as due to the broad range of this category. The classification of psychoactive drugs is sub divided into three categories (with some drugs falling into more than one category); Depressants, Stimulants and Hallucinogens. Depressants work by inhibiting the activity of the CNS (Central Nervous System), which slows down various bodily functions such as heart rate and breathing.This classification of drugs has with it a reputation inherent within society as having a calming effect (popularised primarily due to alcohol its acceptance and availability). People generally take this type of drug to relax, another primary function and motivation of the use of depressants is to combat the effects of stress and anxiety (reduces nerves and relaxes muscle). These drugs are typically easy to obtain being available illegally and legally. Examples include acquiring a depressant legally via a doctor’s prescription or benzodiazepines to treat anxiety and purchasing marijuana from a local drug dealer in order to alleviate stress from work. Stimulants work by stimulating the CNS (increasing brain activity) which causes the body to become mo re aroused and responsive. Hence stimulants elevate the mood, create excitement and even induce a state of euphoria. Due to the nature of stimulants improving responsiveness this category of drug is associated with increasing people’s energy levels as brain activity is dramatically increased.Stimulants are widely available legally and illegally with the most common being caffeine, which is the most widely used drug in the world (Julien, 2001). Hallucinogens are a class of drug that alter perceptual functions; sight, hearing, smell, taste or physical touch. Hallucinogens disrupt how the nerve cells and the neurotransmitter serotonin interact with the CNS. By altering the natural levels of serotonin in the body, hallucinogens alter the way in which your brain processes information relevant to perceptual functions.The inhibition of the user’s perceptual functions allows for the body to generate an intense high. Hence many users of hallucinogens utilise this type of drug t o experience the intensity of the high and/or to escape reality. Examples of hallucinogens include; magic mushrooms, marijuana and LSD. A web based survey of 96 (50 female, 46 male) regular drinking college students over a ten week period) reported on their previous week alcohol use and experience of 24 alcohol-related consequences, including their subjective evaluations of those consequences.Most notably of the results, hierarchical linear model tests revealed that students drank less and experienced fewer consequences following weeks in which they rated their consequences as more negative (relative to their own typical subjective evaluations), suggesting that viewing one’s recent consequences as aversive prompts self-initiated behaviour change. It was conveyed by Boys et al (1999) that significant relationships between perceived functions and both the persons intentions to use the drug again in the future and the recent use of a particular drug.Data was collected from a cro ss sectional survey of one hundred participants aged 16 – 21 years of age. Higher scores on a five item social/contextual function scale (Eg. using a drug to help you feel more confident in a social situation) were associated with a greater frequency of recent cannabis use. Drug expectancy is a psychoactive process that occurs as a response to an individual’s expectation that a drug induced effect will occur. Drug expectancy divulges the nature of a person desire to experience the effects from a particular drug(s).The effect occurs from a person’s own experience with a drug, education, feedback from peers/family and media influence. Once acquired via direct experience with a drug, the memory network of positive expectancies can be primed by internal or external drug associated cues. Primed expectancies are thought to guide subsequent drug use (Hersen, 2013). Self-reports from 704 college students were content analysed and used to develop the Marijuana Effect Exp ectancy Questionnaire. Responses were examined using exploratory and confirmatory principle components analysis.Six marijuana expectancies (34. 6% of variance) were identified: (a) cognitive and behavioural impairment, (b) relaxation and tension reduction, (c) social and sexual facilitation, (d) perceptual and cognitive enhancement, (e) global negative effects, and (f) craving and physical effects (Schafer & Brown, 1991). When a person begins using a drug on a regular basis they begin to become dependent on the drug. As tolerance towards the drug grows in the person they become more dependent on the drug in order to achieve the same effect they attained from their first usage.Drug dependency can manifest in both physical/psychological forms. This can be classified in the sense that the body requires the drug to function properly relating to either form of classification. When a person abstains from retaining the normal level of the abused drug in their blood withdrawal symptoms begi n to act. Those with a physiological dependency experience physical discomfort, shaking, nausea and vomiting as withdrawal symptoms. People with a Psychological dependence feel depressive, anxious, aggressive and irritated.Research supports the belief that the negative nature of withdrawal symptoms is associated with drug users continued abuse of a certain drug (Rogers, 2002). Social/contextual level influences have a massive level of governance over a person’s rationalising to use drugs. College students say they utilise alcohol and drugs in order to lessen depression, increase sociability, satisfy curiosity, heighten sexual pleasure, alleviate physical discomfort and expand consciousness (Robbins et al. , 1970). Association with peers tilising drugs is one of the strongest predictors of adolescent drug use (Fergusson et al, 1995; Brook et al, 1990). If other members of the group begin using drugs, some people are influenced to trade sobriety for use in order to fit in and a dapt to the group. Motivation for this exists in the individual wanting to conform to the dynamics of the group paired with fear of rejection from the group. An example of this is conveyed by Hohman et al (2013) via a study of data obtained from the National Survey of Parents and Youth (N= 1,604).Two hierarchical multiple regression models were developed examining the association between ambivalent attitudes, intentions and later marijuana use. The hierarchical models consisted of; an analysis of the moderating effect of ambivalence on the persons intent to use marijuana and the testing of the moderation of ambivalence on literal marijuana use a year later. Results from both hierarchical analyses propose that ambivalence moderated the association of friend norms and subsequent adolescent marijuana use: friend norms were better predictors of marijuana intentions (? 0. 151, t = 2. 29, p = 0. 02) and subsequent use when adolescents were attitudinally ambivalent about marijuana use (? = 0. 071, t = 2. 76, p = 0. 006). The environment of a person greatly influences their susceptibility to drug use. Not only does the social context of a person influence drug use but the environment itself plays a very influential role. A study undertaken in Zinberg’s ‘Drug, Set, And Setting: The Basis For Controlled Intoxicant Use’, analysed a group of American soldiers who began using and became addicted to heroin during the Vietnam war.After the war effort, usage â€Å"virtually ceased†, with only 12% of the soldiers remaining addicted after returning back to the United States. It is evident that these American soldiers were utilising heroin as a form of escapism, a way to disassociate themselves from the harsh reality they were situated in. Hence it can be expected that a person’s socioeconomic status would affect their use of drugs. People living in a negative environment and/or of a lower socio economic status would be more likely to turn to dr ug use as a means of dealing with and escaping their predicament.In the process of determining why people use drugs a diverse range of conclusions have been reached via a model representative of Zinberg’s theory. We began by stating the ritual usages practiced for thousands of years which have transcended into society after society. We begin with Zinberg’s notion of the individual and diverge into the way in which human cognition is affected by drugs. As this topic is explored it is conveyed just how susceptible our brains are to drug use and why we enjoy the temperamental effects drugs create.Genetics, physical and psychological disposition are also conveyed as influencing reasoning for drug use. Drugs are addressed via the perceived functions of illegal and legal drugs by an analysis of drug categorisations where perceived functions and reasons for use are conveyed. Drug expectancy and tolerance is explained and the reasoning for continued use and addiction is commun icated via a study by Schafer & Brown (1991). The social/contextual level of influence is analysed via various studies by Zinberg (1986) and Hohman (2013) conveying environmental and social influences.People ingest a diversity of different drugs for a variety of different reasons; socialisation, environmental factors, perceived norms, to relax, pleasure, to conform, genetics, addiction, out of boredom or curiosity or to escape their problems. Reference List Boys, A. , Marsden, J. , Fountain, J. , Griffiths, P. , Stillwell, G. , & Strang, J. (1999). What influences young people's use of drugs? A qualitative study of decision-making. Drugs: Education, Prevention and Policy,  6,  373–389. Boys, A. , Marsden, J. , ; Strang, J. 2001) Understanding reasons for drug use amongst young people: a functional perspective. Health Education Research, 16  (4), 457-469. DOI:  10. 1093/her/16. 4. 457. Field, M. , ; Cox, W. M. (2008). Attentional bias in addictive behaviours: a review of its development, causes, and consequences. American Journal of Psychology, 84, 349 – 358 DOI: 10. 1016/j. drugalcdep. 2008. 03. 030. Franken, I. H. (2003). Drug craving and addiction: integrating psychological and neuropsychopharmacological approaches, 4, 563 – 79. Hansler, V. (2001).The Inherent Disposition to Drug Abuse, 9, 32 – 47, New York: Worth Publishers. Hersen, M. (2013). Principles of Addiction: Comprehensive Addictive Behaviours and Disorders, 1, 426 – 429 Hill, W. G. (1993). Variation in genetic composition in back crossing programs, 84, 212-213. Hohman, Z. , Crano, W. , Siegel, J. , ; Alvaro E. (2013). Attitude ambivalence, friend norms, and adolescent drug use. Prevention Science, Germany: Springer, DOI: 10. 1007/s11121-013-0368-8. Julien, R. M. (2001). A Primer of Drug Action, 4, 88-105, New York: Worth Publishers.Mcgue, M. (1994). Genes, environment and the etiology of Alcoholism. The development of alcohol problems, exploring the biops ychosocial matrix of risk, 26, 1 – 40. Merrill, J. E. , Jennifer, P. , ; Barnett, N. P. (2013). The Way One Thinks Affects the Way One Drinks: Subjective Evaluations of Alcohol Consequences Predict Subsequent Change in Drinking Behaviour,  Psychology of Addictive Behaviours,  27, 42-51. Robbins L. , Edwin, S. , William, A. , Stern, F. , ; Stern M. (1970). College Student Drug Use. American Journal of Psychiatry 126, 12, 1743 – 1751.Rogers, D. (2002). Substance Dependency: Consequences and the Path to Recovery, 8, 78 – 81. Schafer, J. , ; Brown, S. A. (1991). Marijuana and cocaine expectancies and drug use patterns, Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 59, 558 – 565. Schuster, C. , ; Pickens, R. (1988). AIDS and Intravenous Drug Abuse, Problems of drug dependence 1988, 7, 241 – 252. Strang, J. , ; Farrell, M. (1992). Harm Minimisation for Drug Misusers, 3, 1127–1128, London: Sage Van Hemel-Ruiter, M. E. , DeJong, P. J. , Alberti ne, J. , ; Brian D. Ostafin. 2013). Reward- Related Attentional Biases and Adolescent Substance use: The TRAILS Study. Psychology of Addictive Behaviours, 27, 142-150. Wiers, R. W. , Bartholow, B. D. , Van Den-Wildenberg, E. , Thush, C. , Engels, R. , Sher, K. J. , Grenard, J. , Ames, S. L. , ; Stacy, A. W. (2007). Automatic and controlled processes and the development of addictive behaviors in adolescents: a review and a model. Pharmacol Biochem Behaviour, 86, 263–283. Zinberg, N (1986). Drug, Set, and Setting: The Basis For Controlled Intoxicant Use, 10-11, Yale University Press.

Decision making Essay

Overview My experience in the business world has shown a variety of ethical decision making practices. The beauty industry has a somewhat skewed view of ethics as it appeals to the vanity and esteem of consumers around the world. The health care industry must provide health care to its customers yet maintain the business with the goals of making a profit. Yale University is known for its research in the fields of science and medical technology. All these companies practice ethics, but view ethical behavior in a different way. This paper will explore the definition and principles of ethics and discuss the impact of ethics on the decision making process in the work place. Definition Pearson Custom Publishing (Pearson, 1998-2002) defines ethics as the â€Å"standards of conduct and moral judgment. † Markula Center for Applied Ethics (1995-1998) defines ethics as those standards that compel one to refrain from committing crimes against another person such as stealing, murder, assault, slander, and fraud. It is also the standards that encourage honesty, integrity, compassion and loyalty. Ethics is not a religious principle, nor is it based on â€Å"feelings† about a particular problem. It cannot be defined as a legal practice because laws are created to protect rights, not manage ethical principles. While the definition may seem clear, ethics as a practice is somewhat ambiguous since interpretation plays a big part in how people perceive right from wrong. The Markala Center for Applied Ethics (1995-1998) states that in order to understand the meaning of ethics we must find answers the following questions, â€Å"According to what standards are these actions right or wrong? What character traits (like honesty, compassion, fairness) are necessary to live a truly human life? † Defining ethics is relatively easy compared to practicing ethics in the work place. Since the primary concern of most businesses is the bottom line, the ethical views may differ based on the type of business. Ethical views of employees may also differ from the views of the company. This can cause conflict among workers and management as companies strive to improve the bottom line. Personal ethics may be compromised in an effort to keep a job. In business, what are the ground rules? Since ethics is not an exact science it is easy believe that if it is legal it is ethical and therefore acceptable. This is not always the case and recent examples of Enron and Microsoft prove this point. Enron has shown us that greed can interfere with good judgment and the impact of their decisions was grave. Microsoft is another company whose ethics have been questioned as it strives to maintain its place as the software giant. Is it unethical for Microsoft to work towards the demise of its competitor Netscape? Or is this the normal competitive spirit. Another good example is the beauty industry that built a billion dollar business convincing consumers that cosmetics and perfumes will make them perform better, become more powerful and/or more popular if the products are used. Is this behavior legal, yes. Ethical, well, that is questionable and based on personal interpretation. So how can ethical behavior be judged? Markala Center for Applied Ethics (1999) provides the following questions to help us more clearly ascertain ethical behavior. â€Å"Is there something wrong personally, interpersonally, or socially? Is there conflict that could be damaging to people?to animals or the environment? to institutions? to society? Does the issue go deeper than legal or institutional concerns? What does it do to people as persons who have dignity, rights, and hopes for a better life together? â€Å" These questions will help us to get the facts necessary to understand the problem, but we also need to know the values. Markula Center for Applied Ethics (1995-1998) suggests asking these additional questions to further determine values; â€Å"Is the solution to this problem for the common good of the community? Does it violate any rights? Is it fair and non-discriminatory? Will it benefit the majority of the people? † So when a problem occurs that requires a solution, it is necessary to review these questions and ask ourselves, based on a desired approach, if the outcome is ethical. This can be a difficult decision since often there is clearly no right or wrong answer. How could ethics benefit the decision making process? Incorporating ethics in the decision making process could making the process easier or more difficult. Easier by providing an additional layer that would justify a difficult decision based on whether it was ethically right or wrong. Ethics could make the decision making process easier by helping to eliminate choices that would not benefit all parties involved. For instance, let’s say there is a company who produces steel wires for construction projects. They need to build a larger factory in order to keep up with the demand. They are a fairly small operation, but complex in that they use dangerous chemicals in the finishing of their products. They have found a couple of locations which meet their needs; one in a location that is isolated a far from any residential areas, the other is located directly on a river that flows into a lake used for recreational purposes. The first location is considerably cheaper and would add an additional 30 minutes to the current employees commute. The second is closer and less expensive. In making the decision on where to build, management must consider the ethical ramifications to the environment. If they were to build near the river there would be a chance of chemical run off that would pollute the river and ultimately the lake. The use of ethics in the decision making process would make it easier to eliminate this location as an option and help to justify the additional expense and commute. Ethics could also make the decision making process harder by adding another layer of complexity to the problem. Take for instance, the issue of stem cell research. The research is performed on human embryos which some say is an unethical practice. Others say that using stem cells for research will make technological advances in medicine that cannot be achieved in other ways. These groups are opposed to the ban on federal funding for research that involved human embryo research (Coalition of Americans for Research Ethics). In the meantime, there are many diseases in which the cure points to more search in the area of stem cells. This research could help to save lives, but it is being held up due to the ethical beliefs of opposing parties. How should ethics be used in business? Ethical decision making should be a method by which decisions are made for the good of all people. Ethics should provide a code of behavior that is used as a base for all decision making. They should provide specific guidelines that ensure that decisions are always made in the interest of helping or protecting the rights of people. Many professional groups had specific practices by which they are expected to adhere as stated by Larry Colero of the U. B.C. Centre for Applied Ethics; â€Å"professional associations have codes of ethics that prescribe required behavior within the context of a professional practice such as medicine, law, accounting, or engineering. † These types of associations lay the ground rules in the decision making process. What are the ethical implications of the decision? Ethical implications in the decision making process could have a positive and negative outcome. I do believe that if a decision is not made in an ethical manner, the outcome will be negative. Using ethical decision making will most likely provide a positive outcome. Although it may not benefit the bottom line, it will surely benefit the community and the company long term. The negative implications come from situations where the decision is made without consideration for ethics. A sales person who is desperate to make quota for the quarter sells a product to the customer even though the customer does not need the product at this time. The customer may feel that the sales person does not have their best interest in heart and take their business elsewhere. Initially, the sales person benefited from an unethical decision, but in the long run, this type of decision making did not pay off. From a positive perspective, if the sales person had used ethical decision making, his sales may have increased not only through this one particular customer, but also from referrals due to the excellent customer service he/she had provided. Initially, the numbers may not have been satisfactory, but the long term results might have overcome the initial down turn. Conclusion Utilizing the principles of ethics in the decision making process will help to ensure that decisions made are fair and respect the rights of those parties involved. Unfortunately, ethical decision making is only as morally sound as the person making the decision. If the person making the decision is does not live by an ethical code, the decision will be swayed in the direction of that belief. Therefore, in order to make sound ethical decisions, decision makers must constantly evaluate their own beliefs and strive to live in an ethical manner. References Coalition of Americans for Research Ethics, (n. d. ), On human embryos and stem cell research: An appeal for legally and ethically responsible science and public policy. Retrieved from the World Wide Web: May 18, 2002 http://www. stemcellresearch. org/statement/statement. htm Colero, L. , (n. d. ) A framework for universal principles of ethics. Retrieved from the World Wide Web. May 18, 2002 http://www. ethics. ubc. ca/papers/invited/colero. html Pearson Custom Publishing, (1999-2002) Ethics. Retrieved from the World Wide Web: May 15, 2002 http://www. pearsoncustom. com/link/humanities/philosophy/crithink/ethics. html Markula Center for Applied Ethics, (1995-1998) A framework for ethical decision making. Retrieved from the World Wide Web. May 15, 2002. http://www. scu. edu/SCU/Centers/Ethics/practicing/deci3sion/framework. html.