Wednesday, 19 April 2017

Values and Cultural Differences

Some values are more widely shared among cultures than others.  A Canadian atheist and a Saudi Muslim might disagree about in the subject of hijab, but both will likely agree that stealing cars, or beating people up and taking their money is wrong.  Why do you think moral prohibitions against assault and theft are much more similar across different cultures, than moral prohibitions against various kinds of sexual behaviors?    (Are they really fully universal, however?)

Marijuana might be getting legalized in Canada soon.  There is no sign of his happening in the USA.  If cultural moral relativism is right, smoking marijuana stops being moral as soon as one crosses some geographic boundary.  What are the special properties that this boundary has that because it to change what is moral and what is not moral?

 A few decades ago, wife-beating, in Canada, used to be seen a the sort of wrong that does not need police involvement as long as nothing gets broken.   Today the attitudes changed substantially - in large part because of activists who, decades ago, thought wife-beating was a severe wrong.  Does it mean that they were wrong at the time (because their views were contrary to those of society), but that they retroactively became right?

When people in a small farming community rely on a veterinarian for medical treatment for humans, is it because their morality is different from the city dwellers, or simply that their circumstances are different, and they respond according to circumstances?   Presumably, both city dwellers and he farmers would agree that people deserve best medical care available - its just that the "best available" is not the same everywhere.

Can you think of an example that would cast into doubt the idea that morality is defined entirely by culture?

For example, what would you think of the statement "It was not unethical for the Aztecs to do human sacrifices, because doing so was part of their culture?"  (If, you prefer, substitute "Spanish conquistadores" for "Aztecs" and "enslave and murder natives of South America" for "do human sacrifices.)

Some brave (if, arguably, foolhardy) homosexuals did a social experiment in Russia a few years back, where they decided to see what happens if men hold hands in public (strangely, its entirely acceptable in Russia for women to hold hands in public).   The social experiment resulted in an immediate beating.

A similar experiment in Ukraine did not result in a beating until the men in question started kissing in public. I have no particular reason to believe that repeating this social experiment would produce different results. Two men doing this downtown Toronto (Canada) would not even draw any strange stares.
It is an indisputable matter of fact that the attitudes towards homosexuality in Russia, Ukraine, and Canada are very different.  (Although it is also true that not all Russians, Ukrainians, and Canadians agree on this matter - what is different is the prevailing views.)

But it seems strange to suggest that the second one crosses a rather arbitrary line - a national border - something about the nature of homosexuality changes.  Also, did homosexuality suddenly become more wrong in Crimea the moment Russia annex it?

When someone says that homosexuality is not wrong (or that it is for that matter), do they really mean that it is wrong only on one side of an arbitrary line, but not on another?  Or do people mean more than that when they speak about morality?

Also, the idea that morality is relative to culture is not common in some cultures.  Does this mean that cultural relativism is true for some cultures and not others?

None of this disproves moral relativism, of course.  But it does suggest that moral language (as opposed to anthropological, descriptive language) breaks down if we accept moral relativism. This might mean that expressions of moral views are nothing more than emotional utterances ("Murder is wrong" merely means "Murder!  Booo!  Hisss!").   But is that obviously true?

Moral relativism may be true, but if we accept that, we might be bound by language and logic to reject moral language altogether.  This is not an argument against moral relativism, but it is a logical consequence of which must be aware.

I should also add that it is not my intent here to pass any judgement on morality or immorality of homosexuality - I used it because it is a good example of something that is regarded very differently by different cultures.  (I have my views on this, of course, but they do not belong in this particular thread.)

Some cultures consider twins (or albino babies) to be a bad omen - to a point where such babies might get killed.But is this because their ethical values are different from cultures that will condemn such behavior, or is it because they have erroneous beliefs concerning matters of fact?

If it is believed (in error) that allowing an albino baby to live will anger evil spirits and they will cause crops to fail, killing the baby might be the lesser evil - if the evil spirits destroy the crops, a lot more people, including babies, will die.

For example, marijuana is very useful as medicine for children who have multiple severe seizures a day - it can substantially lessen such seizures.

In many places, it is illegal nevertheless; even to save a child's life - in many places in the USA for instances, but not just the USA.

Given a choice between giving needed medicine to a child, and obeying the law, is the choice between two different evils (breaking the law one on one hand, letting the child suffer on another)?
Or does it make more sense to say that in a case like this, breaking the law is not in any sense unethical - that such a law has no ethical standing?

There are plenty of other examples of bad laws.

Does this mean that the mere fact that laws prohibits some 'X' does not indicate that 'X' is unethical in any way?

Within living memory, interracial dating was not socially acceptable in the USA, and could lead to anything from severe disapproval to murder - I am going back to the 1950s here.Today it is much more socially acceptable.

Does it mean that it was not good back then, and is good now?  Or is there something odd about wording things that way?

Tuesday, 18 April 2017

Cultural Variation In Defining What Good is.

Just as morality varies from places to places and culture to culture, I think goodness equally varies from place to place and culture to culture. So many people have different perspective about what goodness is. Because what may be considered good in one area may be considered bad in other area. So goodness may be relative like morality. So many factors may influence people's take or how people view goodness. Some of those factors includes: family background, religion, secular organization, academic institution, environment, etc. Some people may do some things which according to them, it is a good deeds, but to others, it is actually a bad deed. Also what is considered good in a particular country may be a very bad thing in another country. A very good example can be seen in China and India's endorsement and acceptability in killing female children brought to life at birth. So many people including myself considers this to be grossly unethical and bad. But the fact is that it is not a bad deed to Chinese and Indians. They may have one reason or the other to support their decisions. What about female Genital mutilation (also known as female Circumcision) which is a normal thing in Africa. But most western world detest it and kick against it. That is just a few among others. I think that humans should depend on the creator for standards for right and wrong and anything that has to do with morality, goodness and the likes. If human, be it people in authority should set standards, it should be relative to the standard set by the creator of mankind. We cannot know more than our creator and manufacturer because he is all knowing, all wise and all powerful. We are bound to make mistakes if we depend on humans for standard on what is right and wrong. I solely depends on the creators standard of what is good and I staunchly stick to it.

Does morality depend on one’s culture and traditions? Share an example to support this. Now share one example that disproves this.

Yes from what I have read in this week reading material and from my personal experience, it does. Since I have already cited some example in the first paragraph, I will give further instances which I have observed among people of different cultures. For example, in most African culture, it is unethical and disrespectful to call an older person by his first name but in the western cultures, it is neither unethical nor disrespectful to do that. In the middle eastern part of the world that are mostly Muslims countries, it is unethical and a violation of Islamic laws for women to wear dresses that leave part of their bodies exposed. Meanwhile in most western world it is not a bad thing at all. Some cultures permit the killing of an unborn child meanwhile some culture view it as an abhorrent. Some cultures validates and legalize same sex marriage while other cultures view it as a sin and bring perpetrators to book.


Just like I said above that humans should depend on God for laws, principles and guidelines that guides humans. If we all depend on God for standard to set right and wrong, then there would be uniformity in how and manner we behave. So if at all we makes laws and set standards, it should be relative and shouldn't be absolute.

David Aiyankhe

What Should Be Defined As Been Good?

As a BA student my view of GOOD is heavily influenced by my studies of finance and global financial trends. I am strongly on the side of cultural relativism but also I tend to skew my beliefs toward absolutism. My thought of morality is mixed and it can be influenced by a good debate nevertheless the core of what I believe good is lays deep inside me, defined probably by my parents but maybe it is also inherited by genetics. (Pecorino, 2000).

I believe everybody knows what GOOD is. I have no doubt that, in any dilemma, we all know what should we do. Extremes do exist but people do feel good when he or she does something good to others and feel bad if he or she hurts somebody. I believe also that many are willing to sacrifice this inner sense to avoid feeling of shame or to look better than they really are in front of others. This inner sense is not scaled too high on the hierarchy of needs.

One can consider him or herself lucky if this inner sense is not challenged over the lifetime and only few will grow old having clean consciousness. To avoid inner conflict religion, various authorities and modern societies started to interfere and make our dilemma easy and straightforward. Today there are many officially moral acts that trigger my inner alarm system, some will admit and some will not. My absolutism tells me that once humans will evolve to a height where the only and most powerful law will be the inner sense of what is good and what is wrong.

Let’s go back to being a BA student. Finance stands above politics and it is obvious that sustainability is getting more and more public interest. It is because business needs sustainability. Ecological economy is the next step in public morality. Globalization will and do challenge local cultures and makes an immense pressure of the moral standardization because it is better for market development. Finance do not like moral relativity, it costs extra money. Hence, in my opinion, financial trends will drive morality and we can hardly do anything against it. What is good news is that finance realizes that GOOD will always profit more than not so GOOD.
Example:

Common practice of medical practitioners in Hungary, according to my personal investigation prior this assignment, handling patients in final phases of fatal diseases is to put them under severe drugs (morphine) until they die. This procedure is just partly legal however majority of medical workers approves it. Voluntary euthanasia basically serves the same cause, to avoid sufferings and severe pain. Only few countries allow euthanasia and in many there are ongoing discussions of its moral and ethical constraints. The drama is in what is GOOD or WRONG? Helping those who suffer is GOOD but against the law. Why? Because the State has the exclusive rights to kill people. Nevertheless, pharmaceutical lobby pushed through laws which made morphine more easily available to physicians. Today, it is normal one will get a GOOD treatment from his or hers doctor even it is against the law.

By Laszlo Gajo


Wednesday, 1 February 2017

Top 5 Interview Strategies You Need To Have As a Job Seeker.

Most interviews are set up to test or ascertain a potential employee's core competencies. Generally, interviews are never a true test of abilities, but they are however conducted to find out what sets of experiences and skills a candidate who applied for a particular job is bringing to the position and the organization at large. 

Having a successful interview depends much on the interview strategies the interviewee has at his or her disposal. 

In this post, i am going to outline some of the vital interview strategies job seekers must be armed with in order to be guaranteed a successful interview. 

1.Background Checks and Information Gathering. 

This is probably what most job seekers forget to do and have never considered it to be an important  interview strategic tool. Information gathering about the organization you are seeking employment with is very important. Visiting the company's website to retrieve information is one way i always recommend in mining relevant details. 

2.Rehearse Possible Interview Questions. 

Envisage possible interview questions that might be related to the position you applied for and prepare a comprehensive answer to the questions. It might be helpful to list them down so that it is easier to rehearse. Know your core competencies very well as most of the interview questions are likely to come from your area of expertise. 

Top 5 Things To Do During Job Hunting.

Sunday, 29 January 2017

Working Smart The Panacea To Professional Growth.

Most people actually believe that hard work bring success while in the real sense working smart does. Over the years, employers of labor have done everything in cajoling their employees to work hard in order to bring development and growth to their organizations. These employers where too ignorant to know that working smart rather than working hard actually does bring what they were looking for.

To better buttress my points on this topic, lets try to define what the terms "Working Hard and Working Smart " means. Working hard in the simplest definition means toiling or expending energy without any strategic skills to getting a job or task done. On the other hand, working smart means achieving a set objectives by applying an effortless sets of professional skills.

Have you ever imagined, if hard work was truly the secrete to achieving our desired objectives, then the laborers who toil day and night would probably have become the richest people in the world since they work so hard to get every bit of their task done.

Saturday, 28 January 2017

Punctuality The Bed Rock For Careers Success.

Have you noticed that an early arrival at appointments, business meetings etc. does actually minimizes stress? Oh yeah! it does. Actually, punctuality says more about someone's reputation.

As an employer or employee, punctuality plays a major role in the growth of organizations. It is a major criteria that indicates how competence and discipline one is.

For example, when one always gets to work  on time and as early as possible, such a characteristics basically portrays the individual as a person that take charge of his or her life's activities rather than allowing these activities and circumstances to hinder him or her from performing those things he or she is supposed to achieve.

How To Effectively Invest Your Time.

Time management is a very important skills that everyone should learn to leverage in order to maximize time utilization.

You probably must have heard people saying "I wish i had a little more time". Well, once a mismanaged time is lost, it is gone forever. In this regard, it is always important to invest wisely on our time.

The following strategies will help us to effectively manage our time optimally.

1. Be Organized:

In trying to be organized, make sure you stick to the following steps.

(a) Prioritize (b) Think Ahead (c) Simplify The Task.

In prioritizing, ensure that you give attention to the most important items on the agenda before sorting out the less important ones. To help in prioritizing your activities, try always to create a to do list.

Saturday, 24 December 2016

Dealing With Sexual Harassment At Work Place.

This has been a very sensitive topic over time and is most often addressed to women who are always the victims of this dilemma. Sexual harassment at workplace is a common occurrence, in fact study had revealed that generally the female folks are subjected to one form of sexual harassment or the other at their places of work mostly from their male counterpart.
It is not entirely surprising that women go through this problem daily basically owing to the fact that men been sexual predators will always want to explore every means of cajoling their female colleagues into sexual relationships.

It is quite rare that men themselves suffers from sexual harassment at workplace and so this post is basically taking a look at some elementary ways of helping women deal with the problem of workplace sexual molestation been that they are most affected by it.

Thursday, 22 December 2016

How To Create Service Entry In SAP.


Service entry is an essential process that must be completed for the purchase order you created to be save as complete. The service entry is basically created to show that the vendor or supplier has rendered the services he or she was required to provide.

In creating a service entry, the following steps should be followed:

Use the code ML81N to gain access to the service entry sheet platform of SAP.

Place your cursor on other purchase order and click on it.