eBay’s Globalization Strategy Essays -- Business Management Studies

eBay’s Globalization Strategy eBay was founded by Pierre Omidyar and Jeff Skoll in May 1996. Their headquarters were in San Jose, California in the midst of the dot-com era. The company idea initially began as â€Å"Auction Web, which Omidyar launched in September 1995. The idea was to develop an open market place that was available for all members of the community to discuss, compare, and trade computer items as well as collectibles. The idea took off, reaching thousands of registered users in just a few years. By January 1997, AuctionWeb could not handle the large load of page views – bandwidth. Omidyar solved this problem by writing the code for a new system: ebay (Echo Bay Technologies). In September 1997, AuctionWeb was shut down and the eBay platform was opened. The ebay company vision: â€Å"To create the world’s largest global trading community and to help people trade practically anything on earth.† eBay had 2.4 M visitors in 8/98, quadrupling in size to 8.4 M visitors in 4/01. Listings on their site began at 500 in 1998 and grew to just under 5 M in 2001. What started out as an auction site for computer and collectible items matured to include toys, pottery, automobiles, furniture, to movies, etc. Omidyar and Skoll achieved their, â€Å"trade anything† goal much sooner than expected. In 1998, eBay went public. Given the sufficient number of funds received from the IPO, eBay launched strategic initiatives aimed at six specific objectives. 1) Grow the eBay community and strengthen the brand (attract and maintain vitality) 2) Broaden the company’s trading platform by growing existing product categories, promoting new product categories, and offering services for specific regions 3) Fost... ...ever, the 2004 estimates are more closely aligned with 2003 Actuals. This suggests that population growth was not as high as expected. Therefore, our projections took that into consideration and usage expectations were decreased. [7] --------------------------------------------------------------------- [1] Strategic Management Concepts and Cases, Thompson and Strickland, 12th Edition, P. C-263 [2] Strategic Marketing Problems, Kerin and Peterson, 10th Edition, P. 97 [3] Strategic Marketing Problems, Kerin and Peterson, 10th Edition, P. 89 [4] Strategic Marketing Problems, Kerin and Peterson, 10th Edition, P. 96 [5] Strategic Marketing Problems, Kerin and Peterson, 10th Edition, P. 103 [6] Strategic Marketing Problems, Kerin and Peterson, 10th Edition, P. 101 [7] Population Reference Bureau, http://www.prb.org/

Superfluids and Superconductors :: physics

In 1924, the Indian physicist S. N. Bose developed an alternate law of radiation which modified Planck's laws to include a new variety of particles, namely, the boson. He sent off his theory to Einstein for revision and translation, and Einstein swiftly came up with some additions to the theory. He expanded the laws to incorporate the mass of the boson, and in doing so theorized a strange phenomenon. He predicted that when atoms of a gas came together under cold enough temperatures, and slowed down significantly, that they would all assume the exact same quantum state. He knew that this slow quantum gas would have strange properties, but wasn't able to get much further by theorizing. This phenomenon, which came to be known as a Bose-Einstien condensate, was an incredible leap in quantum theory, but it wasn't demonstrated until 1995 when Eric A. Cornell, Wolfgang Ketterle and Carl E. Wieman made the first Bose-Einstein condensate with supercooled alkali gas atoms. Although this develo pment didn't come until late in the 20th century, many of these strange properties were observed in supercooled He4 by Dr. Pyotr Kapitsa. Helium became the standard for observing superfluid phenomenon, and most new superfluid properties are still observed first in Helium 4. Superconductivity, a similar phenomenon, was discovered in 1911 by Dutch physicist Heike Kamerlingh Onnes. When he cooled some mercury down to liquid helium temperatures, it began to conduct electricity with no resistance at all. People began experimenting with other metals, and found that many tranisition metals exhibit this characteristic of 0 resistance if cooled sufficiently. Superconductors are analagous to superfluids in that the charges within them move somewhat like a superfluid - with no resistance through sections of extremely small cross-sectional area. Physicists soon discovered that oxides of copper and other compounds could reach even higher superconducting temperatures. Currently, the highest temperature at wich a material can be superconductive is 138K, and is held by the compound Hg0.8Tl0.2Ba2Ca2Cu3O8.33. Superfluids all have the unique quality that all their atoms are in the same quantum state. This means they all have the same momentum, and if one moves, they all move. This allows superfluids to move without friction through the tiniest of cracks, and superfluid helium will even flow up the sides of a jar and over the top. This apparant defiance of gravity comes from a special type of surface wave present in superfluid helium, which in effect pushes this extremely thin film up the sides of the container.

Interaction of Human Culture and the Environment :: Environment Environmental Pollution Preservation

Interaction of Human Culture and the Environment In the mid 1970's and early 1980's, the field of clinical psychology underwent a revolution with the emergence of family therapy. Therapists initially understood disorders as being the result of a linear chain of causality. For instance, one theory of schizophrenia held that the disorder resulted from exposure to a certain pattern of behavior on the part of the patient's mother. Mothers of schizophrenics were often found to be particularly cold, unresponsive, dominant, and conflict-inducing towards their children. Researchers argued that such "schizophrenogenic" behavior was the direct cause of the disorder. Successful treatment, then, required the patient and mother to examine their relationship and seek out better, more positive methods of interaction. Family therapists, however, then began to realize that the etiology of the disorder was far more complex than simply the mother inducing the disorder within the child. The schizophrenic and the mother were enmeshed within a complex system of interactions both within, as well as outside, the family. Thus, the schizophrenic was affected by both his mother and father, the schizophrenic himself had an impact on his parents, the father and mother affected each other through their marital relationship, and social and cultural norms had an overall impact on all members of the family. Family systems researchers realized that these various relationships were constantly changing, and that each one had a significant effect on the others. Problems within the family were now understood in terms of circular causality rather than linear. For instance, it might very well be true that the schizophrenic's mother is cold, conflict-inducing, and unresponsive towards him. It is also true, however, that t he schizophrenic manifests very bizarre behavior, such as hearing voices, acting on paranoid impulses, hallucinating, and displaying inappropriate (or flat) emotional responses. These behaviors would certainly affect the mother, as she would be stressed and deeply concerned for her child's well being. The mother might also be affected by a strained marital relationship with her husband, which itself might be negatively impacted by the child's schizophrenic behavior. Finally, the family might be negatively affected by the society in which they live, as their neighbors or colleagues might view them as outcasts and purposely isolate them because of their child's inappropriate behavior. Ultimately, this series of negative interactions may result in a feedback loop, in which maladaptive behavior is amplified and the child's schizophrenic behavior worsens.

In what ways does Shakespeare make the Banqueting scene dramatic? Essay

Through the drama of the play ‘Macbeth’, Shakespeare clearly wishes to examine the supernatural elements to illustrate guilt and consciousness caused by witchcraft and demonology. Thus, in examining these elements, Shakespeare’s dramatises Macbeth’s sociological affect on Duncan; to convey the importance of kingship and the consequences of particular choices. Firstly, Macbeth’s ideas of becoming king after receiving the prophecies from the witches had become very strong. Thus, His excitement prompted him to find out more from the witches ‘tell me more’ he asks them. Macbeth believed the knowledge given by them to be true. This curiosity suggests why he was so determined to become king. ‘My thought, whose murder is yet but fantastical’ Macbeth thought, the only way to become king was to kill Duncan. Furthermore, the king was God’s representative on earth and was chosen by god; hence, to kill the king would upset the natural order. Macbeth did not want to kill Duncan, but he wanted to fulfil his ambition of becoming king, therefore, the only way to do this was by killing Duncan. Although, the prophecies were given both to Macbeth and Banquo, Banquo did not believe the witches ‘†What! Can the Devil speak true?†Ã¢â‚¬Ëœ However, Macbeth feared that the prophecy concerning Banquo would come true. Hence, this is why Macbeth arranged the killing of Banquo. Furthermore, the scene before the Banqueting scene shows Banquo being killed. This is followed by Macbeth’s happiness at being king. As a result, this would be dramatic for a modern audience, as Macbeth who arranged the killing appeared to have no conscience. Therefore, to show the scene of Banquo’s murder followed by Macbeth’s happiness would be dramatic for a modern audience. This is because; this would firstly, portray an evil appearance of Macbeth, and secondly, would convey how Macbeth is gentle hearted. The fact, that Macbeth was affected by the witches’ prophecies and reacted quickly to the situation: in terms of how his thoughts rapidly changed for the bad, determines how easily he can be influenced. Therefore, this is what led him to be responsible for murder plans as well as murders taking place; such as Duncan and Banquo’s death, and Fleance’s and Macduff’s family death plan. Moreover, at the beginning of the banquet, Macbeth appears to be confident in the way he speaks, ‘†You know your own degrees†Ã¢â‚¬Ëœ addressing his guests to ‘†sit down†Ã¢â‚¬Ëœ according to rank. At the moment, he is enjoying his position as king; his confidence in his speech suggests this. He knows Banquo will be killed and does not want Banquo alive, because of the prophecies. ‘†Tis better thee without, than he within†Ã¢â‚¬Ëœ. If Banquo was alive, Macbeth feared that Banquo could have had a chance to become king. For Macbeth knows Banquo’s death will make him secure as king. This hope kept Macbeth occupied up until the murderer entered the room. Sequentially, when Banquo’s murderer enters, Macbeth gets excited getting prepared to find out the good news of Banquo’s death. However, when Macbeth says ‘†There’s blood upon thy face†Ã¢â‚¬Ëœ this suggests, this whole time Macbeth showed he was confident through his speech to his guests; what is really going through his mind is kept hidden. In fact, Macbeth was panicking all this time something could happen. ‘†There’s blood upon thy face†Ã¢â‚¬Ëœ, indicates Macbeth’s fear as King and insecure feelings. The ‘†blood†Ã¢â‚¬Ëœ could symbolise a deep fear, pain and anger Macbeth is experiencing. Shakespeare’s use of dramatic irony is very effective here, as he is trying to create sympathy for Macbeth and tries to put across a message. As we learn that Macbeth’s does not have a strong character, we find out he is easily led into things. His weak character guides him to mischief. Macbeth did not want to kill these people; however, his ambition to become king had grown. To kill those who were king, or who were to become king was the only solution. It seems he loses control, leading himself from one evil to another, and thus, he is lost in his own thoughts. He feels regretful, but cannot stop himself from evil, as it has just become a habit. Although, Macbeth committed few murders under his crown, he regretted and felt remorseful for his actions leading to murder, this is what makes him an interesting character. Once Macbeth finds out Banquo is killed, he becomes excited ‘†yet he’s good that did the like for Fleance†Ã¢â‚¬Ëœ, wanting to know that Fleance is also killed. If Fleance was still alive then he would have a chance to become king. The prophecy concerning Banquo mentioned that Banquo will be ‘†lesser than Macbeth, and greater†Ã¢â‚¬Ëœ Banquo will not become king, but his son can become king. This suggests that Macbeth would become king. ‘†Not so happy, yet much happier†Ã¢â‚¬Ëœ Banquo will not be alive, but his son will live and will have chance to become king. As for Macbeth he will become king but will be not be the rightful and happy king. When Macbeth finds out Fleance is still alive he has a ‘fit’. The drama of the fit has been emphasised to convey a message. Macbeth thought if both the Father and son were killed he would have ‘else been perfect’. If both son and father were killed Macbeth would have been ‘Whole as a marble, founded as a rock, as broad and general as the casing air’. The use of similes helps to convey a better understanding of Macbeth’s anxieties, helping the audience understand how Macbeth would have been free and powerful as king. Now that Fleance is alive Macbeth feels ‘†cabin’d, cribb’d, confin’d†Ã¢â‚¬Ëœ the use of assonance is again emphasised to convey Macbeth’s fears, his doubts and insecure feelings as king. Macbeth wants Fleance killed ‘†Get thee gone; tomorrow†Ã¢â‚¬Ëœ as he fears if Fleance is still alive, then he will have chance to become king. In addition, Macbeth goes back to join his quests and mentions that Banquo is not present at the banquet. Then, he goes onto expressing how he feels that Banquo is not present, ‘†Who I may rather challenge for unkindness†Ã¢â‚¬Ëœ. No one at the banquet knows Macbeth is responsible for Banquo’s death; therefore, Macbeth takes advantage of this and blames Banquo for not being there, though, Macbeth is blameworthy. Although, Macbeth does this, inside he feels guilty for what he has done; his guilt is hidden from his guests. The dramatic irony is used, to explain Macbeth’s guilt. Macbeth cannot join his guests at the table, because ‘the table’s full’ at this moment Macbeth can see a figure sitting at his place. No one at the Banquet can see this figure accept for Macbeth. The dramatic irony is used here, to express how Macbeth was not the rightful king and instead Banquo was supposed to be king. Macbeth becomes fearful and worried ‘you canst not say, I did it’. Here Macbeth sees Banquo’s ghost, he feels really regretful for killing Banquo and feels frustrated. This frustration almost leads him to mentioning his guilt for killing Banquo. However, Lady Macbeth realises her husband’s short coming, and makes up a quick lie, to stop her husband for spitting out his guilt ‘†You shall offend him, and extend his passion†Ã¢â‚¬Ëœ. Lady Macbeth tells the guest to ‘†keep seat†Ã¢â‚¬Ëœ, if not they the guest will prolong his suffering and emotion. Furthermore, Lady Macbeth thinks her husband has put himself at ‘†shame†Ã¢â‚¬Ëœ, thinking this fear is from killing Duncan. ‘†This is the very painting of your fear†Ã¢â‚¬Ëœ the use of metaphor makes it more dramatic, expressing how Macbeth has a sense of fear on his face. That fact, that no one knew Banquo appeared as ghost, makes things even more dramatic. As for a modern audience, they would understand how Macbeth feels regretful for killing Banquo. ‘†You look but on a stool†Ã¢â‚¬Ëœ Lady Macbeth thinks her husband is crazy, thinking why does he feel regretful for killing Duncan. To a modern and Jacobean audience this would indicate that Macbeth was not the rightful king. She does not know that Macbeth was responsible for Banquo’s death. As Macbeth looks at the stool, Lady Macbeth does not know why Macbeth is looking at it. The fact, that Banquo comes back as ghost, is an unnatural event. After killing Duncan, Macbeth first and foremost, disorders the natural order, and this is why he sees illusions such as the ‘dagger’, ‘Banquo as a ghost’. In addition, after Macbeth’s wife tries to calm him, Macbeth feels normal again and mentions something about Banquo ‘†Would he were here†Ã¢â‚¬Ëœ says to his guests. Macbeth sees Banquo as ghost again and goes crazy. His attitude changes to become angry due to seeing Banquo. When Banquo appears this time, Macbeth expresses his inward feelings, thus, expressing it strong. He expresses it quite strong; because this is way he is feeling, distressed and pained. This feeling is so intense that Macbeth wants to ‘quit’ his sight. The use of exclamation marks expresses his anger and fear. Macbeth compares his feeling to his wife’s, expressing how his cheeks are ‘blanch’d with fear’, after all that he has done. As Lady Macbeth does not know Macbeth was responsible for Banquo’s death, he describes his wife cheeks as ‘natural ruby’ and his cheeks to be full of fear. This expresses how Macbeth feels remorseful for Killing Banquo. The Banquet ends with disorder. As the banquet ends with disorder Lady Macbeth takes control ‘†Stand not upon the order of your going†Ã¢â‚¬Ëœ. At the beginning of the scene, the guests were required to sit down according to rank, now they are told to leave not according to rank, but ‘all at once’. The drama is used to explain, how Macbeth did something which was against the rule of god and how he upset the natural order. This scene is emphasised to convey the message. The disorder of the banquet is used to express how Macbeth’s actions are leading him and Scotland towards disaster. To a modern audience this performance would have been expressed and portrayed well, and from it they would have understood the laws of the time. The performance of this scene would have been very exciting for a Jacobean audience; typically because it included themes related to witchcraft, demonology and the divine right of King which were based on the beliefs of the 17th century. The audience sitting to watch the performance would have been familiar and may have even believed in witchcraft. From this performance they would have realised the importance of kingship, and understand the consequences which would have led to killing a king. Moreover, to understand belief in witches was wrong, as this would have brought about harm. On the other hand, to a modern audience this play would have brought more or less realisation. As witchcraft is not widely believed today, this would make the audience come to understand why there is not much of it. Reasons such as war had led to discomfort, and sorrow around 17th century, hence, witchcraft was an alternative to happiness, and would have kept people occupied upon evil things. As the witches at the beginning of the play say ‘fair is foul, and foul is fair’ good is bad, and bad is good. Lady Macbeth’s order of leaving to the men was portrayed well. Shakespeare tries to explain how women did not have the right to command men, thus, this further reinforces the idea of disorder. The drama of this play is very effective, and thus, the disorder of play greatly reinforces the meaning of the play. Through, the use of dramatic irony, this first and foremost, warns the audience of the consequences which one could face in regards to killing a king. The message which is conveyed is the importance of kingship. In addition, by the use of drama this clearly portrays how killing of king leads to the disorder of the natural order; therefore, this is portrayed as a serious matter, thus, reinforcing the idea of how killing of king is very serious. Secondly, the disorder of play emphasises the point about how witchcraft can be a dangerous path to follow. By viewing the unnatural events, such as Banquo coming back as ghost, this portrays clearly how following the paths of witches can result in disaster and pain in ones life. The two main aspects in this play are the killing of king and witchcraft. The importance of kingship is greatly emphasised, as it is of great importance to both modern people and Jacobeans. The fact, that Shakespeare does not bring Macbeth back to sense, means the killing of king is wrong. It is used to emphasise the great importance of the position of king. James the I would have approved of this. At the time of the Jacobeans, the king was god’s representative on earth, to kill him would cause great disaster or disorder to the creation; hence, the position of kingship would affect society at large. For a modern society the understanding of killing the President or King would be very wrong and brutal. Shakespeare, explains and rages out how civilised it leaders are, it is evident that both the Jacobeans and the modernised society agree the importance of this, and I agree. Does anyone have the right to take the leader’s position away? If he sets legislations to keep you under safety, then think about the great disaster that would be brought about if someone killed him†¦

Motorcycle Diaries Essay Essay

The movie â€Å"The Motorcycle Diaries† is very interesting in a way that, Ernesto not only takes a journey across Latin America but he also experiences a mental journey. His way of thinking and outlook on life changes drastically and this is illustrated all throughout the movie. He also discovers a great deal about life in Latin America that affects him in a way nothing else has before. Ernesto’s mental journey becomes clearer towards the end of the movie. It shows that he has changed and now has realized he can make a huge difference in many others lives. At first in the movie he and his companion do whatever it takes to rest and eat because at this time all they were concerned about was traveling around America. As more time passes, Ernesto gets incredibly serious and starts to show much concern for the people they meet. An example is when they meet the older gentleman and he asked them to take a look at the lump on his neck. This was when Ernesto told him that it was not just any ordinary lump, but it was indeed a tumor. Ernesto then suggests he go to the hospital, while Ernesto’s friend tells the man it’s nothing just so they can have a place to stay for the night. I believe this was a very bold move for him because it cost them their shelter for the night. By doing this he really demonstrates that he himself is more concerned about others lives then petty things, such as where he will sleep for the night. Although Latin America looks like a peaceful pleasant country, many people are very ill. Ernesto discovers this when he visits the one village. He experiences how truly sick they all are from all the disease. Up until this point he had pitied himself for having asthma, but now he has become thankful that he has good health. You can tell how caring and warm-hearted he has become at this point in the movie. An example of this is when he refuses to wear the gloves because he feels cruel doing so, as if he’d be acting as if they were animals not everyday people, the same as himself. From the day he stepped foot in this village he never treated any of the patients different and they loved being around him. It was amazing because you could just tell how much it meant to them for him to be there. All and all Ernesto learned and discovered a great deal within this film. He  changed much in his life and his attitude toward the world through this one journey. I believe there is one thing he will always take with him from this experience. That one thing is that he learned that he can make a huge difference in the lives of many just by caring enough to do so.

Business Plan Essay

IV. Description of Venture a. Services BC Property Forum is dedicated in selling properties of the acquired assets of the banks through bidding. Our main goal is to help our clients especially to those who are working abroad to have a good investments in owning a property. Our area partners are specially trained in doing sales talk in their clients by providing helpful information about the property. Like property location, property size, and any other information describing the property. We will provide our outmost service to provide the needs of our clients. b. Size of Business BC Property Forum is a small size business that has 20 to 99 employees. This business is privately owned by partnership type of business. c. Office Equipment and Personnel The office equipment needed First are computers for recording, keeping and back-up of files and records. Second Telephones and Faxes for communication with the clients. Third are printers for printing of records and files. Fourth are photocopying machines for copying of files and lastly are air cons to make people comfortable. The business strictly chooses our personnel especially for our area partners and in-house partner. We will have are partners that are good in doing sales talk and well trained. We will also hire people for Secretary, IT and Messengers. As owners, we do not want to have problems with our clients that will lower our client’s trust. d. Background of Entrepreneur President – Jenifer Velarde Jenifer Velarde is graduated Magna Cum Laude with the degree of Bachelor of Science in Business Management at the University of the Philippines. She was chosen to be the president because of her abilities of handling a business very well and resolving problems. Vice President – Enrico C. Veluz Enrico C. Veluz is locally known to have many small businesses within areas in Manila. He also graduated at the University of the Philippines and took up Business Management. He also received an award as an Outstanding Entrepreneur last year. Financial Manager – Elenaire Puzon Elenaire Puzon is a graduate of Financial Management in the Mapua Institute of Technology. He is an experienced collector and good in preparing of financial statements and accounts in different companies. Secretary – Bea Faye Libiran Bea Faye Libiran is a graduate of Adamson University and took up Marketing. She is an experienced secretary since she has worked on different big companies such as RCBC and Makisig Group of Companies. Area Partners – Jake Esguerra and Ryan Redecto Jake Esguerra is a graduate of University of Makati and took up Marketing. He is a In-House Partner – Frangelo Alejandro and John Orneza IT – Lawrence Penalba and Mikko Ray Victoria Messenger – Jomaric Santos Jomaric Santos is a graduate of University of Makati and took up V. Marketing Plan (Condominium Units, House & Lot, Lot, Building, Res/Commercial) a. Pricing As we reassess the acquired assets of the banks, we will be meeting halfway with the bank to provide a better price. b. Distribution Since we offer service, distribution is not relevant. c. Promotion BC Property Forum will conduct promotion through advertising. The type of advertising will be using print advertising like magazines, newspaper, posters, brochures and flyers. This would help our company to be recognized by our customers since we offer services for them. We will also plan to develop our own website of the company to promote the services we have. Those promotions will be of great help to our company to be well established in the business industry. d. Product and Forecasts The 1st month will be for the set up of the business. On the 2nd month, the company office will be in order & ready to start. On the next month, many costumers are satisfying the services to an increase in sales every year. e. Controls Based on the market segmentation that BC Property Forum has established, we will require constant updates in terms of the potential sizes, distributions, and purchasing patterns of the quality conscious, technology utilizing executive markets. We will use our historical performance to establish a customer database containing this information. This will allow BC Property Forum to target customers more efficiently as a result of actual experience. Furthermore, as our customer service and follow-up are keys to establishing retained customers, the marketing database will allow us to divide the potential needs of customers.

Compare, Contrast, and Evaluate Plato and Aristotle on human Well-being Essay

Plato’s ethics concerning well-being arise from the end of the discussion on justice where Thrasymachus articulates that justice is in fact merely a social contract whereby people agree not to inflict harm on others in return for not being harmed. Out of this rises the question well if this is all justice is, if it is only desirable for its consequences, In this case the avoidance of harm, then why shouldn’t I cheat? If I can get away with it why wouldn’t one cheat? Now follows the Gyges story, Glaucon puts it to Plato that if two men, one whom leads a life of virtue and one who doesn’t, acquired a ring that could turn you invisible, even the virtuous man would not be able to resist acting immorally so therefore people are not actually virtuous, more just scared of the consequences of not being so. This is making the point that no man is so virtuous that he could resist the temptation of being able to steal at will by the ring’s power of invisibility. In modern terms, Glaucon still argues that morality is a social construction, whose source is the desire to up hold one’s reputation for virtue and honesty; when that sanction is removed, the moral character would evaporate. However Plato disagrees, he thinks the truly virtuous man would act morally and be happy and at peace with himself, even when the outcome may not be seen as in their best interests e.g. loss of reputation; when sentenced to death Socrates had the chance to escape and go and live in another place but he refused to because it would be wrong to obey the laws of the land only when they suited you, so he stayed and was killed. For Plato this is not only the right thing to do but he would go as far to say that he would be happier dying virtuous than living having broken the law. Although I think this should not be taken as he enjoyed his actual death rather there was a certain content dignified air about it, as through living a virtuous life he had reached eudemonia because for Plato virtue is sufficient for human well being. Then to illustrate the extreme of what Plato is saying a second ring is added, and it is put to Plato that if both men had a ring, one just and one unjust, and the unjust man carries out his unjust activities but is clever enough to disguise it and up holds his reputation for being a moral citizen so therefore gets away un punished however conversely the just man whom has been virtuous in all his actions is misunderstood and crucified for being unjust and his reputation soiled. Is Plato saying even in this case it is still better to be the just man? Plato explicitly maintains that yes it is, and uses this example to show that if it is the most beneficial and right thing to do in this situation then I must follow that it is the most beneficial and right thing to do in all situations. But why is it the most beneficial? Why should people be just, Plato believes that it is down to the tri-partite nature of the soul; if things are not in the right balance then it becomes a matter of damaging your mental health. Plato believes that justice is gratifying in itself not merely because of its consequences. The purpose of human life is to live virtuously. The end that all virtuous beings should aim at; to be in union with the form of the good, this is the way of achieving the highest form of human well-being. In order to live virtuously one must have justice in the soul. Justice in the soul can only be present when the tripartite elements are in accurate harmony; when reason is ruling over spirit and spirit is controlling desires or appetites; wisdom can be seen to represent the rational part of the soul and courage parallels the spirited part of the soul with discipline existing in controlling desires. When the soul is in balance only then can virtue be exercised and human well-being achieved. Plato states that it is impossible for one to be happy if justice is not present in the soul and put forward this argument to illustrate why the unjust mans life leads to misery. Plato believes that the tyrant is the most unhappy of people because he is in a position of slavery and has no real freedom, he is ruled and governed by passion and surrounded by enemies. Due to being dominated by passion his main aim is to seek pleasure. Plato argues that each of the three parts of the soul corresponds to a different type of pleasure Rational- Gains pleasure in seeking the truth. Spirited- Gains pleasure out of achievement and honour. Appetitive- Gains pleasure through the empirical senses, e.g. sex/drink/food. The tyrant thinks that his pleasure is the best type, this can also be said for the oligarch and the philosopher, however Plato claims that only the philosopher’s assertion can be the real truth for he has experienced all types of pleasure and is therefore in the best position to decide. â€Å"when the whole mind accepts the leadership of the philosophical part, and there is no internal conflict, then each part can do its job and be moral in everything it does, and in particular it can enjoy its own pleasures and thus reaps as much benefit from pleasure as is possible† (586) But if the mind is controlled by either the spirited or appetitive elements it is not possible for it to attain its own correct pleasure and begins to coerces the other two elements to engage in false happiness, so far as that appetitive desires are farthest removed from reason and therefore law and order, and the tyrant is then farthest removed from mans true and proper pleasure so therefore cannot achieve well being and leads to the most of unhappy lives. So because justice is now desirable in itself and for its consequences its not a case of why should I do it, for Plato you act justly for its own sake. So how would the just man know what actions are virtuous and which are not; This is where the theory of the forms can be introduced, according to Plato we live in a world of appearances of which we cognise through perception, appearances are temporary, changing, fallible and subject to doubt. Although Plato also believed that there is an infallible, eternal, unchanging realm; the realm of the forms. The forms are independent of the mind ‘metaphysical entities’ as real as anything we cognise through are empirical senses. So in order for one to posses any ‘true knowledge’ then one must have access to the forms. In order to know what courage is one must know the form of courage so that when deciding if a particular act is courageous you can compare the form with the act and see if they have anything in common. Upon gathering this information you are now and only after consulting the form, in a position to obtain an objectively correct answer. Does this mean that those whom don’t have access to the forms of the virtues cannot be virtuous and in turn not achieve well-being? So in summary one must have the soul in the correct balance; this is the necessary and sufficient clause for well being and why is this the case because of the tri-partite nature of the soul. Aristotle’s ethics are very similar to that of Plato’s, sharing distinct similarities but also some differences. For Aristotle human-well being can also be translated as Eudemonia (flourishing). In book one Aristotle states that â€Å"that every art, every investigation and similarly every action and pursuit is aimed at some good† and that happiness is an activity of the soul according to virtue. As an early virtue theorist Aristotle believes a person should be judged on their character and not their actions. According to Aristotle virtue is something learned through constant practice beginning at a young age. To further understand this we should fully translate ‘arà ¯Ã‚ ¿Ã‚ ½te’-this is the word translated into ‘virtue’ in most English translations however the word more generally translates into excellence, so for example a musician will exhibit ‘arà ¯Ã‚ ¿Ã‚ ½te’ in performing without any moral connotations. It logically follows that excellence in music cannot be reached simply by reading about it, it requires systematic practice and practical implementation. For Aristotle there is not necessarily an essential distinction between being virtuous and exercising a learned skill like playing an instrument, he believes that virtue is also a learned excellence (the highest learned excellence). So to be virtuous one must practice at it; human well being for Aristotle involves ‘living well’ and exercising virtue is a necessary condition of this. Aristotelian virtue ethics are more specific than Plato’s, he talks of virtue in a more systematic sense. This is highlighted by the doctrine of the mean; his theory that virtue exists between the vicious extremes of excess and deficiency. For example the virtuous mean of courage lies between the vices of recklessness and cowardice, which represent excess and deficiency respectively. In order to achieve well being one must attempt to find the golden mean of all the virtues in the 36 name table, however Aristotle does clearly remind us that there are no exact laws in political sciences rather we need to approach each case individually informed by calculated virtues and some practical wisdom. Virtue for Aristotle is A posteriori; learning through experience, what is the mean path relative to us? Like Plato, for Aristotle we cannot pick and choose our virtues, we cannot decide to display courage and patience but not truthfulness and modesty, nor can people be virtuous if they do not demonstrate all the virtues. One of the most crucial points Aristotle makes is that although virtue is necessary for ‘well-being’ it is in fact not sufficient. In order to be truly happy one must have three things. 1. A good character. 2. One must be active in living virtuously 3. One must have external goods. Happiness according to Aristotle is a public not a private affair, so whom you share this happiness with is of great importance. The city-states of ancient Greece were tightly knit communities. In politics Aristotle says we cannot fully realize our potential as humans outside the bonds of a Greek city-state so therefore well being cannot be achieved in the life of a hermit. This is not the only external good that is required, Aristotle also believes that in order to achieve well-being wealth is required, although I feel it should be made clear that he is not saying one needs to be rich to happy, rather that there needs to be a absence of extreme poverty; the view that it is hard to be happy when starving. This is in direct contradiction with Plato’s teachings and is blatantly outlined in the story of the ring of Gyges. Another fundamental difference between Aristotle and Plato’s teachings on well being is that the whole of Plato’s metaphysics is underpinned by the forms. To be fully virtuous one must have access to the forms but Aristotle completely rejects the forms as having no tangible foundation for believing them. Aristotle thinks that the problem solved by the forms can in fact be answered empirically; he presents us with the function argument: this explains that the function of a harpist is to play the harp well. A human also just like the eye has a set purpose or function and the function of a good man is to live well or achieve ‘well-being’. But Plato believes that people who reject the forms for empirical verification are sophist whose beliefs have no basis. It seems that both Aristotle and Plato believe that in order for humans to achieve well being they must fulfil their function, so in order to identify the real difference of their views on well being we must understand their views on what our function is. Plato’s view on this is outlined in Book One of The Republic; Socrates is trying to prove to Thrasymachus that it is better to be just than unjust. He starts by determining that all things have their own definite function, and that that function is â€Å"that which one can do only with it or best with it (Republic I 352e).† For example, the function of eyes is to see, and since a pruning knife is better suited to pruning than a butcher’s knife, its function is to prune. Having established this, Socrates goes on to argue that everything also has a measured virtue that corresponds to the implementation of its function. The virtues of our ears are hearing and the virtue of the knife would be its sharpness. An object that is deficient in its virtue is said to be incapable of performing its function well (a dull knife would not be able to cut properly). Having demonstrated this, Socrates now looks at the human soul and its function. â€Å"Is there some function of a soul that you couldn’t perform with anything else, for example, taking care of things, ruling, deliberating? Is there anything other than a soul to which you could rightly assign these, and say that they are its peculiar function? †¦What of living? Isn’t that a function of the soul? (Republic I 353d)† Thrasymachus agrees to Socrates’ definition of the soul’s function and they go on to examine what the virtue of the soul is, that allows it to perform its function. From his previous argument regarding the importance of virtue in the performance of one’s function, Socrates infers that a non-virtuous soul would do a poor job of ruling etc, while a virtuous soul would do a good job. Then going back to where he and Thrasymachus had agreed that justice was the virtue of the soul, and injustice its vice. This enables Socrates to conclude that a just soul and a just man will achieve human well being and flourish, while an unjust man will not achieve well being and be unhappy. Aristotle agrees with Plato that the good for anything that has a function relies on the implementing of that function. So it follows that Aristotle tries to work out if human beings have a function (â€Å"the function argument†). â€Å"Then do the carpenter and the leatherworker have their functions and actions, while a human being has none, and is by nature idle, without any function? Or, just as eye, hand, foot and, in general, every part apparently has its functions, may we likewise ascribe to a human being some function besides all theirs? (Nicomachean Ethics Book I Chapter 7 29-33)†. So assuming that there is a function specific to humans Aristotle discounts sense perceptions because they are not only human traits. He concludes that the human function is to exhibit reason. The function of the excellent man to equal the function of any man the only difference is that the excellent man exhibits his function well. So For Aristotle, the human good seems to be synonymo us with human well being. Thus, in order for a human being to be happy, he or she must live a life that successfully expresses reason. Here we see that both agree that to achieve well being, humans must fulfil their function but do they disagree on what that function is? Plato believing that it is living a just life and Aristotle that it is excellent reasoning, I think not, isn’t being virtuous having reason ruling over the soul, surely this is the same as exhibiting excellent reason.