Difference between aristotelian ethics and utilitarianism

Difference between aristotelian ethics and utilitarianism According to Aristotle, the ultimate human good is happiness, which is synonymous with virtuous activity and living well. Here virtue should be defined as excellence, or doing ones life-long activities well, in accordance with completing ones proper function. Aristotles notion of the proper function of mankind is described as the activity of the soul in conformity with virtue and principle, and is also what he considers to be the highest value. The moral criterion for completing ones proper function is to act in the same manner as a person of virtuous character. Man is not here simply to live, but is endowed with the faculty of reason and should exercise this capacity virtuously, as part of his proper function. Aristotle asserts that activity, especially right activity, is the function of man. Merely having the capacity to think rationally is not enough; rather, one must make use of this ability to determine whether or not the actions he wants to take are in conformity with excellenc e and virtue. Upon doing so, he is acting virtuously and must continue this course of action for his entire life in order to be person of good character and to complete his proper function. Aristotle defines The Good as being the object at which mans actions aim and goodâ€Å' as simply being the end of ones action. While he does not consider this form of The Good to be visible, the idea is very closely associated with the proper function of mankind. A proponent of teleology, Aristotle believes in a definite right way to act, as well as the existence of a universal order. Therefore, in order to complete ones proper function, one has to be the rightâ€Å' kind of person; specifically, he must be of moral, virtuous character for his actions to be considered good. Aristotle notes that it is not enough simply to do these virtuous activities, but one must purposefully complete such activities to truly perform his proper function. For man to be able to act virtuously, be moral, and achi eve supreme happiness, external goods are necessary. Such goods may be friends, wealth, and political power, though Aristotle also mentions that the lack of goods like good birth, good children, and beautyâ€Å' could spoil ultimate happiness (Aristotle, 21). Also important to Aristotle is the concept of a moral meanevery virtuous action is a mean between deficiency and excess, and he considers such extremes to be bad. Consider the following example: a lack of courage is associated with cowardice, while having too much courage leads to recklessnessneither of which would be seen as goodâ€Å' qualities. This moral mean is not universal, but relative to each individual. Associated with the idea of a moral mean is the importance Aristotle places on living a balanced life in which everything runs smoothly. Aristotle also addresses the concepts of pleasure and pain, and their association with happiness. As previously stated, happiness is identified as virtuous activity, as opposed to an emotion or feeling. While Aristotle does not believe that happiness is a feeling, he does recognize pleasure to be such. His concern with pleasure comes when man seems to be living solely for this feeling, for such a life is not virtuous. When man performs his proper function, he knows himself to be happy, and as a consequence, he feels pleasure for having done so. Aristotle does not think that this kind of pleasure is vulgar, but a natural result from leading a virtuous life. In his presentation of the doctrine of Utilitarianism, John Stuart Mill bases the moral system on his observations of how people already behave in their daily lives. This process demonstrates the application of inductive ethics, which is the idea that observation and experience give knowledge of morality. If an innate moral sense does exist, according to Mill the best that this sense can do is tell us moral laws, but Utilitarianism is still necessary to decide how these laws should be applied. For Mill, the ultimate goal of man is the promotion of happiness, which he defines as the presence of pleasure and the absence of pain and recognizes to be an emotion. More specifically, the utilitarian tries to promote the general happiness of mankind, while simultaneously trying to pursue his own pleasure. These ideas lead to the General Happiness Principle, which holds to the concept that actions are right if they lead to increased happiness and decreased unhappiness, and wrong if they do the opposite. Man should always act so that society is improved, but should also be careful not to neglect himself in the process. Mill places importance on the consequences of ones actions, rather than on ones motivation for performing the actions. As long as promoting happiness is the end of the action, that action can be considered good and moral, even though ones motivation is frequently the hope of personal pleasure or gain. The doctrine of Utilitarianism is enforced by external and internal sanctions, as are all other moral systems. External sanctions are those outside of ones mind, such as the police or the opinion of the society in which one lives, which prevent one from completing certain actions. Therefore, the internal sanctions of mans actions come in the form of ones conscience and sense of duty. These sanctions are not intended to be the reasons for acting a certain way, but are protective mechanisms in case one performs an action as the result of poor judgment. Mill believes that character need not be considered when assessing the worth of ones actions; rather, one should take into account the character of another in his estimation of the worth of that person. An entire chapter of Mills work is devoted to justice. Mill describes justice as being natural and absolute, as well as a composite of several sentiments, namely vengeance, self-defense, and sympathy. Mill relates five characteristics of justice in his discussion. The first is the view that the violation of a persons legal rights is unjust. It then follows that the upholding of moral rights would be considered just. Receiving what one deservesor earning the consequences of ones actionsis the third characteristic, and for Mill the most crucial, as this concept presents the clearest conception of justice by the general population. The fourth attribute of justice is the accepted belief that breaking promises to others is an unjust action. Lastly, being impartial is admitted to be consistent with the notion of justice. Unjust actions require punishment because man has certain duties that must be performed, and justice is intended to ensure that each individual completes the actions for w hich they are responsible. Every individual has rights that they expect society to honor, and justice is necessary to uphold these rights and ensure the existence of a society in which the general happiness can be achieved. For these reasons, Mill believes that justice is the highest form of pleasure. Mill offers a proof for Utilitarianism with the following premises: (1) whatever is desired is a good; (2) each person desires his or her own happiness; (3) from the first two premises it follows that happiness is a good for every individual; (4) society consists of individuals; (5) one concludes from (3) and (4) that the aggregate good is equal to the sum of the good of each individual. Therefore, the social good is equal to the sum of the good of each individual in society. Mill arrives at his conclusion by using empirical observation, working from the ground up to build his argument. He notes that one can conclude that happiness is desirable because of the fact that people actually desire it, making happiness a good for every individual. Because society is made up of individuals, the social good is the sum of the good of each individual. Each premise is formulated from observation and experience, starting at the base and building upon these ideas, which demonstrates Mills empirica l formulation of the principle of Utilitarianism. Mill believes in the perfectibility of man and society through Utilitarianism, since its adherents would be striving for the good of all, continually aiming at higher morality. The utilitarian offers objections to Aristotelian Ethics, specifically in regard to Aristotles opinion of how to determine the nature of ones character and actions, as well as his treatment of the nature of pleasure and pain. A proponent of Utilitarianism questions Aristotles view of what constitutes a good or bad character, as well as his criteria for what makes actions good or bad. One recalls that for an act to be good, according to Aristotle, it must be performed in the manner in which a virtuous person would perform the action. In his definitions of bad acts and bad character, Aristotle uses each idea to define the other, presenting a circle that is not quite justified. He believes that a person of bad character is one that performs bad acts; however, he also believes that a bad act is one that comes from a bad character. Aristotle does provide several acts that are said to be absolutely wrong, and those who perform these acts are of bad character. However, no mention is made of actions that are absolutely rightAristotle merely states that actions taken by people of good character are right. The Utilitarian wonders how to define a good character if there exist no absolutely right actions that may be performed to provide a basis for what constitutes a good character. The notion of absolute rights and wrongs cannot be fairly used if only the absolute wrongs are taken into consideration when defining the nature of ones character. Another inconsistency found in Aristotles argument is when he allows that a virtuous person is capable of making a mistake, but can still be considered to be of good character, so long as the mistake is not so great that it cannot help but be noticed (Aristotle, 51). He does not agree that a person of bad character can do something good and have his action truly be considered good, which follows from his criteria for what constitutes good and bad actions. If one chose instead to focus on the consequences of a mans actions to determin e the goodness or badness of his actions, the character of this person could be more easily determined. An act ought to be considered good if it promotes pleasure and decreases pain, regardless of the character of the person who performs the act. Similarly, a bad act would be one that decreases happiness and promotes pain. Here, character is not a measure of the virtue of the action, but can be justly determined by observing the results of ones actions over time. Such is the view of the utilitarian. Also in question is Aristotles teleological view of mankind that is manifest in the presentation of his moral system. His espousal of the notion that man has a proper function and that there is a definite right way to do things demonstrates Aristotles support of teleology. In other words, the existence of a proper function of man is what causes one to act the way he doesin a manner striving to complete this proper function. In opposition to this viewpoint, the utilitarian doubts the existence of one right path for every individual to take in lifethe direction one chooses to follow ought to depend on the consequences of the actions that he desires to pursue. Aristotle believes that the reason man acts morally is because that is what he is supposed to do, simply because completing his proper function requires such action. The utilitarian, in favor of an empirical view of ethics, looks at what man obviously desires: happiness. Every individual has an interest in achieving and maintainin g his own happiness, as well as promoting the general happiness of society to a certain extent, so it follows that man would want to act in a way that increases pleasure and happiness, while lessening pain. By promoting the goodhappinesshe is acting virtuously. From this, one realizes that there are different kinds of happiness that can be desired; reaching these states of happiness necessarily requires all kinds of people (both so-called good and bad people) taking different actions. This admission indicates that there is not one right direction that can only be followed by the right kind of people, as Aristotle suggests. A crucial difference between Aristotelian ethics and Utilitarianism is the respective roles of pleasure and pain as they are related to right and wrong. Aristotle believes that pleasure and pain are subject to the criteria for right and wrong, whereas the utilitarian believes these feelings determine the criteria for right and wrong. The criteria Aristotle uses to determine the virtue (or lack thereof) of ones actions is whether or not the actions are those that a person of virtuous character would perform. One recalls that Aristotle believes that performing virtuous actions in accordance with ones proper function is synonymous with happiness. When one is completing his proper function he might feel pleasure as a consequence, but that is not his reason for choosing to act the way he does. Pleasure, then, would not be the desired end to ones actionsacting virtuously and completing ones proper function are the goals. However, if one accepts the view that happiness is what man most desi res, then he should see the importance of acting in a way that promotes pleasure and happiness. It would seem that right actions promote overall pleasure, for the person performing the action and often for others around him; therefore, one should choose to act in a way that promotes pleasure, as this is the right way to do things. In this manner, also, the utilitarian denounces Aristotles teleological view of the existence of humanity; clearly, man chooses actions that bring pleasure, for the purpose of attaining happiness. Utilitarianism can be considered to be practical moral system, as its ideas are based on observations of peoples actions and behavior in daily life. The inconsistencies found in Aristotles argumenthis method for defining a good or bad character, as well as the allowances he makes for one and not the othermake accepting his moral system difficult for the utilitarian. Also difficult to accept is Aristotles teleological view of a universal order and only one moral path to take, the existence of which is supposed to be the cause of our actions. Rather, it seems evident that the promotion of pleasure and diminishing of pain are the causes of human action; therefore, they are the determinants of right and wrong. Following the notion of empiricismaccepting that all knowledge originates in experienceallows one to logically conclude that because pleasure and happiness are things that everyone desires (the groundwork) people should act in a way that promotes happiness (the end).

Albertsons Works on Employee Attitudes essay

ALBERTSONS WORKS ON EMPLOYEE ATTITUDES 1. The Successful Life program made by Foreman's dramatically influences the company's profitability. This program made a transparency between the management and the employee. Like for example on the 1st day they begin it in inspirational hand-out. In this case management build and let their employee know what was the goal of the company and what are those things that they have to do t contribute in the company success. The program also encourage each individual most especially those that is in the lower position to appreciate their present in the company.It is very important that we will not set aside our employee. As much as possible management should recognize them and let them feel that they are important in an organization. In return this employee will give their best and contribute their knowledge for the benefit of the company. Remember the best asset of a company is the employee!. 2. † Positive attitude is the single biggest thing that can change a business†. It's right! If we think positively our outcome will be positive. What if for example we made a mistake then other people see that mistake. Some treat it as negative but for some they treat it as positive.Positive in the sense that they treat it as opportunity or room for improvement. So! if all the employee will be motivated well and lead it to company's goal the change in business will be more like easier. Appreciate each individual; positive attitude is like building and empowering employee by sharing each individual talent and skill. 3. I should have to monitor if this program are really effective. I should have not to think for the benefit of the company. I have to look the feedback on how my employee turns it into productivity. It was like building relationship with my employee.But still with this program there is a risk. What if my employee leave me after this program?. If this program will last for example three months then with that period I should see little changes in our business. I had a experience regarding giving this kind of program some of my co worker undergone the program just left the company and went abroad. What happen was management was very disappointed because they will contribute it to other company. 4. Foreman's program was pretty much good. I think I should have to relate it in my real work. Every morning we have what we so called circle meeting.Like in Foreman's program we try to share each experience on shifting period we share the problem we encounter in the line then what are those things that we've done. Every third week of the month we had a Plant wide meeting were in all the question and concern were raise. This Foreman's program seems to be motivating to every employee because this program gives each individual importance. In this kind of program employee encourage to contribute and share their talents. It's not just always work we should not put pressure in our workplace. At least in a mean while we have to put some relaxation so that our employee will be more productive.

Four Views on Religion in a Pluralistic World

With the understanding that religious pluralism is the greatest challenge facing Christianity in today’s Western culture, Dennis L. Okholm and Timothy R. Phillips assembled the writings of five scholars to address the issue of whether explicit belief in Jesus is the only way to salvation. The contributions of these scholars, along with introductory comments by Okholm and Phillips, are found in the book, Four Views on Salvation in a Pluralistic World, edited by Okholm and Phillips.In this work, John Hick argues the view of normative pluralism and its assertion that all ethical religions lead to God. Clark Pinnock promotes inclusivism and the view that salvation is ultimately based in Christ even though people of other religions may be saved apart from explicit faith in Christ. Alister E. McGrath argues for a particularist view of salvation from a post-enlightenment perspective. R. Douglas Geivett and W. Gary Phillips present a particularist view from an evidentialist perspectiv e. This paper will give a critical review of Four Views on Salvation in a Pluralistic World.It will attempt to accurately summarize the views of Hick, Pinnock, McGrath, and Geivett and Phillips. This paper will also evaluate the arguments made by these contributors. Introductory Issues as Presented by Okholm and Phillips Okholm and Phillips offer a helpful introduction to the issues of pluralism, inclusivism and particularism. They do this by discussing the rise of religious pluralism and the challenges it has brought to Christianity. Okholm and Phillips point out that the traditional Christian view of particularism was challenged during the Enlightenment (8).Schleiermacher took an important step toward inclusivism when he asserted that God is salvifically available in some degree in all religions even though the gospel of Jesus Christ is the fulfillment and highest manifestation of this universal awareness (8). Classical liberalism followed Schleiermacher’s inclusive asserti ons until the late nineteenth century when historicism and its heightened awareness of cultural and religious relativities challenged the claim that Jesus Christ is the fulfillment of religion.Ernst Troeltsch argued that all people at all times are purely historical creatures, therefore, all religious claims are culturally conditioned perspectives of the divine. Being unable to make normative religious judgments, Troeltsch espoused pluralism (8-9). Okholm and Phillips assert that the late twentieth century â€Å"has heightened the dialogue regarding other religions† (9). In the current pluralistic environment normative religious claims are becoming increasingly difficult to maintain.Likewise, arguments for the uniqueness and superiority of Christianity are not well received. They also point out that the differences between liberal inclusivists and pluralists are only a matter of degree (10). In fact, in recent decades some liberal leaders have crossed over to religious plural ism. The strong pull towards pluralism has also affected conservative Christianity as more within the conservative camp question whether explicit belief in Christ is always necessary for salvation (11). Pluralism as Presented by John HickOkholm and Phillips point out that John Hick â€Å"towers over all other pluralists in influence and renown† (13). Hick believes salvation must be understood in more general terms than Christianity has traditionally allowed. According to Hick, salvation should be understood as a human change—a gradual transformation from natural self-centeredness to a radically new God-centeredness (43). He calls this transformation â€Å"salvation/liberation† (44). Hick believes that all ethical religions lead to God and rejects the view that Christianity alone is superior or uniquely true.He opts for the view that â€Å"the God-figures of the great theistic religions are different human awarenesses of the Ultimate† (39). Presenting hims elf as a former Christian fundamentalist who is familiar with traditional Christian claims, Hick explains why he rejects Christian particularism in favor of pluralism. First, Hick rejects the Bible’s authority and its ability to settle theological issues. He believes that the Bible presents pre-scientific beliefs and cultural assumptions that are no longer acceptable today (33).He also does not believe that God reveals propositions to people in human language. To Hick, the formulation of theology â€Å"is a human activity that always, and necessarily, employs the concepts and reflects the cultural assumptions and biases of the theologians in question† (36). Second, Hick rejects the New Testament teaching of the incarnation. To him, Jesus was not God and never claimed to be divine. The New Testament declarations of Jesus’ deity were written by people who did not know Jesus and reflect a gradual deification of Jesus in the minds of Christians.Hick’s denial of the incarnation naturally leads him to reject the â€Å"central doctrines of Trinity and Atonement† (52). Hick says the idea of the incarnation was a metaphor. To him, Jesus embodied as much of the infinite divine moral qualities as could be expressed in a finite human, but Jesus himself was not divine (57). Third, Hick argues that the morality of Christians is basically the same as people who follow other religions. If Christianity were uniquely true, he asserts, Christians should be morally superior. This is not the case according to Hick (39-42).Since people of differing religions have basically the same sense of piety and morality, this suggests to him that the major world religions are basically equal and saying the same thing. The primary appeal of pluralism is that it fits well with the thinking of modern Western society. Today’s society holds to a high view of man that has carried over from the Enlightenment. It also likes to stress fairness and equality and shows a disdain for the idea that large numbers of people may be lost for eternity because they never heard of or trusted in the Christian message.Hick’s pluralism appears to be an enlightened approach to religion but it has more problems than solutions. The first major issue with Hick’s pluralism involves his starting points for understanding people and religions. Hick’s starting point appears to be the Enlightenment’s positive anthropology and Western conceptions of fairness. He also explicitly states that he rejects the Bible’s authority when it comes to evaluating religions. Not only is this high view of man being challenged in the new postmodern environment, Christians who believe the Bible must reject Hick’s starting points.For those who accept the Bible’s authority, Hick’s perspective on these important matters is certain to be skewed since he rejects the one true source that is able to give us direction on these import ant matters. Second, Hick disrespects and even insults the major religions by claiming that they are basically teaching the same thing. As McGrath’s analysis showed, Hick’s perspective is shallow and shows a disregard for what the major religions actually teach.Certainly, there are aspects of Christianity such as the Golden Rule that have parallels in other religions, but there is much about Christianity that is mutually exclusive to other religions. The Christian belief in one personal God, for instance, cannot be reconciled with Buddhism and Hinduism. The Christian view that God is a God of grace and mercy who can be reached only through faith alone is foreign to the Allah of Islam. The deity of Jesus Christ is a particular of Christianity that is rejected by other religions. This reviewer also disagrees with Hicks’ attempt to mold Christianity into his own image.Hick wants to acknowledge that Christianity is a way to God but only after stripping it of its ess ential elements. He also wants to keep the elements of Christianity he finds acceptable while rejecting other parts. For example, Hick wants to keep the ethical teachings attributed to Jesus in the New Testament but rejects any claims concerning Jesus’ deity. Such distinctions appear arbitrary and subjective. Third, this reviewer rejects Hick’s modern assumptions that religious beliefs are totally culturally conditioned and that true knowledge of God cannot be reached.It is true that humans are influenced by culture and that no one person or group has a complete understanding of â€Å"the truth. † If God does exist, however, why should He not able to reveal Himself in such a way that humans can have some true knowledge about Him and His ways? Inclusivism as Presented by Clark Pinnock Clark Pinnock believes that inclusivism correctly offers a middle ground between exclusivism and pluralism. To him, â€Å"Inclusivism believes that, because God is present in the w hole world (premise), God’s grace is also at work in some way among all people, possibly even in the sphere of religious life (inference)† (98).Pinnock asserts that inclusivism rightly holds to two equal theological truths—the particularity of salvation through Christ and God’s universal plan to save sinners. Particularists, Pinnock says, hold the former and not the latter. Pluralists, on the other hand, deny the former and affirm the latter. â€Å"Inclusivism,† Pinnock asserts, â€Å"permits us to hold both particularity and universality at the same time† (142). Pinnock points out that inclusivism is not a tightly defined position. He says his form of inclusivism is â€Å"cautious† or â€Å"modal. Unlike another influential inclusivist, Karl Rahner, Pinnock stops short of stating that other religions possess salvific status or are vehicles of salvation. Pinnock holds that â€Å"Religions can be pathways to damnation† (113). He does believe, though, that the Holy Spirit is operative in human religion in a way that prepares people for the gospel of Christ (96). He also claims that wherever the triune God is present, grace must be present (98). Using the examples of Melchizedek and Cornelius, Pinnock states, â€Å"I believe that the Bible supports inclusivism† (109).Important to Pinnock’s inclusivism is the belief that â€Å"God can use both general and special revelation in salvific ways† (117). Pinnock rejects the traditional idea that God reveals himself in such a way that worsens the condition of sinners and makes their plight more hopeless (117). Pinnock should be credited for emphasizing the vastness of God’s mercy and encouraging particularists to reexamine their beliefs. As a reader, though, I was disappointed with Pinnock’s defense of inclusivism. First, Pinnock appears to have a higher view of human religion than Scripture does.Scripture consistently presents the other religions as wicked and idolatrous. God viewed the religion of the Canaanites as an abomination (Ezra 9:1). Paul was persecuted for teaching that the gods of the Gentiles were â€Å"no gods at all† (Acts 19:26). In his letter to the Thessalonians Paul commended his readers for turning to God from idols (1 Thess. 1:9). Second, Pinnock’s anthropology is not true to Scripture. He does not address Scripture’s strong emphasis on man’s depravity. He appears to share with Hick the idea that people are basically good and are deserving of a chance at salvation.Salvation in Scripture, though, appears based more on God’s choice than on something God owes the human race. His claim that general revelation can save is also not supported by Scripture. Pinnock’s inclusivism is most striking in his assertion that people of other religions may still be saved even if they reject the Christian gospel and remain in their current religion (120). How can th is be reconciled with Jesus’ message in Matthew 10:37-39 that no one who is unwilling to deny mother, father, and even his own life to follow Him is worthy of salvation?McGrath’s Post-Enlightenment Particularist View McGrath presents a post-Enlightenment particularist approach to salvation, but the main focus of his chapter is to highlight the major problems with pluralism. After acknowledging that the issues raised by pluralists are important, McGrath shows why he believes pluralism is seriously in error. According to McGrath, the whole issue of religious pluralism has been â€Å"fatally flawed† by a mentality that demands that all religions be â€Å"reduced to the same mold† (156). The assumption by pluralists that all religions are asically saying the same thing reflects an outdated foundationalism and a view of religion that reflects a Western cultural bias. McGrath argues that interaction between people of different faiths is good. He disagrees, thou gh, with religious discussions that overlook important areas of disagreement. Proper discussion can enhance understanding of other religions and cause Christians to reexamine long-held views that rest on inadequate scriptural foundations, but it should never be at the expense of downplaying key beliefs (159).McGrath, therefore, calls on theologians to respect all religions and their unique elements. Christianity, for example, holds to key beliefs that separate it from other religions. As he states, â€Å"The New Testament thus affirms the particularity of the redemptive act of God in Jesus Christ† (163). This foundational difference should not be ignored or â€Å"merged into the various concepts of divinity found in other religions† (165). McGrath also draws attention to the Reformed view that God has revealed himself to all people through natural revelation.Thus, McGrath, unlike Karl Barth, does believe that people of other religions know some true things about God fr om the creation. Knowledge of God from natural revelation, though, does not necessarily translate into salvation. In the last four pages of his chapter, McGrath specifically addresses his personal views on salvation. He states that we can be assured that all who respond in faith to the explicit preaching of the gospel will be saved. He does not, though, conclude that only those who respond to the explicit preaching of the gospel will be saved.According to McGrath, â€Å"We must be prepared to be surprised at those whom we will meet in the kingdom of God† (178). He cites the Ninevites, the queen of Sheeba and those who lived in Tyre, Sidon, and Sodom and Gomorrah as examples of people who may have experienced salvation in untraditional ways. McGrath says the traditional evangelical view that a verbal proclamation of the gospel is always necessary for salvation is â€Å"flawed† (178). This approach, he says, â€Å"limits God’s modes of action, disclosure, and sav ing power† (178). For McGrath, â€Å"A human failure to evangelize cannot be transposed into God’s failure to save† (178).God’s prevenient grace is at work and may bring salvation to people even if their â€Å"act of hope and trust may lack the fully orbed character of an informed Christian faith† (179). Although giving no documentation or explanation, McGrath claims that many Muslims are becoming Christians through dreams and visions of the risen Christ. For McGrath, then, human preaching is a means that God uses to bring salvation, but it is not the only means. In the end, McGrath states his confidence that the Judge of the earth will do what is right (Gen. 18:25).As mentioned, McGrath’s discussion is mostly a critique of pluralism. In this area he does well. McGrath rightly charges Hick with disregarding the particularity of Christianity and overlooking the major differences between the world’s major religions. I also agree with McG rath’s emphasis on the particularity of Christianity and the necessity of belief in Christ for salvation as it relates to Christianity. He may also be correct in his assertion that we may be surprised as the number of people we will meet in heaven (178), although the texts he uses to support this assertion are questionable.His use of the Ninevites, queen of Sheba, and the cities of Tyre, Sidon, Sodom, and Gomorrah are not true challenges to traditional exclusivism. The Ninevites and the queen of Sheba had access to special revelation. The Gentile cities he mentioned may be less guilty than Jewish cities that rejected the message of Christ, but this is no evidence that people in those cities were saved. McGrath may also be correct that human preaching is not always necessary for a person to be saved. God may use extraordinary means outside of human proclamation to bring people to saving faith.Like McGrath claims, God may use visions of the risen Christ to bring people to faith . How much of this activity takes place is not known. I wish McGrath would have documented his statement that many Muslims are coming to Christ through special visions of the resurrected Christ. Geivett and Phillips’ Evidential Particularist View Geivett and Phillips promote the view that â€Å"individual salvation depends on explicit personal faith in Jesus Christ† (214). Their position is a version of Christian particularism that is sometimes called exclusivism or restrictivism.This view has been the traditional view of Christianity up until the Enlightenment and still has many adherents today. Geivett and Phillips set forth their methodology for engaging inclusivists and pluralists. The discussion with inclusivists is a â€Å"first-order intramural debate† between those who accept and believe the Bible. Thus, debate over what the Bible says becomes primary. In this context, they do a theological analysis of texts they believe support particularism. The texts they use include Acts 4:12; John 3:16, 18; Romans 10:9-15; and John 14:6; 17:20.Geivett and Phillips argue that these texts affirm the necessity of explicit belief in Christ for salvation to occur. With pluralists, however, there is a â€Å"second-order intramural debate. † Here arguments from Scripture are not the starting point since pluralists do not accept the Bible’s authority. For Geivett and Phillips, discussion with pluralists is possible, but the starting point must be natural theology. In particular, they begin with arguments for the existence of God to set the base for their eventual conclusion that we can trust God’s special revelation as found in the Bible.To them, natural theology and Jesus’ resurrection from the dead give strong evidence that the Bible is true and that we can trust it when it speaks to how one must be saved. I am mostly in agreement with the position of Geivett and Phillips. The strong emphasis in the New Testament on faith in Christ for salvation and the emphasis on taking the gospel to the ends of the earth are strong evidences for Christian particularism. Plus, although John 14:6 and Acts 4:12 do not present an airtight case for particularism, these texts do emphasize the exclusive nature of Christianity.Geivett and Phillips are to be commended on two points. First, they are to be commended for their scholarly and humble attempt to establish the truth of their position. As they say, â€Å"We have not argued merely for the coherence of our position; we have argued that it is true† (245). They not only offered the most specific exegesis of any of the writers, they also interacted seriously with the texts most emphasized by their opponents. Geivett and Phillips also point to a practical issue in their favor. If the pluralists are correct there is little danger in preaching inclusivism or particularism.If the inclusivists are right there is little danger in promoting particularism but it is risk y to promote pluralism. If particularists are correct, however, there is great danger in promoting pluralism and inclusivism for many will be deceived into thinking they are saved when they are not. The consequences of this last scenario are disastrous. Not all of the points made by Geivett and Phillips were equally good. I did not find their discussion on Christian evidences as being particularly helpful. Though I am in agreement with their conclusions about general revelation, this discussion appeared out of place.Perhaps this space could have been devoted to more important matters and amplifications of other points made in the chapter. Plus, one could believe in the particularism of Geivett and Phillips and also hold to a presupposition apologetic that would not start with evidences for the existence of God. In sum, Four Views is a significant work that presents the major views on salvation in a pluralistic world. It is a helpful read for those who want a basic overview of the ma jor positions on this important issue.

Corporate Social Responsibility Of The Business World

CORPORATE SOCIAL RESPOSIBILITY Presentation: Corporate social commitment is the term used to portray the way that a business considers the cash related, characteristic and social impacts of decisions and exercises it is incorporated in. The piece of Corporate Social Responsibility in the business world has made from a fig leaf publicizing front into a fundamental piece of corporate behavior over the span of late years. Conservative frameworks are regarded, pined for and passed on additional by appropriate players in various business endeavors all around all through the world. Both investigation and corporate practice thusly see CSR as a controlling rule for business accomplishment. Authentic BACKGROUND-: As social diary obligation says that in the 1950s the fundamental focus was on associations commitments to society and doing incredible deeds for society. In the 1960s key events, people and considerations were instrumental in portraying the social changes presented in the midst of this decade. In the 1970s business directors associated the standard organization limits when overseeing CSR issues, while, in the 1980s, business and social interest came closer and firms ended up being more responsive to their accomplices. In the midst of the 1990s the considered CSR ended up being for the most part embraced, moreover CSR was consolidated with technique composing ultimately, in the 2000s, CSR ended up being totally a discriminating key issue. SUPPORTING EVIDENCE-:Show MoreRelatedWhy Has Corporate Social Responsibility Become Such a Prominent Part of the Business World Today?1977 Words   |  8 PagesWhy has Corporate Social Responsibility become such a prominent part of the business world today? It is widely believed that Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) is one of the most important tasks in the twenty century. Some people may consider that companies have always been the profit organizations, and social affairs are in charge by the government, which is a common sense that there are no directly relationships between each other. However, CSR is considered one of the key elements to sustainRead MoreCorporate Social Responsibility : Corporate Responsibility773 Words   |  4 PagesCorporate social responsibility may also be referred to as corporate citizenship and can involve spending finances that do not directly benefit the company but rather advocate positive social and environmental change. The soul in the next economy forum presentation made it evident that achieving corporate social responsibly in a company can reap major benefits in terms of finances, more inspiring workplace and customer satisfaction. In the past, companies mistakenly thought that corporate socialRead MoreTypes Of Corporate Social Responsibility1539 Words   |  7 PagesOwning a business used to mean that a when company provided a good or service to a consumer it received a profit in return. Owning a business has developed into a greater thing then the cut and dry definition previously mentioned. Society’s desires have changed with the times, and it burdens businesses to accept more social responsibility for the cost of doing business. In order for a business to continue to be successful in this rapidly changing business world it must accept the changes of corporateRead MoreCorporate Social Responsibility Essay1334 Words   |  6 PagesThe term Corporate Social Responsibility refers to a company’s responsibility to provide a benefit to the society the company affects. Corporate social responsibility incorporates dimensions of corporate responsibility, and corporate policy which include a compa ny’s policy to hire minority or disabled workers, or taking a stance on social and political issues that benefit the community. The social portion of corporate social responsibility includes corporate charitable business contributions andRead MoreCorporate Social Responsibility Of India Essay1669 Words   |  7 Pages CORPORATE SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY IN INDIA â€Å"Crossing the Bridge from Knowing to doing† Jasleen Kaur Luthra* â€Å"Successful people have a social responsibility to make the world a better place and not just take from it.† Carie Underwood Abstract The 21st century is characterized by unprecedented challenges and opportunities, arising from globalization, the desire forRead MoreThe Problems of Social Responsibility1350 Words   |  5 Pages1. INTRODUCTION Combine Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) into strategic management is making and increase profit to a companys business. In recent year, the importance of Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) has gradually become a very concern to industries. Hence, there have been gradually increasing tensions with many companies and increase the responsibility of managers try to carry out Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) to society. In fact, managers should be having knowledge and understandingRead MoreCorporate Social Responsibility On A Social Level1086 Words   |  5 Pagesis to understand how a large progressive company operates in the corporate world as well as fulfills their corporate responsibility on a social level. While corporate responsibility is important, it is always viewed through the fiscal viability dimension of the maelstrom. The business case dominates the representation and operationalization of corporate responsibility. Due to the increased public sensitivity to co rporate responsibility, the attitude has evolved from the unnecessary intrusion, throughRead Moreâ€Å"Why Companies Can No Longer Afford to Ignore Their Social Responsibilities†1388 Words   |  6 PagesAfford to Ignore Their Social Responsibilities† Theme of the Article Over the years, the perspective of corporate social responsibility has evolved in Corporate America. Today, many businesses have made promises to contribute to current social problems, such as the environment and labor standards. Companies are now looking at corporate social responsibility as a sustainability tactic that can benefit their overall market value. Companies that do not pay attention to their social and ethical responsibilitiesRead MoreChallenges in Implementing Csr1580 Words   |  7 PagesChallenges in implementing CSR Corporate Social Responsibility can be separate into internal dimension and external dimension. Internal dimension and external dimension Internal dimension focuses on organizational practices with respect to internal stakeholders that should be aligned to corporate social responsibility standards. It includes human resource management, safety and health, environmental impact and corporate change. External dimension focus on an organization practices towards externalRead MoreCorporate Social Responsibility Definition1011 Words   |  5 PagesThis research study is about what the Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) is, how people define and how I understand this term? According to my research and observations, CSR does not have only one and constant definition. I have read a lot of definitions of CSR and in fact, they are similar but not the same. Briefly, definition and understanding of CSR depends on person to person. Thus, I am going to talk about definitions of the CSR and I will define my own perspective about the CSR.