The Privatization or Commodification of Water

Introduction For a long time, ethics has been seen as the study of what comprises good and bad conduct which includes the values that influence the conduct. Generally, contemporary culture has given humans unprecedented liberty and prosperity which has necessitated the growth of the concept of ethics.Advertising We will write a custom research paper sample on The Privatization or Commodification of Water specifically for you for only $16.05 $11/page Learn More Business ethics on the other hand has existed in the form of reflection on the ethical dimensions of business exchanges and institutions whereby the concept has been understood in two distinctive ways, where one group views it from the background of philosophy while the other group views it from the background of business community (Brenkert and Beauchamp 3). These two approaches are not exclusive, but the philosophical approach appears to be the broader of the two. In all cases, it becomes importa nt to appreciate the fact that moral problems and the process of analyzing them invites different forms of useful analysis. Water forms an essential commodity that ensures continuity of life, though for a long time no systematic way has been elaborated in appreciating its value (Brown and Schmidt 3). For long, people have regarded water as a renewable commodity that has potential to develop without limit. With the larger society utilizing water in different ways such as irrigation, energy and burgeoning urban centers, the reality is now clearer that like just other renewable commodities, water is a finite resource. However, providing answers to modern water problems requires giving answers to questions of value: how should society capture, store or distribute water; at what cost; for whom; and for how long (Brown and Schmidt 4). All these questions are regarded as ethical because just like any other essential resource, determining a fair and just distribution of water has direct eff ects on human and nonhuman lives and also the systems that sustain them. Commodification of water Borgmann argues that the driving force of the contemporary society is the aspect of commodification which is described as, that vital structure of modern society of the market which conveys a sense of moral censure (Borgmann 143). The author, in reference to Viviana Zelizer, states that, â€Å"economic prophets have frequently warned us against global commodification and the loss of the moral-emotional fiber it brings† (Borgmann 144). Using the Marx’s concept of commodification, Borgmann first sees the concept to possess the verb to commodify, which to him is â€Å"to draw something from outside the market into the market so that it becomes available for sale and purchase† (Borgmann 144).Advertising Looking for research paper on public administration? Let's see if we can help you! Get your first paper with 15% OFF Learn More Marx looked at the various ways in which capitalism perceived the production of things such as wheat, shoes and clothing out of the hands and circumstances of the farmers, artisan and householders, stripped them of their context of skills and persons, of exchanges and uses and made them into commodities (goods) whose importance was reduced to their price. Moreover, Marx became critical of how labor was being converted into something that could be purchased and sold under conditions that only favored the capitalists and made the workers beggars (Borgmann 144); thus, commodification became purely and totally exploitation. The contemporary discussions continue to see the concept of commodification as contested. In such discussions, the broader agreement has remained that, certain goods such as justice should never be for sale (Borgmann 145). But other goods have continued to draw divided opinions. For a long time, goods at issue in this discussion have generally constituted those in Michael Walzer’s list of items which are subject to ‘blocked exchanges’: 1) Human beings; 2) political power and influence; 3) criminal justice; 4) freedom of speech, press, religion, assembly; 5) marriage and procreation; 6) the right to leave the political community; 7) exemptions from military service, from jury duty, and from any other form of communally imposed work; 8) political offices; 9) basic welfare services like police protection or primary and secondary schooling; 10) desperate exchanges; 11) prizes and honors of many sorts; 12) divine grace; 13) love and friendship; and 14) a long series of criminal sales (Borgmann p.145). The above list can be complete if addition of certain public goods is made. These public goods are; clean air and clean water, safety from crime, basic health care and public lands. The main argument in disfavor of commodification of public goods is that commodification may leads to social injustice, for instance, if education is totally commodified, the chil dren of the poor will get no education or for them, inferior education will be enough (Borgmann p.145). Commodification of water: Public vs. Private debate There exist two debates that continue to dominate the lives of many people concerning the issue of water. For instance, there are arguments whether water services should remain public or go private. One of the arguments â€Å"is concerned with practical issues of efficiency and economics, and the other is about principle† (Snitow, Kaufman and Fox p.10). Privatizing water in a country like USA has been a hard venture to undertake. Those opposed to such move include personalities such as Barlow of the Council of Canadians and Tony Clarke of Canada’s Polaris Institute (Snitow, Kaufman and Fox 10). The two have opposed the move to privatize water in principle and they are convinced that private companies should only get involved in narrow areas of infrastructure development but not allowed to have ownership, control or delivery of the basic service.Advertising We will write a custom research paper sample on The Privatization or Commodification of Water specifically for you for only $16.05 $11/page Learn More To them, the process or actions of commodifying water is generally wrong in terms of ethics, environmental and social (Snitow, Kaufman and Fox p.10). They are on the view that the process will, â€Å"insure that decisions regarding the allocation of water would center on commercial, not environmental or social justice considerations; privatization means that management of water resources is based on principles of scarcity and profit maximization rather than long-term sustainability† (Snitow, Kaufman and Fox 10). Contrary to this position, there is a divergent view which has been adopted by Peter Cook of the National Association of Water Companies who is convinced that if market principles are applicable to other products in the market, then water as a commo dity cannot be exceptional. Cook sees nothing wrong or unethical in making profits from water since the money which has been pumped into the business by the investors is used to benefit customers and provide them with services. Cook sums up his position by quoting the bible by stating that, the bible and especially the Ten Commandments have no provision that prohibits people from making profits, and utilities need to be operated as enterprises (Snitow, Kaufman and Fox pp.10-11). To this extent, â€Å"the practical debate over who can provide water better focuses on the issues of transparency, efficiency, rates, and sustainability† (Snitow, Kaufman and Fox pp.11).. Indeed, most of these values are possible in public controlled enterprises but far more difficult in private owned enterprises or corporations. Ethical dilemma The essence of water being a commodity that sustains life has drawn conflicting debates and reactions on whether it is ethical to commodify and therefore sub ject it to market competition principles. This particular confusion has been precipitated by the actions of United Nations to declare that water is a human right that should be accessible to everyone. The question that arises is; are their moral consequences that arise as a result of commodifying water and hence its availability and accessibility largely become determined by market mechanisms? Ethical lapse In most cases, ethical lapse can be categorized into three groups: deception, stealing and harming (Howard and Korver 13). There exists many variants to these but the mentioned three have come out as the most wrongdoings which people commit.Advertising Looking for research paper on public administration? Let's see if we can help you! Get your first paper with 15% OFF Learn More Lying has been described in many ways that include: doctor, cover up, overstate, understate, misinform, misguide or stretch the truth (Howard and Korver p.14). additionally, the act of lying has psychological costs, for example, when individuals lie there is always a clash between their values and who they are; lying also creates barriers in relationships and soils self-image of an individual (Howard and Korver p.15). Moral reasoning The contemporary society is faced with a situation where people are facing dilemma on various ethical decisions and as a result there have been numerous methods of moral reasoning. Moral reasoning has taken center stage in various social issues as people continue to debate on what is right and what is wrong or what ought to be or not be done. In most cases many people are convinced that it is not necessary the principles which determine what is right or wrong, but the consequences produced by the actions in question (Rae p.81). When a particular course of action or decision produces the best set of consequences, then to majority such actions need to be allowed and accepted. In other words the action(s) that produces the greatest balance of benefits over harms is the one that is considered as the most moral. Generally actions considered right or wrong (morality) should depend on the situation and also on what the cultural consensus of right and wrong is at that time. In the case of commodifying water, if the society and hence culture reaches consensus that water commodification is wrong then it would be morally wrong to commodify or privatize water. Ethical approaches Utilitarianism ethics Utilitarianism ethics postulate that morality of an act is determined by the end result. From this observation, utilitarianism conviction is that the moral choice is the one that produces the greatest good for the greatest number of people or at the same time the moral choice is the course of action that produces more good consequences than harmf ul ones. Utilitarianism sometimes is regarded as consequentialism ethics due to its emphasis on the consequences of an action. Jeremy Bentham, one of the philosophers credited to utilitarianism believed in hedonistic utilitarianism which postulates that â€Å"the most moral acts are those that maximize pleasure and minimize pain† (Rae p.85). On the other hand John Mill, another believer of utilitarianism ethics established his approach which differed from that of Bentham which was general concept of maximizing the general happiness, or what he termed as the greatest good for the greatest number. Hence ethics can be seen as the art of directing the actions of people so as to bring about the greatest possible happiness to all those who are concerned with these actions. As a result, Bentham observed that the interests of the community are simply the sum of the interests of its members. In sum the utilitarianism principle hold that, â€Å"an action is right from an ethical point of view if and only if the sum total of utilities produced by that act is greater than the sum total of utilities produced by any other act the agent could have performed in its place† (Fernando p.34). Water commodification can be analyzed within the precepts of utilitarianism ethics where business principles can take a backseat to consequences, if on balance, commodification of water provides more beneficial consequences for more people then utilitarianism ethics consider it to be the most moral choice. Evaluation of actions needs to be made on the basis of benefits or harms the action(s) will bring upon human beings. The morality of the theory is that, individual or an organization performing particular actions need to impartially take into account interests of everyone on equal basis. Kantian ethics Kant was convinced that morality should be derived from recognition that people share a common human condition and what makes humans valuable and special is their ability to re ason and that moral rules based on reason should govern human behavior. To Kant moral rules need to be based on tradition, intuition, desire, conscience, emotion and sympathy and that free will among humans comes from their ability to reason and prompts them to develop rules for moral behavior which in turn can be applicable universally disregarding utilitarianism consequences. The moral rules established needs to recognize the fact that all people have a certain human dignity and therefore they should be accorded respect as autonomous beings (Fernando p.35). According to Kant moral ethics, an action is only moral for an individual in a certain situation if, and only if, the individual’s reason for carrying out the action is one that he or she would be willing to have every person act on in any similar situation. At the same time moral worth would not be attached to an action motivated singularly to promote individual interests or for pleasure and that if an action is wrong f or other people, it is wrong for any one person. For Kant an action is regarded morally worth if it reflects a good will and it is only when individuals act from duty that their actions are regarded to be moral worth. As a result Kant believes that ethics should be grounded in reason alone and not on human nature (Fernando p.35). Ethicality in commodifying water On November 27 2002, United Nation declared water to be a human right for the first time and went a head to require states to adopt key legal mechanisms that would ensure this fundamental right is achieved (Sierra Club par. 1). From UN observation, the conviction was that privatizing water could not be achieved since it is impossible to marry the profit motive of a private enterprise and the necessity and importance of a commodity like water which many people require in order to survive (utilitarianism). The conclusion is that the issue of rendering water as a private thing should be done away from the market place since wat er belongs to earth, to all species, to the future generation and in this regard no one has the right to commodify water for personal (deontological) or corporate gain (Sierra Club par. 1). On advancing this claim, the Cochabamba Declaration of December 8, 2000, which brought together interested parties aimed at ensuring the privatization of water, was not achieved (welfare concern). To cement and solidify their claim the group came up with key points to be observed which turned out to constitute the Cochabamba Declaration (Sierra Club par. 4). To the group access to water is the fundamental right of every human and all humans are required to respect nature as they use water given by the earth. The three main points formulated were: Water was described to belong to the earth and also to all species of the world and that water need to be regarded as sacred to life, and from this view the water of the world needs to be conserved, reclaimed and put under adequate protection in order t o ensure the future generation is safe; Water was described as fundamental human right and also as a public trust that needs to be guarded by all structures of the government and as a result it should not be commodified, privatized or commercially traded; lastly Water can be best protected by local communities and people and who must be given equal respect as partners of various governments in the process of protecting and regulating water (Sierra Club par. 5). Conclusion Water ethic has developed in many societies as a result of continued efforts by enterprises and corporation to commodifying water. As a result, in most societies specifically the developed ones, water ethics commodification and privatization with marginalized access to water continue to raise key questions such as: Can water be sustainably managed while the global financial institutions and transnational corporations possess the means to do so? How can the empowerment of public and rights of people over water be r estored? How can global skills, capital and user practices are reconciled with the need and desire for control over water of local people? Such questions give an impression of how fundamental ethics has become essential in addressing the issue of water commodification. Ethical reasoning in regards to water will ensure proper, efficient and sustainable use of water despite its scarcity in nature. Works Cited Borgmann, Albert. Real American ethics: taking responsibility for our country. IL, University of Chicago Press. 2006. 16 August 2010. https://books.google.com/books?id=fJJccik-SRECpg=PA145dq=Ethics+of+commodification+of+waterhl=enei=zQZpTPagL5H34gb75pyZBAsa=Xoi=book_resultct=resultresnum=3ved=0CDIQ6AEwAg#v=onepageq=Ethics%20of%20commodification%20of%20waterf=false. Brenkert, George G. and Beauchamp, Tom L. The Oxford Handbook of Business Ethics. NY, Oxford University Press US. 2009. 16 August 2010. https://books.google.com/books?id=Qn1BDj7SRUsCpg=PA78dq=Ethics+of+commodification+ of+waterhl=enei=GvJoTPmcB4aS4gb6npCZBAsa=Xoi=book_resultct=resultresnum=9ved=0CFkQ6AEwCA#v=onepageqf=false. Brown, Peter G. and Schmidt, Jeremy J. Water Ethics: Foundational Readings for Students and Professionals. NW, Island Press. 2010. 16 August 2010. https://books.google.com/books?id=fwFXY-vAwNsCpg=PA161dq=Ethics+of+commodification+of+waterhl=enei=GvJoTPmcB4aS4gb6npCZBAsa=Xoi=book_resultct=resultresnum=4ved=0CDgQ6AEwAw#v=onepageqf=false. Fernando, A. C. Business Ethics: An Indian Perspective. New Delhi, Pearson Education India, 2009. 16 August 2010. https://books.google.com/books?id=A-k_uWkGCEUCpg=PA35dq=business+ethics+theorieshl=enei=Od1rTLK0EcHT4wa4ncDkAgsa=Xoi=book_resultct=resultresnum=3ved=0CDYQ6AEwAg#v=onepageq=business%20ethics%20theoriesf=false. Howard, Ronald A. and Korver, Clinton D. Ethics for the real world: creating a personal code to guide decisions in work and life. MA, Harvard Business Press. 2008. 16 August 2010. https://books.google.com/books?id=OqnrtQFfXb0Cpr intsec=frontcoverdq=Ethics+for+the+Real+World.hl=enei=RBtqTKP8LZCl4Qan5OCaAQsa=Xoi=book_resultct=resultresnum=1ved=0CCUQ6AEwAA#v=onepageqf=false. Rae, Scott B. Moral Choices: An Introduction to Ethics. MI, Zondervan, 2000. 16 August 2010. https://books.google.com/books?id=n55iiynlwmMCpg=PA77dq=moral+reasoninghl=enei=1sVrTN_nHMKk4Qb9kJz3Agsa=Xoi=book_resultct=resultresnum=8ved=0CFMQ6AEwBw#v=onepageq=moral%20reasoningf=false. Sierra Club. Corporate Water Privatization: Water is a Human Right not a Commodity. 2008. 16 August 2010. http://www.sierraclub.org/committees/cac/water/human_right/. Snitow, Allan, Kaufman, Deborah and Fox, Michael. Thirst: fighting the corporate theft of our water. CA, John Wiley and Sons. 2007. 16 August 2010.https://books.google.com/books?id=wyW30HVewtACpg=PA10dq=Ethics+of+commodification+of+waterhl=enei=tiNpTMXOIuTT4waqqZiZBAsa=Xoi=book_resultct=resultresnum=2ved=0CC0Q6AEwATgK#v=onepageq=Ethics%20of%20commodification%20of%20waterf=false. This research paper on The Privatization or Commodification of Water was written and submitted by user Londyn F. to help you with your own studies. You are free to use it for research and reference purposes in order to write your own paper; however, you must cite it accordingly. You can donate your paper here.

The Dream essays

The Dream essays It was late December, the drifts were piling up in collusion against the rails of the porch. Little could be discerned above the sound of the wind, wrapping itself around the northeast corner of the house. Restless, it continued to bully what remained of the brittle branches of last summers honeysuckle, a loose shutter, and my grandmothers wind chimes. In the midst of this late afternoon concert, the sun was descending unnoticed toward its mountain crypt. Already the sky was filtering the light with its angular sieve suggesting the beginnings of the golden hour. Soon it would lend itself to blazing oranges and finally a pastel pink adieu. In that moment of silence, when the wind stops to take an in breath, I stirred. As I rallied myself from the daybed, throwing my coverlet aside, I grabbed the poker in hopes of being able to stir up the starving fire a little longer before an inevitable trip to the mud room. Arming myself with boots, gloves, and coat, I would soon enough be staggering out toward a chaotic woodpile in order to replenish the famished fire. My thoughts were still troubled. Clouded and confused. The images, rich with texture, numinous with meaning, affronting my conscious sensibilities. Between worlds, as if stepping on the edge of a great secret, I found the strength to twist an aberrant piece of wood back on itself to re-inspire the licking heat out of tired smoking embers. How long had I been sleeping? Years.... or minutes? The sounds of branches against glass beckoned my attention outward. The wisp of her hand, still reaching out to me.... the color of the garden hose, surrealistic in its green undulating wetness..... and the receding scent of roses..... I knew it would be a mistake to surrender to my impulses now. The warmth I had managed to coax out of the fireplace would not last long. I gathered up my sweater and moved toward the boots in the anteroom, having accepted my fa...

Consumers' Attitude towards a role of Celebrity, Endorsements in Article

Consumers' Attitude towards a role of Celebrity, Endorsements in Advertising - Article Example Its significance can be seen in the fact that in the UK alone, companies spent almost 19.4 billion in 2007 on advertising (UK Advertising Statistics, 2008). Furthermore, the total advertising expenditure in the US for the same year was a whopping $279.6 billion (U.S. Annual Advertising Spending Since 1919, 2008). Also in the UK, the advertising industry provides almost thirteen thousand jobs, which shows how it has helped the British economy (Whyte, n.d.). This is because capitalism has engendered an emphasis on consumerism wherein economies rely mostly on consumption expenditure (Busler, 2002). For instance, consumption expenditure accounted for an estimated 68% of US GDP (Busler, 2002). Consequently, companies have to rely on—aside from product and service quality and other strategies needed to produce what consumers will buy—advertising in order to attract consumers (Busler, 2002). Hence, based on these facts, it cannot be denied that advertising plays a major role in today’s cutthroat world of business. The competition is so fierce that a supermarket in the US is known to carry an estimated twelve thousand brands in their store—and that is just a supermarket, it does not even include department stores and other industries where brand names are important (Kulkarni and Gaulkar, 2005). Because of this, numerous advertising strategies—where the avenues used are the different types of media: TV, film, print and radio—have been developed throughout the years to make sure that the billions spent on it is worthwhile. Moreover, because of the proven significance of advertising to various businesses, whether big or small, innumerable studies have been conducted in order to ascertain its effects on consumer behavior and attitudes—as the end goal of advertising is, of course, to sell products and increase revenues for companies. Due to the vast range of resources on advertising principles and its impacts on

B202A Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 2000 words

B202A - Essay Example Opportunities for career growth abound in the organization for employees to achieve self-actualization. Herzberg’s two-factor theory of motivation suggests that ‘motivators’ deal with aspects of work and include work, promotion, achievement, responsibility and recognition whereas ‘hygiene factors’ deal with the context in which the work is rendered and includes working conditions, interpersonal relations and supervision. Amongst Kellogg’s various initiatives to make the organization a good place to work and a desirable employer of choice, the company has a ‘Fit for Life’ program that enables employees to use fitness centers, get free health checks as well as annual fitness assessments. The company uses flexi-time, home working, part-time working, job sharing, career breaks, parental leave et al. as motivators. Herzbergs hygiene factors correspond to Maslows physiological, safety and social needs (basic pay, work conditions) whereas Herzbergs motivators corresponds to Maslows esteem and self-actualisation needs (recognition, growth, achievement). Employees are often cited as the most importance resource that an organization has. Motivated employees go that extra mile to ensure that their organization is ahead of competition. Having a motivated work force accords numerous benefits to an organization: Save Costs: Motivated employees are more involved in their work. They tend to go beyond the call of their duty, apply their minds and suggest product and/or process improvements for the organization. Any such innovative idea given by the motivated workforce has the potency to save massive amounts of money for the organization. Reduction in Employee Turnover: Employee turnover costs an organization dearly. In case the replacement is not found immediately, it may hamper the smooth functioning of the organization. In addition to the time and money

What are the differences between managing people in a small marketing Essay

What are the differences between managing people in a small marketing consultancy and in a family run shoe factory - Essay Example But, the crucial fact is, most of the organization will be managed differently, based on the characteristics of the workers who work in it, among other reasons. Likewise, there is a difference between managing people in a small marketing consultancy and in a family run shoe factory. Firstly, inside a family run shoe factory, there will be an inbuilt or rooted organizational culture, built by the founder or the leader. That is, in any organization, the workers like the five different fingers in one’s hand, will be different from one another, as they will come from different backgrounds. The unison of these different humans under a single organization to reach a target is, and will always be a difficult proposition. As these different humans could only create a different working culture, the success rate will be minimal. Inside the shoe factory, this organizational culture could be easily established because being a family run factory, the founder or owner would have recruited or posted his/her family members from the same background in important positions. Also, as there will a close relationship between the employees, it will reflect in the work. Another vital element is, culture â€Å"coevolves† with the organization, when it achieves success (Sc hein). So, managing them will be an easy affair because of the presence of a common organizational culture. But, in the case of the marketing consultancy, the workers could be from different background having different educational qualifications, ethnicity, etc, etc. In those environments, the workers will only exhibit different mindset, and so formation of a common organizational culture is a difficult task or it will take time. So, managing a small marketing consultancy firm with different workers would also be a difficult task. Inside the family run shoe factory, on the flip side, even if the workers are found to be inept, they will not be fired easily. That is, when the employee becomes too lazy, self-seeking,

An Exposition of Amos 5

An Exposition of Amos 5 With a view to an audience within a stated contemporary ministry setting, provide an exposition of Amos 5 As I engage to expound the book of Amos I would want to do an exposition of Amos 5 which with a view of a mixed Audience of men and women between the ages of 20 to 50 years of age and also young people who most of them are under the age of 20 years. The audience is a mixture of different nationalities that have different cultural background. According to Hasting (1963:28) writing in the dictionary of the bible, he says that Amos was one of the earliest prophets who prophesied in the 8th century B.C. Amos is known to have come from Tekoa and according to the dictionary of the bible, he prophesied when Israel and Judah were strong and prosperous. Though there was prosperity in Judah and Israel the book of Amos portrayed a lot of injustice taking place during that period. In (chapter 4) of Amos and verse (1) it talks of how the poor are oppressed and they are crushed. (Amos 1:1) The words of Amos, one of the shepherds of Tekoa-the vision he saw concerning Israel two years before the earthquake, when Uzziah was king of Judah and Jeroboam son of Jehoash[a] was king of Israel. According to this verse, it makes us understand that Amos was a shepherd, and also understand that Amos may not be the one who wrote the book;(Thorogood 1992:10) cites that, the book of Amos is a collection of the Prophets words. We cannot be certain who actually wrote it, or when it was written. When we come to chapter 5 of Amos it can be hard trying to understand what specifically he is trying to address when he talks of a virgin Israel in verses 2. It is hard to interpret the book without first having understood some of the things that Amos is saying, for example, where he says, This is what the Lord says to Israel: Seek me and live; do not seek Bethel, do not go to Gilgal, do not journey to Beersheba. For Gilgal will surely go into exile, and Bethel will be reduced to nothing (vs. 4-5). Not knowing what Bethel, Gilgal and also Beersheba means one can not interpret what he was implying. Patte (2004:282) makes us understand that Bethel, Gilgal, and Beersheba were sacred places because they were memorials connected to the ancestors and history of the conquest of the land without having this knowledge it is a hard one to understand. The writings of Amos are regarded as Oracles, this is highlighted by Heaton(1977:73 ) Amos cultivate d the practice of embodying in his oracles quotations of his opponents claims. So this is to affirm that Amos was writing oracles. Wolff (1977) in his book of Joel and Amos cites that the literary tradition hardly allows us to recognize more than two dozen short individual oracles, so he is implying that Amoss writing was literal and he cites three basic type of speech found in the book of Amos (i) The messenger speech which he says that it is tied to what Amos was told to say by God. (ii) The free speech witness speech, this he says promotes relationship with the listener. (iii) Vision report, that one he says that it cannot be said with certainty whether is rhetorical or literary in Origin. When Amos is starting to speak the oracles he is using within and in front the text where he is addressing the children of Israel and tells them in verses 1-7 to hear what the Lord is saying and what will happen to them. As Amos is speaking in chapter 5:1-3, he regards the children of Israel as people who are already dead, and is lamenting over their state and seems there no hope for them when he says, Fallen and no more to rise. He compares them to a virgin woman engaged but now she has been forsaken. So he uses metaphor when he is addressing them. This may mean that Israel is glorious but their glory is gone. In verse 4-10 it is a call for them to call God even in their crisis, it is surprising that in the beginning, he speaks to them; It portrays them as people who have been utterly destroyed and no hope to rise again. In verses 4 he tells them to seek the Lord and live. On the other hand, he tells them, what not to seek Bethel and not to enter Gilgal or cross over to Beersheba fo r there are consequences when they do that. Marsh (1959:53) gives the meaning of the word seek and he says the word translated seek originally meant to ask for an oracle from some diviner, and then to offer worship and obedience to God. Applying this few verses as I address my audience bearing in mind the state of the nation that we are in where there have been a crisis in the economy and a lot of cuts in so many sectors that some services that the government used to offer are not longer there, I would bring to their attention to how the nation has declined and probably try to mention, maybe is because of the evil that is done in the nation. I would also encourage them to seek the Lord and not to put their trust in the systems, as Amos was encouraging the children of Israel to seek God and not seek the sacred places. When Amos is warning the people not to seek Bethel or go to Gilgal and having now understood that Gilgal was a sacred place as cited by Patte(2004:282), he is encourag ing them to worship the true God rather than go and worship those sacred places whereby even if they are sacred places they are not God themselves. I would, therefore, encourage my audience to worship the true God rather than men, bearing in mind that most of my audience are from African background where there is a tendency of worshiping the men of God. In verses (10 Amos talks of people hating correction or rather discipline and hate he who tells the truth. So I as address my audience I would encourage them to speak the truth and allow themselves to be corrected by the word of the Lord. Since my audience is a mixture of young people who most of them are under the care of their parents I encouraged them to adhere to discipline and obey their parents.[G1] In (verses 11-12) Amos talks of how the poor are oppressed, and he tells them because they have done these things and even extracted wheat unjustly from them even the house they have built they will not live in them. Amos was pronouncing judgment. As I bring this to my audience I would speak to them, warning them not to oppress each other and especially the old oppressing the young even on those who are married, men not to oppress women. I would speak to men oppressing women with confidence having some background knowledge how African women at times are regarded as not equal to their men and they tend to be oppressed. Amos changes his tone in verses 14 and he gives the people hope that if they seek the Lord they will live. What I see when I look at the previous (verses 12 and 13) he is telling them to stop oppressing the poor and they will live. So I would tell the audience that, when we are doing injustice to one another we are not seeking God, and God is not with us because after A mos telling the Israelite how they have oppressed the poor he tells them to seek the Lord in order for them to live. Amos here was like implying that God was not with the Israelite because they were oppressing the poor. Amos follows verses 14 with verse 15 by saying that they should hate evil, and my understanding I will interpret that not rendering injustice and oppressing the poor is what God hates. As a result of them hating evil, they will escape the calamity that Amos is speaking in (verses 16) which he says there will be wailing as the Lord passes across the land. The Israelite will understand the in a better way when they remember what happened while they were escaping Egypt when there was wailing in the camp of the Egyptians. Amos is saying that the wailing will be so great that, they will even call for people to help them to wail. As I would address my audience I would focus them on treating each other well and not oppressing others, this is because loving God is loving and treating other people justly, we cant say we love God and yet you treat others badly and oppress them. According to Patte(2004:282) in the commentary, he says that The horizontal relationship to neighbors is inseparably bound to the vertical relationship with God. To avoid punishment from God we have to love God and treat people well. Though God had sworn of bringing destruction we see in (verses 15) that he will leave some from the remnant of Joseph may be the ones who will carry on his purpose on the earth. This reminds me the day of Noah where he had to destroy everything apart from Noahs family. Amos in verse 17 is using literal language that he is going to pass through them and their vineyard will be wailing. This may not mean that God is the one who is going to pass the land himself; but may be the adversary. As I share this verse I may bring to the attention of my audience that the Lord may not necessary come to punish our wrong doing but things might happen when we dont live according to what the Lord has expected of us. In Verses 18 he is warning those who have been waiting for the day of the lord, may be expecting a reward, and instead he is telling them it will be darkness instead of lights. In other words, things will be so bad instead of being good and this is as a result of their actions. Most Probably they Children of Israel have been expecting God to come and reward them and have victory among their enemies. Thorogood(1992) in his book a guide to Amos commented that Amos did not share hope with the Israelites instead he predicted a day of darkness instead of light. Even in our day, we might be expecting great things from God because we believe in him, and instead, we find ourselves going through difficult times. Therefore it is important to check our ways and see whether there are people we are oppressing or doing things that cannot please God. Maybe the children of Israel thought because they have a covenant relationship with God, they can do anything and God turns a blind eye. Amos portraye d the day of the Lord they have been expecting a very gloomy day, in that they will be running from one problem thinking they have escaped they find themselves in another major problem. Amos uses allegory a lot; as he writes when he is talking about a lion, a bear, and even a serpent. Maybe he using this because for him being a shepherd has had encountered all these animals. If I were to use allegory I would use things that my audience would understand. In verses, 21-24 Amos is narrating how the Lord is not pleased by the sacrifices that they offer unto him and even their worship unto God. He said if justice and righteousness are not found in them, their rituals are in vain. Maybe they thought by observing the rituals and offering sacrifices they will please God even if they oppress the poor and put heavy taxes on them. I would also address the same issue to my audience that it is not by how much we do for God, or how much money we give to the Him; is about acting according to what he requires. Marsh (1959:57) as he comments on verses 21-24 cites that Israel had all externals of true religion-fine churches and cathedrals, great festivals popularly observed (everyone went to church on such days, moving rituals solemnly impressive sacrifices, beautiful music, and well-trained choirs. But such externals do not, of themselves, beget communion with God. In other words, outward rituals and appearance do not appeal to God. We must go beyond rituals and do what God want us to do. In verses, 25 Amos is like narrating what God is asking Israelites that they never offered him any sacrifices and that they carried idols with them. It is like he is saying that while they were not established they didnt offer any sacrifice to God and yet he took care of them. But now that God has established them the wont honor him, instead, he is saying they carried idols with them. Having an audience who some of them have come from hardship I would bring to their attention to remember wher e God has brought them from, some from great hardship and yet God has established them. I would encourage them to honor God and keep his commands. Amos has mentioned two things they carried which are sikkuth their king, and chiun their idols which according to Wintle (2015:1146) commenting in South Asia Bible commentary refers to these idols that the Israelites carried as Assyrian deities. This shows as if the Israelites regarded other gods more than the true God. They were holding unto what they may be; thought is the righteous way than do what God had instructed them to do. As we read these verses today we would also ask ourselves as Christians are we exalting things in our lives more than we exalt the Lord, and this can be true even in the audience I am addressing, in that some many have valued their jobs, families children or as a people we regard rituals more than we regard God. In conclusion, as I have looked at the book of Amos chapter 5 I can conclude and say that this chapter can speak to us as the church of today that we need to deal with injustices in our society and live righteous lives, and that will be a true worship unto God. Amos has reminded us the need of humility in our worship. Thorogood 1992:66) says that the closer our worship is linked with the rest of-of our life the more helpful it is likely to be, This means that we need to be conscious every time, that we have a relationship with God; and we can worship him anytime not only when we are gathered together. As Amos highlighted the injustices and oppression done to the poor by the children of Israel we also need to learn as Christians to treat each other well even when we are in different social status. Bibliography D.D, J. H. (1963). Dictionary of the Bible. Edinburgh: T.and T Clark. Heaton, E. W. (1977). The Old Testament Prophets. London: Anchor Brendon Ltd. Marsh, J. (1959). The Torch Bible Commentary series: Amos And Micah. Great Britain: Northumberland Press Limited. Patte, D. (2004). Global Bible Commentary. Nashville: Abingdon Press. Thorogood, B. (1992). A Guide to Amos. London: Spck. Wintle, B. (2015). South Asia Bible Commentary, One Volume Commentary on the whole Bible. Michigan: Grand Rapids, Michigan. Wolf, H. W. (1977). Hermancia, Joel, and Amos. United Kingdom: Fortress Press [G1]Deleted:h

Defining Good Use :: Teaching Writing Education Essays

Defining Good Use In my opinion good use can depend on what you are writing, who you are writing for, and your purpose for writing. Good use can change from writing to your friend in North Carolina to writing a business memo for your boss to writing a paper for an English class. The good use of language can differ from one situation to another. Many of the writers we discussed in class had many different ideas on what good use is. Emerson wanted us to believe that "truth and sincerity unsullied by ulterior motives" constituted good use. The only problem in that is even though you may be telling the truth, does it actually make it "good"? As in the exercise we did for class that showed how using different words we could make the same place sound attractive and then not so attractive. In both cases, we were telling the truth, but can we consider one description "better" than the other. The truth of one person may not be the same as the truth for another person depending on their perspective. Robert Hall stated good use as "the most efficient way of saying whatever's being said." But is efficiency really good use? You may accomplish being efficient, but are you really saying exactly what you want to say. Maybe by being efficient you are leaving out important thoughts or feelings that could be used to relate what you are saying and cause your receiver to understand exactly what you are saying. Being efficient is not always being effective. Wouldn't you rather have the reader understand more fully what you are saying rather than being vague just to be efficient? Orwell considers good use as "letting the meaning choose the word, and not the other way about." To me, that seems somewhat more to what good use is. Your meaning in a letter to a friend and your meaning in a business memo to your employer may be different, and thus you need to choose words that fit your meaning. The words you write on a piece of paper should not dictate what you want to say but express your meaning in the words you write. I agree with the statement that "language is perceptive." Writing the same thing to two different people can cause different images for each person depending on the reader's perspective. A more descriptive paragraph may make a clearer picture for someone who is educated in that field and may cause a foggier picture for someone who knows nothing about the topic. Defining Good Use :: Teaching Writing Education Essays Defining Good Use In my opinion good use can depend on what you are writing, who you are writing for, and your purpose for writing. Good use can change from writing to your friend in North Carolina to writing a business memo for your boss to writing a paper for an English class. The good use of language can differ from one situation to another. Many of the writers we discussed in class had many different ideas on what good use is. Emerson wanted us to believe that "truth and sincerity unsullied by ulterior motives" constituted good use. The only problem in that is even though you may be telling the truth, does it actually make it "good"? As in the exercise we did for class that showed how using different words we could make the same place sound attractive and then not so attractive. In both cases, we were telling the truth, but can we consider one description "better" than the other. The truth of one person may not be the same as the truth for another person depending on their perspective. Robert Hall stated good use as "the most efficient way of saying whatever's being said." But is efficiency really good use? You may accomplish being efficient, but are you really saying exactly what you want to say. Maybe by being efficient you are leaving out important thoughts or feelings that could be used to relate what you are saying and cause your receiver to understand exactly what you are saying. Being efficient is not always being effective. Wouldn't you rather have the reader understand more fully what you are saying rather than being vague just to be efficient? Orwell considers good use as "letting the meaning choose the word, and not the other way about." To me, that seems somewhat more to what good use is. Your meaning in a letter to a friend and your meaning in a business memo to your employer may be different, and thus you need to choose words that fit your meaning. The words you write on a piece of paper should not dictate what you want to say but express your meaning in the words you write. I agree with the statement that "language is perceptive." Writing the same thing to two different people can cause different images for each person depending on the reader's perspective. A more descriptive paragraph may make a clearer picture for someone who is educated in that field and may cause a foggier picture for someone who knows nothing about the topic.