David Fletcher Case Essay

Jenkins, Fletcher Partners (JFP) has the potential to thrive and succeed in the financial service industry with stimulated, productive, and satisfied employees. However, there are small and large issues to be addressed in order to carry that in action. In this specific case analysis, we analyze the issues hindering JFP from further development, and suggest respective and appropriate suggestions to resolve those problems. First, a thorough evaluation of JFP shed light on a number of issues: The inconsistency with JFP’s differentiated and key organizational structure: wide, flat, informal structure for quick decisions. Struggles for autonomy within the company and the pending decision to hire a new research analyst. Anti-cohesiveness and lack of appropriate human resource management. Low team productivity and insufficient and inaccurate incentives within the work teams Although these issues present obstacles for further growth and potential of the firm, JFP is able to resolve th ese issues and consequently differentiate itself from its competitors in the industry with the following suggested resolutions: Further emphasize the informal and quick information sharing in between all the employees. Convince Stephanie to remain with the firm with a larger responsibility to enhance the structure under the assumption that her requirements are met. Hire Robinson based on her qualifications and acceptance by current JFP employees, and develop further evaluation of Fiske’s. Maintain a balance of young and senior analysts to achieve a productive and conducive learning environment. Implement regular and functional meetings at which every employee has an input. Develop performance management instead of performance reviews. Maintain the organizational restructures through work team productivity and implementation of appropriate incentivizing system. With these critical resolutions, JFP will become the unique, successful, and differentiated financial service firm that the founders originally dreamed of. One of the points of differentiation that JFP has from other financial service firms on Wall Street is its unique structure of small, flat, and wide for effective and efficient communication and decision making process. But Fletcher made a mistake to contradict that very principle of JFP. By not communicating with Stephanie and other salient members of the firm with regard to hiring process of Doyle, David Fletcher put more workload on himself, slowed the  decision making process, and disregarded other employees’ opinions and thoughts on Doyle, and practically created the silo effect. Fletcher explains, â€Å"I figured that Stephanie would do the health care and environmental stocks as well as the retail stocks while Brian would focus on his specialty, high-tech†, as he reveals his own â€Å"thought process† without the actual confirmation from Stephanie. Furthermore, Fletcher admits, â€Å"hiring Brian wasn’t coming from her pocket, it was coming from mine†, and demonstrates the contradiction to shared ideas and smooth flow of information he so desperately pursued himself. The employees at JFP are meant to communicate and share information with each other fluidly without any excluded members. However, Fletcher contradicted the ideal environment he desired to create by not communicating with Stephanie throughout the hiring process of Brian Doyle and thus deteriorated the structure he wanted. Although a desire for autonomy and greater success are contributing factors in Stephanie wanting to leave the firm, this significant incident has l ed to her feeling alienated and secluded from Fletcher and the work they used to do together. Another issue that Fletcher faces, looking forward, is whether or not to hire Fiske and/or Robinson. As previously mentioned, Fletcher makes the hiring process ineffective and inconsistent. When hiring Kindred, Fletcher learned from the conflict that had already risen between Doyle and Whitney, and makes sure to receive feedback from Whitney and other employees before moving forward with Kindred. Fletcher also maintains an incredibly packed schedule and the hiring process is overly crucial and overwhelming for him to do by himself. Moreover, because of his overwhelming schedule, Fletcher cannot possibly to train all the new hires on how evaluate stocks and consider the investment strategy. On a greater scale, throughout JFP there is an extreme lack of group cohesiveness and issues with conflict management. Members of the company compete to achieve the identical goal to become portfolio managers. Members of JFP have a power struggle to achieve their own individual goals; consequently, pay compensation directly associates with individual accomplishments. The very structure of Wall Street that Lodge dislikes includes silos with high departmentalization, and members with their own agendas. JFP requires a group cohesion for an effective decision making, yet the firm rewards for self-fulfilling achievements. Therefore, presented is a â€Å"Rewarding A while hoping for B†Ã‚  issue. Also, a clear relationship conflict versus task conflict is evident. There are personal and social disagreements that hinder employees to expend effort and resource on discussing vital company tasks and objectives. There are also many interpersonal and organizational conflicts that arise through peripheral transactions within JFP. One simple example includes Stephanie’s concern about where her desk is located. And yet, there are no company procedures to address and resolve these conflicts in a systematic way. Another example is lack of employees’ input about new hires. Unrest and social disturbances are within an organization present obstacles for employees to work efficiently and to be creative which affects their performance and in turn JFP’s success. The final issue to be address is JFP’s lack of effectiveness in work teams and motivation on both the individual and group le vels. More attention can increase productivity and motivation according to the Hawthorne Effect. Fletcher’s decreased attention toward Stephanie, demonstrated in Doyle’s hiring process, reduces her motivation and attachment to the firm and develops negative feelings about Doyle. Because Doyle and Stephanie have relationship conflicts, they cannot properly address task, including feedbacks for investment choices, which leads to decreased productivity and creativity within the firm. When Stephanie finds personal fulfillment and interest in her work, intrinsic motivation, Doyle’s hiring process situation diminishes it significantly. Because she is less secure and satisfied, Whitney is less motivated, which falls in line with Herzberg’s motivator-hygiene theory: hygiene factors, including security and working conditions, â€Å"operate primarily as de-motivators if they are insufficient† (175). Stephanie also has extrinsic motivation—Fletcher’s attention, praise, and guidance—which increases her intrinsic motivation as well as job satisfaction and a sense of purpose at JFP. Whitney’s lower job satisfaction results in a poor job performance and her attachment to JFP. In order to better achieve the wide, flat structu re for efficient and effective decision making, Fletcher should attempt to keep Stephanie Whitney with the firm because she has already gained expertise within the industry, and training and molding another new employee in place of Whitney bears immense opportunity cost for the culture and productivity of the firm. Additionally, Whitney has consistently performed at a high level, and the success she’s attained transitioning from  an administrative assistant to a portfolio manager can be leveraged as an effective tool to inspire others to work. Since Whitney has expressed a desire to leave, Fletcher needs to intrinsically and extrinsically motivate her to. In order to keep Stephanie motivated at JFP, Fletcher should have Stephanie with a team of her to delve into an industry that she is curious and enthusiastic about, so long as that industry has an investment potential for the firm. Since monetary incentives can be sufficiently satisfied with firms other than JFP, Stephanie needs to have the extrinsic motivator of autonomy. This reward for staying would be unprecedented in a firm where most decisions come down to David, and would be an indication that she is incredibly valued and essential to the organization. Permitting Stephanie to recruit her own team will also serve to widen the st ructure of the firm and delegate more tasks. Fletcher also needs to highlight the tie that they have shared in the past, apologize for not being transparent with her completely, and express respect towards her career development. Despite the possibility that Whitney will decide to pursue other opportunities, Fletcher needs to convince her to stay because of her credibility and the value lost from the firm’s perspective. There is an argument to be made that Whitney was at the root of personal issues in the past, but Whitney’s conflict was task-oriented, not personal. Her disagreement with many of Doyle’s investment strategies causes problems when Fletcher failed to address her concerns. In the end, Whitney ends up being right about Doyle, and it is not to be understated that she gets along very well with everyone else in the organization. Building a strong culture is a key for JFP in hiring new employees. Whitney, who already gets along with Robinson, can help to develop the environment in which portfolio managers work creatively and get along on a personal level as well. By treating Whitney as more of a thought partner than protege, Fletcher should keep Whitney for the benefit of JFP. As Kindred’s case reflect, new hires are more effective in their roles in hiring them. Therefore, the hiring process should be structured in a way that all existing employees get to meet the candidate before the decision is made. Organization’s small scale will allow such procedure that will result in more effective hiring process. More attention should also be paid to the current employees, not only to ensure new employees’ transition, but also to deal with the hiring process more  effectively. Whitney’s insistence upon leaving can be circumvented entirely had Fletcher heeded her concerns and addressed the issue earlier. JFP should also aim to balance between experienced and new hires, and encourage the experienced portfolio managers to act as mentors. Fletcher cannot possibly serve as a mentor for everyone; but forging mentor/mentee roles amongst the portfolio managers will lead to more cohesiveness in the organization, experienced employees leading by example and contribute to the flat structure of the organization with reduced risk of employees’ uneasiness. Fletcher has already taken a step in the right direction by seeking the approval of other employees for hiring Robinson, but needs to continue with evaluating Fiske. Moreover, JFP should feel confident about hiring Robinson because the other employees think highly of her and Robinson offers a unique background and valuable expertise. Despite Fiske’s experience, his ability to collaborate with his colleagues is the critical point to evaluate in the hiring decision. And thus Fletcher must turn to the rest of JFP for advice. In terms of cohesiveness and people management, JFP should implement work teams to emphasize the outcome is greater than the sum of individual ’s effort. Also, work groups can be particularly utilized in the new research analyst candidates’ environment because their primary task is to share information. Cohesiveness can be developed by rewarding employees as groups, increasing the time that employees spend with each other, stimulating competition amongst groups, benchmarking JFP’s performance to that of a competitor firm, and by increasing the exclusivity. Furthermore, JFP requires regular meetings at which everyone is involved and present to facilitate increasing the time employees spend together and resolving conflicts within the organization. Group successes and failures can be discussed and evaluated. In order to successfully restructure JRP, performance management is essential because it is another method for conflict resolution. Performance management will also bring a continuous flow of feedback so the employee can adjust his or her performance. An increase in employee satisfaction within the workplace will follow. Additionally, the Hawthorn Study states that non-financial incentives are more effective than financial incentives; also, attention from leaders has been pr oven to be 63% effective, praise from managers 67% effective, opportunities to lead projects 62% effective. â€Å"†¦(P)eople will  feel competent if they obtain feedback that indicates progress in their work or suggests ways that can increase their competence†. (176) The delegation of autonomy within JFP can also be addressed because autonomy is easily assessed and provided to employees if management constantly evaluates employee’s performance. Lastly, Fletcher needs to address work team productivity and motivation within JFP. As an example, Stephanie demonstrates enjoyment and a sense of fulfillment in her job, and Fletcher needs to develop these motivations further. He also needs to ensure a good team dynamic. Intrinsic motivation is conducive to creativity and result in more unique, productive and creative analysts. According to â€Å"scientific management†, extrinsic motivation is strictly positive; however managers often create undesired behaviors in their employees by utilizing this incorrect statement. (181) Therefore, Fletcher has to give critical feedback and attention to his analysts to provide them with some continuing extrinsic motivation. In addition, Fletcher should foster an environment in which analysts develop enjoyment and attachment, that will contribute to intrinsic motivation as well. Hackman and Oldham’s model of job enrichment (1976) suggests different ways to increase employee motivation. For example, task identity, task significance, and feedback are a number of them. Developing task identity means to increase an analyst’s sense of meaningfulness in one’s work and growing task significance means to increase the sense of importance of their work. Additionally, ongoing feedback will also contribute positively to the analysts’ motivation. Fletcher should focus on these methods, as well as an appealing work environment and good group dynamic, to increase his analysts’ motivation. With these constructive resolutions—further consolidating the unique organizational structure, effectively recruiting new employees, critically addressing conflicts and cohesiveness within the group, and appropriately maintaining the balance of motivation—JFP is assured to thrive as a differentiated, outperforming, and attractive financial service firm.

The Problem of Evil Rational, Reasonable, and Scientific Explains

The Problem of Evil Rational, Reasonable, and Scientific Explains Introduction As a philosophical issue, dealing with the Problem of Evil is fundamentally a matter of refining definitions. It means that the apparent contradiction between the existence of Go3d and the presence of Evil should be dissolves. It is important to consider those natures differently, do not try to create opposition between them. God is a rational being who acts in accordance with reason.Advertising We will write a custom essay sample on The Problem of Evil: Rational, Reasonable, and Scientific Explains specifically for you for only $16.05 $11/page Learn More Peter van Inwagens defense left evil without attention and focused instead on modifying the God terms. This helps consider the world from the point of view of its creation by God as not a spiritual being, but as rational being who acts in accord with reason. God exists and he possesses the unique characteristics of omniscience, omnipotence, and omnibenevolence and to understand why evil exists. Problem of Evil The problem of evil is depicted in the following statement: If Go3d exists then how is it possible for evil to be present in the world. Being omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent, Go3d has the capacity to eliminate all cases of evil and provide happiness and goodness for all. It is possible to state that the existence of evil in the world helps us understand what happiness and goodness truly are. This influence human reasoning and is based on the opposition of these notions. Only having cognized what evil is, people are able to distinguish goodness. God’s characteristic features are aimed at helping people who have experienced evil to know what good. Only God’s omniscience, omnipotence, and omnibenevolence help him do what he has done, namely create this world. Omnipotence of God God is omnipotent and it is impossible to reject it under the statements of evil’s presence. There are a lot of different reasons which can support this idea. Def ining the notion of the omnipotence of God, Peter van Inwagen points to the fact that we do not know what exactly God can do, we are just aware of the fact that he can. That is all. To prove God’ omnipotence, it is possible to implement the following examples. All people could have spoken German if they had lived in Germany. All people could have played golf, if their lives had been connected to this kind of sport. God can do this, but there is a natural question, what for?Advertising Looking for essay on philosophy? Let's see if we can help you! Get your first paper with 15% OFF Learn More For what purpose would one speak German if he/she did not use it in everyday life? Why should one overburden his/her brain? Is it just for the reason that God CAN do it? All God does is reasonable and can be explained. God is unable to create a world where everything is good, as it contradicts the idea of personal choice and the understanding of goodness. As it has been mentioned above, if people did not experience bad things they would not know what goodness is. Therefore, people are the source of evil. The very understanding that God can do whatever he wants shows that he is omnipotent. This description leads to the conclusion that God can either do something or not to do it. Reason is the main tool God should be guided by as he can do it and he does it in the way how it must be and as a result, correct. God’s reason is based on omnibenevolence, which human reasoning is based on choice. Being omnibenevolent, God is unable on bad actions, thus, the nature of evil is a human being. Omniscience of God God is omniscient. The definition of omniscience presupposes that a person is omniscient when he/she knows for sure the main idea of the proposition and this person cannot have the false considerations. Omniscience of God is explained by the fact that those who have always behaved in a good manner in the relation to others are going to be r ewarded. This idea may be tried to be contradicted by the fact that the freedom of choice of human life rejects God’s omniscience. It means that if a human being has an opportunity to choose a life style, God is unable to know what is going to happen. But, having predicted that God is omniscient, it is possible to say that he is able to predict a choice of a human being. This characteristic feature should be connected with God’s omnipotence as an ability to do everything.Advertising We will write a custom essay sample on The Problem of Evil: Rational, Reasonable, and Scientific Explains specifically for you for only $16.05 $11/page Learn More God knows everything and he offers people the right to choose not as the hidden ability to guide human choice, but as the confirmation of the fact that God knows everything, and he is aware what choice a person will make. Sometimes, human choice is directed at the evil side, but God’s noninterferen ce is explained by the freedom of choice and the cognition of evil with the purpose to understand what goodness is. This is the main reason why God does not interfere into human decisions, as they will still come to the understanding of goodness. Omnibenevolence of God Omnibenevolent nature of God should not also be questioned as God has created this world with the purpose to give us life, but it is we are who make choice and act in opposition to God’s reasoning. God offers us the right to choose what exactly we want, therefore, he is not responsible for the choice people make. He can influence us and help us make choice according to his omnipotent nature and he can be aware of the choice made by people as he is omniscient, but, he offers the choice for people. It is their decision how to act. This does not point to evil existence and does not violate the problem of evil from the point of view of the inability to influence human choice if wrong decision is made. God is omnibe nevolent because his actions are directed at the goodness and human happiness. Everything he creates has its purpose, but, it is human choice whether to use that goodness or not. Thus, it can be concluded that the God’s omniscience, omnipotence, and omnibenevolence cannot be the reason of the problem of evil as these notions are not connected. Personal argument Having stated that problem and having considered it from the point of view of the problem of evil, we came to the conclusion that to define God, it is important to use the following features, omniscience, omnipotence, and omnibenevolence. Having discussed there issues we have managed to prove them and point to the fact that they cannot be used as the contradiction to God’s existence within the problem of evil. In other words, we have stated that the problem of evil does not go along with God’s definition as evil presence in the world is an obligatory issue and it does not rejects omniscient, omnipotent, a nd omnibenevolent nature of God.Advertising Looking for essay on philosophy? Let's see if we can help you! Get your first paper with 15% OFF Learn More Conclusion Therefore, it should be concluded that the problem of evil can be explained via rational, reasonable, and scientific. Gods characteristics of omniscience, omnipotence, and omnibenevolence are not undermined. The existence of evil is obsolete in relation to the existence of God as all-knowing, all-powerful, and all-good. There is no place to the evil problem as the existence of evil does not reject the presence of God. These notions are to be present together in order to show people what goodness is. Furthermore, the presence of evil in the world does not reject God’s omniscience, omnipotence, and omnibenevolence as these notions should not be considered as opposed notions.

How to Go Viral With Brittany Thompson Of Virtual Resort Manager

How to Go Viral With Brittany Thompson Of Virtual Resort Manager â€Å"Going Viral† became a marketing buzz phrase in the 1990s and describes a piece of marketing content that generates a mythical resonance with an audience and spreads uncontrollably. For example, Hotmail had the idea to add â€Å"P.S. I Love You† at the end of every email users sent. The result: Big success and signing up 12 million users in just 18 months. But how do you keep such momentum going? What business results and revenue growth does this kind of phenomenon drive? In this episode, Brittany Thompson, social marketing and media manager at Virtual Resort Manager (VRM), talks about going viral for clients and how that shapes VRM’s marketing approach. Brittany knows how it feels shocking, unbelievable, amazing, and exhilarating to go from a few thousand to millions of fans and followers just overnight! Powered by PodcastMotor Actionable Content Marketing powered by By AMP072: Behind The Scenes Of Going Viral With Brittany Thompson Of Virtual Resort Manager 00:00/00:00 1x 100 > Download file Subscribe on iTunes Leave Review Share Topics Discussed in this Episode: Keep current on what’s happening and conduct research to determine what ideas are good for your industry Build a team by recognizing strengths and weaknesses Improve exposure and engagement with clients by auto scheduling posts Increase your company’s bandwidth Market your company and your clients at the same time Going viral is attainable when you know your audience’s wants and needs Keep the momentum going when successful by filtering content to meet clients’ needs Share your secrets, and learn from others Determine what makes the cut by filtering content by looking at analytics Emotionally resonate with your audience by knowing your brand better than anyone else Resources: Virtual Resort Manager to automatically schedule posts; and its podcasts Write and send a review to receive a care package with sweet swag If you liked today’s show, please subscribe on iTunes to The Actionable Content Marketing Podcast! The podcast is also available on SoundCloud,  Stitcher, and Google Play. Quotes by Brittany: â€Å"Anybody who is trying to learn to do marketing is you have to niche yourself down to into a specific industry†¦if you pick something, be the best at it.† â€Å"You need to focus on what you’re good at and allow other people to be good at what they’re good at.† â€Å"We’ve had multiple standout successes. One of the most notable successes as a team was that we actually had a post go viral with over 16 million views on it. It blew me away.†

An Animals Place by Michael Pollan Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 500 words

An Animals Place by Michael Pollan - Essay Example The paper tells that Michael Pollan introduces the interesting case of animal liberation at a time when eating animals, wearing animals, experimenting on animals, killing animals for sport etc have become common practices for humanity. The author has been highly effective in introducing the arguments of the people working for the liberation of animals. In a profound investigation of the arguments of people who plead for animal liberation, the author maintains that the most difficult animal rights challenge is posed by the killing of animals for meat and clothing. To Michael Pollan, the vexed question of animal suffering is whether human interest in eating animals outweighs their interest in not being eaten. â€Å"Whether our interest in eating animals outweighs their interest in not being eaten (assuming for the moment that is their interest) turns on the vexed question of animal suffering. Vexed, because it is impossible to know what really goes on in the mind of a cow or a pig or even an ape. Strictly speaking, this is true of other humans, too, but since humans are all basically wired the same way, we have excellent reason to assume that other people’s experience of pain feels much like our own.† Therefore, a reflective analysis of the article by Michael Pollan confirms that the author has been effective in examining the various aspects of the arguments made by the supporters of animal liberation and his major counter argument is that they reveal a profound ignorance about the workings of nature.

LOCATING SCHOLARLY INFORMATION ON THE INTERNET Research Paper

LOCATING SCHOLARLY INFORMATION ON THE INTERNET - Research Paper Example of credibility lingering in mind, it is important to explore some of the possible criteria that can be used to qualify internet information as credible. Information credibility is heavily dependent a number of factors such as currency and citation presence among others. Credible information should be up to date thereby reflecting relevance and conformity with the changing times. Current information concurs with issues happening in the modern world. Research on different subjects is always being carried out implying that some of the earlier conclusions may be disputed. This is especially with technological advancements thereby creating greater room for improvements. For example, information on diseases is prone to change since as time advances there is likelihood of new discoveries. This implies that relying on relatively old sources may give information with omissions of advancements made. As such, conclusions drawn from such information may be deemed incomplete hence cannot be considered credible. Secondly, presence of source citations symbolizes information credibility since it shows that the topic in play has been researched upon. However, it is also important to check citations used to ensure that they are from trustworthy sources. In relation to citations, sources being used should also use credible references. This implies that use of information sources is seemingly interdependent. Additionally, information on sources should correspond to information on external trustworthy sources and conclusions. For example, internet users should ensure that a source corresponds to known facts about a given subject. Therefore, citation presence may be used to determine information credibility. Internet users can determine information credibility by concentrating on the website’s outlook. Scholarly sites have a consistent page design that is attractive yet maintaining professionalism. This implies that there is no irrelevant information on scholarly sources such as

The Impact of Disruption to Sleep Patterns in the Intensive Care Unit Essay

The Impact of Disruption to Sleep Patterns in the Intensive Care Unit - Essay Example One indisputable fact is that lack of sleep affects the health and progress of the healing for patients in the ICU. A study on the impacts of sleep disruptions in the ICU indicated that the nature of sleep patterns in a nursing environment has some significant associations with the mortality rates (Friese, 2007, p. 1210). Nursing institutions that promote good sleep habits for patients in the ICU have also shown significant reductions in the levels of mortality. On the other hand, nursing institutions that do not have any structures for promoting good sleep habits were also associated with high mortality rates. The findings of this study were consistent with other findings that showed a positive association between the states of health of patients in the ICU with the number of hours of sleep that the patients managed to get (Friese, 2007, p. 1212). For instance, these findings showed that most of the patients who managed to get uninterrupted sleep were able to respond faster and bett er to treatment than those who were occasionally interrupted by the nurses or other factors. Discussion Various studies have developed an association between the rate of patients’ readmission to the nursing homes and the disruptions to the sleep patterns (Patel, Chipman, Carlin & Shade, 2008, p. 309; Patel, Chipman, Carlin & Shade, 2008, p. 310). Some of the inferences drawn from this study are that the sleep patterns of the patients in the ICU promoted the natural defences of the body, thus, allowing the patients to develop long-terms health stability. These associations are also consistent with other studies that have established the existence of positive influences between long term health balances of individuals to the quality of sleep that they receive (Eliassen & Hopstock, 2011, p. 140). Opinions of some nursing experts suggest that the promotion of environmental conditions that support quality sleeping patterns is more sustainable than interventions that involve the us e of sleep inducers. Patients who are occasionally subjected to sleep inducers often lapse into delirium after a short while and may require stronger inducers in order for them to acquire the same amount of sleep (Patel, Chipman, Carlin & Shade, 2008, p. 310). Some of the studies have established a connection between the impairment of the body’s ability to combat infections (Eliassen & Hopstock, 2011; Friese, 2007). Quality sleep strengthens the immune system and provides the enabling environment for the functioning of the defensive mechanism of the body. Poor sleeping patterns are usually associated with prolonged healing and negative responses to the treatment processes. Patients who fail to get sufficient sleep are also likely to suffer from hallucinations and unstable psychological states. This is because the state of a patient’s mental balance is affected by the kind of pressure and strain that occur during the period of wakefulness. In order for a patient in the ICU to develop the necessary defences, it is necessary to develop a stable sleeping schedule with sufficient time that would allow for the release of the strain and pressure that operate at the mental level. The role of nurses in mitigating the adverse

Debate on the Ethics of Gun Control

Debate on the Ethics of Gun Control The Second Amendment to the Constitution states that, A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed [16]. The Founding Fathers of the United States believed that the bearing of arms was essential to the character and dignity of a free people [3]. For this reason, they wrote a Second Amendment in the Bill of Rights which the last part reads the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. The Bill of Rights does not grant rights to the people, it is the list of the fundamental, inalienable rights, endowed in man by the founding fathers. These rights define Americans as a free and independent people. The phrase Gun Control means different things to different people, and opposing sides have for years fought over the laws that govern firearms. Gun control is defined as polices enacted by the government that limit the legal rights of gun owners to own, carry, or use firea rms, with the intent of reducing gun crimes such as murder, armed robbery, aggravated rape, and so on [4]. This coincides with Kants belief, that the morality of an act depends on a persons intentions (a good will), not the results of the act [1]. The problem here is the results of the act of controlling our individuals rights to bear arms is not always in everyones self interest. Two discrete ethical beliefs are at war in the gun control debate, social utilitarianism and individual rights. These two philosophies are incompatible and, further, that is impossible to secure or validate unlimited individual rights of gun owners on utilitarian grounds. The government uses utilitarianism to dismantle the individual rights of gun owners. Although, it is legal in the Constitution to regulate guns, it is still unethical. There is often debate over the term, well regulated in the opening line of the Second Amendment. Many would interpret this phrase to be controlled by the government or to be ruled. However, there are other meanings to the word regulated that collectivists sometimes fail to acknowledge. In a different context it can be interpreted as properly operating. It has also been debated that, well regulated militia has a meaning at that time in the nature of a properly function militia which would mean something along the lines of a properly trained and equipped militia [17]. The Supreme Court stated that It is undoubtedly true that all citizens capable of bearing arms constitute the reserved militia force or reserve militia of the United States and well as the States [17]. Although there are many interpretations of the term well regulated, most agree a properly functioning militia is necessary to the security of a free state. All should agree that reducing violent crime is a good thing. Gun advocates will acknowledge that guns act as an enabler for criminals and play a role in most violent crime. This statement is generally the basis of the anti-gun movement. They argue that since guns are commonly used in the commission of crimes and since guns are inherently dangerous because of their primary function (the primary function being the destruction of the target), that guns should therefore be outlawed. Many gun advocates, such as Gary Kleck, a Flordia State University criminology professor could counter this by saying that law-abiding citizens using firearms protect themselves from criminals 2.4 million times ever year [6]. Klecks findings are based on a 1993 random survey of approximately 6,000 households. Since the Bureau of Justice Statistics estimate that approximately 1.1 million violent crimes were committed with guns in 1992 [6], one could argue that there is a correlation between increased gun owne rship and a reduced crime rate. From a legal standpoint, class-action lawsuits have become more prevalent, some lawsuits have been brought against gun manufacturers on the grounds that they produce and distribute a dangerous product [6]. During the case of US v. Emerson, a federal appeals judge, Judge William Garwood upheld under the Second Amendment the right to own/possess a firearm even for a man who was under a restraining order issued at his estranged wifes request [2]. This decision overturned a law in Texas that made it illegal for someone with a restraining order to own/possess a gun. This law was overturned because it was decided that the Second Amendment indeed said that an individual has the right to keep and bear arms, not just the state. Any other argument regarding the legal rights of the individual under the Second Amendment seemed unnecessary, since the rights of the individual were upheld. This is only one example where the individual rights were upheld, but in most cases utilitarianism prevails. T his decision was overturned on the district level and only involved the state of Texas, only the Supreme Court can decided what is or is not constitutional. Both opposing viewpoints agree that the Second Amendment guarantees the right of the government to maintain an armed militia to protect the nation, but a struggle still exists whether or not it is the unlimited right to keep and bear arms for every individual. Most liberal politicians hold the utilitarian position, or collective rights position, that gives states the rights to maintain armed militias. Before Supreme Court decision of District of Columbia vs. Heller (2008), Nine of the eleven U.S. districts courts have long held a strong Collective Rights view that the Second Amendment covers only one matter: empowerment of government to maintain an armed militia to defend the U.S. as a whole [18]. These courts have contended that the Second Amendment doesnt extend to individual ownership of guns [18]. On March 18, 2008, the Supreme Court voted 5 to 4 to overturn the restrictive gun laws of Washington D.C., at the time which outlaws ownership of handguns, except for police officers. I t was concluded that the Second Amendment protects from state infringement of the individual right to own/possess a gun. This was the first time on a constitutional level that an individuals unlimited right to bear arms was recognized. This Supreme Court decision can be directly related to Rawlss belief that, a loss of freedom for some is not made right by a greater sum of satisfactions enjoyed by many, [1]. Moving away from the legal argument to the philosophical one, the first question to be posed is, is an act of self-defense from loss of life or limb morally justified? Few would answer this question with anything other than yes. The next question that arises is, Is it morally okay for everyone to possess a firearm for use in self-defense? The answer to this, without allowing for other uses of firearms must be yes. To defend ones self is instinctually right, and is rationally allowable as well. If threatened with a gun, it is difficult to effectively defend ones self with anything other than a gun [15]. Thus for self-defense, guns meet the requirement. The question then becomes, What type of guns should be allowed? If the purpose of the gun is to protect ones self, and ones family, then the answer must be, Whatever type of gun is needed to defend ones self and ones family. From this the question arises, From whom am I to defend myself? The answer of the Founding Father would have been , From both foreign and domestic tyranny. A gun that would protect from both foreign and domestic tyranny seems to be a tall order. Protection from domestic tyranny seems simple enough, since most cases of domestic tyranny are simply crimes committed against others by common thugs with less than state-of-the-art weaponry. Thomas Jefferson, however, saw a different domestic tyranny to defend against. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in their government [11]. This reasoning demands that the citizen be equipped with arms that could reasonably be used to defend ones home against governmental invasion. The weapons that would be needed are the so-called assault weapons that the anti-gun lobby is trying to ban. These weapons are those that can carry high-capacity magazines (10 rounds or more of ammunition) and those that have such military-style features such as semi-automatic actions, flash suppressors, and muzzle brakes. Some would argue that these guns encourage illegal use and enable mass-shootings, but the fact is that the presence of even fully automatic machine guns in homes is not correlated with a high murder rate. Take for instance Switzerland, where every household is required to have a fully automatic weapon. Switzerlands rate of homicides by gun is lower than Canadas, despite the fact that Canada has almost a complete ban on all firearms [14]. Since statistics have entered the debate, the Utilitarian view seems to inevitably pop up. So, from a utilitarian standpoint, should gun control laws become more stringent? Should guns be banned altogether? If the answers are based on what would happen (or what would probably happen) if guns were banned, let us look at statistics from countries where such bans have been effected. In Australia, a law was passed that forced gun owners to turn over 640,381 private guns. The results after one year are astonishing, homicides increased by 3.2%, assaults increased by 8.6%, and armed robberies increased by 44%. These statistics seem to show a correlation between fewer legal guns and an increasing crime rate [12]. This conclusion is further supported by statistics from other countries. In Israel, where teachers carry guns, where one in five citizens is in the military, and where the gun ownership rate is higher than the U.S., the murder rate is 40% lower than Canadas. New Zealanders own as many guns as Americans, and yet their murder rate is lower than Australias [13]. Considering these statistics, the conclusion from a Utilitarian perspective is that gun ownership is ethically proper. The requirement of the greatest good for the greatest number seems to demand that whatever method brought about the lowest crime rate would be best, as long as that method does not infringe upon the rights of those involved, thus making them unhappy, and reducing the total good. Since gun control seems to lower the total good, and guns in the hands of the citizenry seems to increase the total good, the correct action is to allow guns. Lets take look at the other side of the debate. Elijah Weber, a journalist for Everyday Ethics, likes uses the harm principle when describing gun control. According to the harm principle, we can only ban something if it is harmful to others. Clearly, gun ownership leads to harmful effects due to gun related violence. Weber states, More than any statistical analysis can demonstrate, it should be obvious that a person can cause more harm with a gun than without one [10]. This is true, guns do cause harm when used for their intended purpose. The gun is only tool. Its use depends entirely on the character and purpose of the one who wields it. A tool is an instrumentality for the accomplishment of a particular goal. My car permits me to get to and from work; my computer allows me to communicate to the world without leaving my room. Certain guns are customized for hunting of animals, others are designed for one major purpose only: destruction of human beings. One of the most common uses of this certain tool is in self defense. Some number of gun owners certainly hope that life will put them in a situation where they can use their weapon for its intended purpose, but a much smaller number has actually sought these circumstances [9]. Our Second Amendment protects not the right to life, or self determination, but the right to keep and bear arms. The paradox is firearms are fact only tools; their use depends on the purpose and character of the user [8]. As tools, they can be, and are, used for both good and evil. This paradox, or tension, that we cannot protect what we value in man except through of the physical means of its ex pression, yet as tools their value is completely neutral or ambiguous [8]. This is much of the cause of the debate; we contemplate the value of our individual rights, and the extent to which it is permissible to restrict those rights. John Wallace states that empowerment of the individual should lead to more responsible use of the tool than denial and willful ignorance will [9]. Thus we are lead to believe by granting us our individual right to bear arms should lead to more ethically proper use of these tools. In sum, the so called harm principle has no bearing on the debate over gun control, guns are merely tools and how we use them depends on the character behind the trigger. Crime is everywhere, some people like to believe that they live, work, and travel only in special crime-free zones. The truth is crime can occur anywhere at any time, criminals do not play by anyone rules. Is your life worth protecting? If so, whose responsibility is it to protect it? If you believe that it is the polices, not only are you wrong, since the courts universally rule that the police have no legal obligation to do so [8], but you face another question. How can you rightfully ask another human being to risk his life to protect yours when you will assume no responsibility yourself? We often claim to be shocked that violent criminals possess no respect for our property, our liberty, or our lives. Yet why should criminals respect our property or lives, when we ourselves do not value them highly enough to assume the responsibility to defend them. I believe that one who values life and takes seriousness his or her responsibilities will possess and cultivate the means of properl y fighting back. The government and anti-gun lobbyists like to use the utilitarian perspective, greatest good for the greatest number. There is a problem with this approach, why should our right to defend ourselves depend on statistics such as crime rate. Should the legal right to defend your life be a function of the homicide or violent crime rate, so that the right comes into and goes out of existence as the rate rises or falls below a certain point? Since crime can happen to anyone, anywhere, anytime, thus, a government that arrogates to itself the power to judge, in the first instance your need or eligibility to own a gun can only believe that your life is not really worth protecting, at least until such time as you present strong proof to the contrary [8]. This utilitarian approach doesnt respect that each individual has an inalienable right to life and liberty and a moral right and obligation to defend oneself. During an interview with David Morabito, a New York lawyer I was able to pose some answers to interesting questions. First off, New York has much stricter laws pertaining to gun control than that of Michigan. Davids stance on gun control was that, Gun controls laws are in place for a certain reason, the reason is to protect society from violent crime, thus by keep firearms out of the hands of criminals. He agreed with me that using a handgun is a worthy way to protect yourself and/or your familys life, but there are other means available today that do not cause permanent injury. He recalled New Yorks legalization of self defense sprays, that they are much safer means of self protection. I also asked him how he felt about the strict licensing laws of his state and the banning of classes of guns. David stated, That strict licensing laws help keep firearms from getting into the wrong hands. As for banning of classes of guns, he used the AR, or assault rifle, as an example, No needs a fu lly automatic high capacity rifle to defend them from a common thug. He added, These weapons seem to only add to the problem of violent crime. In closing, David believed that handgun laws should be stricter, because he believes that they statically help reduce violent crime. Mr. Morabito obviously not a huge gun advocate, could be right, statistics do support him. For example, Dr. Arthur Kellerman, Director of Center for Injury Control at Emory University, concluded that guns in the home were 43 times more likely to kill a family member or acquaintance than an intruder, suggesting that it is criminally irresponsible to keep a gun in the home for self defense [8]. Kellerman believes his studies strongly show that the risks of having a gun in the home substantially outweigh the benefits, [8]. Florida State University criminology professor Gary Kleck has his own research that counters Kellerman. Based on his studies in 1993, Klecks research suggests that guns are used far more often to deter than to commit a crime. 1 in 6 of Klecks respondents who had used a gun in self defense was almost certain that a life would have been lost without the gun, implying that guns save about 400,000 lives each year [6]. Kleck points out that even if one-tenth of those people were right, the number of lives saved by guns would still exceed the 38,000 killed by gun s [6]. Asserting that Klecks statistics justify owning or carrying a firearm commits the same fault that asserting that Kellermans statistics justify not owning or banning firearms. Both Kellerman and Kleck treat the gun as an agent; an agent with the power to effect results. Guns are just tools that serve a purpose and we the people are the agents. Thus, statistics are only numbers that will change year to year and place to place. Numbers cannot be the sole justification whether gun control needs to be more stringent or lenient. Bart Marlette, a Clinton Township police officer, was asked questions similar to those asked of David Morabito during a recent phone interview. When asked what his stance was on gun control, Officer Marlette replied, I am neutral on the subject, gun control laws in Michigan could be always be improved but there is not necessity to change them at this point in time. Officer Marlette also agreed that a handgun is a worthy way to protect yourself and your family. He does not believe that existence of licensing laws, instant check procedures and the banning of certain guns redefine peaceable citizens as criminals as some may argue. When asked if proper CPL (Concealed Pistol License) holders should be allowed to carry on college campuses, Officer Marlette supported the idea. He stated, As long as they are properly trained and responsible, he did not see the harm. He stated he sometimes worries about his son attending Wayne State University in Detroit because of the violent crime there. Th e Gun Free School Zone Act of 1990 made it a crime to possess a gun in a school zone, defined as the school grounds and the area 1,000 feet in the radius of those grounds [8]. The prominent principle of the gun-free school zone act is that laws can keep guns out of schools, but law does not have the power to prevent crime. Any person that believes the gun-free school zone act to be a rational law or good idea merely reflects his failure to understand the absurdity of the laws founding principle [8]. I could not agree more, no law has the power to prevent crime, or in any case control conduct. For this law to work, you would have to expect that a person who is willing to commit a violent crime such as rape or murder will be prevented because he or she will respect the law, not bring a gun to school, and feels the laws proscribing punishment for those crimes have no hold upon him or her. The problem is such a law can never work, because choice and freedom cannot be eliminated, and wit hout responsibility, law has no force but brute force [8]. The gun-free school zone act has become a tool for satisfying emotion need for safety of our children. Utilitarianism is the opposite side of Kants theory of ethics. Kants theory is based on human reason; utilitarianism is based on reason and experience [1]. The problem with utilitarianism is that the greatest happiness for the majority might be at the cost of the misery for a few. Thus, doing what promotes the greatest happiness for the greatest number might not be always the right thing to do. Utilitarianism can best be explained in the case: The Ones Who Walk Away from Omelas. The city of Omelas is presented as a perfect utopia. It has everything you could ever want or desire, but it comes at a cost. All the people of Omelas know that their happiness, their perfect utopia depends on one child. This child has to be locked in a small room in the basement at all times. Their entire happiness depends solely on this one childs misery. If this child were to be let out of this room, all that makes the city of Omelas would be destroyed. In sum, utilitarianism demonstrates that there is no way to make anyone better off without making someone worse off [1]. Your individual right can be directly related to this one child. The utilitarian ethics is naturally inconsistent with the ethics of individual rights. Now, if individuals are permitted to have certain rights only so long as their exercise of those rights is perceived to serve or bring the greatest good of the greatest number, they in fact have no inalienable or individual rights [8]. Thus, when gun advocates such as Gary Kleck, defend the right to own and carry guns with utilitarian arguments, there are in no sense defending individual right. Instead, they are just trying to convince the greatest number to permit them to exercise such a freedom as the right to bear arms. Under an individual right ethics, individuals may not be treated solely as a means to an end but must also be treated, in Kants words, as ends in themselves [1]. Everyone possesses their own free will and I believe freedom is what America was founded upon. Therefore, it is unethical to restrict ones right to bear arms on the account that another man that has abused his freedom. U tilitarianism justifies using some merely as a means to the fulfillment of others ends, so long as those who are to be sacrificed are not too numerous [8]. This is saying that no individual has the right to life, and his rights are being thrown aside in pursuit of the greatest good. Nothing changes that individuals have the fundamental right to carry and own arms, and everyone has the right to life. I will end with this, You can have my gun when you pry it from my cold dead hands.