Cultural relativism is the idea that the moral principles someone has are solely determined by the culture one lives in. These ideas seem to make sense because we as a culture understand that the judgments people make in a different culture will differ from ours whether we choose to support it or not. Our culture has different moral judgments as well and does not look at something like killing someone for stealing as morally right since our culture values human life above theft. Cultural relativism does not exist because some principles are universal and not relative only to culture. People also have the ability to think morally for themselves so morality is relative to someone’s point of view.
I try to avoid conflicts and protect the least advantaged without creating unnecessary hassles for the rest. One of my weaknesses is that I trust reasonable systems to solve most problems. Because of that I run the risk to be considered authoritarian and assuming that my way is best, which is not at all my intention. At some point I could become isolated because not everyone can guarantee equality. My obsession with justice could drive those I care about most away from me.
The practice of multiculturalism gives uniqueness and an essential component to benefit the country such as good public relationship. Apparently, multiculturalism is not possible without the participation and engagement of the people. Therefore, the practice of multiculturalism must be actively advocated and enhanced among the community. The world is changing rapidly, and it is very important for Americans to accept multiculturalism as an irreversible part of the United States. The country has a lot of different cultures.
What seems to be obvious might not be true at all. Conventional wisdom can be considered as convenient. Some people would rather believe what others tell them to believe because it might be safer to be politically correct. Some people don’t have to worry about figuring it out because it has already been figured out for them. The major problem with conventional wisdom is that is difficult to prove otherwise because it is already fixed in people’s
Formal education, high IQ or talent don’t automatically cause an early beginner to make it to the top. In most cases, world renowned experts can only do wellin limited areas. However, in their areas of expertise, they perform in a way nobody else can do. Most well-known successful individuals such as Olympic athletes, basketball players and celebrities are successful for two reasons: First, they focused all their time developing skills in an area where they are greatest. Second, they focused on an area where they had passion and love.
It varies from place to place. Humans are humans, and so we should view things the same. But there are outside influences in cultures that make us see the discussed views differently. There is no truth in defining what is just and unjust but we are persuaded by believing what is in our morals by following the evidence, logic and reasoning behind each argument made. The author says “and one ought to bring up the question whether it is those who are sane or those who are demented who speak at the right moment”.
Second, he argues that it is only by virtue of something being sentient that it can be said to have interests at all, so this places sentience in a different category than the other criteria: "The capacity for suffering and enjoying things is a prerequisite for having interests at all, a condition that must be satisfied before we can speak of interests in any meaningful way" (175). That is, Singer is trying to establish that if a being is not sentient, the idea of extending moral consideration to it makes no sense. This negative argument is important, because one common criticism of Singer is that his criterion ends up excluding humans who are no longer sentient (like those in an irreversible coma); Singer is content to accept that consequence, but it is important that he show why the exclusion of some humans by his criterion is not problematic, given that he has criticized other criteria
Collaboration comes across the literature as an increasing necessity in organisations for optimal performance in productivity and a necessary managerial and leadership skill. Erickson (2010) argues that increased collaborative capacity is a well suited leadership activity for today’s managers. Gosling and Mintzberg (2003) argue that the collaborative mind set is one of the five minds of the manager and finally, though she disputes the teams’ ideology, Amanda Sinclair admits that “teams in various forms have become ubiquitous ways of working” (Sinclair. A 1992, 13, 4 -611-626 in Peters and Waterman 1982, Payne 1988). Teams under certain circumstances can probably satisfy everything at once if the team adopts a collaborative approach, is high in Emotional Intelligence, can resolve conflict positively, acknowledge the importance of human well being and is capable of not losing the big picture.
Champions work for there ability to be an athlete and they give great effort no matter what to achieve being the best. Someone that has athleticism but does not give forth there best effort at all times may as well be any other person on a team. Chandler
Whether you call it enthusiasm, passion, or dedication, what all people want is to be motivated. Organizations want hard working motivated people working for them. A motivated team will most likely respond positively to change and support organizational culture. In most cases, small gestures have a bigger impact on people than big ones. Achievement and recognition of achievement have been proved time and time again by Psychologists and social scientists, who say that these are the most powerful motivators.