Ethics

Digital Rights Management is a systematic approach to copyright protection for digital media. The purpose of employing DRM is to prevent unauthorized redistribution of digital media and to restrict consumers from copying content theyve purchased.

DRM is used to stop the exchange of digital media content illegally. The exchange of digital media files via the internet or other sources without paying for it has obstructed all copyright laws and even though many users see Digital Rights Management as overly restrictive it is solving a legitimate problem.
               
The copyright law states that people can make copies of content theyve purchased for their own use. However a computer program cannot think subjectively and does not allow any copying at all be it for personal use or not.

DRM and the Music Industry
Piracy wasnt an issue for a long time until copying material that was released was a big hassle. With the advent of easily copy able material that started with magnetic tapes and has carried on now to CDs, peer to peer sites and the internet piracy has become a major issue. This led to companies producing media content employ the tactics of DRM to stop piracy.
         
The top four music groups operating in the US are Vivendis Universal Music Group, EMI, Sony BMG and Warner Music Group. Out of these four, three of them had already started selling their music without DRM requirements. Sony BMG is the last to follow the trend to drop DRM.  This action is being taken to increase exposure of their artists and to end Apples monopoly over the song downloading market.
           
This is also a move to make themselves appear more consumer friendly as pervious DRM techniques enraged consumers and many filed lawsuits against them.  Consumers boycotted Sony when they came up with a DRM software that embedded itself in users PCs when the CD was played. This action enraged consumers who were paying for their music and thus led to a boycott. This created the people who were paying for the music to pay for those who were pirating it and the people who were pirating it were still free and unharmed.
         
Another implication of applying this DRM technology was that people started switching to the mode of download that was most compatible with their music players. This led to give Apple an increased monopoly over the other music retailers.

Now the basic question that arises is if DRM is the right way to go or not And this step taken by the music companies to exclude DRM from their music was a good step or not. In my opinion this is a good step because firstly it did not achieve its objective that is curb piracy. It just created a barrage of problems for the consumers who were actually paying for the music. Also a lot of music loving consumers were deprived of the music. The music companies also faced a lot of heat because of this policy and faced boycott from a lot of consumers. This not only led to increased anger by the consumers but also led to decreased sales of the music companies. According to an article the sales of Apple increased considerably and it got an 80 share of the market for legally downloadable music.  Another reason why taking back this DRM is that Sony and other music companies had started misusing this technology and had started crossing the line to obstruct consumer privacy. The DRM software created problems with Windows Operating System and made it more vulnerable. What the DRM software of Sony did was it installed with itself Rootkits on the users system. Rootkits are technologies that cant be seen on the surface. Thye hide files, registry keys and other objects from security software and so are usually used by malware and such objects that dont want to be seen on the surface. This helps a hacker or intruder to acquire access to a system. This was most prominently seen in Microsoft Windows Operating System. Mark Russinovich was the first person to find this and reveal it to the world which led the consumers to get into an outrage and boycott Sony. Also Sony found itself the subject of many lawsuits.
           
This was not the first time that invasive DRM was used by record companies however this came to broader public attention. Therefore in my opinion its better that DRM technology has been removed. DRM technology like this one mentioned above that is the root-kit is very harmful to computer systems as it directly affects not only a computers operating system but also directly manipulates the kernel, which is the core of the operating system so the user is exposed to multiple security threats. Intrusive DRM software was available even before this but the new thing was that the files were now being installed on the operating system level. They are supposedly trying to scan the system to detect attempts of piracy and in this way the systems resources and power are used up. Therefore this is highly intrusive to the consumers and was severely reprimanded.

Every society runs on certain principles. These principles act like threads whose intertwining makes that society thrive. Various authors have offered a lot of theories explaining why this is so. One thing that is clear however is that, when these threads break loose, society runs into a kind of crisis. There is no society that can function without a set of ethical principles that govern the interaction of members within that group of people. In our contemporary society, the fabric that once held us together has become corrupted. Greed has led to the near demise of society itself, and this is evident in just about every aspect of societal function. The government is to a large extent supposed to be the custodian of the principles of the society it governs. However, the financial crunch has revealed the extent of its failure as far as this responsibility is concerned. The crisis brought the government to a point of near collapse. It left the people in great suffering, with several losing their sources of livelihood. The biggest question is why did it happen What caused this unfortunate situation in the country Where was the government This study seeks to discuss these issues from an ethical point of view. It seeks to demonstrate that when capitalistic tendencies override values, the actors in that drama are somehow digging their own graves. It seeks to show that both the government and the financial institutions are the main culprits in this issue. These two did not uphold ethical principles, because if they did, the recent crisis would not have been experienced. In addressing these questions, one must be very modest in their claims. While this study seeks to address these issues from an ethical view point, it does not claim to have found a conclusive answer to the questions. It leaves room for further speculation.

The Role of the Government and Financial Institutions in the Crisis
Everyone would agree with the argument that no individual or organization should be allowed to act in a manner that is likely to endanger the life and functioning of society. As already mentioned, the government ought to protect its own citizens against any exploitative tendencies. However, the financial crunch revealed that the government does not have the moral strength or will to do this. It is worth noting that the crisis is not something that happened overnight. This is a reality that several analysts saw coming. It is something that the government was aware of, but constantly chose to turn a blind eye on. The government licensed institutions, and even encouraged them to go on with certain projects that were clearly too risky, not just for those institutions, but to the society as a whole. For instance, by allowing financial liberalization, the government was simply allowing financial institutions to take loans off the balance sheet. This also meant that there would be a decrease in underwriting, as well as oversight in lending. Greed became the driving force of the financial institutions so that they no longer considered the monitoring of credit risks very essential. It is worth noting that the contemporary society largely, if not totally, depends on the financial prosperity. Societal progress, indeed the very livelihood of humanity, is in the modern day pegged on financial progress. This is the reason why this question becomes one of the most important contemporary ethical issues, because it totally deals with the existence of the human species, and by extension, the entire universe.

While it is important for the government to allow the free flow of business transactions, it has a moral responsibility of ensuring that the manner in which this is done does not leave the society on its knees. By allowing financial liberalization, the government technically lost control of credit, witnessed by the fact that huge credits growth was recorded in just a few years. Everyone knows very well that the crisis was largely a result of the huge amount of credits taken. The government seems to have been torn between placing regulation on the way these things were done and liberalizing in the hope of profiting from it. As aforementioned, upholding ethical principles in the management of financial affairs is perhaps the only way to prevent such unfortunate realities. The government must have been in a dilemma because strictly enforcing the ethical principles would somehow have dealt a major blow on the financial liberalization policy, yet some of the financial analysts had advised that liberalization was the only way to guarantee future financial prosperity.

In about every country, there are certain ethical principles which ought to guide financial management. Fundamentally, five principles feature as the most important ones. These include professional behavior, objectivity, integrity, confidentiality, and professional competence and due care. Apparently, these were all lacking in the way financial transactions were conducted. For instance, the government, for some reason, allowed some of the biggest investment banks to function without necessarily being bound by the regulations that bound other financial institutions. These investment banks took advantage of this to increase leverage. Obviously, this exemption meant, at least indirectly, that these institutions did not necessarily have to abide with the ethical principles very strictly. When institutions increase leverage, it simply means that in case of a downturn, these institutions have no cushion against financial shock. What happened is that in 2007, only five of these investment banks had over 4.1 trillion dollars in debts. Soon the world witnessed the fall of the Lehman Brothers, the sale of Merrill Lynch and Bears and Stearns. The reason why every society tries, or ought to try, to have some kind of ethical principles is to avoid such kind of outcomes. If the directors and financial advisors of these institutions were guided by integrity, it is very possible that the crunch would not have been to the current extent.

The Case of Enron and Andersen
Another good example of total neglect of ethical principles is the case of Enron. This case effectively demonstrates that greed and interest of one party can jeopardize the health not only of national, but of international economies. It is well known by now that Enron colluded with Andersen, the firm that had been responsible for auditing its books, to present false information to the public regarding its financial situation. The company had for several years been on a loosing trend, yet by creating an off-shore account, they managed to pass false information regarding their success. This obviously made a lot of people to invest in the company. When the reality slowly became public, people quickly sold their shares in the company, while others lost all of their investment when the company collapsed. This case exposes not only the ethical retardedness of the two companies, but of the government as well. This is because the government through the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) has a responsibility, both legal and ethical, of protecting the people from such exploitations. After this scandal caught public attention, the SEC through its chairman at the time said that they had done all they could to ensure that the public was protected. However, it is clear that what this commission considered enough was far from sufficient. The reason for this claim is that with the backing of the law and the government, the commission should have accessed the accounts of the company and assessed for themselves the exact nature of its operations.

Andersen was also an example of a serious decay of societal fabric. This is because at present, the only way to assess the financial soundness of an organization, the audit reports play a very big role. This is the reason why audit firms should act with extreme integrity. It is worth noting that this firm knew very well the ethical obligations that bound it, yet it chose to ignore them. By this complicity, several people lost billions of dollars and with it their sources of livelihood. Between 2001, when this was happening, and today, a lot of other financial firms have come into the limelight for and several gotten into legal suits for professional misconduct. Needless to say that every time these misconducts occur, it leads to people losing a lot of money. The biggest question is if such things happen for so many years without people discovering, what would assure the public that every one of the successful firms is genuinely successful Who is left as the true protector of the public      

The SEC and the Crisis
As already indicated, the SEC is directly charged with the legal and ethical responsibility of ensuring that securities are traded in an environment of ethicality and legality. Ethically, they should ensure that all the companies dealing with these issues abide by the set codes and principles. This should not be a very difficult to do because they have the necessary legal backing, and most of the professions are currently guided by some principles as well. However, the commission has evidently failed in its obligation. For instance, in September last year but one, the chairman was quoted saying that the problem of short selling, and the manipulation of the market was taken care of. Allegedly, there have been several cases of what is referred to as naked shorting. Brokers have the tendency of borrowing shares, and selling them at a high price, then when prices come down they buy shares to replace the ones they had already borrowed. Sometimes, these people do buy the shares, but they delay the delivery, creating a possible manipulation of prices, in order to benefit from this situation, by selling non existent securities. There is high possibility that this is exactly what happened in the current financial crisis. But it is not enough for the commission to come in after the worst has already happened. Its role is to ensure that the investors are warned, or informed of possible crisis. This is not what the commission did in this crisis. Those on the commissions side argue, however, that there is not much it can do in terms of helping out the falling companies, especially companies whose policies are formulated by parent companies elsewhere. Some have even blamed the Congress, arguing that they set stage for the crisis in the 90s when they took away the tools necessary to offer directions to emerging markets and securities. The chairman, when summoned by a committee of the Congress, said that the commission did not have the powers to control the kind of risks these corporations took. They argued that rules that were two centuries old, were expected to regulate modern markets all this in an attempt to absolve the commission from blame.

The commission is supposed to check on all the securities firms and all the brokers as well in order to ensure that those that are experiencing difficulties in performance can be highlighted to the public. This would go a long way in ensuring that the public knows exactly what is going on, so it can decide based on information obtained. Unfortunately, the commission in several instances did not even seem to know what was going on in these companies. This is evidenced by the fact that many companies that are in serious financial mess have come into public eye only in the last year. Although the commission has been actively involved in the regulation of the firms dealing in securities, they ought to have done more than just that. They ought to constantly monitor the efficiency of these principles and how well they are applied. This is the only way they can avert similar situation in the future.

Conclusion
As already mentioned, the government ought to protect its own citizens against any exploitative tendencies. This study has shown that both the government and the financial institutions terribly failed in this regard. As a matter of fact, some of the institutions went a step further to take advantage of the loopholes that existed to exploit the investors. Currently, the world is still struggling with the aftershocks of the recession, one that is considered the worst in the history of mankind. The government should have been guided by integrity when it allowed financial liberalization because too much freedom in financial matters is a kind of temptation. More stringent measures should be set in place to ensure that various institutions do not move towards the exploitative tendencies witnessed. At the same time, no particular institution should be exempted from following the set regulations, because that creates room for abuse of those privileges. The SEC should have done all it can within the existing laws, to ensure that the public is protected. This study has established that several firms have been taken to court for professional misconduct in the recent past. This means that there still are gaps to be sealed otherwise what has been witnessed may end up recurring again in the near future. It is important that everyone does something to strengthen the values and principles that guide society, as well as the internal commitment to abide by these principles. However, it is very clear that this is one of the most difficult tasks of our modern time.

Recruiting or hiring of staff is a very sensitive phase in the running of any organization. This is the phase in which business ethics need to be observed the most. It is also the same phase where unethical acts occurs the most. This paper seeks to identify an ethical dilemma in work situations and then applying ethical theories to analyze the situation. The situation identified is unethical acts of a recruiting leader and the theories applied are Utilitarianism Kants Categorical Imperative Rawls Justice as Fairness Communitarianism Altruism Virtue Ethics Ethical Egoism and Psychological Egoism. These theories offer solution to ethical dilemmas in business environments. There is a conclusion that sums up the whole paper and offers the way forward in dealing with work situation dilemmas.      

Recruiting or hiring of staff is a crucial phase in human resource management. It is the first point of interaction with human resource in any organization. Recruitment determines the success of any organization because human resource is the most important resource for organizations. In recruitment, care must be taken to ensure that the best applicants are selected fairly. This is where ethics come into play in ensuring a fair and just recruitment. In any given organization, rules and regulations require that recruiters should be ethical in hiring. The problem is that application of ethics in this process is not as easy as it sounds, in practice. Nevertheless, studies have shown that ethics application in recruitment ensures employment of the best employees. This is why it is very important that ethics are observed in recruiting staff. Applicants are supposed to be selected on merit and not any other way. The aspects that are supposed to be checked in hiring are those that were detailed on the advertisement and not any other.

In the organization that I work for as a recruiter, the team leader whom I work with sometimes requires the recruiting assistant to alter the details of a job after it has been posted and some candidates sent in their applications on the basis of the original application. The leader does this so that the job description will suit a candidate he has identified after the original posting. The idea of changing the requirements for the job to suit his needs are unethical. Making another person that is the recruiting assistant to alter the posting is also unethical.

He also uses the wrong ways in receiving applications, which he receives from those that he knows. The applicants he wishes to assist through unethical means do not send applications through the means that are required. The applications are usually delivered to him directly. He also gives them information that they are required to present in their application and tells them what to say during the interview. Following is the analysis of this situation using ethical theory.

Utilitarianism
Utilitarianism is an ethical theory that states that the right act is always the one that produces the greatest pleasure. This theory is a doctrine that states that the useful is good. It is the ideology that the moral value of an act is determined only by its contribution to the overall utility. In short, it is a system of ethics founded on the premise that the value of things is gauged by its usefulness the theory that every act should be directed to the greatest happiness and to the majority. In this situation, the recruiter acts to gain happiness from recruiting and working with the people that he knows. The theory talks about deriving the greatest happiness, not for an individual but for the majority. If the recruiter acts ethically and hires the right people for the job, he would achieve the greatest happiness to very many people. The hired people because they will have gotten the job they deserve, the other workers because they will be working with qualified staff, and lastly the organization as a whole because it will benefit from hiring of qualified staff who will work hard to achieve the objectives of the organization. This is the reason why the recruiter should always analyze his decisions and settle for the one that is beneficial to more people, and especially the organization. The situation is unethical because the pleasure gotten by the team leader is only for himself and the few people that he helps.

Kants Categorical Imperative
In this theory the idea of duty and obligation as well as the ideas of right and wrong are primary. According to this theory, a good person is the one who normally does what is right, and that a right act is the one that results from a sense of duty. The theory holds that the basic laws of morals are similar for every rational being. The rightness or wrongness of an act is dependent fully on the nature of the motive and not the consequences. The recruitment leader is usually very much aware that his acts are wrong and this is the reason why instead of altering the posts by himself he opts to use the services of the recruitment assistant. He forgets that he has a duty and obligation to the company to do what is right for its benefit. He acts unethically by failing to do what is right. His actions are wrong because his motive is not to benefit the organization but the people he helps. The consequences of his acts could be right, that is, the people he acquires could actually be good and qualified, but the rightness or wrongness of an act is not determined by the consequences but the motives. In order to act ethically on the basis of this theory, the recruitment leader is supposed to do his duty ethically and fulfill his obligation to the organization and the workers. It is his duty to produce the best in the human resource department. According to this theory, the recruitment leader does not fulfill his obligation to the organization and the staff, hence his acts are unethical.  

Rawls Justice as Fairness
This theory has two principles every person should possess equal right to the most general fundamental freedom that is well-matched with similar freedoms of others and social and economic disparities are to suit two conditions they are to be linked to posts and offices accessible to everyone under condition of just impartiality of opportunity and they are to be of greater advantage to the disadvantaged members of the community. This theory calls for individuals to imagine themselves in a veil of ignorance where all individuals are rational, free and have equal morals. The recruitment leader in this case fails to be just by favoring some people at the expense of others. He fails to apply the veil of ignorance in the process.  The recruiter in this situation should allow the applicants equal rights to compete for the positions. Even though it is not possible for the recruiter to completely eradicate personal biases and prejudices, it is beneficial to take steps to make them as minimal as possible. It is important for the recruiter to pretend to know nothing of their race, gender, nationality or personal tastes. This way he will be able to make just decisions that are not influenced by any of this. The recruitment leader is clearly unjust and therefore unethical according to this theory.  

Communitarianism
Communitarianism theory is a collection of doctrines that opposes individualism in support of a more community-oriented approach. Communitarianism requires individuals to balance their personal needs and interests with those of the community. It also argues that individual people are shaped by the values and cultures of the community. According to this theory the recruitment leader fails by not honoring the interests of the community which in this case is the organization. In recruiting, he is supposed to forget about himself and those employees that he wants to employ for personal gains, and do what is best for the community he is working for. In this case the ethical action would be identifying himself with the organization as the community and recruit those people that are likely to benefit this community. While in the work situation, the recruitment leader should forget all other communities and societies that he belongs to. He should be able to strike a balance between his own interests and those of the organization. He should also seek to make decisions based on the needs and values of the organization. Viewed from the dimension of his community, his acts are ethical because he assists the people from that community. Nevertheless, when the organization is taken as the community, his actions are unethical.  

Altruism
Altruism is the character of selfless concern for the welfare of other people. It is an ethical principle that requires people to have the moral obligation to assist, serve or benefit other people. It calls for the sacrifice of personal interests for the benefit of others. In altruism, self interests are put aside for the sake of the interests of others. It is so selfish of the recruitment leader to use a recruitment assistant to do wrong. This shows that he is not concerned with the welfare of others. He is out to protect himself at the expense of others. In every decision that the recruitment leader makes he should be responsible and take responsibility of the consequences. In this situation also, the recruitment leader does not take account of the people who deserve this post but cannot get due to his corrupt dealings. For him to be ethical according to this theory, he should forget his benefits from the people he wishes to hire and think about the interest of the people that deserves to have those opportunities. According to the theory, the recruitment leader is selfish and therefore unethical.

Virtue ethics
This theory has the argument that morals are internal. The theory seeks to produce good individuals whose actions are good out of spontaneous goodness. The theory put emphasis on living well and achievement of excellence. The goodness of the recruiter is evident by trying to help those that he knows, but in the business situation this is unethical. He does wrong by using other people and also by giving opportunities to the undeserving. His failure of goodness is also evident in wanting to jeopardize the position of the assistant recruiter. He would achieve a lot by doing good deeds, because the success of the company would reflect his good deeds. He would also be safeguarding his job and those of the others in the recruitment department. Therefore from the view of this theory, the recruitment leader is unethical.  

Ethical egoism
This theory argues that for any act to maximize personal interest, it is essential and enough that it is morally right. This theory differs from the psychological egoism which dictates that actions are determined by personal interest. This theory also calls for the consideration of other peoples interests and doing what is right as measured against personal interests. This theory does not leave out the role of personal interests in decisions, but it emphasizes the idea of morality. The acts of the recruiter are selfish and morally wrong. He fights to protect his own interests at the expense of the others. Even in tying to honor his personal interests, the recruitment leader should strive to do whatever is right. In this situation therefore he acts unethically.  

Psychological egoism
Psychological egoism theory view human beings as always motivated by self-interests, even in their acts that are supposed to be altruism. It argues that it is not possible for people to behave contrary to what they consider their best interest. In this doctrine, people always pursue nothing short of their interests. This is evident in the acts of the recruiter. He alters job descriptions to satisfy his own interests. It is his personal interest that the people he identifies are the ones he wants to hire. He does not consider the interests of others who deserve the position and can be said to be selfish. All those facts not withstanding, from this theory, unlike all the others, the recruitment leader acts ethically because everything he does is for his own interest.

Conclusion
As evaluated against most of the theories, it is evident that the acts of the recruiter are all unethical. Just as the theories dictate, the position of the recruiter is such that he has an obligation not to his own people, but to the organization, the staff and the people being hired. Even if he knows someone, it is his duty to allow them to compete on the same level as all the other applicants. If he cannot act morally for the benefit of the organization, then he has no duty being in that organization. In most organizations recruiters tend to act as described in my situation. They should all know that it is unethical, wrong and immoral. I would suggest more research and education in the area of business ethics to transparency and justice in recruiting process and also in the working environment.

There are many ethical issues to be considered in the field of medicine where treatment of a patient is concerned.  We are encouraged to seek out advanced medical directives, do not resuscitate orders, and pre-planned funeral arrangements at the advice of well paid attorneys on television at every turn.
The problems concerning medical ethics do not usually present until we find that we are the patient.  Our level of competency becomes questionable as does our true understanding of what is transpiring, once we disagree with a doctor.  However, it is still my right to refuse medical treatment.
   
As a patient, I have encountered innumerous medical problems.  Most were minor and related only to simple infections, colds, coughs, and flues.  I have never been faced with other diagnoses that were unexpected like cancer, diabetes, or a brain tumor.  In Ms. Welshs case, she was relatively independent until undergoing her first brain surgery to treat ependymoma.  Following surgery, Ms. Welsh was left without full bodily functions.  Physical therapy was needed in order to regain some use of her functioning.  With these factors considered, does this mean that Ms. Welsh is without the ability to make an informed and rational decision concerning her own medical directives for treatment  I think that Ms. Welsh was perfectly able to make any decision concerning her medical treatment before or after her first surgery.  Her autonomy may be shaken due to fear, pain, or shock but this does not render the individual delusional.  In her detailed description of the events leading up to her surgical procedure and the events that followed shortly thereafter, she demonstrated to me that she was well within her abilities to know and understand what was going on around her.
   
I think that every doctor has a duty to uphold the oaths that they took to practice medicine.  It angers me to think that I could end up being challenged where my competency is concerned if I should choose to disagree with them.  Doctors should be encouraged to educate their patients of
risks, side effects, and options when devising a treatment plan.  It is essential that a doctor attempt to develop a form of rapport with me as this would serve to gain my trust. Given the circumstances of Ms. Welshs case, it was never clarified that she wished to discontinue or refuse medical treatment.  If however she did have a change of opinion in the matter, I think the doctor should have been bound to accept her wishes.
   
We too often put doctors and members of the medical community upon a pedestal.   If I were Ms. Welshs doctor, I would certainly have taken whatever treatment direction that she was comfortable with.  After all, she was the one recovering from the surgery and who better to know her body than her.  Some delays and problems were defined by Welsh as being setbacks from the recovery process.  This is no way suggests that she was never in a competent state of mind to make a rational decision.  Other medical issues can circumvent a situation and make unforeseeable complications appear to be a violation of an ethical view.  Drug interactions and complications following surgery are not preventable in most cases.  In other words, sometimes circumstances can arise that may give the impression of being incompetent when in actuality it is due to a reaction to treatment.  I believe that her doctor was ethical in supporting her choices.
   
Ethical dilemmas will continue to plague the medical community from here to eternity.  We should be assured in knowing that we do have the right to refuse medical treatment.  Our doctors are legally bound to respect and follow our wishes concerning treatment.  There are instances whereby a doctor can seek out a legal authorization to override our directive, but this is rarely pursued.  If we continue to talk and work together with our doctors, then it is in all probability that our medical needs and choices of treatment will always be made a top priority.

This essay reflects upon ethics, which can be defined as the capacity to reflect on values in the corporate decision-making process, to determine how these values and decisions affect various stakeholders groups. Moreover, the main or central idea of this essay is to discuss corporate social responsibility in detail as well. Corporate social responsibility is the managerial obligation to take action that protects and improves both the welfare of the society as a whole and the interests of the organization.  Therefore, this entire essay discusses CSR and ethics in great depth from the beginning till the end. Unethical decisions usually occur when organizations get too profit oriented and they do not see the social costs and benefits of the environment and they just see their own private costs and benefits. This biased behavior of the organization leads to problems for not only the organization later on but also for the society over all. Therefore, an organization should never become too profit oriented or self centered, it is the organizations responsibility to make sure that it protects the rights and social benefits of the citizens.

Understanding the importance of this introduction, is extremely important to understand the situation that Unilever had to face due to its unethical decision making process.

Evaluation of the Situation
Unethical decisions and situations usually take place because there are not much corporate social responsibility policies and no proper code of ethics in organizations but also because many societies and organization in the world today, do not have a clear understanding of the importance of CSR due to which social responsibility and ethics are not given a distinctive and proper place to occupy. The same as above happened in our context, Uni lever a multinational company ended up with a serious ethical dilemma because it did not have proper codes of ethics and CSR policies. The company was seeing its own personal benefit only at the cost of the social environment. The ethical dilemma was raised when Uni lever was caught dumping chemical wastes in the sea. This behavior was extremely unethical and the government had to intervene in between to stop this highly unethical behavior of the company. Unilever had to face the ethical dilemma later on by paying a high price to the government and moreover, the reputation and image of the company significantly fell in the eyes of its loyal customers.
           
Therefore, to completely eliminate unethical actions and decisions from organizations and societies as a whole, the importance of corporate social responsibility has to be carefully understood by every individual so that every one starts following CSR strictly and the world becomes a better place to live in.
             
The aspect of following an ethical and right decision-making process is extremely essential for avoiding ethical dilemmas. Basically, CSR involves evaluating how the organization will achieve its social responsibility principles and policies, and get where it wants to go in the area of social responsibility.
             
In todays highly competitive environment, people are so busy with fulfilling their own interests and needs that they do not notice that their actions are adversely and negatively affecting the rights and interests of others in the society. This behavior leads to ethical conflicts in societies and organizations. Therefore, organizations and societies can never operate happily and successfully, unless and until, the workers and citizens do not realize that ethical conflicts have an extremely negative impact and that they can seriously reduce the productivity and reputation levels of an organization.

Ethical theories and professional codes
Research into the matter of business ethics shows that Unilever should have adopted these ethical theories and codes to prevent itself from facing such a critical ethical dilemma of chemical waste dumping. It is extremely important to understand that when corporate social responsibility is being put into effect, it is necessary that the codes of ethics, mandatory codes, Aspirational ethics, personal orientation and ethical decision-making be also put in to effect at the same time.
           
A Code of Ethics is a formal statement that acts as a guide for the ethics of how people within a particular organization should act and make decisions. Codes of ethics commonly address issues such as conflict of interest, competitors, privacy of information, gift giving and giving and receiving political contributions or business.
         
Mandatory Ethics are the core and major ethics behind the code of ethics. They make up the code of ethics and are basically legal or administrative policies for the benefit of the society and organizations. Legal action can be taken if mandatory ethics are violated in any way.
           
The ethics, which are based upon a moderate or optimum level of behavior, are called Aspirational ethics. These ethics are in no way similar to the code of ethics or mandatory ethics. They are a different category because they portray the perceptions of people, their cultural values and their conscience in the society. For example, if there is a severe thunderstorm going and I see a lady dangerously stuck in the rain with her tire punctured. Then, my Aspirational ethics would force me to go help her, whereas no law states that we risk our own life or we go out of the way to help people we do not know.
           
Then comes, the aspect of Personal Orientation, which is very similar to the Aspirational ethics. The only difference is that personal orientation focuses upon individual perceptions, beliefs, attitudes and so on.

Consequences of the ethical dilemma
It has been seen that people are more inclined towards making unethical decisions when they behave in a socially unresponsiveness manner, that is, when they measure their personal costs and benefits only and end up ignoring the social costs and benefits of their decision. A more ethically responsive decision making process would be when an individual would equally and appropriately measure hisher personal costs and benefits against the social costs and benefits.
             
The aspect of making unethical decisions in the short-term brings its negative consequences with itself. For example, if an individual makes unethical and socially unresponsive decisions, in which he only weighs his costs and benefits, then heshe is inclined to get caught in the ethical trap. The ethical trap is a situation when a person who has already made an unethical decision is forced to make another unethical decision to support his previous decision. Therefore, not thinking ethically and not making ethical decisions leads to very critical and complex situations for organizations. Facing and dealing with such critical ethical dilemmas and traps is not only problem some for the organization but also wastes a lot of money of the organization. If an organization is caught making unethical actions, then the governments of certain countries charge money from those organizations in order to compensate for the social problems caused by the organization.
             
The ethical trap forces a person to continue making unethical decision, which in return causes a major ethical dilemma. Thus, trying to correct two unethical decisions becomes much more difficult as compared to correcting one unethical decision. The ethical trap leaves no way out for the person who gets caught in it.
             
Therefore, organizations at all aspects of their lives can implement ethical decisions to avoid the life-long torture of an ethical trap or to face ethical dilemmas.

Recommendation
Unethical decisions and socially unresponsive behavior can be totally eliminated from the society if every organization starts thinking according to the welfare of the society as a whole. Unethical behavior has always arisen due to selfish and personal interest behavior. When people and organizations get obsessed with their own benefits, they turn a blind eye towards the benefits of the society. Another important aspect of making ethical decisions is to have courage and bravery to face any circumstances, which make arise after following the right path.

In the end, this essay concludes on the thought that when an organization would practice ethical decision-making behavior in the society and when it would be able to avoid ethical conflicts, traps and dilemmas. Others in the society will notice this and will follow suit and try to lead their businesses ethically as well. This will spread corporate social responsibility and an ethical code of conduct in the society on a much more extensive scale.

Therefore, if organizations develop social responsibility and ethical policies, they can be much more effective in establishing a code of ethics, which will later on save them from ethical dilemmas.

Unilever should in the future be extremely careful with its decision making processes and should be extra careful with all its operations and actions so that it does not get caught in an ethical dilemma in the future. The company should properly understand the consequences it will have to go through if it gets caught in another ethical dilemma. The costs of dealing with an ethical dilemma is high due to which the company would lose large amounts of its hard earned profits.

Conclusion
In short we conclude that the ethical dilemma that Uni lever had to face as a result of dumping chemical wastes in the sea resulted in many consequences for the company itself and for the environment and for the stakeholders as well. Therefore, in order to bring the situation under control, several ethical theories and codes have been discussed in detail so that in future organizations should prevent themselves from ethical dilemmas and ethical traps.

Moreover, after critical analysis and thinking, several recommendations and solutions have also been presented in this paper so that organizations such as Unilever follow these recommendations and lead the operations according to the proper code of ethics and CSR principles so that they can prevent themselves from facing an ethical dilemma in the future.

Organizations should be more society oriented, that is, they should work hard towards making the society and citizens happy by protecting the environment and nature of the world.

Research also shows that many successful organizations of the world have launched several environment protective programs through which they protect and improve the environment and work towards a social cause. Such actions are not profitable for the organizations in any way, but they improve the reputation and name of the organization extensively. Consumers feel loyal and good about organizations that work towards the benefit of the society and environment.

Susan Whitehead serves on the City Planning Commission. The city is planning to build a new subway system and is accepting bids on the proposal. Susans brother-in-law, Jerry who owns the Custom Transportation Co., has submitted the lowest bid for the system. The Worldwide Transportation C o. has submitted a slightly higher bid for the job. Susan knows that Jerry could complete the job for the estimated amount, but she also knows that if Jerry gets and completes this project he will have enough money to sell his company and quit working. Susan is concerned that Custom Transportations subsequent management might not be as easy to work with if revisions need to be made on the subway after its completion. She is torn as to whether she should tell the city about the potential changes in Custom Transportations management. If the city knew about the instability of Custom Transportation, it might prefer to give the contract to Worldwide Transportation whose bid was higher than Custom Transportations bid by only a small amount. Does Susan have an ethical obligation to disclose the information about Jerry to the City Planning Commission

Introduction and situational analysis
The case problem at hand is the issue of ethics involving conflict of interests and disclosure of critical information. The case of Susan Whitehead of the City Planning Commission (CPC) case is a highly sensitive issue and concern that is likely to seriously affect her in her decision processes at work. Public sector rHerecontracts with significant budgetary allocations, as in the planned projects of the City Planning Commission are likely to become sources of ethical dilemmas. Susan Whitehead is confronted with such dilemma, thus specific performance on contracts require awareness of transparency, good governance and disclosure requirements to preempt or prevent any issue that can be construed as a form of misconduct, impropriety or acts of nepotism arising out of kinship and relationship, professional affiliations or related interest thereby giving rise to a conflict of interest.

Professionals, who suddenly find themselves in the middle of ethical issues, are constrained to forego perks and privileges to project a semblance or a genuine appearance of integrity at work to manifest and articulate good governance practices. Here, the need for proper conduct is demanded. Thus, public officials are to exude and provide living examples and models of exemplary behavior. This behavior is likely to showcase discipline and order. Clearly the practice of professionalism insulates one against possible breach of ethical practices. For Susan Whitehead, it is a call for proper conduct even in the absence of rules that is, acting lawful, ethical even when no one is looking. Further, the essence of the practice of ethics is its universal applicability  reversibility.

The Ethical Dilemma        
Susan Whitehead is faced with an ethical dilemma as the city plans to build a new subway system. Here, the ethical dilemma is a form of conflict of interest and Jerry, who happens to be her brother-in-law, owns the company, Custom Transportation Company that offered the lowest bid for the subway project.  Ethics dictate that either Jerry or Susan inhibit themselves in participating in the bidding processesJerry as a bidder and Susan as a member of the city commission. From all perspectives, Susan and Jerry must exercise caution in their official moves as vested interest aim to scrutinize every possible means to insure fair bidding processes.

Here, the dilemma appears Should Jerry win the contract, the results will cast doubts on the integrity of the bidding processes. Jerry will likely be mistakenly identified as having received tips from Susan in terms of any condition leading to the awarding of the bid Susan Whitehead, on the other hand, will likely be construed as having provided some form of assistance or hint to Jerry to prepare his bid and thus, is likely to upstage other bidders. Besides, both Susan and Jerry will be presumed as having discussed some sensitive areas of the contract in their private capacities as in-laws. Even the small difference in the contract prices will add some more sensitive issues into the agreement as soon as the relationship is disclosed. In all likelihood, these forms of ethical dilemma are likely going to affect the credibility to the City Planning commission.

Giving false impression is another category of ethical issue prevailing in the case. This takes the form of knowledge of information considered material to the case. Here, the ethical issue is the possibility of Jerrys company, being sold to another entity and the possible difficulty of the new firm tasked to undertake revision work after it is completed. Susans nondisclosure of information is likely to put her in a compromising stance with the city planning office. It is highly probable that changes in its management might be difficult to deal with and the city might bring this issue to Susan and unnecessarily link her to the prospect of actually knowing this possibility of risk even if she never had any influence or knowledge about the issue in the first place.

Susan will not find it easy and comfortable that knowing certain sensitive information about the future of Custom Transportation, she will start having some fits of conscience striking her when this risk actually does happen. Here, one has to be ethically consistent.

This dilemma being confronted by Susan may have to be initially addressed by requiring Jerry and his successor in interest to be legally bound by the contract to honor any form of work revision after any change in ownership. This value of integrity had to be inculcated and sustained on all undertakings.

With this provision installed in all pre-qualified bidders, Susan should feel safe on the issue of relationship should this legal provision is adhered to by all parties. Nevertheless, this ethical dilemma should be disclosed by Susan to the Commission and officially documented as enforceable legal issue. Nonetheless, Susan should feel comfortable with the compensating provisions included, but must not take active frontline role, or inhibit from sensitive participation in deliberations that will equally involve Jerry or his outfit, the Customs Transportation. Here, rationalizations must be avoided. Observers are becoming more mature.    

Stakeholder analysis
In this case, the stakeholders include the following Susan Whitehead as the official from the City Planning Commission who is related to Jerry, one of the bidders and contractors for the subway project Jerry as the point person in the project and who owns the firm, Custom Transportation Company, and is the one likely to win the contract for the construction of the subway project. Here, Jerry becomes affected by the conduct of the project as they are expected to be implementer of the project. The city itself is a stakeholder in this case as this is a sample of a public sector project funded by the city and is expected to be supervised by its people through the offices directly tasked with its implementation and supervision together with the winning contractor, Jerry. The city will definitely be in the line of fire for any unethical disposition here as it is assumed that the government spearheaded the project construction knowing the full details of the participants including making sure that any form of succession or successor-in-interest should be considered in the bidding process.
In addition, the competitor bidder World Transportation Company is similarly a stakeholder in this case because of its legitimate interest in participating in the bidding processes for which it believes it is capable of handling. This stakeholder will be impacted by the potential issue of discovery of the conflict of internet as well as the disclosure issue considering it proposed the next possible winner in the bid and which could have indeed won the contract had Jerry, Susan Whitehead acted in more ethical means to avoid potential problems brought about by this affinity relationship.  Another stakeholder in this case could be the family where Jerry and Susan Whitehead belong, them being related by virtue of affinity.
 
Analysis based on ethical theories        
In the case under consideration, the issue and theory of cultural relativism challenges the ordinary belief in the objectivity and universality of moral truth. The theory propounds that there is no universal truth in ethics only cultural practices and codes that had been handed down over generations and presumed to be the right way.

Here, society believes that the right way is the way the ancestors used and handed the cultural codes down the generations. For them, the traditional way is correct for they contain the authority of the ancestors.

The involvement of the cultural relativism is at the fringes of the practice of entering into contracts despite the factors that are likely to cause future problems of disclosure by Susan Whitehead which are likely to be ignored by some stakeholders. For some, participating in the bidding is considered a right arising from having someone in the corridors of power and any imperfections therein can confidently be resolved by the relationship prevailing. Here integrity is perennially challenged.
         
Teleology, which is looking at consequences as in the most natural way possible thus acting for the greater good can equally be impacted by this case in the form of the outcome of actions and decisions based on reasons for doing such acts. Here, the outcome is important but is subordinated to the truthfulness or wrongfulness of the act or decision. What is more important is that in many ways, this approach can be characterized by the need to determine the consequences of an act. The case fits into the aspect of the consequences of the decisions of Susan Whitehead along the fringes of affinity and how this can be justified under the circumstances which can indeed hardly be made.  But deontology, which is based on the aspect of duties and principles, may likely compel Susan to report the relationship and inhibit herself. Likewise, the aspect of virtue, every stakeholder is expected to discharge their duties and principles in the most virtuous way to avoid future consequences which are relatively unpredictable.  

Using the utilitarian theory, Susan Whitehead is compelled to disclose the ethical demand of the moment as being responsive to the needs of the greater majority for protection and benefit. Possibly, the assumption of the position of virtuousness must indeed compel every stakeholder to work for the common good rather the self called ethical egoism.  

Conclusion and recommendations.          
Using the various ethical theories and considering them as the framework in the case of Susan Whitehead, the mix of approaches to resolve the ethical dilemma is to reconfigure the theories and determine the mix that will help preserve the continuity of practicing ethics every inch of the way in business transactions that compel man to look beyond the acts and minds of man every time and endlessly presume that ethics cannot out the chaotic world in order and systematic with all stakeholders benefitted. All ethical theories support and benefit the stakeholders. Here, Susan Whitehead must disclose all.

Here, the risks of not fairly implementing an action or model must be clearly anticipated. thus, in the case problem, Susan Whitehead and Jerry must talk and appreciate the virtues of ethical behavior against short-term gratification. The aspect of broader benefit accruing to more people will help us understand the rigors of the practice considering they were indeed plenty of benefits but very little utility among stakeholders or that the benefits illustrates the skewness of thinking that benefit that not only a few stakeholders drawn into the fold, but considering others ethics that design its own ethical practice in the most open way possible. For these to be reported and help create an ideal mix of ethical behavior means the relative sacrifice each stakeholder is willing to render to the sake of peace, respect, care, order and progress.        

Thus, the issue and practice of ethics and ethical dilemmas immortal means of perpetuating positive values. To become exemplary, ethics is the ultimate test aimed at imposing and sustaining order and discipline in society perennially confronted with a growing concern for good governance and transparency. Here, Susan is constantly reminded that values are what one says he believes and ethics is on how one actually behaves. This axiom reminds society that ethics is a dynamic discipline for sustaining order and discipline in good governance. The need for ethics demands the need for appropriate behavior and the need for appropriate behavior is demanded by society as an extended enterprise. .  

Here, the risks and uncertainties of an emerging business and interpersonal environments further demand that the pervasive practice of ethics should bring meaning, order and sense in every stage of relationships. Susans ethical predicaments are no exceptions.

Life is known to be full of conflict, strife, and issues. It is spilling with such complexities that it is a great wonder why anyone would even want to be part of it. But that conclusion is not one that is derived from a morose mind but rather a statement derived from the truth seen in life, a statement which is from personal experiences of a cursed and blessed lifethat of being half and half. Before fictional characters like half-humanhalf Avatar or demigods come into your mind, let me point out what it is I am trying to saythat of having mixed nationalities and of belonging to two races, cultures, and countries. It can be likened to that of being a drink, like a chocolate-fruit drink There is a part which is the chocolate-y and there is the part where there is the fruity. While both flavors can stand on their own, and it might be slightly uncommon and even weird to mix two conventional flavors into something unconventional in the end, it actually works. Hence, I can be referred to as that person who is of mixed nationalityor a personified chocolate-fruit shake (or other analogies that you can come up with).

When a man is an Arab, the first thing that is associated with him is oil. When a man is British, the first thing that is associated with him is the Queen. When a man is both an Arab and a British, the first thing that he receives is a blank stare followed by a weak attempt on conversation about anything under the sun except culture, country, and religionand this is where the problem lies. It is like trying to not notice and talk about the big elephant sitting in the room with its legs crossed. Being part of two cultures and of being mixed nationalities is something which is happily accepted in liberal London. Europe is after all known for its multitudes of immigrants and migrants that came from all parts of the world. While in the United States of America, there are horrible cases of racism against the Africans, African-Americans, and Asians, Europe fares better as the population if so diverse in its origins. Europe is like one big assorted candy store with so much diversity and differences. London is one of those places where people look forward in going to while in Europe, this place is no exemption.

However, even if with the culturally diverse London atmosphere, there are still a lot of setbacks that a person with mixed nationalities would encounter on daily basis. Sometimes, it would come to the point that a foot is childishly stamped on the ground and whoever is in charge of fate is cursed. Because a great part of a persons perception would feel thatbeing cursed. Being different and yet so similar from the rest of the world is a curse so frustrating since there is nothing to be done about a persons birth circumstances. It is not like some recently bought shoes that can be replaced anytime. It is not like some beer belly that can be extinguished by rigorous and painful daily exercises. Ones nationality and birth are something unchangeable. While Michael Jackson even had the resources to change how he looked like, he was still who he was even if he had permanent eyebrow tattoos, snow-white skin, and peach-pink lips. Like what has been stated beforeit is a curse.

Struggling in a country you are a part of but which is apart from you is not uncommon of a circumstance and is not uncommon as an issue in life. There have been cases about it that even literature and history books have been known to portray such situations being torn between two cultures which are different from each other and which seem to oppose the other. While the conflict often revolves around choosing which to belong to and the results often end in not making a choice at all, there is still the struggle to live through everyday after not making the decision. The whole point is that being of mixed nationalities is not easy that it is condemnable. Ironically though, such condemnation is often retracted and this is because being a member of two cultures is a great part of the person already that not having mixed nationalities is like the removal of half of ones soul or half of ones heart. Dramatic this may seem to be, but it is the entire truthfor how can one person simply disregard the other half or other part of himself

We have already established that by having mixed nationalities, in particular that of being a Kuwaiti and being British. It is like a curse and a blessing at the same timecursed in a sense that a person is torn between traditions, philosophies, and beliefs. It is inevitable that I be influenced by polar-different cultures, that of both the western and middle-eastern cultures. When the West believes in individuality and independence, the Middle-East believes in strong familial relations. When the West believes in the power of the logic and intellect alone, the Middle-East takes into consideration other factors that could be regarded as ridiculous by the West. If I find myself right smack in the middle of two opposing forces, what is the best course to take When values and beliefs are sacrificed for the sake of fitting in and acceptance by society, where does that leave me Where does that leave a person who has mixed nationalities

This may seem emotional and melodramatic, but for those people who have one single nation they belong to, they can never understand what it feels like to be mixed. The general feeling is that of being an outsider and yet being inside. It is like those beautiful snow globes wherein a person sees the beauty and magic inside the globe and yet, all that a person can do is to helplessly and silently admire from outside and sigh in frustration. It would be painstaking because the person wants to be inside the snow globe and enjoy the beauty and magic as well and yet, being on the outside has its advantages too. Thus, no matter what other people may say about the liberal and open-mindedness of the West, people with mixed nationalities like me will always be different not because we are mixed but because we think and act differently because we are mixed. Mixed nationalities are outsiders and will always be outsiders, and this is not because we want to be like this but because it is just the way things are. Being an outsider is as unchangeable as the circumstances of ones birth and the nation he or she belongs to.

The main issue with mixed nationalities is the two cultures that we belong to. Belonging to a culture is very important. It brings a sense of belongingness and identity. As what Veltman (1997) wrote on the importance of culture

Culture is concerned with the development of coherent viewpoints which bring a cumulative effect to otherwise isolated experiences of a group, making them feel special yet allowing others to have a parallel experience. Hence, an Italians culture links them with Dante and Petrarch, and yet they can respect an Indians culture which links them with the Vedas and Mahabharata.

However, if we have two cultures in which we belong to, does this mean that we have two identities as well If I both embody, practice, and partake of the culture of the West and the Middle-East, then does this mean that I am both Kuwaiti and British This is what remains to be most confusing, for how can anyone have a dual identity It would be like having sworn allegiance to a king and then only to remember that the knight has already sworn his fealty to another king. But this duality of nationality, of being mixed, is not really of a betrayal of one country to the other but more of wanting truly and wholly to belong to one nation without limits and without exemptions. Since I (and many other people in this world) have mixed nationalities, then this would be very impossible. Like what was stated beforeit is a curse.

There is nothing really wrong with being mixed. It is not some disease that is contagious and which should be cured. Even if I likened it to a curse, it is something I also emphasize to be a blessing. In actuality, the comparison of being mixed nationality to curse is to some extent just an exaggeration but which was needed to point out the difficulties that one faces because of that particular circumstance and to reveal the feelings of what a person would have regarding having mixed nationalities. But when I declared that it was also a blessing, it is very true in all the sense of the word, for indeed, being Kuwaiti and being British is truly a blessingone blessing that is often taken for granted.

Being both a Kuwaiti and British allows me to see both sides of the culturesno biases and no prejudices against either culture. This is one thing which makes it exhilarating and even rewarding to be part of both cultures I get to see the world in two perspectives instead of just a single one. When others are finding it difficult to find any perspective at all, I am rewarded with two. Although it may be complicated to have such opposing beliefs, the fact that they are so different from the other makes it all the more fair and judicious. I can actually see myself as one of those fair judges sitting on the throne and about to delegate some verdict to his subjects. But then again, that would be just a product of my overactive imagination but which holds some truth in itnot the being-a-king analogy but of being fair to all people concerned. Because I am a product of two cultures, I can see the conservative from the liberal. I can see the open-minded from the narrow-minded. I can see the want for independence and the need for dependence. This is where the blessing of having mixed nationalities comes inI have the ability which other people do not. I have developed a sense of understanding for other people and their predicament. I can see other cultures clearly and identity their faults, failures, and fortitude.

Overall, I can see the underlying beliefs, philosophies, and values that govern them. I can understand why people act the way they are, why they say such things, why they think that wayand this is not because I am all-knowing but because I just know. Having mixed nationalities has enabled me to consider the situation of other people and allowed me to judge or form my conclusions based on who they are and not what they are. Since I have experienced how other people judge me because of what I am (meaning my two nationalities), I understand it all the more when other people also do their judgments. After all, though culture, race and skin color are all important parts of a person, they are not the only things which make up the person. There are other factors as well such as intellect, ability and personality. Just because I am Kuwaiti and British, it does not mean that my identity ends there. I too have my identity as a person and as a member of the society. Thus, people should not judge other people just because of a persons nationalityand I have learned this the hard way.

The other aspect which makes mixed nationalities such a blessing is because of the diversity of cultures, traditions, and philosophies that we are part of. Because of this, there is a great tendency that information, knowledge, and experiences are passed down to me. Because of my exposure to both the Arabian culture that boasts so much history and to the British way of life, which also boasts such a tremendous and colorful past, I am able to access two stories of two cultures, and this makes me much more knowledgeable compared to other people with just one single culture they are part of.
Cecil Rhodes (1913) as cited by Abdullah (2004) was once quoted to be saying, Ask any man what nationality he would prefer to be, and ninety-nine out of a hundred will tell you that they would prefer to be Englishmen. Perhaps, when Rhodes stated this, he did not consider that there is a vast majority of people who are proud of their culture and heritage even if they are not Englishmen. Perhaps, he also did not consider the fact that there would be people who are both English and non-English and proud to be so. I feel an overwhelming sense of happiness for being a part of two cultures, and though it may seem pretentious, it is actually the entire truth. So far, being Kuwaiti and British has taught me one important thing A persons happiness does not lie on trying to change something which is already permanent like a persons nationality. Instead, happiness lies on being content on what one has been givenand I am very content in being a chocolate-fruit shake.