Internal Audit Function and Fraud Detection in Government Essay Example for Free

Internal Audit Function and Fraud Detection in Government Essay CHAPTER ONE 1. 0Introduction This chapter will cover the background of the study, the statement of the problem, the purpose of the study, the objectives, the research questions, and the scope, the significance of the study and the structure of the report. 1. 1Background of the Study According to Hector Perela, (2009), Internal auditing function with other intervention mechanisms like financial reporting and external audit to helps maintain cost-efficient contracting between owners and managers. It is designed by government agencies to add value and improve organizational performance. It helps organizations accomplish their objectives by bringing a systematic, disciplined approaches to evaluate and improve the effectiveness of risk management, control and governance processes. † Internal audit helps organizations to ensure that financial and other records are reliable and complete. As well as ensuring that management adheres to policies and procedures for orderly and efficient conduct of the business, proper recording and safeguarding of assets and resources. The purpose of internal audit as far as the organization is concerned is to get accounting errors corrected and control weaknesses eliminated. The most testing time for the internal auditor is the report he/she writes to achieve this end. No precise legal definition of fraud exists; many of the offences referred to as fraud are covered by the Theft Acts of 1968 and 1978. Generally, the term is used to describe such acts as deception, bribery, forgery, extortion, corruption, theft, conspiracy, embezzlement, misappropriation, false representation, concealment of material facts and collusion. For practical purposes fraud may be defined as the use of deception with the intention of obtaining an advantage, avoiding an obligation or causing loss to another part. Internal Audit, University of Birmingham, Edgbaston, Birmingham, B15 2TT, UK) On one hand, fraud detection in government agencies involves employees or managers of the victim organization (commercial angles news letters 2001), the most effective tools for fraud detection are internal audit review, specific investigation by management, employee notification, and accidental discovery. Fraud detection helps Management to address its responsibility through development of an appropriate design of the system of internal control and the effective operation of that system. Numerous fraud prevention and detection techniques are now utilized to reduce the direct and indirect costs associated with all forms of fraud. These various techniques include but are not limited to: fraud policies, telephone hot lines, employee reference checks, fraud vulnerability reviews, vendor contract reviews and sanctions, analytical reviews , password protection, firewalls, digital analysis and other forms of software technology, and discovery sampling (Thomas and Gibson, 2003). Government departments implements the ideas and decisions of executive government in a particular area of governance. Each department is led by a minister in charge or commissioner, and the main work of the department is determined by legislation. Despite the internal audit function, many government agencies fail to detect fraud for example loss of huge monies in NAADS. The National Agricultural Advisory Services (NAADS) is a Ugandan government agency created in 2001 to improve rural livelihoods by increasing agricultural productivity and profitability.

Important Ethical Theories Is Utilitarianism Philosophy Essay

Important Ethical Theories Is Utilitarianism Philosophy Essay One of the most important ethical theories is Utilitarianism. For utilitarianism, moral duty is to be determined through an assessment of the consequences of an action. In other words, utilitarianism is a consequentialist theory of ethics. More specifically, utilitarianism finds moral worth in those actions which maximize overall happiness the happiness of the greatest number of people. The premise of the theory is a naturalistic view of ethics: ethics is said to be associated not only with consequences of actins but, more specifically, with pleasure-maximizing consequences. This is the case because utilitarianism sees human nature as pleasure-seeking. For pleasure you can substitute utility, preference, or happiness if you insist, but the main point remains the same. This is not an implausible human psychology, of course. Ethics cannot be about psychology [it is about what ought to be done and not about what is in fact the case], but ethical theories cannot ignore human psychology, either; if an ethical theory ignored human psychology, it would be running the risk of recommending what might be impossible for human nature what is called supererogation, or sainthood to put it in a different way. Utilitarianism claims to be a theory that appeals to common sense. This is certainly strength and an asset for a theory. It is indeed a matter of common sense that if we want to perform moral deeds toward people, we should wish to make them happy. Pay attention to this: For utilitarianism, it does not matter at all whether we intend to make people happy. As said above, utilitarianism is a consequentialist theory it pays attention to consequences; all that matters is that the outcome of our action redounds to the greatest possible happiness of the greatest possible number. A strange corollary of this is that we are supposed to have done something moral even if our motives for benefiting the greatest possible number of people are not at all moral even if they are self-interested. Notice also that utilitarianism does not recommend that you pay attention to your own happiness and pleasure. Utilitarianism is not a form of moral egoism it is not a theory that tells you to put yourself above everyone else. Utilitarianism does not tell you to put those close to you above all else either. Clearly, if you did that, you would not be taking into account the benefit or happiness of the greatest possible number of people. You might be wondering now: why should one care about the greatest possible number of people? This is not an objection against utilitarianism in particular any more than it is an objection against any ethical theory: why should we care about doing the right thing? This is not always an easy question to answer theoretically but it becomes an easier question once we pay attention to common sense and to the ways in which human beings are constituted and known to comport themselves toward other people. If you want to do the right thing, utilitarianism give s you an objective and almost formulaic answer: act in such a way as to benefit the greatest possible number of people. In other words, you should act in such a way as to maximize the happiness of the greatest number or overall happiness. There are many particular variants of utilitarianism. For some, you maximize happiness of the greatest number; for other versions, you maximize a utility that can be minutely calculated; or the preferences of people, after you ask them directly instead of appealing to expert opinions. But, in any case, for a theory to be utilitarian, what is maximized must be the happiness, utility curves, average utility, preferences, happiness, or whatever of the greatest number. A major disagreement that erupted within utilitarianism from early is this: Do all pleasures count as the same, or is there a hierarchy or ranking order of pleasures with certain refined and distinctly human pleasures counting as much higher than other, lower, pleasures? Bentham, a felicific utilitarian and originator of the utilitarian school of thought, held that all pleasures are the same. It is clear in this that utilitarianism is anti-elitist and egalitarian there can hardly be a more dramatic manifestation than this equal counting of pleasures. It is still necessary to weigh pleasures to multiply them by different numbers as you try to calculate the consequences of your action but the criteria for a differential weighing of pleasures are subjectively felt intensity, duration, purity [no amalgamation with painful after-effects], and other considerations of this nature. John Stuart Mill, on the other hand, who succeeded Bentham in the utilitarian movement, disagreed. Mill thou ght that it is better to be Socrates unsatisfied rather than a pig satisfied, whereas Bentham had famously opined that push pin is as good as poetry push pin being a mindless and elementary game for children. It is controversial which version of utilitarianism is more consistent as an ethical theory. The strengths of utilitarianism are: It is an objective theory it affords you a method for calculating how you should act regardless of personal confusion or momentary perplexity. The theory is also better than many other theories when it comes to dealing with challenging moral dilemmas cases in which it seems that, no matter how you choose to act, you risk failing to perform a basic human duty you have. Utilitarianism is also consistent with many ethical intuitive insights human beings have about what it takes to be human and what is required in performing moral deeds toward ones fellow human beings. Unlike most other ethical theories, utilitarianism has the apparent advantage that it includes in its compass not only rational i.e. human beings, but all sentient beings, which can experience pain and pleasure. So, animals are not left out by utilitarian ethicists and cruelty toward animals can be consistently condemned by utilitarian theory. Utilitarianism is quite straightforward to apply excepting vagueness as to calculation methods and ways of counting intensity and permanence of pleasures, the method is not difficult to understand. The method of utilitarianism is surprisingly consistent with ethical insights from other moral traditions including, for instance, Christianity, which also appeals to human beings to love and benefit and avoid to harm others, and promises recompense of happiness in the form of a good feeling in this life and heaves rewards in the afterlife. Utilitarianism also satisfies another intuition we have about what is needed for an ethical theory: it treats people equally, provided they are equally situated. Conveniently, utilitarianism finds one common denominator pleasure or happiness to which consequences of actions are reduced. This allows for a calculation to be performed, and ones moral duty to be determined, regardless of how complex and challenging the actual case is. There are also problems with utilitarianism. Utilitarians begin with a logically fallacious equivocation on the meaning of the word desirable. Notice that the foundation of utilitarianism its attempt at procuring a proof of its validity consists in its claim that pursuit of happiness is evidently desirable in human life and the claim of utilitarians is that this is so evident that the proof itself is solid and easy to grasp. But the word desirable is equivocal: It can mean something that is desired in fact; or it can mean what should be desired. Utilitarians claim that we can easily see that the latter meaning is implied this is actually question-beginning, because utilitarianism is actually trying to prove to us that pleasure-seeking is desirable in this sense, in the sense of what ought to be desired for others, and for the greatest number of people, in moral action. But, actually, what is more obviously clear is that pleasure-seeking is desirable in the first sense: it is what people actually desire, but we are still awaiting for a proof to the effect that this is what people ought to desire. Other problems are even more serious: It is not clear why anything should be accorded a non-negotiable, infinite, or intrinsic value. Why shouldnt everything be thrown into the utilitarian calculus? This means that even those things which we hold to be intrinsic goods and non-negotiable, are to be added and subtracted and might be dispensable if the outcome is that the greatest possible number benefits. This dispensability must then apply even to rights, to privacy, and to life itself. For instance, why shouldnt we sacrifice one perfectly healthy person so that we can use his internal organs as transplants for ten otherwise viable patients? No matter how you calculate this referring to this particular action of sacrificing this individual the outcome is indeed maximization of overall happiness in the society. Some utilitarians might even suggest that, shocking though this may sound, it is not clear why this exchange of one life for ten is not the moral thing to do. You can construc t other hypotheticals in which sacrifice of ones right might sound morally appropriate if the stakes affect the happiness, or life, of a greater number of individuals. And yet, there is a problem when rights, and even human life, are thrown into the utilitarian calculus. Utilitarians realized that there is a problem here that can prove potentially fatal for the theory. There is an answer within utilitarian theory and the answer consists in the important distinction between act utilitarianism and rule utilitarianism. Everything we have said so far covers act utilitarianism application of a utilitarian calculus with a view to determining what is the moral course of action to take: you should, in this view, do what maximizes overall happiness for the greatest number and you can take into account the long run, and so on. But, for rule utilitarianism, you should actually apply the utilitarian calculus not to the projected consequences of an action but to the projected consequences of adopting a certain rule of behavior for the whole society to follow in the long run. This saves utilitarianism from the embarrassment of cases like the one mentioned above and others like it for instance, cases of sacrificing one innocent person to appease a riotous mob that is threatening many more lives in its violent path, or torturing the innocent daughter of a terrorist to induce the terrorist to turn himself in and prevent several deaths. But, switch now to rule utilitarianism and see what happens: What would be the consequences of adopting as a societal rule the random sacrifice of a healthy person for the sake of organ harvesting? It seems that a society that lived according to this rule could not be a happy society people would be anxious lest the lot fell on them next time organ harvesting became necessary. Still, there are rules which, as a utilitarian, you will have to adopt as maximizing the happiness or utility of the greatest possible number, and which, at the same time, violate individual rights or other values we hold intrinsic and unalienable under most circumstances. This seems to be the Achilles heel of utilitarianism. But do not lose sight of the strengths of utilitarianism mentioned above. Utilitarianism is the alternative to Kants ethical theory called deontology. The two are the two major ethical theories. Defining Utilitarianism. Differing definitions It may be noticed by the scholar of utilitarianism that the definition of the core of the theory (the principle of utility) has changed over the years, such that the modern version has a number of significant differences from that given by Jeremy Bentham: By the principle of utility is meant that principle which approves or disapproves of every action whatsoever, according to the tendency it appears to have to augment or diminish the happiness of the party whose interest is in question: or, what is the same thing in other words, to promote or to oppose that happiness. The modern definition is effectively this: An action is right if it produces as much or more of an increase in happiness of all affected by it than any alternative action, and wrong if it does not. There are a number of differences between the two versions my thoughts on these differences follow. 1. Subject matter The modern version is explicitly to do with right and wrong, and, since utilitarianism is an ethical theory, this would seem to be quite appropriate. Benthams version is about approval and disapproval, and he seems quite unconcerned with right and wrong indeed he goes on to say only that Of an action that is conformable to the principle of utility one may always say either that it is one that ought to be done, or at least that it is not one that ought not to be done. One may say also, that it is right it should be done; at least that it is not wrong it should be done: that it is a right action; at least that it is not a wrong action. When thus interpreted, the words ought, and right and wrong and others of that stamp, have a meaning: when otherwise, they have none. The apparent ambiguity from Bentham may be to cover the (hypothetical) case where two different actions have exactly equivalent results Bentham may simply be avoiding the implication that someone ought do two mutually exclusive actions (if so, he uses a very blunt tool to achieve his task see below). Or, and this is what I am inclined to believe, he just might not be particularly concerned with right and wrong as they are commonly understood. What I mean by this is that if we say, of two possible different exclusive actions, that one leads to a better state of affairs than the other, then we have said all that needs to be said about them to go on to say that the first action is right and the second wrong either adds nothing, or it seems to suggest (some deontologists would say implies) that to do the second action is blameworthy, or rightfully punishable, or morally disgusting or some other phrase indicating a conditioned morality rather than an objective value-maximizing one some thing that Bentham (and myself) would take care to avoid. When right and wrong are stripped of their punishment connotations, I believe they are equivalent to approval or disapproval by a principle, provided that this principle is justified or warranted by the existence of objective (moral) value. 2. Obscurity Part of Benthams definition is quite obscure: according to the tendency it appears to have. Appears? Appears to whom? Is the core evaluating principle of utilitarianism subjective? And why be concerned with appearances rather than the actual effects? I think this is a mistake by Bentham, where he has tried to deal with the problem of uncertainty in the wrong section of his theory. I believe tendency is also open to misinterpretation if it is thought to imply that utility involves (only) a class of actions, but this should not happen since it has already been established that it is for any particular action. 3. Extent Benthams definition is of utility for some particular party, whereas the modern version is for everyone affected by the action. Neither is really what we mean we normally consider that Utility considers all (relevant) interests, which is not necessarily what is being said in the modern version (which is potentially subtly misleading). To illustrate: if I am trying to show that the (specific) action I have just performed was the right one, it is not only those who were affected by this action (compared to inaction) whom we must consider, but also all those who wouldve been affected had I chosen another action instead. I am sure this ambiguity is very common in discussions about Utility, especially those involving an effort to explain utilitarianism in simple (or laymans) terms though whether or not it actually deceives (that is, that people get the wrong impression) I am not so clear about. There is really no need for this ambiguity: we can say simply that the right action is simply the one that maximizes total utility or maximizes total happiness or whatever, we need not say for whom. Any limit we suggest for the scope of our consideration only lengthens the explanation and as weve seen introduces the potential for misunderstanding. So let us agree with Bentham when he decided that the greatest happiness principle is a better mnemonic for the principle of utility than its predecessor the greatest happiness for the greatest number (or the same with good substituted for happiness). And let us hope that any new definition we produce replaces the current one faster than Benthams later suggestion effectively replaced his former for this replacement is, in common usage, yet to occur. 4. Compared to what? According to Bentham, we are concerned with augmentation and diminuation of happiness, which is to say the changes from the present situation. Utility approves of an action if it makes things better, it disapproves of it if it makes things worse; it approves of one action more than another if that action makes things better than the other. The modern version is quite different on this point. What is compared against is not the current situation, but the situations that would result from alternative actions. So of two exclusive actions, both of which would increase the level of happiness compared to the present level but by different (positive) amounts, the modern principle would call the better action right and the not-so-good wrong, whereas Benthams utility would approve of both (but approve of the better one somewhat more) and hold that both actions are right, and ought be done, or at least that they are not wrong, that it is not the case that they ought not be done. It is surprising to note that neither Benthams nor the modern version admit of degrees of right and wrong, where it is quite in accordance with common usage to do so: we may usually speak of the right action in a given situation, the alternative actions beings wrong, but it is quite common to speak of one such alternative action being more wrong than another yet this is quite unaccounted for under these definitions. There is also a potential stumbling-block for the modern versions comparison: it may be thought that, in choosing between alternative actions, that it implies that there are actually some possible alternative actions in existence. This is a problem if the universe (and particularly psychology) is deterministic, for then it will be the case that there are no possible alternative actions. An agent can only do what he does to do something else would take a different agent or a different situation, so given the agent and the situation, only one outcome is possible. If determinism is true, the modern version of utility would (thus interpreted) tell us that everything that happens is right. This problem can be solved only with the acknowledgement that the alternatives under consideration may not actually be possible. In this case, in order to prevent the required analysis of wild fantastical actions, the range must be limited to those actions that can be done, if the agent chooses to do them. That the agent can choose anything other than what he goes on to choose, is (under this interpretation) neither implied nor denied. In contrast, Benthams version is clearly unaffected by the presence or absence of non-deterministic free will: it can go on approving or disapproving of actions whether these actions are necessary or not, and whether there are alternatives or not. If what happens is determined solely by the fundamental laws of physics, as they existed at the big bang, then to that extent Benthams Utility can imply approval or disapproval of the universe as is, has been, and will be. More Bentham Bentham clarifies the position and extent of Utility in various later parts of the text: An action then may be said to be conformable to the principle of utility, or, for shortness sake, to utility, (meaning with respect to the community at large) when the tendency it has to augment the happiness of the community is greater than any it has to diminish it. Notice that, in this expression, utility is concerned with actual not apparent tendencies, and that utility is also shown to apply to the effects on the community at large (which we can take to mean everyone) rather than some specific party. Also: A man may be said to be a partizan of the principle of utility, when the approbation or disapprobation he annexes to any action, or to any measure, is determined by and proportioned to the tendency which he conceives it to have to augment or to diminish the happiness of the community Here I think it is reasonable for this approbation to be determined by the conceived utility of the action, for this is the judgement of a man and a man must make his judgements without full knowledge of the relevant facts. If it were defined by actual rather than conceived utility, a utilitarian would not be a utilitarian when he was factually mistaken! The point about Utility being with regard to the community is also remade here. The History of Utilitarianism Utilitarianism is one of the most powerful and persuasive approaches to normative ethics in the history of philosophy. Though not fully articulated until the 19th century, proto-utilitarian positions can be discerned throughout the history of ethical theory. Though there are many varieties of the view discussed, utilitarianism is generally held to be the view that the morally right action is the action that produces the most good. There are many ways to spell out this general claim. One thing to note is that the theory is a form of consequentialism: the right action is understood entirely in terms of consequences produced. What distinguishes utilitarianism from egoism has to do with the scope of the relevant consequences. On the utilitarian view one ought to maximize the overall good that is, consider the good of others as well as ones own good. The Classical Utilitarian, Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill, identified the good with pleasure, so, like Epicurus, were hedonists about value. They also held that we ought to maximize the good, that is, bring about the greatest amount of good for the greatest number. Utilitarianism is also distinguished by impartiality and agent-neutrality. Everyones happiness counts the same. When one maximizes the good, it is the good impartially considered. My good counts for no more than anyone elses good. Further, the reason I have to promote the overall good is the same reason anyone else has to so promote the good. It is not peculiar to me. All of these features of this approach to moral evaluation and/or moral decision-making have proven to be somewhat controversial and subsequent controversies have led to changes in the Classical version of the theory. 1. Precursors to the Classical Approach 2. The Classical Approach 2.1 Jeremy Bentham 2.2 John Stuart Mill 3. Henry Sidgwick 4. Ideal Utilitarianism Precursors to the Classical Approach Though the first systematic account of utilitarianism was developed by Jeremy Bentham (1748-1832), the core insight motivating the theory occurred much earlier. That insight is that morally appropriate behavior will not harm others, but instead increase happiness or utility. What is distinctive about utilitarianism is its approach in taking that insight and developing an account of moral evaluation and moral direction that expands on it. Early precursors to the Classical Utilitarians include the British Moralists, Cumberland, Shaftesbury, Hutcheson, Gay, and Hume. Of these, Francis Hutcheson (1694-1746) is explicitly utilitarian when it comes to action choice. Some of the earliest utilitarian thinkers were the theological utilitarians such as Richard Cumberland (1631-1718) and John Gay (1699-1745). They believed that promoting human happiness was incumbent on us since it was approved by God. After enumerating the ways in which humans come under obligations (by perceiving the natural consequences of things, the obligation to be virtuous, our civil obligations that arise from laws, and obligations arising from the authority of God) John Gay writes: à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ ¦from the consideration of these four sorts of obligationà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ ¦it is evident that a full and complete obligation which will extend to all cases, can only be that arising from the authority of God; because God only can in all cases make a man happy or miserable: and therefore, since we are always obliged to that conformity called virtue, it is evident that the immediate rule or criterion of it is the will of God. (R, 412) Gay held that since God wants the happiness of mankind , and since Gods will gives us the criterion of virtue, à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ ¦the happiness of mankind may be said to be the criterion of virtue, but once removed. (R, 413) This view was combined with a view of human motivation with egoistic elements. A persons individual salvation, her eternal happiness, depended on conformity to Gods will, as did virtue itself. Promoting human happiness and ones own coincided, but, given Gods design, it was not an accidental coincidence. This approach to utilitarianism, however, is not theoretically clean in the sense that it isnt clear what essential work God does, at least in terms of normative ethics. God as the source of normativity is compatible with utilitarianism, but utilitarianism doesnt require this. Gays influence on later writers, such as Hume, deserves note. It is in Gays essay that some of the questions that concerned Hume on the nature of virtue are addressed. For example, Gay was curious about how to explain our practice of approbation and disapprobation of action and character. When we see an act that is vicious we disapprove of it. Further, we associate certain things with their effects, so that we form positive associations and negative associations that also underwrite our moral judgments. Of course, that we view happiness, including the happiness of others as a good, is due to Gods design. This is a feature crucial to the theological approach, which would clearly be rejected by Hume in favor of a naturalistic view of human nature and a reliance on our sympathetic engagement with others, an approach anticipated by Shaftesbury (below). The theological approach to utilitarianism would be developed later by William Paley, for example, but the lack of any theoretical necess ity in appealing to God would result in its diminishing appeal. Anthony Ashley Cooper, the 3rd Earl of Shaftesbury (1671-1713) is generally thought to have been the one of the earliest moral sense theorists, holding that we possess a kind of inner eye that allows us to make moral discriminations. This seems to have been an innate sense of right and wrong, or moral beauty and deformity. Again, aspects of this doctrine would be picked up by Francis Hutcheson and David Hume (1711-1776). Hume, of course, would clearly reject any robust realist implications. If the moral sense is like the other perceptual senses and enables us to pick up on properties out there in the universe around us, properties that exist independent from our perception of them, that are objective, then Hume clearly was not a moral sense theorist in this regard. But perception picks up on features of our environment that one could regard as having a contingent quality. There is one famous passage where Hume likens moral discrimination to the perception of secondary qualities, such as color. In modern terminology, these are response-dependent properties, and lack objectivity in the sense that they do not exist independent of our responses. This is radical. If an act is vicious, its viciousness is a matter of the human response (given a corrected perspective) to the act (or its perceived effects) and thus has a kind of contingency that seems unsettling, certainly unsettling to those who opted for the theological option. So, the view that it is part of our very nature to make moral discriminations is very much in Hume. Further and what is relevant to the development of utilitarianism the view of Shaftesbury that the virtuous person contributes to the good of the whole would figure into Humes writings, though modified. It is the virtue that contributes to the good of the whole system, in the case of Humes artificial virtues. Shaftesbury held that in judging someone virtuous or good in a moral sense we need to perceive that persons impact on the systems of which he or she is a part. Here it sometimes becomes difficult to disentangle egoistic versus utilitarian lines of thought in Shaftesbury. He clearly states that whatever guiding force there is has made nature such that it is à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ ¦the private interest and good of every one, to work towards the general good, which if a creature ceases to promote, he is actually so far wanting to himself, and ceases to promote his own happiness and welfareà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ ¦ (R, 188) It is hard, sometimes, to discern the direction of the because if one should act to help others because it supports a system in which ones own happiness is more likely, then it looks really like a form of egoism. If one should help others because thats the right thing to do and, fortunately, it also ends up promoting ones own interests, then thats more like utilitarianism, since the p romotion of self-interest is a welcome effect but not what, all by itself, justifies ones character or actions. Further, to be virtuous a person must have certain psychological capacities they must be able to reflect on character, for example, and represent to themselves the qualities in others that are either approved or disapproved of. à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ ¦in this case alone it is we call any creature worthy or virtuous when it can have the notion of a public interest, and can attain the speculation or science of what is morally good or ill, admirable or blameable, right or wrongà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ ¦.we never say ofà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ ¦.any mere beast, idiot, or changeling, though ever so good-natured, that he is worthy or virtuous. (Shaftesbury IVM; BKI, PII, sec. iii) Thus, animals are not objects of moral appraisal on the view, since they lack the necessary reflective capacities. Animals also lack the capacity for moral discrimination and would therefore seem to lack the moral sense. This raises some interesting questions. It would seem that the moral sense is a perception that something is the case. So it isnt merely a discriminatory sense that allows us to sort perceptions. It also has a propositional aspect, so that animals, which are not lacking in other senses are lacking in this one. The virtuous person is one whose affections, motives, dispositions are of the right sort, not one whose behavior is simply of the right sort and who is able to reflect on goodness, and her own goodness [see Gill]. Similarly, the vicious person is one who exemplifies the wrong sorts of mental states, affections, and so forth. A person who harms others through no fault of his own à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ ¦because he has convulsive fits which make him strike and wound such as approach him is not vicious since he has no desire to harm anyone and his bodily movements in this case are beyond his control. Shaftesbury approached moral evaluation via the virtues and vices. His utilitarian leanings are distinct from his moral sense approach, and his overall sentimentalism. However, this approach highlights the move away from egoistic views of human nature a trend picked up by Hutcheson and Hume, and later adopted by Mill in criticism of Benthams version of utilitarianism. For writers like Shaftesbury and Hutcheson the main contrast was with egoism rather than rationalism. Like Shaftesbury, Francis Hutcheson was very much interested

The crime scene is most important area of forensic science

The crime scene is most important area of forensic science Forensic science is science used for the purpose of the law (White 2010), it has three main phases, which are, the recovery of evidence from the crime scene, forensic examination of the evidence at the laboratory and the presentation of evidence test results in court (Jackson 2008). A crime scene is any location or locations which contain evidence that can help with a criminal investigation. Therefore, a crime scene can take many forms, it can be indoors or outdoors, i.e. a road accident or a burglary and it can consist of just a finger mark or it can include acres of land. Subsequently, many types of evidence can be found at a crime scene, from the smallest fibres which are invisible to the naked eye, to something as obvious as a broken window. It is up to the scene of crime officers (SOCOs) to gather relevant physical evidence to send to the forensic laboratory for further examination (Jackson 2008). Forensic laboratories are either provided within the police service (known as the forensic science service department (FSS)) or by independent forensic services which offer different areas of expertise depending on specialist equipment and expert scientists in any given field (Jackson 2008). Hence, forensic laboratories cover a broad area of expertise which include: Pathology, which would for example be involved in cases of rape or unnatural death; firearms experts, who among other things would be involved in examining bullets found at a crime scene; and questioned documents experts, who would be involve in cases of fraud (Eckert 1996). The forensic scientist is responsible for providing a report of the evidence that can used in court, it must be written so that those that are unfamiliar with scientific terms can still understand the conclusion of the results. This essay aims to explore the importance of the work carried out at the crime scene in comparison with the work carried out by the forensic laboratory, in order to establish whether the crime scene is the most important area of forensic science. The crime scene is important because, if dealt with carefully, it can provide the physical evidence which is needed to build a criminal case against a suspect. The evidence recovered from a crime scene can be used in various ways, including: to establish if a crime has in fact occurred, as this is not always obvious at first glance, for instance, in the case of a fire scene it would need to be established if the fire was started either accidentally or deliberately; identification, evidence can help to identify the victim, offender and any other persons that may be involved in the crime; To corroborate or refute statements and to gather intelligence in order to make associations between different crime scenes and to find any links between the persons involved (White 2010). In order to produce such crucial evidence a crime scene is generally separated into two categories depending on the seriousness of the crime committed; less serious crimes such as burglary would be classified as a v olume crime and more serious crimes such as murder would be classified as a serious crime, and so crime scenes which involve volume crimes are typically investigated by a lone scene examiner and serious crimes typically involve a team of scene examiners (Jackson 2008). Only reliable and impartial evidence can be used in court, therefore the evidence samples recovered from a crime scene need to be properly handled, preserved, packaged and transferred throughout the whole process of investigation. This careful process is known as the chain of continuity and needs to be demonstrated in order for the forensic laboratory to gain valid evidence which can be used in juridical proceedings (White 2010). Therefore, in order to recover valid and useable evidence the most important rule of a crime scene after preserving life is to preserve the scene of evidence in order to prevent contamination (White 210). The crime scene must be defined, secured and cordoned off, allowing as few people as possible entry and a scene log should be used to record those that do enter. Inside the perimeter of the crime scene a forensically cleared common approach path (CAP) is established by using either scene tape or stepping plates or a combination of both. The CAP enables access to the investigators whilst preventing contamination of the evidence by keeping everyone to a designated route which avoids disturbing that of the offender whenever possible. Also, anyone who enters the crime scene must wear protective clothing, including over-shoes, gloves (preferably two pairs as the first can be contaminated just by putting them on), scene suits, head covers and masks, which must always be changed into bef ore entering or leaving a crime scene. This is to prevent foreign matter being brought into the crime scene and also to prevent evidence from being transferred elsewhere; both of which can compromise the investigation (white 2010). The crime scene is the first link in the chain of investigation and if any evidence is compromised then so is the whole investigation. Therefore, In order for evidence to be used in court it must be carefully and systematically handled throughout the investigative process; the continuity of evidence must be sustained from when it is recovered at the crime scene, throughout its transference to the forensic laboratory and then into court, where the evidence will be scrutinised by the defence (Eckert 1996). The forensic laboratory is an important part of the criminal investigation because it examines the evidence that is found at the crime scene and on victims and suspects, in order to find a link that can be used as expert evidence in court. Forensic examination aims to validate the evidence found at the crime scene with scientific proof that can withstand harsh cross-examining in court. Forensic analysis can support a criminal investigation in many ways, among others, it can prove that a crime has been committed, by identifying drugs or alcohol in a persons blood stream, it can provide investigative leads, for example, by identifying a blood type or shoe size, and it can help identify a suspect via DNA in seminal fluid (Jackson 2008). Laboratories offer different fields of expertise depending on the many different types of evidence they examine (Eckert 1996). For example, the toxicology and drug identification laboratory would be used to test drugs and poisons and the forensic serolog y laboratory would be used for the analysis of body fluids, such as blood and semen (white 2010). Therefore, the laboratory plays an important role in the investigative process, but unless due care and continuity has taken place to preserve the evidence at all stages of the investigation, i.e. preservation, documentation, storage and transportation, then the work carried out at the laboratory is discredited.. Therefore all recovered evidence must be carefully labelled and stored appropriately, different sample types must be stored in different ways, for example, blood stains need to be air dried before packaging so as to avoid bacterial activity which can hinder the analysis (Eckert 1996). Continuity forms, notes and labels must be properly filled out and it is important that the relationship between the physical evidence and the crime scene is maintained, through photographs, diagrams and written notes. Also, good communication between the SOCOs and the laboratory examiners is important in developing a good understanding of the crime (Jackson2008). The crime scene is the first link in the chain and the whole of the forensic investigation process can be rendered useless if the correct procedures are not followed. Therefore, continuity throughout the whole process of investigation is paramount in order to keep the validity of the evidence so that it can be used in juridical proceedings. The crime scene is an important area of forensic science because it is the starting point of the whole criminal investigation, all consequent areas follow on from it and if mistakes are made here then there will be repercussions throughout the whole process. The crime scene is the most important area from which evidence samples are gathered because without this evidence the forensic laboratory would have nothing to work with. Conversely, without the scientific skills of the laboratory much of the recovered evidence would be fruitless; some evidence can be analysed without a laboratory but it takes more time and is less efficient. In conclusion, both the crime scene and the forensic laboratory are important areas of forensic science and when they work together effectively they can be the deciding factor in a criminal court case. However, even without the use of a forensic laboratory the crime scene would be a useful source of evidence but in contrast the forensic laboratory would be rendered useless without the evidence samples that are supplied from the crime scene. Consequently, the crime scene is the most important area of forensic science.

The Adventure of Tom Sawyer :: Essays Papers

The Adventure of Tom Sawyer The Adventures of Tom Sawyer is Mark Twain’s way of writing down his childhood in lively detail. The characters and settings were dear to him and he chose to depict the American Boy’s childhood as fun and fancy-free. The story is told trough Tom’s eyes and is enchanting and adventurous, just as any young boy’s life would be. His daily life included mischief and budding young love, which is told with great detail. Although it is a fictional account of one young boy, the story of Tom Sawyer has touched many readers and lives on today as it did when it was written long ago. Tome Sawyer does not have many relatives, his mother died and him and his half brother Sidney live with their Aunt Polly and cousin Mary. The setting was in the small, poor southern town of St.Pettersburg, Missouri right by the Mississippi River. Tom has a love for live and would rather be doing what he pleases rather than what is expected of him. In all of his mischievous moments his best friend and partner in crime is Huckleberry Finn. Although their goal is just to have fun, they somehow always end up in trouble. The trouble starts when Tom and Huck witness the murder of Dr. Robinson by Injun Joe. Muff Potter is framed and even though Tom and Huck know the truth they do not step forward because they are afraid of what Injun Joe will do to them. Although Muff Potter is tried and almost hung, Tom finally steps forward and does the right thing. Tom and Huck go on throughout the book and find themselves in deep water more than once. All of the characters in this novel are carefully depicted. They are alive in the story, the reader can feel all of Tom’s emotions. Tom is the main character of the novel and tells the story to the reader. Although he may seem like a boy that is always in trouble, he’s intentions are good. He has the common case of can’t sit still goot get up and go boy. This condition sometimes poses a problem as we see Tom weasels his way out of work and into play. Tom and Huck never plan on getting into trouble it has a way of finding them. Tom is driven by his youthful energy and mischief. Mark Twain wrote this novel using language common for the time period and location.

Its Time for States to Secede from the Union :: Politics Political Essays

It's Time for States to Secede from the Union There is clear evidence that Congress, the White House, as well as the Courts, have vastly exceeded powers delegated to them by our Constitution. To have an appreciation for the magnitude of the usurpation, one need only read Federalist Paper 45, where James Madison the acknowledged father of our Constitution explained, "The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the Federal Government, are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State Governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will for the most part be connected. The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects, which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties and properties of the people; and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State." Short of some kind of cataclysmic event liberties lost are seldom regained but there is an outside chance to regain them if enough liberty-minded Americans were to pursue Free State Project's proposal to set up New Hampshire as a free state. Free State Project (www.freestateproject.org) intends to get 20,000 or so Americans to become residents of New Hampshire. Through a peaceful political process they hope to assume leadership in the state's legislature and executive offices and reduce burdensome taxation and regulation, reform state and local law, end federal mandates that violate the Ninth and Tenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution and restore constitutional federalism as envisioned by the nation's Founders. Since there is only a remote possibility of successful negotiation with Congress, the Courts and White House to obey the U.S. Constitution, it is my guess that liberty could only realized by a unilateral declaration of independence - namely, part company - in a word secede. While our Constitution is silent about secession, there is clear evidence that our Founders saw it as an option. On March 2, 1861, after seven states had seceded and two days before Abraham Lincoln's inauguration, Senator James R. Doolittle (WI) proposed a constitutional amendment that said, "No State or any part thereof, heretofore admitted or hereafter admitted into the Union, shall have the power to withdraw from the jurisdiction of the United States." Several months earlier Representatives Daniel E. Sickles (NY), Thomas B. Florence (PA) and Otis S.

Spoilage Rates

India Agriculture Spoilage Data Per 2010  FAO  world agriculture statistics, India is the world's largest producer of many fresh  fruits  and vegetables,  milk, major  spices, select fresh meats, select fibrous crops such as  jute, several staples such as  millets  and  castor oil  seed. India is the second largest producer of  wheat  and  rice, the world's major  food staples. India is also the world's second or third largest producer of several  dry fruits, agriculture-based  textile  raw materials,  roots  and  tuber  crops,  pulses, farmed  fish,  eggs,  coconut,  sugarcane  and numerous  vegetables.India ranked within the world's five largest producers of over 80% of agricultural produce items, including many  cash crops  such as  coffeeand  cotton, in 2010. India is also one of the world's five largest producers of livestock and poultry meat, with one of the fastest growth rates, as of 2011. India exported about 2 billion kilograms each of wheat and rice in 2011 to Africa, Nepal, Bangladesh and other regions of the world. Aquaculture and catch fishery  is amongst the fastest growing industries in India.Between 1990 and 2010, Indian fish capture harvest doubled, while aquaculture harvest tripled. In 2008, India was the world's sixth largest producer of marine and freshwater capture fisheries, and the second largest aquaculture farmed fish producer. India exported 600,000 metric tonnes of fish products to nearly half of all the world's countries. Lack of cold storage and harvest spoilage causing over 30% of farmer's produce going to waste, India lacks cold storage, food packaging as well as safe and efficient rural transport system.This causes one of the world's highest food spoilage rates, particularly during Indian monsoons and other adverse weather conditions. Food travels to the Indian consumer through a slow and inefficient chain of traders. Indian consumers buy agricultural produce in suburban markets known as ‘sabzi mandi' such as one shown or from roadside vendors. As per the report by Shri M. S. Swaminathan (Planning Commission 1981), up to 40% of certain fruits and vegetables go waste due to their perishable nature and non-availability of appropriate post harvest infrastructure. As per nother study (TIFAC – 1996), wastage in certain food is as high as over 30% and in vegetables the losses are up to 20% to 30% at the post harvest stages due to poor storage, transportation, lack of infrastructure and the inadequacy of the marketing set-up. As per this report, India wastes more fruits and vegetables than are consumed in a country like U. K. The total wastage in all food sectors is high and worth Rs. 500,000 million. It is also estimated that the wastage cost of fruits and vegetables is Rs. 350,000 millions per year which is four to five times than those of food grains.Even in food grains the loss is reckoned at 5-10% on account of insect infestatio n and inadequate storage. Types of Food Spoilage Food spoilage and contamination are defined as those adverse changes in quality caused by the action of specific conditions or agents that induce physical and chemical changes and also includes micro-organisms, insect, bird and rodent pests. Mechanical damage is also instrumental in spoilage. Bruises and wounds are such defects, which frequently cause chemical and microbial spoilage.The primary causes of food spoilage include the following: †¢ Biological – these include micro-organisms like bacteria, yeasts and molds, and other agents like insects, rodents and birds †¢ Chemical – these include enzymatic or non-enzymatic reactions †¢ Physical – these include breakage, bruises, crushing and cut or otherwise dismembered surfaces Figure 2 depicts the â€Å"Food Pipeline† and summarises the physical and biological ways of occurrence of food loss. Meat and Poultry Processing The production of meat is steadily increasing with an annual production of 4. million tonnes, which is contributed mainly by pigs followed by sheep, goat, buffalo and poultry meat. Meat producing industry in India is largely confined to the unorganised sector and there is very limited upgradation of technology. The constraints are absence of farms for rearing meat producing animals and absence of cold-chain facilities. The market for scientifically and hygienically produced meat products is expected to grow rapidly due to constantly developing urbanisation. As a result of changing lifestyles, the21 demand for ready–to–cook food is growing rapidly.Overall very little of meat production is scientifically produced, processed and packaged as branded products. Most meat consumed in India is in fresh form. Less than 1% of meat is processed into value-added products like sausages, ham, bacon, luncheon meat, kababs meat balls etc. Figure 6 gives the production of meat and meat products. Lack of cold chain demand makes the cold chain infra costly (more demand – more competition – lesser price), the additional cost (in comparison with non cool chain products) eventually gets loaded on the products serviced through high cost cold chain.Now, if supposedly some inferior product is available at a lesser price, very few in India shall buy a superior product serviced through cold chain, particularly when product in question is considered â€Å"fresh† only when it comes outside the controlled atmosphere (read cold store). Remember – fresh peas here sells @ Rs 150 a kg during off seasons against frozen at Rs 50 Kg. You need to have customers. Therefore, I am of the view that future demand for cold chain in India shall be driven not by fresh foods but by foods and pharmaceutical categories which compulsorily requires cold chain.Ready to eat frozen products, frozen vegetables, imported fruit etc comes to mind here. If these categories grow in India – inf ra to handle this shall automatically grow. Increased growth of cold chain shall drive down the cold chain price for more adopters to follow, reducing the cost. I can foresee a strong correlation between cold chain growth with growth of microwave ovens. At the end of the day it is all about markets. It is not only the demand of right products that hinders the growth of cold store industry in India, services too share equal blameFew years back we built a world class cold storage infra for potatoes and apples at the only clock auction market for fruit and vegetables in India. This cold stores had all the modern bells and whistles like pallets, forklift, screw compressors et al. Know what happened. Third party apple storage for trading at this store turned out to be a non-starter as apple trading in India is based on samples for small lots which could not be drawn out for inspection by traders as quickly as they are drawn out in an ambient environment or a traditional cold store.Moral of the story. Trade’s service demand dictate the cold storage needs. FTA agreements July 23, 2012 –  The Honourable Ed Fast, Minister of International Trade and Minister for the Asia-Pacific Gateway, today met with representatives of the Canada-India Business Council in Montreal, where he highlighted the launch of a fifth round of negotiations toward a Canada-India trade agreement.A Canada-India joint study concluded that a trade agreement between the two countries could boost Canada’s economy by at least $6  billion. Reference: http://www. thestar. com/news/world/article/1176287–india-s-wheat-left-to-rot-due-to-lack-of-storage http://anilchopra. com/blog/personal/why-cold-storage-industry-is-not-growing-in-india/ http://smallb. in/sites/default/files/knowledge_base/best_practices/RoleofplasticsinconservationofFoodResources. pdf

A Clean And Healthy Environment Essay

A clean and healthy environment is part and parcel of the wealth and quality of life that we desire for ourselves now and for our children in the future. People demand that the air they breathe, the water they drink, and the food they eat is free of pollution and contaminants; they want to live undisturbed by noise, and they want to enjoy the beauty of the countryside, unspoiled coastlines and mountain areas. They also want a world that is not threatened by climate change. Healthy and balanced natural systems are essential for supporting life on this planet. Society relies on nature to provide us with the resources for our survival: air, water, food, fibers, medicines, and building materials. Children need to grow up aware of the nature around them. As human beings we have a responsibility to preserve the actual value of nature both for ourselves and for future generations. In recent decades, there has been a growing realization that the quality of our air, water, soil, and food affect the quality of our health and of our lives. This ranges from increased allergies, respiratory disease, and cancers to the disorder of the body’s hormone and fertility systems, and premature death. The causes of our various environment-health problems are numerous and include pollution from transport, agricultural activities, industrial processes, domestic waste matter and waste management. The scientific researches, conducted over centuries, show that the pollution of the atmosphere reached its top. The contaminants in the air have a negative impact on the health of children, as well as adults. Our respiratory organs, our vision, and our hearing are damaged because of the high amounts of contaminants in the air, water, and soil. A substantial number of people have conditions such as asthma, other respiratory problems or difficulties with additional organs of the bo dy.