Hebrew and Islamic Mythology Essay Example for Free

Hebrew and Islamic Mythology Essay While science and religion are notorious for their contentious and often violently contrasting relationship, they bear much in common in their agenda. Both set out to provide explanations for the world’s mysteries. And as such, they also share a large hand of unanswered questions. Perhaps chief among them, the question of the earth’s creation, and by extension, man’s ascension to awareness, is one with very few empirical explanations. And in an absence of any conclusive evidence, theories abound from all camps. A common thread in history’s chapters, myths regarding the Earth’s conception provide insight into the lives and cultures of their respective societies. In western society, the Judeo-Christian anecdote is easily the most well-known. This story is the primary creationist mythology for many monotheistic sects. Herein, God creates the earth in six days, with man arriving on the last. On the seventh day, the omnipotent rests and thus, delivers man the Sabbath. However, in the centuries that preceded the inflection point where monotheism began to take popular hold, polytheistic idolaters provided the most commonly held ideas about the earth’s origin. One of the earliest examples of the literate and elaborated nature that these myths could take on comes from the rich tapestry of Greek mythology. The Greeks were idol-worshippers who had developed a complex and extremely colorful cast of gods. Though not omnipotent like the Judeo-Christian almighty, these gods were believed to possess real and considerable power over the lives of their human subjects. The Greek myth of creation is an exposition of that relationship. It was believed that, prior to earth, there was nothing but darkness. And amid this darkness, the only object was a black-winged bird called Nyx. This bird, alone in the void, was impregnated by the wind. (Note the parallel to the immaculate conception of Christ. ). As a result of this cosmic union, she yielded a golden egg, which she proceeded to roost upon for many thousands of years. Eventually, this egg hatched and the god of love, Eros, sprang forth. Just as Eros was born, so too were his siblings, whom he was given the honor of naming. They were the upper and lower halves of his shell, which rose to the air and sank to the ground respectively. They became the sky and the earth. Eros called them Uranus and Gaia and blessed them with love. This love resulted in children and grandchildren who would blossom into twisted, war-bent gods whose better judgment would be often blinded by a hopeless quest for power. A first-generation child of Gaia and Uranus, Kronus took a wife in Rhea and produced many children, whom he grew to fear immensely. Kronus, a problem-solver by nature, swallowed his children while they were still infants, thus preventing what he considered to be the inevitable threat of usurpation. The youngest of his sons, however, was also the most beloved to Rhea so she deceived her husband into consuming a rock in the child’s place. This youngest child, Zeus, would grow strong in manhood and ultimately bring to realization Kronus’ greatest fear. Zeus liberated his brothers and sisters from his father’s malicious and all-consuming grasp. Then he led them to revolution, waging a war against the tyrannical god. In their victory, they turned their benevolent attention to the great creations of Nyx. The gods began to populate Uranus with the stars thus creating space. They began to furnish Gaia with life, thus birthing nature. After creating the appropriate backdrop, the gods recognized that the earth was correct excepting its want for animals and humans. Zeus set to the task his sons Prometheus and Epimetheus, whose names translate literally to mean forethought and afterthought. This provides some interesting insight, perhaps, into the Greek perspective about man’s intellectual capacity and eventual self-awareness. In addition, it offers literal details about the unique abilities and idiosyncrasies that mark the species which populate the earth. When assigned to the job of designing creatures, the brothers were given a variety of gifts to offer their creations. While Epimetheus set upon the task of creating the animals and awarding them all with gifts, Prometheus carefully sculpted man to be in the image of the gods. (Again, man’s definition as being in the image of god holds much in common with Judeo-Christian creationism). When he completed his task, he found that Epimetheus had given away all the gifts, leaving humankind with the shaft. Prometheus sought to rectify the matter by stealing a trace of fire from the setting sun and giving it to man. When Zeus awoke to find man in possession of that which was to belong only to the gods, he was furious. He punished Prometheus to an eternity stapled to a tree, having his liver chewed on by vultures. But the damage was done. Man had been created and given the power of fire. There is a great deal more to Greek mythology, as with the bible. The role of the gods takes on a wide array of purposes, gradually divining all of man’s vices and virtues. But in the story of the earth’s creation alone, there is much illumination. The Greek legend begins to tell part of the story of Greek culture insofar as it offers some true self-examination. In this story of violence, deception and a natural tendency toward roguishness, the Greeks provide a piercing look into a psyche long since perished from the world. Surviving with far greater ideological intensity are those creation myths driving modern faith. The traditional structure of the dominant monotheistic faiths incorporates a narrative regarding the creation of earth and man into its formative doctrines. Herein is typically contained an originating explanation for the relationship between god, man, heaven and earth that provides grounding for the entirety of the faith’s sacred text. This is a fundamental commonality between the texts of the Hebrew Bible and the Holy Qur’an, both of which dedicate significant portions of their second chapters to delineating the story of the first man. It is striking to compare the passages concerning the creation of the first man as they appear in the two texts. Though today Judaism and Islam function almost as antecedents to one another, with their practitioners often viewing their respective texts as placing them into diametric and practical opposition of one another, these passages provide evidence of their common derivation. The creation myths of the two religions suggest that their political, social and cultural differences today may stem from the nuances therein, which had the effect of placing their interests in close confines with one another while arming them with divergent perspectives on how best to achieve said interests. The details surrounding God’s deliverance of Adam to the Garden are essentially the same according to the two texts, but the wording of each calls for closer speculation. In Genesis, the first book of the Hebrew Bible, God follows his work of creating the heaven and the earth by creating man: â€Å"Then the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.. † (Gen. 2:7) From here is taken a substantial assumption in the Judeo-Christian faith which proceeds from it, that man is created in the image and likeness of God. The breath of God, this passage indicates, circulates in the body of every man, suggesting a responsibility to godliness for all of us. The Qur’an, in its recognition of the same deliverance to the Garden, paints a different image in acknowledgment of God’s endowment of life. In keeping with a prominent thematic impulse of the Qur’an, convicting its readers to note the distinction in fates for believers and nonbelievers, the phrase depicting Adam’s creation is posed with a similar connotation: â€Å"How do you deny Allah and you were dead and He gave you life? Again He will cause you to die and again bring you to life, then you shall be brought back to Him. † (Koran, 2:28) This is a passage which demands not just belief in the creationist role of Allah but also a devotion to eradicating or combating non-belief. More explicitly and ideologically pertinent though, it carries with it a description of the process of reincarnation. Man, in this passage, is described as an entity being fully at the mercy of God within the bonds of the creator-to-created relationship. And where the berth into God’s image, held in the Hebrew Bible, ultimately predisposed man to divine immortality, this infinitude is represented differently in Islam. The overtones of reincarnation here suggest that man is not considered to be made in the image of God, nor even an element of the earth as also implied by Genesis 2:7, but is a soul perpetually disposed to take forms according to the will of Allah. This does not necessarily indicate a fundamental difference in the dispositions of the gods in question, Yahweh and Allah in the bible and Qur’an respectively. In Genesis, there is an articulated statement regarding God’s willingness and right, as creator, to snuff out his subject for transgression of his law. At the time, this law was constituted summarily of one directive in which â€Å"the LORD God commanded the man, saying: Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat; but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it; for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die. †(Gen. 2:16-17) These foreboding words are those which assured our mortality on an earth characterized as the forum for exile from the Garden. The air which god breathed into us through Adam’s nostrils would, as God promised, be the price paid for partaking of the fruit. This fall from the grace of godly immortality would define the nature of man’s life-cycle, and by extension, theoretical concepts such as time and space and spiritual assumptions about death and the afterlife. God’s proposition to Allah as depicted in the Qur’an is not endowed with the same consequence, perhaps a product of the initial divergence between the two texts with regard to the fundamental construct of man in relation to his god: â€Å"And We said: O Adam! Dwell you and your wife in the garden and eat from it a plenteous (food) wherever you wish and do not approach this tree, for then you will be of the unjust. † (Koran, 2:35) The fall from grace is described quite differently here, with man incurring no such threat as explicit as a certain death. This is a condition already possessed of man in the passage concerning his formation. It is not a punishment but a state of being given grounded in man’s relationship to Allah. Original sin is still a common element to the doctrines of the two faiths, but its consequences appear as quite different actually. In the Hebrew Bible, the serpent is a creature which plays the role of deceiver and, by metaphorical extension, the antithetical and fundamentally evil counterpart to God’s unchanging benevolence. This is contrasted by the Qur’an’s direct address of a Satan figure, a development affirming its composition as having occurred at a far later date than that of Genesis: â€Å"But the Shaitan made them both fall from it, and caused them to depart from that (state) in which they were; and We said: Get forth, some of you being the enemies of others, and there is for you in the earth an abode and a provision for a time. † (Koran, 2:36) A punishment dealt herein concerns man’s occupation of earth as a home, with God endowing it only a finite capacity to host mortal life. Again, the contrast between the implications to man’s punishment for Original Sin in the two texts can be traced to the contrast in man’s assumed composition. In the Hebrew Bible, God punished Eve and her offspring to a perpetuity of painful childbearing â€Å"and unto Adam He said: Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying: Thou shalt not eat of it; cursed is the ground for thy sake; in toil shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life. † (Gen. 3:17) In this passage, a fundamental difference in perspective is illuminated, that man’s lot, to toil on the land, is a punishment profoundly connected to his violation of God’s will and his organic relationship to the soil. Where the Garden of Eden was a sanctuary at Adam’s disposal, the Earth would be his responsibility and his shackles. His mortality would be profoundly chained to his capacity to manage the earth. Where Islam casts its subjects as inhabitants of a land inevitably bound to eventually leave them to resource-deprived oblivion, Judaism confines its followers to a eternity of suffering knowledge of the earth’s hard reality. God tells Adam of this fate as being a mixed blessing, with the knowledge equally capable of delivering him to pain and pleasure, â€Å" for God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as God, knowing good and evil. † (Gen. 3:5) In a way, this is a complete fulfillment of man’s emulation of the creator-image just as it is the downfall from godliness. Indeed, the serpent cavorts Eve by telling her that she and Adam will be endowed with knowledge and fortitude, and be gods themselves. In exchange for this transgression, god casts man without guidance into the desert abyss. This is contrasted by the denouement of original sin in the Qur’an, where Allah casts his children out but does so under the auspices of mercy: â€Å"We said: Go forth from this (state) all; so surely there will come to you a guidance from Me, then whoever follows My guidance, no fear shall come upon them, nor shall they grieve. † (Koran, 2:38) Here, God reaffirms his commitment to man even in his failing, offering him an unconditional love as sanctuary for the pain and suffering of the land. The intricacies that differentiate the two texts offer a useful set of variations on a creation story that is highly associated with the evolution of monotheism. Particularly, the mutual centrality of the texts on man’s role and purpose in the earth’s creation and the heaven’s sanctity illustrates the capacity of each to elucidate its pursuant culture’s views on God’s divine plan for humanity. Bibliography: Fahs, Sophia Lyon, Spoerl, Dorothy T. Beginnings: Earth, Sky, Life, Death. Beacon Press. Boston. 1965. Freund, Philip. Myths of Creation. Washington Square Press, Inc. New York City. 1965. Koran Text. (1997 edition). The Holy Qur’an. University of Virginia: Online Book Initiative. Online at http://etext. virginia. edu/etcbin/toccer-new2? id=HolKora. sgmimages=images/modengdata=/texts/english/modeng/parsedtag=publicpart=teiHeader Masoretic Text. (JPS 1917 Edition). A Hebrew-English Bible. Mechon Mamre. Online at http://www. mechon-mamre. org/p/pt/pt0. htm

Causes of the French Revolution Essay -- History France French Revolut

Causes of the French Revolution The French Revolution was essentially a class war between the emerging Bourgeoisie against the Privileged class, this meant they saw the Privileged class as the only hurdle between themselves and equality within French society. Many of the ideas they pursued stemmed from the enlightenment and they believed that in order to gain their full economic, social and political potential and gain equality, the Bourgeoisie had to eradicate the privileges that were halting their rise in society. To do this they had to seize power for themselves and gaining power within the government and making badly needed changes, such as, improving the tax system, creating a fair system of production where profits went to the producer, improving the whole fiscal system of the government, improving the geographical divisions of France and the problems they caused, plus many more. The revolution was a fight for equality and recognition by the Bourgeoisie, it was not a revolt against poverty, for many of the French people had been living in poverty for centuries and had learnt to live with it . France had prospered in the Eighteenth century. France had had no major famines or plagues, its population had increased, there had been no wars on its soil, industry such as textiles was doing well and offshore trading had increased enormously. It was the Bourgeoisie that had enabled this abundance of wealth and they were emerging as the economic power inside France. But their new found power was being smothered by the privileged class. The privileged class of nobility and clergy, who owned the bulk of the land, were using their ancient rights to plunder most of the profits that were made by the lower classes. This meant that the; Ã ¬Prosperity came only to those who held fairly large estates, who exercised feudal rights, or who could manipulate farm rents.Ã ®1 The only people who fell under these categories were the Nobles of the robe and the clergy. So in order to get the prosperity equally divided in society and thus profit themselves, the bourgeoisie had to get rid of the privileged classes ancient rights. To do this they had to revolt against the government, that supported the privileged classes and which was reluctant to make the necessary reforms. It is seen here that it was the Bourgeoisie were struggling against the Privileged class ... ...hed to them, because their privileges were taking large percentages of profits, adding on-costs to goods, causing massive inflation and reducing the wages of the middle class. In order to do this though they had get the reforms they wanted by having a role in government and take some of the power from the king, because he supported the Aristocracy. At no point in the build up to the revolution did poverty become an issue, the Bourgeoisie were looking after their own interests and trying to create a equal society in which they would become the most powerful and richest. Word Count:- 2,148 words Citation 1. Johnson, D. (1970) The French Revolution, Wayland, London. 2. Townson, D. (1990) France in Revolution, Hodder and Stoughton, London. 3. Townson, D. (1990) France in Revolution, Hodder and Stoughton, London. Bibliography 1. Microsoft Encarta, USA, Funk and Wagnall's, 1994 2. Ergang, R. Europe From the Renaissance to Waterloo Third Edition, USA, Heath and Company, 1967 3. Townson, D. France in Revolution, London, Hodder and Stoghton, 1990 4. Fisher, H. A History of Europe Volume 2, G Modern European History - French Revolution Essay - Jonah Haines - 1293

Make Better Decision Essay

That the current era of economic uncertainty may have been ushered in through a series of poor government and corporate decisions is implied through the rear view mirror. Could some of the events that shaped todays crises have been avoided through better decision making processes? Thomas Davenport (2009, p. 117) presents examples of â€Å"decision making disorder† evident in both the public and private sectors and offers a framework to guide managers in making better decisions in the future. His premise lies in the ineffectiveness of the individual decision-making process resulting in dire consequences for the organization. Davenport provides a framework to guide managers in adopting a more analytical and systematic approach, resulting in greater effectiveness. He posits that the use of data, especially analytics embedded in automated systems can be powerful tools when balanced with informed human judgment. Davenport presents no new information entailing the decision making process. He does, however, raise the question of why the majority of organizations continue to rely on intuition and ignore proven tools and methods without regard for the evidence pointing to their effectiveness. The author warns that without proper prioritization and systematic review of the decision making process, success remains a gamble. Article Highlights According to Davenport (2009), allowing individual managers to make decisions without a systematic analysis has severe consequences that result in languishing profit margins. In spite of the resources available, most organizations fail to implement the recommendations that would help managers employ better decision making processes. The author notes that while these processes do not guarantee better outcomes, they certainly increase the potential (p. 118). Davenport (2009) outlines a four-step process to improve managerial decisions, the components of which are identification, inventory, intervention and institutionalization. He suggests mangers begin by prioritizing the top decisions required to achieve a goal. He states: â€Å"without some prioritization all decisions are treated as equal, which probably means that the important ones won’t be analyzed with sufficient care† (p. 118). He goes on to stress the importance of identifying key decisions in in order to examine all variables through an inventory process to determine effectiveness and lay the groundwork for organizational communication. Subsequent to identification and taking inventory, considering all parameters of the decision, the appropriate intervention should rise to the surface. The final step is the institutionalization of the decision making process, for which Davenport (2009, p. 119) recommends hiring â€Å"decision experts† in guiding managers through the process. Davenport (2009, p. 119-122) cites two examples of organizations who improved the decision making process: Educational Testing Service (ETS) and The Stanley Works. Meeting with great success, ETS has expanded the new processes to evaluate and prioritize all product changes as well as apply the methodology to handle new prospects. A center of excellence was developed at The Stanley Works that created an analytical tool for sales data and new potential sales opportunities. According to the author, due to automated decision processes created by the center of excellence, the company realized a 6% growth in gross margin. Although highly in favor of analytical tools, Davenport (2009) warns of reliance solely on automation, and cautions managers to use their expert human insight to monitor how well analytical tools are working. The decision making process should always be a human endeavor with analytics only a part of the overall toolbox. Significance of the article Davenport (2009) raises a universal concern encompassing the impact of poorly thought out organizational as well as individual decisions. The decisions of today are the realities of tomorrow, and in spite of the myriad of excellent resources available, â€Å"few organizations have reengineered their decisions† (p. 117). The author presents an excellent argument for the necessity of a systematic decision making process as well as the use of analytical tools to provide reliable information in order to make sound decisions. Corporate CEO’s exist that agree with the concepts and actively ngage in systematic decision-making processes. Donna Thompson, CEO of Access Community Health Network in the Chicago area is one example. She shares her ritual of going through the same decision-making process before taking any action, and offers â€Å"good decision making isn’t as much about having all the right answers as is using a process to ask all the right questions† (Reed-Woodard, M. A. 2006p. 164). Gully, Stainer and Stainer (2006), in their study on moral decisions within organizations, have also found a systematic process to yield the best decisions. The authors describe an organized â€Å"balance sheet† designed to prevent disordered thinking as a model of cooperative business behavior. Their findings include the need for systematic decision-making and state â€Å"the moral decision making maze needs ordered steps of asking questions and providing answers that can readily be applied to solving problems and dilemmas in business† (p. 194). Davenport’s (2009) article continues with accolades for analytical tools within automated systems as long as managers thoroughly understand the models. Jim Ciampaglio CEO of NeoSpire exuberantly claims the success of an analytical sales tool used to manage leads and store sales information and states this tool â€Å"helped us change who we are as a sales organization† (McKay, L. 2010). Executive decisions lay the foundation for business strategy: poorly thought out decisions lead to less than optimal results and systematic decision making takes the emotionality out and puts the issue in an objective framework, leading to better outcomes. Organizations integrating this type of framework reduce the risk of moving ahead with a faulty plan. Davenport (2009) states while managers are buying and most likely reading resource material providing the basis for better decision making, few actually adopt the recommendations (p. 118). Conjecture rather than interviews with key decision makers is offered to support this particular viewpoint with the implication that this may be due to the failure to connect bad outcomes to faulty decision making Conclusion Davenport (2009) does an excellent job of tying the process of decision-making to an organization’s ultimate failure or success. His thought provoking discussion as to what exactly transpires during the individual decision making process and why organizations need to gain some control over this process makes intuitive sense. The success of the author’s suggested framework for making decisions is well supported by the organizations cited in his work, with confirmations easily found in other studies such as Gully et al (2006). Further research is recommended examining the decision making processes generally employed by organizations before conclusions that support Davenport’s (2009) negative assumptions can be drawn. The author does not support his claim that only a few companies employ a systematic process and is biased in his perception of the† poor calls made in both the public and private sectors† in recent years. Overall, Making Better Decisions provides food for thought and raises the question that if Davenport’s (2009) assumptions are in fact correct, why is it that corporations continue to allow managers to use more intuition than systematic processes to arrive at decisions that impact the organization’s bottom line?

Ford Vs. General Motors - 3476 Words

Ford Vs. General Motors: Comparisons of the Greatest Manufacturers According to Forbes, in 2007, there were forty different car brands in the United States with about sixteen million automobiles sold (Marks). Although there are many manufacturers, two of the main automobile distributors are Ford and General Motors. The distributors specialize in all ranges of vehicles including compact cars to large sports utility vehicles. Ford, being one of the largest manufacturers, not only operates in the United States but they also have dealerships in South America, Europe, Asia, and Africa (â€Å"Ford Motor Company†). Henry Ford, the owner of the Ford Motor Company, began his career in 1903 in which nearly two thousand vehicles were sold (â€Å"History†). Ford proceeded to expand their business in other areas of the world and â€Å"produced approximately 15 million cars between 1908 and 1927† (â€Å"History†). Ford has steadily increased their business by incr easing production and styles while having relatively reasonable prices. To this day, â€Å"Ford has become a worldwide leader in the manufacturing of automobiles (â€Å"Ford Motor Company†). Back in 2008, during the recession, Ford, General Motors, and Chrysler were begging the government for money just to survive. Ford, one of the leading competitors faced a $129 billion loss and laid off roughly 2,200 employees (Carney). Although Ford faced one of the highest losses during the recession, according to Dan Carney of NBC, â€Å"they still may be in aShow MoreRelated Comparing Ford Mustangs and Chevy Camaros Essay1147 Words   |  5 PagesComparing Ford Mustangs and Chevy Camaros Muscle Car, two distinctive cars come to mind, the Camaro and the Mustang. Throughout the era of the early 1950s and 1960s, there was a revolutionary movement that took place and paved the ground work for todays Muscle Cars known as the Ponycar Era. Ask any avid Camaro or Mustang fan about the ponycar era, and watch their pain. They will describe cars that would light the tires on fire, floor it, and hang onto the wheel excitement. Back in theRead MoreHenry Ford : An American Industrialist Essay935 Words   |  4 PagesHenry Ford Entrepreneur Background Biography Henry Ford, was an American industrialist, was born on July 30, 1863 in Wayne County, Michigan. (Biography) He’s the founder of the Ford Motor Company, and the sponsor of the development of the assembly line technique of mass production. (wiki) He was raised in his family’s farm near Dearborn, Michigan. Ford demonstrated mechanical ability and leadership qualities when he was young. He organized other boys to build water wheels and steam engines. AlsoRead MoreLegal Analysis Grimshaw V Ford Motor Company1449 Words   |  6 PagesLegal Analysis Grimshaw v. Ford Motor Company Facts In 1972 a Ford Pinto, purchased six months prior, unexpectedly stalled on the freeway in California. The Pinto was hit from behind by a Ford Galaxy, erupting into flames instantly. The driver of the car, Lilly Gray, suffered from fatal burns and died a few days later in the hospital. The passenger, a 13-year old boy named Richard Grimshaw, was also severely injured from burns, which caused his face and body to be permanently disfigured. AfterRead MoreFord vs Toyota Essay935 Words   |  4 PagesFord vs. Toyota Ford Motor Company is the second-largest automobile company in the world. Fords main focus is automobiles; however, they also operate in Ford Credit and Hertz Corporation. Ford also has controlling interest in Mazda Motor Corporation. Ford was established June, 1903; in an old wagon factory in Detroit Michigan. In 1903, Ford began production on a two-cylinder, 8 horsepower called the Model A. They produced a total of 1,708 of these cars in their first year of operation. ToyotaRead MoreMarketing Project : Ford Motor Company1489 Words   |  6 PagesThe Ford Motor Company enlivened an assembling transformation with its large scale manufacturing sequential construction systems in the early 1900 s. Ford is one of world s most surely understood car brands, consumer’s top choices were vehicles like the Ford Mustang, and F-Series tucks. Ford Co. is known as one of the biggest auto organizations on the planet. Company Description Ford works as an auto and portability organization around the world. Ford’s main core business incorporates Ford hasRead MoreBusiness Law634 Words   |  3 Pageswarranty of fitness for a particular fitness may be disclaimed in general language and must be in writing. This must be in writing. In the case Denny vs. Ford Motor Company Nancy Denny was awarded a $1.2 million in damages because the court stated that Denny bought the vehicle for normal on road usage and had no intentions of using the vehicle for the off road usage that Ford Motor Company claimed it was supposed to be used for and Ford Motor Company did not state that the vehicle was for off road useRead MoreManagaging Organizational Change2845 Words   |  12 Pageshave chosen to research the topic of Both Ford and GM experienced serious issues during the pre, during and post TARP period causing them to restructure and change how they do business. Each of them reacted to these pressures differently. My paper will compare and contrast the way both companies reacted to this pressure. According to the Wall Street Journal, UBS auto analyst Colin Langan did a comparison report on GM and Ford. His report compares Ford and GM across eight different categories:Read MoreFord And The Government Of The Pinto Case1747 Words   |  7 Pages Was Ford to blame in the Pinto case? Christeen Olsen Business Ethics Social Issues 1122 Anoka Ramsey Community College April 26, 2015 Abstract This paper explores several published articles and an overview of the court cases, that bring up the question of ethics and the responsibilities of Ford and the government in the Pinto gas-tank issues of the 1970’s. This paper is intended to ask questions of ethics regarding manufacturers responsibilities when there might be a potentialRead MoreFinance Project3247 Words   |  13 PagesSpring 2014 Principles of Finance Final Project General Motors Company vs Ford Motor Company Lauren Grippo GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION (COMPANY) General Motors Corporation (General Motors or GM) was incorporated on August 11, 2009. Also known as GM, the company designs, builds and sells cars, trucks and automobiles parts globally and headquartered in Detroit, Michigan. The company also provides automotive financing services through General Motors Financial Company, Inc. (GM Financial). The companyRead MoreAdvantages and Disadvantages of Ford Motors in Building a Social Networking Plan.2617 Words   |  11 Pagesdisadvantages of Ford Motors in building a social networking plan. Table of Contents 1.Introduction3 2.Main Findings3 2.1 Ford Motors Social Presence3-4 2.2 Current Social Activities4 2.3 Other Online and offline Marketing Channels4 2. Advantages and Disadvantages of Ford Motors Social Presence4-5 3. ANALYSIS5-6 3.1 Strategies to improve customer engagement 6-7 4. CONCLUSION7 5. REFERENCES8 6. APPENDICIES9-18 1. INTRODUCTION This report is going to assess the advantages and disadvantages of Ford Motors