Happiness Interviews and Happiness Analyzed Essay Example for Free

Happiness Interviews and Happiness Analyzed Essay The first person I interviewed was my mom, Shirley. The reason I chose her is because she is 83 years old and raised seven kids during the early part of the Cold War. She has been married twice, she been broke then been comfortable but not wealthy, and she has seen her share of health problems. For my second interview, I chose a new co-worker named Doug. He is a 21 year old, homosexual, single father. While he does work to pay bills, he grew up in a family with money and usually gets what he asks for. He has never experienced a traumatic event such as a death in the family, serious health conditions, or hard financial times. He is the exact opposite of my mother, making him a perfect comparison. Interview with Shirley Question: What does Happiness mean to you? Response: Well, to me happiness is just being content with life. Bills paid with a little money in my pocketbook, time to relax, and spending time with people I love. Question: Has this always been your definition of Happiness? Why or why not? Response: No, of course not. When I married at 17, I thought happiness was being married and raising a family. However, being as it was just after WWII, birth control was out of my control, and as time went on, my husband failed to work, and the burden of taking care of 7 children on government funds and part-time bartending was almost too much. Happiness had fleeted from my life. My marriage ended after my eighth child died a day after birth and I had a hysterectomy. My husband felt that I was no longer a woman and filed for divorce and custody of our kids. After the divorce, my oldest son left for the Navy and my younger kids had been ordered to life with their father, I was miserable. Finally, I began working full-time, and found happiness within myself. Things got even better when I met your dad. Having a loving husband and a job I loved, I thought I had it all. I had no idea that 7 years after we married, we would get the chance to adopt you, completing the circle. Life was complete and I had never been happier. Question: What was your definition of happiness then? Response: Happiness was staying home and raising you while your dad worked and made enough for us to pay the bills and not be broke, and our family time on the weekend with no worries just each other. Question: After suffering from a life-threatening heart condition leading to open-heart surgery and almost losing your husband to a heart attack, did happiness take on a new meaning? Response: Of course. Now happiness is living one more day to see my wonderful husband, my daughter, and my precious granddaughter. Without that, life would be unbearable. Happiness is also knowing that those you love are happy and satisfied with their lives. Question: Do you think your opinion of happiness will change in the future? Response: Not likely, I mean I am 83 years old. Not much about me is gonna change at this point in my life. (S. Burkhert, personal communication, March 23, 2012) Interview with Doug Question: What does Happiness mean to you? Response: Happiness is doing what I want when I want, not answering to anyone, and having enough money to do whatever. It’s about being comfortable with whom I am as a gay man with a daughter and as a young adult with so many things I want to do. Question: Does it affect your happiness if your actions cause someone else sadness or pain? What about your daughter’s happiness. Response: No, I don’t really care about other people.  I care about me first and if it makes my daughter happy too, then it’s a bonus. I get what I want because if I’m unhappy, nobody’s happy. Question: Have you always been that greedy about your happiness? Response: Yeah, pretty much. Question: Don’t you think everyone has the right to be happy? Response: Sure, as long as it doesn’t affect me. (D. Pittman, personal communication, March 26, 2012) Happiness Analyzed Dawn Burkhert HU300 – Arts and Humanities Kaplan University In The Art of Being Human, Aristippus defined happiness as the sum of total pleasures experienced during one’s lifetime. However, after interviewing two totally different people, reading Chapter 7 in The Art of Being Human, and analyzing my own thoughts about happiness, I do not believe Aristippus’ definition to be accurate. To some, it’s about raising a family and enjoying life’s little moments, to others it’s about personal happiness at any cost, and to a few it is about doing good deeds for other people. Happiness can be fleeting or ever-lasting, can be spiritually influenced or materialistic. For every person, happiness takes on a different meaning. During the first interview with my 83 year old mom, Shirley, family was a key ingredient to her happiness. She was raised to believe in marriage and large families, as well as never putting herself first. Her happiness lies within knowing that she is making her family happy and spending time with her loved ones. She never asks for much, but always gives more than anyone could ever ask. Acts of such selflessness are not as plentiful as in her days, post the Great Depression and during the Cold War. On the other side of the coin, Doug, my second interview is very much the believer is selfish happiness. He feels that his happiness lies with him getting what he wants, when he wants, and without regard to others. As a 21 year old single man, Doug feels that he must always be happy before he can make his daughter happy. He said he would break a promise to his daughter in a heartbeat to do or get something he wanted. He stated that his happiness should come before all others. He has little consideration for others and could care less about other people’s opinions. This seems to be a destructive attitude to have, especially since we will not always get what we want, when we want, or how we want. As for me, I think that happiness should be both about ourselves and those surrounding us. Without happiness, we are nothing more than God-made robots. We were made to feel empathy, sympathy, joy, sadness and other sordid emotions. Happiness is supposed to be the most cherished of emotions according to the emotional state theory of happiness (http://plato. stanford. edu/entries/happiness/). Of all theories of happiness I have researched through the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, I agree the most with the life satisfaction theory. This theory states that happiness is a positive outlook on a person’s whole life not just a few selected events. The life satisfaction theory is the most applicable of theories I think because it tells us not to pick and choose which events in our life brought us happiness or which we would like to forget. It lends itself to the idea that regret of past events or bitter feelings of things we cannot change is not acceptable†¦be happy with who and what you are regardless of your situation and others’ opinions. That describes me so well and I think everyone should feel this way. Happiness is a wonderful feeling, no matter what it is that makes us feel this emotion. I doubt there will ever be a universal opinion of what happiness really is, what it constitutes, and what brings it to us. Some people are happiest while serving others, some while being served, and others are content just being alone. Regardless of how we obtain happiness, we all deserve happiness.

Accounting :: Free Essay Writer

National Mortgage News, 2005. 1-9. This article presents information related to a corporate survey of chief financial officers that find that the job market looks bright in the finance, insurance, and real estate industry. Carey III, Addison. â€Å"Accounting: What's the Real World of Accounting Like?†. 3rd ed. Vol. 35. Black Collegian , 2005. 31. This book focuses on several types of accounting careers in the US areas of accounting. This book also contains a list of major accounting firms in the country. It lets you know that having a working knowledge of spreadsheets is very important. Elam, Rick. â€Å"Will future CPAs start their accounting careers in the industry?† Journal of Accountancy. 5th ed. Vol. 178. n.p.,1994. 95. This book focuses on the recruitment of certified public accountants' for employment after college graduation. It tells about job requirements and implications for accounting educators. Salles, James E. "Corporate Business Taxation Monthly." Tax Accounting Vol. 6 Issue 4. Jan. 2005: 37. Comcast. 26 May 2005 This book discuss provisions of the American Jobs Creation Act of 2004 regarding the tax accounting of Attorney's fees and court costs in civil rights and employment cases in the US. Duffy, Convier. Rev. of â€Å"Online study aids available for CPA exam preparation†, by Convier Duffy. CPA Journal; Vol. 68 Issue 2; 1998: 76. Reports that supplier of certified public accountants exam review products are among the companies continuing to invade the internet. These pages also include information on acquiring available aids for taking the test. Golen, Steven P., and Lawrence P. Grasso. â€Å"Barriers to Communication during interviews for Accounting Jobs†. Vol. 70. N.p.:, 1995.272-278. This study explored accounting student interviewees' perceptions of the seriousness of possible barriers to effective communication during on-campus interviews. The accounting student interviewees perceived items indicating closed-mindedness or tending to result in one-sided communication as the most serious, whereas physical or environmental barriers were perceived to be less serious. Edmond, Melissa. â€Å"Accounting firms collaborate to promote diversity.† New York Amsterdam News 31 Mar. 2005, 14 ed., sec. P: 1-5. The article reports that Watson Rice LLP and Marks Paneth & Shron LLP (MP&S) have joined forces to tackle diversity. The accounting firms formed this joint venture to help underserved businesses in New York that are owned and operated by culturally and ethnically diverse management.

The Impact on Americanization Process

The impact on Americanization process involves enormous movements of people across oceans and continents bringing different cultures into contact and sometimes into conflict (DuBois & Dumenil, 2009 p. 391). They all searched for better lives and more freedom. Native Americans and poor immigrants were pushed aside by continuing the westward expansion (DuBois & Dumenil, 2009 p. 391). Parents and tribal leaders protested the brutality of this coercive Americanization but they were no way to stop it (DuBois & Dumenil, 2009 p. 394). Some Native American women earned English and other skills in the boarding school programs they had. Some got jobs and worked for reservation agencies and became teachers. For example, Susan la Flesche became the first white trained Native woman physician. She was also the first person to receive federal aid for education. Sussette la Flesche was a writer and speaker on behalf of Indian causes (DuBoise & Dumenil, 2009 p. 395). Americanization program became harsher especially during WWI. I believe this is why some women resisted and other supported. Immigrant mothers and daughters confronted America very differently (DuBois & Dumenil, 2009 p. 408). Young immigrant women did domestic labor and factory work. Mexicans, Germans, Polish met the demand for servants. Most of these young workers lived with parents or relatives and had to give the earnings to them. Immigrant mothers had responsibility to preserve the way to become Americanize themselves and their families. They cooked traditional foods and followed religious beliefs while the husbands made a family living (DuBois & Dumenil, 2009 p. 410). The immigrant’s journey women had many obstacles during their journey. It took ten to twenty days to cross and it was in unhealthy conditions as well. I could imagine women that were pregnant or with little ones and how hard it was. I am Hispanic I have seen many immigrants’ women trying to cross and some don’t even survive now days. It is hard and some get abused on the way in crossing. I guess many things haven’t changed but it is better than before. In conclusion Native American women had it hard. I believe African American women had it the worse. Boarding schools helped many along the way.

Liability Claim House - Free Essay Example

Sample details Pages: 8 Words: 2464 Downloads: 5 Date added: 2017/06/26 Category Law Essay Type Essay any type Did you like this example? Liability Claim House Question One In order to determine whether Hermione will be successful in a claim against Harry, the law of tort is examined. A tort may be defined as the breach of a legal duty owed, independent of contract by one person to another, for which a common law action for unliquidated damages may be brought. If we take into consideration the Hedley Byrne v Heller (1964) case where the claimants were an advertising agency, who had been asked by a firm called Easipower Ltd to buy substantial amounts of advertising space on their behalf. Don’t waste time! Our writers will create an original "Liability Claim House" essay for you Create order To make sure their clients were creditworthy, Hedley Byrne asked their own bank, the National Provincial, to check on them. National Provincial twice contacted Heller, who were Easipower’s bankers and were backing them financially, to inquire about Easipower’s creditworthiness. Heller gave favourable references on both occasions, but in each time included a disclaimer – ‘without responsibility on the part of this Bank or its officials’. The second inquiry asked whether Easipower was ‘trustworthy, in the way of business, to the extent of  £100,000 per annum’, and Heller answered that Easipower was a respectably constituted company, considered good for its ordinary business engagement. This message was conveyed to Hedley Byrne, and , relying on that advice, they entered into a contract with Easipower Ltd. Easipower later went into liquidation, leaving Hedley Byrne to pay the  £ 17,000 due to companies from whom they had bou ght advertising space. Hedley Byrne claimed this amount from Heller. In view of the words disclaiming liability, the House of Lords held that no duty of care was accepted by Heller, and none arose, so the claim failed. However, the House also considered what their conclusion would have been if no words of disclaimer had been used, and this is where the importance of the case lies. Their Lordships stated obiter that in appropriate circumstances, there could be a duty of care to give careful advice, and that breach of that duty could give rise to liability for negligence. The greatest impact of Hedley Byrne v Heller has undoubtedly been in the sphere of professional work, because it is here that one person’s reliance on advice from another is most likely to be regarded as reasonable. In fact, the principle has been extended to situations in which there is no apparent ‘advice’ at all, but where the professional adviser can be said to have assumed respons ibility for the service which he provides, hence the Hedley Byrne principals. The House of Lords laid down a number of requirements which claimants would need to satisfy in order to establish a duty of care under Hedley Byrne. There must be a ‘special relationship’ between the parties; a voluntary assumption of responsibility by the party giving the advice; reliance by the other party on that advice or information; and such reliance must be reasonable. Lord Reid made it plain that the ‘special relationship’ requirement meant that Hedley Byrne only covers situations where advice is given in a business context. Advice given off-the-cuff in a social setting will therefore not, as a rule, give rise to a duty of care. In some cases it has been suggested that even in a business context, the required relationship will only exist where the defendants are in the business of providing the actual type of advice that the claimants sought. This was held in Mutu al Life and Citizens Assurance v Evatt (1971), where an insurance company had carelessly given false information about a company in which the claimant had invested. The Privy Council held that there was no duty of care; the defendants were in the business of providing insurance, not providing investment advice, and could not be liable for such advice. A majority of the court held that Hedley Byrne should be restricted to cases involving people whose profession centres around giving of advice, such as accountants, solicitors and surveyors. In Smith v Eric S Bush (1990), the claimants were the purchasers of a house which had been negligently surveyed by the defendants, and was worth much less than they had paid for it. The survey had been commissioned by the building society from which the claimants had sought a mortgage, as part of its standard practice of ensuring that the property was worth at least the money that was being lent. However, such surveys were routinely relied upon by purchasers as well, and in fact purchasers actually paid the building society to have the survey done, although the surveyors’ contract was always with the building society. The House of Lords held that in such situations surveyors assumed a duty of care to house purchasers; even though the surveys were not done for the purpose of advising home buyers, surveyors would be well aware that buyers were likely to rely on their valuation, and the surveyors only had the work in the first place because buyers were willing to pay their fees. However it should be noted that this did not impose a particularly wide liability: the extent of the surveyors’ liability was limited to compensating the buyer of the house for up to the value of the house. Therefore, based on the above cases and principals, it is apparent that the surveyor was negligent and that Hermione will definitely be successful in a claim against Harry. Question two An employer will only be responsible for torts committed by their employees is those torts are committed in the course of the employment, rather than, as the courts have put it, when the employee is on a ‘frolic of his own’ (Hilton v Thomas Burton (Rhodes) Ltd (1961) ). The tort will have been committed in the course of employment if the act which comprises the tort is one which has been authorised by the employer, even if the employee performs the act in a manner which was not authorised by the employer. An employer may also be liable for acts done by employees (but not independent to contractors) where their behaviour has not been authorised, but is sufficiently connected with authorised acts that it can be regarded as merely an improper way of committing the authorised acts. In the past this has allowed for a wide interpretation of the phase ‘in the course of their employment’. In Century Insurance v Northern Ireland Road Transport (1942), the def endants’ employee, a petrol tanker driver, was unloading petrol from his tanker to underground storage in the claimant’s garage, when he struck a match to light a cigarette and then dropped the lighted match on to the ground. This caused an explosion, damaging the claimant’s property. The defendants were found to be vicariously liable for his negligence, on the basis that what he doing at the time was part of his job, even if he was doing it in a negligent way. It was agreed that the match was struck for his own purposes, not those of the employer, but nevertheless, in the circumstances in which it was done it was still the course of his employment. In the case of Storey v Ashton (1869), some employees had finished delivering wine for their employer and were on their way back after their official work hours were over. They decided to take a detour to visit a relation of one of the employees. On the way there they negligently ran over the claimant. His atte mpt to sue their employer failed as they were treated as being on a ‘new and independent journey’ from their work trip at the time of the accident. An employer who expressly prohibits an act will not be liable if an employee commits that act. However, the employer may be liable if the prohibition can be regarded as applying to the way in which the job is done, rather than to the scope of the job itself. In Limpus v London General Omnibus Co (1862) a bus driver had been given written instructions not to race with or obstruct other buses. He disobeyed this order, and while racing another bus, he caused a collision with the claimant’s bus, which damaged it. The court held that he was doing an act which he was authorised to do that is driving the bus in such a way as to promote the defendants’ business. This meant that he was within the course of his employment, even though the way he was doing the job was quite improper and had been prohibited. The defe ndants were vicariously liable. In the cases of criminal acts alleged to be done in the course of employment, tend to take the form of either violent assaults or property offences such as theft. In the case of assaults, the courts are very unlikely to find that the employee acted in the course of employment. Because vicarious liability makes the employer and employee joint tortfeasors, each fully liable to the claimant, an employee who is sued on the basis of vicarious liability is entitled to sue the employee in turn, and recover some or all of the damages paid for the employee’s tort. This is called an indemnity, and the employer’s entitlement to sue may derive either from the provisions of the Civil Liability (Contribution) Act 1978, or in common law under the principle in Lister v Romford Ice and Cold Storage (1957). Vicarious liability obviously conflicts with the basic principle of tort, that wrongdoers should be liable for their own actions. It has bee n pointed out that the employer is in control of the conduct of employees, and therefore should be responsible for their acts. While this may have persuasive in the past, in modern industrial society, with its increasingly sophisticated division of labour, it is very difficult to believe. This therefore contributes to the reasons why vicarious liability is imposed. The other reasons include the benefit of work done by employees to employers, prevents negligent recruitment, promotion of care by employers to employees if imposition of liability is on employers and an employer will be in the best financial position to meet a claim, either because its resources are greater than those of an individual employee, or, more often because it has relevant insurance cover. Therefore based on the above an employer is always liable for torts committed by the people that he employs to carry out work, unless as in the case of Storey v Ashton mentioned above. Question Three The tort of nuisance sets out to protect the right to use and enjoy land, without interference from others. There are actually three types of nuisance, private, public and statutory. The tort of private nuisance essentially arises from the fact that, whether we are out in the countryside or in the middle of a city, we all have neighbours and the way they behave on their land may affect us on ours. The essence of liability for private nuisance is an unreasonable interference with another’s use or enjoyment of land, and in assessing what is reasonable, the courts will try to balance each party’s right to use the land as they wish. In Murdoch v Glacier Co Ltd (1998) the claimant lived near to the defendant’s factory. She complained that a low droning noise which came from the factory at night was preventing her from sleeping. Her evidence included a report from the World Health Organisation stating that this type of noise had been proved to disturb sleep if it went above a particular level, and the noise from the factory was measured and found to be at or above this level. The Court of Appeal held that the trial judge was right in holding that this did not constitute an actionable nuisance considering the area in which the claimant’s house was situated, which was among other things close to a busy bypass, and considering that fact that no other local residents had complained about the noise. Based on the above principal, the locality of the Black’s house would impact on the decision made by the court, the Black’s purchased the house knowing the location, therefore Mr and Mrs Black will be unsuccessful in a claim for damages or loss of enjoyment of the land against the owners of the factory, but may be successful in attaining an injunction. An injunction is the main remedy for nuisance and it makes the defendant stop the activity which is causing the nuisance for a specific time period. The degree of the injun ction will depend entirely upon the decision taken by the court of law. In St Helens Smelting Co v Tipping (1865), where the fumes from the copper-smelting works actually damaged trees and shrubs, this is enough grounds for Mr Black to claim against the owners of the factory for damages to the paint of his house. As it should be noted that, where physical damage is caused to the claimants property, the locality is irrelevant. This brings us to the advise for Sirius, in Hunter v Canary Wharf Ltd (1997), the House of Lords emphasised that private nuisance is a tort to land, rather than to those who own or occupy it. This means that no-one, not even the occupier, can recover damages in private nuisance for personal injury. It seems that damage to an occupiers goods is regarded as consequential on the damage to the land, so that damages can be recovered for this. However, public nuisance covers an even wider area than private nuisance, partly because it is not limited to interf erence with land. Public nuisance falls into two fairly broad categories, the interference with the exercise of public rights and the kind of interference such as noise and smoke, which is commonly a private nuisance, will also become a public nuisance if it affects a sufficiently substantial neighbourhood or section of the public. Whether or not this is so is a question of fact as in the case of A-G v PYA Quarries Ltd (1957), thus as in R v Lloyd (1802), where only three people complained of the noise, the defendant was held not guilty of public nuisance. The fact that a person is inconvenienced by a public nuisance does not of itself entitle him to recover damages in respect of it – Winterbottom v Lord Derby (1867). In order to claim damages Sirius must show that he has suffered some ‘special’ or ‘particular’ damage, over and above what is sustained by the public inn general. This requirement is satisfied due to his deterioration of health. As for Mr Black’s car, the damage to the paintwork, as in the case of Halsey v Esso Petroleum Co Ltd (1961), Mr Black is entitled to complain of the damage that is caused by the smuts from the factory. He would thus be able to recover the costs incurred for the repair of the paintwork to the car.