Virtue and Pleasure in Aristotle and Kant

Virtue and Pleasure in Aristotle and Kant The Relation between Virtue and Pleasure in Aristotle and Kant Introduction ‘Every action and choice is thought to aim at some good; and for this reason the good has rightly been declared to be that at which all things aim. (Aristotle: 1094a1-3). Philosophy has always been concerned with trying to determine why we do the actions we do: what are we hoping to achieve by performing certain actions? The above quote is Aristotles opening sentence in the Nicomachean ethics, but how are we actually meant to achieve this good that we are aiming for? Many people in the world would be happy to support the claim that the good is achieved by being virtuous but what exactly does this entail? For Aristotle, ‘moral excellence comes about as a result of habit (Aristotle: 1103a16-17) and ‘happiness is an activity of soul in accordance with complete excellence (Aristotle: 1102a1-2). It then seems we are safe to claim that the good, (â€Å"moral excellence†), corresponds with happiness, but was he right? And does this happiness include pleasure, or is it excluded? Are virtue and pleasure synonymous? Can they even exist harmoniously at all? Throughout the history of thought, philosophers have attempted to discern that element of human nature that can be most aptly described as the action of taking pleasure in doing certain actions, and in the consequences that arise from any given action. The role of virtue in this pleasure process has been assessed and criticised for hundreds of years; does being virtuous give us pleasure, or does pleasure distract us from doing virtuous things? Is happiness the key to a moral life? My aim in this essay is to address these questions, and related questions, according to the philosophies of Kant and Aristotle. In doing so, I aim to discover what the relation between virtue and pleasure really is, according to these two philosophers. My aim is to discover what the role is of both virtue and pleasure, and the connection between them, in the works of both philosophers, and try to establish where the two philosophies align, and where they are incompatible. At first, it seems as though both philosophers are wholly incompatible in their views of where our morality, our motivation to strive for the good, comes from. Even how the two define what the good is seems to differ too much to offer any similarities. As I briefly mentioned in my opening paragraph, for Aristotle, the purpose of human life is the good, and ‘the highest of all goods achievable by action is happiness. And [many] identify living well and faring well with being happy (Aristotle: 1095a16-19). For Kant however, the question of morality is wrapped up in the concept of â€Å"duty† ‘he does the action without any inclination, simply from duty; then the action first has its genuine moral worth (Kant 1997: 4:398). In this essay I will explain exactly what both meant, and critically assess their ideas, with the ultimate goal of somehow reconciling the two seemingly opposing viewpoints. In the process of doing this I will first give an explanation of the foundations of these views what part of each philosophers lifes work these ideas about morality have arisen from. Background When examining any philosophical theory I think it is of vital importance to understand how those particular ideas have been formed what part of the writers thought and theories have these ideas originated from? In this section, I will give a brief overview of whereabouts in their respective works do Kant and Aristotle expound their views on morality, in reference to both pleasure and virtue. Aristotles Nicomachean ethics is part of his practical philosophy (along with his Eudemian ethics), and is primarily a search for what the ultimate goal of human life is. Aristotle was a student of Plato, and as such was likely to have been influenced by his philosophy. It is nothing new to philosophy to be preoccupied with morality. Arguably Platos greatest work, The Republic is fundamentally an inquiry into morality and justice, and what sort of society would be best for cultivating â€Å"the moral man†. In book II of The Republic, Plato tells a story of the mythical ring of Gyges, which is a ring that renders the wearer invisible. Glaucon (the teller of this story in the dialogue) claims that no man, no matter how virtuous or just he is, could resist acting immorally if there was no danger of punishment (Plato: 359c-360c). Glaucon does not believe that any man who had no consequences to face would be moral his claim is that we are moral because society forces us to be so, through fear of being reprimanded. In this case, morality becomes a social construct, and has nothing to do with the singular man who would dismiss moral behaviour in an instant if he believed he could avoid castigation. Aristotles ethics do not follow this way of reasoning, he believes that man can be moral within himself, and also that a man is not virtuous simply by performing virtuous actions, ‘his action must [also] proceed from a firm and unchangeable character (Aristotle: 1105a32-33). Aristotle is often misquoted about what he really meant, due to a mistranslation of the original Greek. Aristotle describes the goal of human life as eudaimonia, which is oft translated as happiness. However, the original meaning of this word is something more akin to being ‘blessed as regards ones own spirit (Pakaluk 2005: 47), or more literally, human flourishing. Pakaluk (2005) goes on to explain the fundamental differences between our commonplace definition of happiness and how we must understand it as a translation of eudaimonia. Most importantly we must understand that Aristotles happiness is not a hedonistic happiness where ‘pleasure is regarded as the chief good, or the proper end of act ion (OED 1989). Eudaimonia is a stable, lasting condition, one that does not fluctuate according to day-to-day events it is an ultimate goal rather than a temporary one. It is also objectively universal it is not a subjective condition based upon the wants of each individual it is a state of being, not a mood or inclination, which is similar for all human beings and is characterised as living well ‘the happy man lives well and fares well (Aristotle: 1098b20). Aristotles definition of virtue is also similarly misunderstood. The original Greek is arete which means ‘any sort of excellence or distinctive power (Pakaluk 2005: 5). Thus being a virtuous person means possessing a certain sort of excellence (of character) which leads us to act virtuously. This form of morality bases the value of any action on the character of the agent an agent must be ‘a certain type of person who will no doubt manifest his or her being in actions or non-actions (Pojman 2002: 160). We cannot take morality from the actions in themselves, because virtue can be demonstrated through the conscious omission of any certain action morality must instead be based upon the agent. For Kant, his views of how pleasure can affect the goodness, or virtue, of any action can be found most clearly in The Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals. The Groundwork (1786) comes between the two different versions of the Critique of Pure Reason that were published (1781 and 1787), and there is certainly a crossover of concepts, with Kant utilising some of the arguments of the Critique in the Groundwork. Namely, his distinction between the noumenal and phenomenal worlds, respectively, the world as it is in itself and the world as it appears to us. This distinction between the true essence of things, and their appearances provides us with ‘two standpoints from which [man] can regard himself and cognize laws for all of his actions (Kant 1987: 4:452). The aim of the Groundwork is to ‘proceed analytically from common cognition to the determination of its supreme principle (Kant 1997: 4:392). In other words, Kant wants to start from the common perception that every action has some sort of moral value and discover what the underlying principle of morality is, that causes this presupposition. This supreme principle that we uncover must be a synthetic a priori one we must be able to deduce it from what we already know, because we are trying to discern how we ought to be from the evidence of how we are. The Groundwork is the quest to discover what this principle is. According to Kant a virtuous person is someone who performs the right actions for the right reasons (which seems to be similar with Aristotles view the action itself does not hold any value the value instead lies within the agents intent). A person who acts thus demonstrates a good will, which is the only thing to which we attribute total merit ‘It is impossible to think of anything that could be considered good without limitation except a good will (Kant 1997: 4:393). This good will possesses worth completely independently of any circumstances, both the means and the ends are good. ‘Even if this will should yet achieve nothing, then [it is still] something that has it full worth in itself In other words, the good will does not need to achieve its end in order to be good, merely the attempt is so. Kant then introduces the concept of duty in order to explain how we are able to manifest the good will in our actions. The concept of duty ‘contains that of a good will though under certain subjective limitations and hindrances, which, however, far from concealing it and making in unrecognizable, rather bring it out by contrast and make it shine forth all the more brightly (Kant 1997: 4:397). If we do our duty from duty (i.e. for its own sake, because it is the right thing to do, rather than due to some other inclination or motivating desire) then we are doing the right actions for the right reasons we are being virtuous. Kant uses formulations of his categorical imperative in order to demonstrate how we can determine what our duty is, although I will not go into them in this chapter. Kant shows that any system used to deduce our duty must be categorical, and not hypothetical, because a hypothetical imperative tells you how to achieve a certain end if you will x, then you must also will y in order to be able to achieve x. A hypothetical imperative is conditional, it depends on something else. A categorical imperative cannot be so it tells us what we ought to do unconditionally, not on the condition of something else. Kant uses his formulations of the categorical imperative in order to demonstrate when we can say an act is done from duty or not. If an act is done from duty for dutys sake, then it is a virtuous action, if not, then it is not, even if the action is not necessarily â€Å"bad†. Virtue and Pleasure in Aristotle Virtue can be taken to have several different meanings; the dictionary definition is ‘conformity of life and conduct with the principles of morality; voluntary observance of the recognized moral laws or standards of right conduct; abstention on moral grounds from any form of wrong-doing or vice (OED 1989). For Aristotle the idea of virtue is the mean between two vices, stray but a little from the middle, and you are no longer being wholly virtuous. This Aristotelian view of virtue is often seen as in direct opposition to the Kantian view of virtue that the virtuous man is the man who acts solely from the motivation of wanting to do his duty, without enjoying the act at all. I will explain in full whether this common view of Kantian ethics is correct in the following chapter, and in this chapter I will explain what I mean by my definition of Aristotelian virtue, and exactly what that signifies in relation to pleasure. Aristotles ethics are usually defined as virtue ethics they are agent centred, and depend (like Kant) not on the act that is done, but instead on what sort of person we need to be, what sort of character we need to have, in order to be able to commit virtuous acts. Aristotle starts off the Nicomachean ethics by trying to discern what the goal of human life is, and in book one manages to come up with what standards he thinks this goal must adhere to what are the characteristics this ultimate goal must have in order to be classed as such? Aristotle states that ‘we call complete without qualification that which is always desirable in itself and never for the sake of something else. Now such a thing happiness, above all else, is held to be: for this we choose always for itself and never for the sake of something else (Aristotle: 1097a34-1097b1). Our ultimate goal, the highest good, must be desired for itself only, and not as a means to something else. Aristotle refers to this ultimate goal of human life as eudaimonia, but what does this really mean? Does eudaimonia equate to hedonistic pleasure? Accordingly to Aristotle, eudaimonia is not synonymous with pleasure, he states that ‘happiness is an activity of soul in accordance with complete excellence (Aristotle: 1102a1-2), so happiness is the achievement of pure excellence, or of complete virtuousness. Human flourishing is what we achieve when we successfully fulfil the human function when we excel at what it is that makes us distinctly human. This means, that in order to understand this ‘human flourishing which is the ultimate goal of human life, we also need to understand the function of human beings ‘Presumably, however, to say that happiness is the chief good seems a platitude, and a clearer account of what it is is still desired. This might perhaps be given, if we could first ascertain the function of man. (Aristotle: 1097b22-25). Aristotle believed that everything in the world has an â€Å"ergon†, a function, which is ‘that for the sake of which it exists; therefore the achieving of this work, or, more precisely, its doing so well, is its good; but only a good thing of a kind achieves its function well (Pakaluk 2005: 75). For example, the function of a knife is to cut things, so a good knife must be able to cut things well, therefore a good knife must be sharp. If there is to be a human function, then it will be what makes us essentially human what it is that separates us from everything el se in the world the thing that we are best capable of. But what makes Aristotle believe that humans necessarily have to have a function? Aristotle claims that it is merely common sense that man should have a function, because everything else in the world does ‘Have the carpenter, then, and the tanner certain functions or activities, and man has none? Is he naturally functionless? (Aristotle: 1097b29-30). It seems clear that man must have a function just as any other thing does. So what is this function? If something only achieves its function well if it possesses the certain virtues that make it a good thing of its kind (like sharpness for the knife) then the human function must be something that is best achieved by humans more than anything else in the world. Or even, it may be something that is only achievable by human beings. ‘A virtue is a trait that makes a thing of a certain kind good and in view of which we call a thing of that kind â€Å"good†. (Pakaluk 2005: 75). In this way, Aristotles function argument follows on to an investigation into what qualities human beings possess, what virtues they possess in their character, that makes them distinctively human. In order to find out what the human function is, we need to find something that is distinctive to humans. It cannot be merely living, as that is shared with even plants, and it cannot be perception, because although that rules out plants, it still includes the animal kingdom. Instead the human function must be ‘an active life of the element that has a rational principle (Aristotle: 1098a3-4). In other words the human function, that element of human beings which is characteristic to us alone, is our capability to reason; our rationality. Of course, this definition of the human function as rationality causes some problems in the case of people who have diminished rationality what does this mean for them? Take, for example, the mentally handicapped who have reduced capacities of reason through no fault of their own are they really less capable of living fulfilling and flourishing lives than â€Å"normal† people? Are they â€Å"less good†? It seems as though, according to this argument, we are required to count them as worth less. However, I will not dwell on this problem, as I am more concerned with what this idea of a function implies for the role of pleasure in Aristotles ethics. What then, does it mean that the human function is our capacity to reason? The human function is what we must achieve excellence in, in order to be â€Å"good† (just as the knife must achieve excellence in its function of sharpness, in order to be a good knife). This means that morality, and consequently virtue, are intrinsically linked to the human function, to our rationality it is our reason that allows us to achieve virtue. We must use our reason in order to discern what is virtuous. Our function of rationality is what allows us to achieve our excellence, to achieve our virtue. So how does our reason allow us to achieve our virtue? It allows us to choose whatever course of action we feel would allow us best to achieve our happiness, our telos (ultimate goal). Hursthouse (1991) reads Aristotle as meaning that an action is regarded as â€Å"right† because it is what a virtuous person would choose to do, but is it not the other way round? Does a virtuous person not choose to do certain acts because they are good? This problem is obviously reminiscent of Euthyphros dilemma from the platonic dialogue of the same name is a certain act considered good because God says it is so, or does God say it is so because it is good. For Aristotle the ability to choose the morally right action in any situation is an ability to follow the moral mean ‘that moral excellence is a mean, then, and in what sense is it so, and that it is a mean between two vices, the one involving excess, the other deficiency (Aristotle: 1109a1-3). So for example, the virtue of bravery is the mean between cowardice and rashness. Aristotle also states that virtue is dependent on our character if we have the right character we will be predisposed to commit actions of the right sort. ‘Moral excellence comes about as a result of habit states arise out of like activities. This is why the activities we exhibit must be of a certain kind (Aristotle: 1103b20-22). Therefore, if we habitually perform the right sort of action, then we will generate the right sort of character, thus enabling us to almost automatically choose the correct action, which sits in the middle of this scale between virtue and vice. Our eudaimonia is more and m ore fulfilled by each instance in which our character â€Å"automatically† chooses the virtuous action. Does this idea of virtue as the mean between two vices imply that pleasure is then a vice, being the vice at one end of the scale of the virtue of moderation, whilst the other end is despair? A virtue can be best described as the course of action that allows us to achieve our eudaimonia. So is pleasure more suited to this task than despair (if we take despair to be the other end of the scale)? Would the mean on the scale in actuality lie closer to the end of pleasure than the other? Is this a purely arithmetical mean, the exact midpoint between two extremes, or is it something more flexible? Just as everyone requires different amounts of food in their everyday life (such that everyones â€Å"mean† between scarcity and gluttony differs), would it not make sense that the mean of enjoyment is different for everyone as well? Such that enjoyment of life, whilst it does not mean a slavish commitment to complete hedonistic pleasure, could mean that pleasure does play an important rol e in our lives. I believe that Aristotle would agree with me here, since he states that ‘no one nature or state is or is thought the best for all, neither do all pursue the same pleasure (Aristotle: 1153b29-30). In other words, we do not all desire the same pleasures to the same degree, instead we pursue only those pleasures which are best suited to helping each of us, as an individual, to achieve our eudaimonia. We can therefore agree with Shermans reading of Aristotle, that ‘moral habituation is the cultivation of fine (or noble) pleasures and pains (Sherman 1989: 190). In this way, virtuousness does not mean a complete abandonment of all pleasure, but instead tells us that we should be interested in only those pleasures which are â€Å"worthy† of the rational mind. In some ways this bears similarity with Mills recalculation of Benthams utilitarianism that some pleasures (of the intellect) are worth more in the hedonic calculus than mere physical pleasures (Mill 2001). However, appreciation of the right pleasures is a taught skill also. By that I mean one of habit, such as virtue is according to Aristotle, and as such ‘we ought to have been brought up in a particular way from our very youth, as Plato says, so as both to delight in and to be pained in the things that we ought (Aristotle: 1104b11-13). What is slightly problematic is that Aristotle gives two seemingly wholly different accounts of what pleasure is. In Book II he states that ‘it is on account of pleasure that we do bad things (Aristotle: 1104b10), by this meaning that a love of pleasure for itself will lead us to ignore the virtuous path and live a life of pure hedonism, thus failing to achieve our telos of eudaimonia. In Book VII he states that ‘the view that pleasures are bad because some pleasant things are unhealthy is like saying that healthy things are bad because some healthy things are bad for the pocket (Aristotle: 1153a17-18). This view is nonsensical, and would lead us to having to avoiding almost every type of activity. Some pleasures are bad, but this does not necessarily make all pleasures bad. However, whilst these two accounts do differ, there is a common theme between them, which is that pleasure is not necessarily bad, and can exist in harmony with virtue. However, we need to qualify exactly what pleasures we mean here, as not all pleasure can be called good. Annas (1980) interprets Aristotle as believing that pleasure is only good when done by the virtuousness man, because the habit of his character will lead him to only choose to act on those pleasures which are virtuous ‘it is right for the good man to seek pleasure; pleasure will point him in the right direction. (Annas 1980: 286). Whereas the man who is immoral in habit will only persue those pleasures which ‘confirm the deplorable tendencies of [him], since it will strengthen his habits of wickedness and weakness (Annas 1980: 286-7). Here, the important point is not that we need to avoid pleasure, but that we need to be sure that we are pursuing the right kind of pleasure before we act upon it the pl easure of the virtuous man, not the deplorable man. The obvious problem with this interpretation is that Annas at first glance seems to be claiming that only a good person can access pleasure in a good way. Where does this leave the immoral man who wishes to reform his character? Is there no possibility that he will be able to choose those pleasures that are good for his character? Is this what Aristotle is really saying when he claims that virtue is a matter of habit, of character? ‘If the things [the good man] finds tiresome seem pleasant to someone, that is nothing surprising; for men may be ruined and spoilt in many ways; but the things are not pleasant, but only pleasant to these people and to people in this condition. (Aristotle: 1176a19-22). This quote for one certainly seems to be suggesting that the virtuous man will be able to steer clear of immoral pleasures, whilst the immoral man will not. Aristotle emphasizes several times the fact that his ethics is based upon repeated behaviour, on habit, and ‘a short time [or virtuousness], does not make a man blessed or happy (Aristotle: 1098a18-19). What this means is that a period of immorality in a mans life does not necessarily preclude him from ever achieving his eudaimonia, and similarly, a brief period of virtuousness does not make a man wholly virtuous. Aristotles ethics is a system of right and wrong that demonstrates itself through habit, and habits can change, although it may be hard to dispose of bad habits, of immoral habits, because ‘it has grown up with us all from our infancy; this is why it is difficult to rub off this passion [for immoral pleasures] (Aristotle:1105a2-3). This does not mean that it is impossible, indeed it must be possible to change our character, otherwise what we are taught in our youth would be how we remain for life, meaning that whether we become a good or a bad person depends mor e on our teachers, rather than any attempt at morality by ourselves. We cannot be deprived of a chance at our eudaimonia just because we fail to receive the right training of character in our youth. It must be possible to reform and for the immoral man to pursue good pleasure or how else can he become a man who chooses only good pleasures out of habit? Some might claim that this seems unfair. If moral virtue is merely an act brought about by habit, then it is far easier for the good man to be virtuous that it is for the bad man to be so so where is the incentive for the bad man to change his ways and attempt to cultivate the right sort of character in order to be good by habit? But ‘even the good is better when it is harder (Aristotle: 1105a10), and the bad man will be rewarded if he perseveres. If a bad man successfully changes his character to that of the virtuous man, then he is satisfying the human function, the human ergon, and he will be able to achieve the ultimate telos for human beings eudaimonia his human flourishing. The incentive for the bad man to change his ways, no matter how difficult it may be, is that he will achieve the ultimate goal of complete happiness. In this way does the right sort of pleasure, lead first to the cultivation of a habit of character of complete excellence or virtue, which in turn then leads to ultimate happiness. However, as Hutchinson (1986) points out, there is a problem with this idea that, ultimately, restraint over which pleasures we decide to pursue is how we describe virtue. If ‘discipline produces virtue and, when misguided, defect of character, by means of pleasure and pain, the virtues (and vices) are dispositions for enjoying and disliking things (Hutchinson 1986: 79). Hutchinson goes on to state that this cannot be so, because children are rewarded in the study of arithmetic through pleasure and pain. So then ‘arithmetical skill is a disposition to enjoy or dislike certain mathematical operations. And that is not true; it is simply a disposition to come to the right answer (Hutchinson 1986: 79). For Hutchinson Aristotles argument is unsuccessful merely because it is too vague, a vagueness which allows for the arithmetical comparison to be made, and this would not be a fault suffered if the argument was constructed with more care. Ultimately, this means that although th e argument is open to criticism, it leaves Aristotle quite confident in his claim that virtue is a form of character, created by the repeated habit of choosing the correct moral path that of the virtue at the mean point between two vices. And it is this mean point which will ultimately lead to eudaimonia. As long as pleasure is taken in moderation, it can still be synonymous with virtue, and allows for pleasure to be a part of our eudaimonia, the ultimate goal of human flourishing. Virtue and Pleasure in Kant For Kant being virtuous means acting in accordance with duty, for dutys sake, and not due to some other motivation in the place of duty (even if the same action would result).There are some philosophers (I will go into detail further on) who have claimed that Kants notion of duty eliminates the possibility of pleasure that is, if you take pleasure in any said action, it eliminates any dutiful intent that was previously present. However, I do not believe this is actually what Kant meant, and in this chapter I will explain why I believe this and attempt to elucidate exactly what Kant meant when he talked about duty, and the implications this has for our conception of pleasure. For Kant, an action can only have moral worth (i.e. be virtuous) if and only if it is done from duty, for dutys sake. So, in order to understand exactly when we can claim under Kants theory that we are being virtuous, we need to understand exactly how we are meant to do our duty, and to do this, we need to examine the categorical imperative. Although Kant does state that there is only one categorical imperative, ‘he offers three different formulas of that law (Sullivan 1989: 149) so sometimes in philosophy the term is used more generally to describe these three formulas (and their associated examples) as a whole, rather than just the first formula by itself. Kant states that ‘there is, therefore, only a single categorical imperative (Kant 1987: 4:421), but what is it, and how does he come to this conclusion? As I mentioned before, any categorical imperative must be synthetic because defining our morality depends on being able to formulate a synthetic a priori principle. A synthetic principle adds something new to our knowledge, and if it is also a priori, it means that this new knowledge does not depend on experience we are able to deduce this synthetic principle independently of any particular experience; we are able to deduce it by examining what we already know to be true about the world. This is because, for Kant, moral judgements are based on how the world ought to be, not how it is, so we cannot depend on our experiences of the world as it is to show us how the world should instead be. Morality cannot be based on experience, because we need an ethical theory that is capable of telling us what we should do, even in entirely n ew circumstances. The categorical imperative is essentially a law, because while everything in the world is subject to the laws of nature, only rational beings possess autonomy, possess a â€Å"(free) will†, so are capable of choosing to act according to any given law. ‘The idea of an objective principle in so far as it is compelling to the will, is called a command of reason, and the formula of the command is called an imperative. (Russell 2007: 644) Therefore, a theory of practical morality would be a theory of commands about how to act according to certain laws. A theory of morality would be a theory consisting of imperatives. Kant refers to his categorical imperative as the only one, because ‘logically there can be only one ultimate moral law [although] each of the three formulas emphasizes a different aspect of the same moral law (Sullivan 1989: 49). The aim of the Groundwork is to prove that such a principle (what Kant calls the categorical imperative) does exist. Such a principle would be the supreme principle of morality (Kant 1997: 4:392), in other words, the categorical imperative is synonymous with morality. Kant describes the categorical imperative, through three different formulas. The first is the formula of the universal law ‘act only in accordance with the maxim through which you can at the same time will that it become a universal law (Kant 1997: 4:421). This law is Kants ‘single categorical imperative (Kant 1997: 4:421); however this is not exactly what our duty is, since the ‘universality of law in accordance with which effects take place constitutes what is properly called nature. (Kant 1997: 4:421). This means that in order for something to be our duty, it must be determined in accordance with universal laws, because duty is not subjective to each individual, but is something that is the same fo r all rational beings, in so far as we are rational. This means that our duty can and should be phrased as: ‘act as if the maxim of your action were to become by your will a universal law of nature. (Kant 1997: 4:421). Kant uses four examples Virtue and Pleasure in Aristotle and Kant Virtue and Pleasure in Aristotle and Kant The Relation between Virtue and Pleasure in Aristotle and Kant Introduction ‘Every action and choice is thought to aim at some good; and for this reason the good has rightly been declared to be that at which all things aim. (Aristotle: 1094a1-3). Philosophy has always been concerned with trying to determine why we do the actions we do: what are we hoping to achieve by performing certain actions? The above quote is Aristotles opening sentence in the Nicomachean ethics, but how are we actually meant to achieve this good that we are aiming for? Many people in the world would be happy to support the claim that the good is achieved by being virtuous but what exactly does this entail? For Aristotle, ‘moral excellence comes about as a result of habit (Aristotle: 1103a16-17) and ‘happiness is an activity of soul in accordance with complete excellence (Aristotle: 1102a1-2). It then seems we are safe to claim that the good, (â€Å"moral excellence†), corresponds with happiness, but was he right? And does this happiness include pleasure, or is it excluded? Are virtue and pleasure synonymous? Can they even exist harmoniously at all? Throughout the history of thought, philosophers have attempted to discern that element of human nature that can be most aptly described as the action of taking pleasure in doing certain actions, and in the consequences that arise from any given action. The role of virtue in this pleasure process has been assessed and criticised for hundreds of years; does being virtuous give us pleasure, or does pleasure distract us from doing virtuous things? Is happiness the key to a moral life? My aim in this essay is to address these questions, and related questions, according to the philosophies of Kant and Aristotle. In doing so, I aim to discover what the relation between virtue and pleasure really is, according to these two philosophers. My aim is to discover what the role is of both virtue and pleasure, and the connection between them, in the works of both philosophers, and try to establish where the two philosophies align, and where they are incompatible. At first, it seems as though both philosophers are wholly incompatible in their views of where our morality, our motivation to strive for the good, comes from. Even how the two define what the good is seems to differ too much to offer any similarities. As I briefly mentioned in my opening paragraph, for Aristotle, the purpose of human life is the good, and ‘the highest of all goods achievable by action is happiness. And [many] identify living well and faring well with being happy (Aristotle: 1095a16-19). For Kant however, the question of morality is wrapped up in the concept of â€Å"duty† ‘he does the action without any inclination, simply from duty; then the action first has its genuine moral worth (Kant 1997: 4:398). In this essay I will explain exactly what both meant, and critically assess their ideas, with the ultimate goal of somehow reconciling the two seemingly opposing viewpoints. In the process of doing this I will first give an explanation of the foundations of these views what part of each philosophers lifes work these ideas about morality have arisen from. Background When examining any philosophical theory I think it is of vital importance to understand how those particular ideas have been formed what part of the writers thought and theories have these ideas originated from? In this section, I will give a brief overview of whereabouts in their respective works do Kant and Aristotle expound their views on morality, in reference to both pleasure and virtue. Aristotles Nicomachean ethics is part of his practical philosophy (along with his Eudemian ethics), and is primarily a search for what the ultimate goal of human life is. Aristotle was a student of Plato, and as such was likely to have been influenced by his philosophy. It is nothing new to philosophy to be preoccupied with morality. Arguably Platos greatest work, The Republic is fundamentally an inquiry into morality and justice, and what sort of society would be best for cultivating â€Å"the moral man†. In book II of The Republic, Plato tells a story of the mythical ring of Gyges, which is a ring that renders the wearer invisible. Glaucon (the teller of this story in the dialogue) claims that no man, no matter how virtuous or just he is, could resist acting immorally if there was no danger of punishment (Plato: 359c-360c). Glaucon does not believe that any man who had no consequences to face would be moral his claim is that we are moral because society forces us to be so, through fear of being reprimanded. In this case, morality becomes a social construct, and has nothing to do with the singular man who would dismiss moral behaviour in an instant if he believed he could avoid castigation. Aristotles ethics do not follow this way of reasoning, he believes that man can be moral within himself, and also that a man is not virtuous simply by performing virtuous actions, ‘his action must [also] proceed from a firm and unchangeable character (Aristotle: 1105a32-33). Aristotle is often misquoted about what he really meant, due to a mistranslation of the original Greek. Aristotle describes the goal of human life as eudaimonia, which is oft translated as happiness. However, the original meaning of this word is something more akin to being ‘blessed as regards ones own spirit (Pakaluk 2005: 47), or more literally, human flourishing. Pakaluk (2005) goes on to explain the fundamental differences between our commonplace definition of happiness and how we must understand it as a translation of eudaimonia. Most importantly we must understand that Aristotles happiness is not a hedonistic happiness where ‘pleasure is regarded as the chief good, or the proper end of act ion (OED 1989). Eudaimonia is a stable, lasting condition, one that does not fluctuate according to day-to-day events it is an ultimate goal rather than a temporary one. It is also objectively universal it is not a subjective condition based upon the wants of each individual it is a state of being, not a mood or inclination, which is similar for all human beings and is characterised as living well ‘the happy man lives well and fares well (Aristotle: 1098b20). Aristotles definition of virtue is also similarly misunderstood. The original Greek is arete which means ‘any sort of excellence or distinctive power (Pakaluk 2005: 5). Thus being a virtuous person means possessing a certain sort of excellence (of character) which leads us to act virtuously. This form of morality bases the value of any action on the character of the agent an agent must be ‘a certain type of person who will no doubt manifest his or her being in actions or non-actions (Pojman 2002: 160). We cannot take morality from the actions in themselves, because virtue can be demonstrated through the conscious omission of any certain action morality must instead be based upon the agent. For Kant, his views of how pleasure can affect the goodness, or virtue, of any action can be found most clearly in The Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals. The Groundwork (1786) comes between the two different versions of the Critique of Pure Reason that were published (1781 and 1787), and there is certainly a crossover of concepts, with Kant utilising some of the arguments of the Critique in the Groundwork. Namely, his distinction between the noumenal and phenomenal worlds, respectively, the world as it is in itself and the world as it appears to us. This distinction between the true essence of things, and their appearances provides us with ‘two standpoints from which [man] can regard himself and cognize laws for all of his actions (Kant 1987: 4:452). The aim of the Groundwork is to ‘proceed analytically from common cognition to the determination of its supreme principle (Kant 1997: 4:392). In other words, Kant wants to start from the common perception that every action has some sort of moral value and discover what the underlying principle of morality is, that causes this presupposition. This supreme principle that we uncover must be a synthetic a priori one we must be able to deduce it from what we already know, because we are trying to discern how we ought to be from the evidence of how we are. The Groundwork is the quest to discover what this principle is. According to Kant a virtuous person is someone who performs the right actions for the right reasons (which seems to be similar with Aristotles view the action itself does not hold any value the value instead lies within the agents intent). A person who acts thus demonstrates a good will, which is the only thing to which we attribute total merit ‘It is impossible to think of anything that could be considered good without limitation except a good will (Kant 1997: 4:393). This good will possesses worth completely independently of any circumstances, both the means and the ends are good. ‘Even if this will should yet achieve nothing, then [it is still] something that has it full worth in itself In other words, the good will does not need to achieve its end in order to be good, merely the attempt is so. Kant then introduces the concept of duty in order to explain how we are able to manifest the good will in our actions. The concept of duty ‘contains that of a good will though under certain subjective limitations and hindrances, which, however, far from concealing it and making in unrecognizable, rather bring it out by contrast and make it shine forth all the more brightly (Kant 1997: 4:397). If we do our duty from duty (i.e. for its own sake, because it is the right thing to do, rather than due to some other inclination or motivating desire) then we are doing the right actions for the right reasons we are being virtuous. Kant uses formulations of his categorical imperative in order to demonstrate how we can determine what our duty is, although I will not go into them in this chapter. Kant shows that any system used to deduce our duty must be categorical, and not hypothetical, because a hypothetical imperative tells you how to achieve a certain end if you will x, then you must also will y in order to be able to achieve x. A hypothetical imperative is conditional, it depends on something else. A categorical imperative cannot be so it tells us what we ought to do unconditionally, not on the condition of something else. Kant uses his formulations of the categorical imperative in order to demonstrate when we can say an act is done from duty or not. If an act is done from duty for dutys sake, then it is a virtuous action, if not, then it is not, even if the action is not necessarily â€Å"bad†. Virtue and Pleasure in Aristotle Virtue can be taken to have several different meanings; the dictionary definition is ‘conformity of life and conduct with the principles of morality; voluntary observance of the recognized moral laws or standards of right conduct; abstention on moral grounds from any form of wrong-doing or vice (OED 1989). For Aristotle the idea of virtue is the mean between two vices, stray but a little from the middle, and you are no longer being wholly virtuous. This Aristotelian view of virtue is often seen as in direct opposition to the Kantian view of virtue that the virtuous man is the man who acts solely from the motivation of wanting to do his duty, without enjoying the act at all. I will explain in full whether this common view of Kantian ethics is correct in the following chapter, and in this chapter I will explain what I mean by my definition of Aristotelian virtue, and exactly what that signifies in relation to pleasure. Aristotles ethics are usually defined as virtue ethics they are agent centred, and depend (like Kant) not on the act that is done, but instead on what sort of person we need to be, what sort of character we need to have, in order to be able to commit virtuous acts. Aristotle starts off the Nicomachean ethics by trying to discern what the goal of human life is, and in book one manages to come up with what standards he thinks this goal must adhere to what are the characteristics this ultimate goal must have in order to be classed as such? Aristotle states that ‘we call complete without qualification that which is always desirable in itself and never for the sake of something else. Now such a thing happiness, above all else, is held to be: for this we choose always for itself and never for the sake of something else (Aristotle: 1097a34-1097b1). Our ultimate goal, the highest good, must be desired for itself only, and not as a means to something else. Aristotle refers to this ultimate goal of human life as eudaimonia, but what does this really mean? Does eudaimonia equate to hedonistic pleasure? Accordingly to Aristotle, eudaimonia is not synonymous with pleasure, he states that ‘happiness is an activity of soul in accordance with complete excellence (Aristotle: 1102a1-2), so happiness is the achievement of pure excellence, or of complete virtuousness. Human flourishing is what we achieve when we successfully fulfil the human function when we excel at what it is that makes us distinctly human. This means, that in order to understand this ‘human flourishing which is the ultimate goal of human life, we also need to understand the function of human beings ‘Presumably, however, to say that happiness is the chief good seems a platitude, and a clearer account of what it is is still desired. This might perhaps be given, if we could first ascertain the function of man. (Aristotle: 1097b22-25). Aristotle believed that everything in the world has an â€Å"ergon†, a function, which is ‘that for the sake of which it exists; therefore the achieving of this work, or, more precisely, its doing so well, is its good; but only a good thing of a kind achieves its function well (Pakaluk 2005: 75). For example, the function of a knife is to cut things, so a good knife must be able to cut things well, therefore a good knife must be sharp. If there is to be a human function, then it will be what makes us essentially human what it is that separates us from everything el se in the world the thing that we are best capable of. But what makes Aristotle believe that humans necessarily have to have a function? Aristotle claims that it is merely common sense that man should have a function, because everything else in the world does ‘Have the carpenter, then, and the tanner certain functions or activities, and man has none? Is he naturally functionless? (Aristotle: 1097b29-30). It seems clear that man must have a function just as any other thing does. So what is this function? If something only achieves its function well if it possesses the certain virtues that make it a good thing of its kind (like sharpness for the knife) then the human function must be something that is best achieved by humans more than anything else in the world. Or even, it may be something that is only achievable by human beings. ‘A virtue is a trait that makes a thing of a certain kind good and in view of which we call a thing of that kind â€Å"good†. (Pakaluk 2005: 75). In this way, Aristotles function argument follows on to an investigation into what qualities human beings possess, what virtues they possess in their character, that makes them distinctively human. In order to find out what the human function is, we need to find something that is distinctive to humans. It cannot be merely living, as that is shared with even plants, and it cannot be perception, because although that rules out plants, it still includes the animal kingdom. Instead the human function must be ‘an active life of the element that has a rational principle (Aristotle: 1098a3-4). In other words the human function, that element of human beings which is characteristic to us alone, is our capability to reason; our rationality. Of course, this definition of the human function as rationality causes some problems in the case of people who have diminished rationality what does this mean for them? Take, for example, the mentally handicapped who have reduced capacities of reason through no fault of their own are they really less capable of living fulfilling and flourishing lives than â€Å"normal† people? Are they â€Å"less good†? It seems as though, according to this argument, we are required to count them as worth less. However, I will not dwell on this problem, as I am more concerned with what this idea of a function implies for the role of pleasure in Aristotles ethics. What then, does it mean that the human function is our capacity to reason? The human function is what we must achieve excellence in, in order to be â€Å"good† (just as the knife must achieve excellence in its function of sharpness, in order to be a good knife). This means that morality, and consequently virtue, are intrinsically linked to the human function, to our rationality it is our reason that allows us to achieve virtue. We must use our reason in order to discern what is virtuous. Our function of rationality is what allows us to achieve our excellence, to achieve our virtue. So how does our reason allow us to achieve our virtue? It allows us to choose whatever course of action we feel would allow us best to achieve our happiness, our telos (ultimate goal). Hursthouse (1991) reads Aristotle as meaning that an action is regarded as â€Å"right† because it is what a virtuous person would choose to do, but is it not the other way round? Does a virtuous person not choose to do certain acts because they are good? This problem is obviously reminiscent of Euthyphros dilemma from the platonic dialogue of the same name is a certain act considered good because God says it is so, or does God say it is so because it is good. For Aristotle the ability to choose the morally right action in any situation is an ability to follow the moral mean ‘that moral excellence is a mean, then, and in what sense is it so, and that it is a mean between two vices, the one involving excess, the other deficiency (Aristotle: 1109a1-3). So for example, the virtue of bravery is the mean between cowardice and rashness. Aristotle also states that virtue is dependent on our character if we have the right character we will be predisposed to commit actions of the right sort. ‘Moral excellence comes about as a result of habit states arise out of like activities. This is why the activities we exhibit must be of a certain kind (Aristotle: 1103b20-22). Therefore, if we habitually perform the right sort of action, then we will generate the right sort of character, thus enabling us to almost automatically choose the correct action, which sits in the middle of this scale between virtue and vice. Our eudaimonia is more and m ore fulfilled by each instance in which our character â€Å"automatically† chooses the virtuous action. Does this idea of virtue as the mean between two vices imply that pleasure is then a vice, being the vice at one end of the scale of the virtue of moderation, whilst the other end is despair? A virtue can be best described as the course of action that allows us to achieve our eudaimonia. So is pleasure more suited to this task than despair (if we take despair to be the other end of the scale)? Would the mean on the scale in actuality lie closer to the end of pleasure than the other? Is this a purely arithmetical mean, the exact midpoint between two extremes, or is it something more flexible? Just as everyone requires different amounts of food in their everyday life (such that everyones â€Å"mean† between scarcity and gluttony differs), would it not make sense that the mean of enjoyment is different for everyone as well? Such that enjoyment of life, whilst it does not mean a slavish commitment to complete hedonistic pleasure, could mean that pleasure does play an important rol e in our lives. I believe that Aristotle would agree with me here, since he states that ‘no one nature or state is or is thought the best for all, neither do all pursue the same pleasure (Aristotle: 1153b29-30). In other words, we do not all desire the same pleasures to the same degree, instead we pursue only those pleasures which are best suited to helping each of us, as an individual, to achieve our eudaimonia. We can therefore agree with Shermans reading of Aristotle, that ‘moral habituation is the cultivation of fine (or noble) pleasures and pains (Sherman 1989: 190). In this way, virtuousness does not mean a complete abandonment of all pleasure, but instead tells us that we should be interested in only those pleasures which are â€Å"worthy† of the rational mind. In some ways this bears similarity with Mills recalculation of Benthams utilitarianism that some pleasures (of the intellect) are worth more in the hedonic calculus than mere physical pleasures (Mill 2001). However, appreciation of the right pleasures is a taught skill also. By that I mean one of habit, such as virtue is according to Aristotle, and as such ‘we ought to have been brought up in a particular way from our very youth, as Plato says, so as both to delight in and to be pained in the things that we ought (Aristotle: 1104b11-13). What is slightly problematic is that Aristotle gives two seemingly wholly different accounts of what pleasure is. In Book II he states that ‘it is on account of pleasure that we do bad things (Aristotle: 1104b10), by this meaning that a love of pleasure for itself will lead us to ignore the virtuous path and live a life of pure hedonism, thus failing to achieve our telos of eudaimonia. In Book VII he states that ‘the view that pleasures are bad because some pleasant things are unhealthy is like saying that healthy things are bad because some healthy things are bad for the pocket (Aristotle: 1153a17-18). This view is nonsensical, and would lead us to having to avoiding almost every type of activity. Some pleasures are bad, but this does not necessarily make all pleasures bad. However, whilst these two accounts do differ, there is a common theme between them, which is that pleasure is not necessarily bad, and can exist in harmony with virtue. However, we need to qualify exactly what pleasures we mean here, as not all pleasure can be called good. Annas (1980) interprets Aristotle as believing that pleasure is only good when done by the virtuousness man, because the habit of his character will lead him to only choose to act on those pleasures which are virtuous ‘it is right for the good man to seek pleasure; pleasure will point him in the right direction. (Annas 1980: 286). Whereas the man who is immoral in habit will only persue those pleasures which ‘confirm the deplorable tendencies of [him], since it will strengthen his habits of wickedness and weakness (Annas 1980: 286-7). Here, the important point is not that we need to avoid pleasure, but that we need to be sure that we are pursuing the right kind of pleasure before we act upon it the pl easure of the virtuous man, not the deplorable man. The obvious problem with this interpretation is that Annas at first glance seems to be claiming that only a good person can access pleasure in a good way. Where does this leave the immoral man who wishes to reform his character? Is there no possibility that he will be able to choose those pleasures that are good for his character? Is this what Aristotle is really saying when he claims that virtue is a matter of habit, of character? ‘If the things [the good man] finds tiresome seem pleasant to someone, that is nothing surprising; for men may be ruined and spoilt in many ways; but the things are not pleasant, but only pleasant to these people and to people in this condition. (Aristotle: 1176a19-22). This quote for one certainly seems to be suggesting that the virtuous man will be able to steer clear of immoral pleasures, whilst the immoral man will not. Aristotle emphasizes several times the fact that his ethics is based upon repeated behaviour, on habit, and ‘a short time [or virtuousness], does not make a man blessed or happy (Aristotle: 1098a18-19). What this means is that a period of immorality in a mans life does not necessarily preclude him from ever achieving his eudaimonia, and similarly, a brief period of virtuousness does not make a man wholly virtuous. Aristotles ethics is a system of right and wrong that demonstrates itself through habit, and habits can change, although it may be hard to dispose of bad habits, of immoral habits, because ‘it has grown up with us all from our infancy; this is why it is difficult to rub off this passion [for immoral pleasures] (Aristotle:1105a2-3). This does not mean that it is impossible, indeed it must be possible to change our character, otherwise what we are taught in our youth would be how we remain for life, meaning that whether we become a good or a bad person depends mor e on our teachers, rather than any attempt at morality by ourselves. We cannot be deprived of a chance at our eudaimonia just because we fail to receive the right training of character in our youth. It must be possible to reform and for the immoral man to pursue good pleasure or how else can he become a man who chooses only good pleasures out of habit? Some might claim that this seems unfair. If moral virtue is merely an act brought about by habit, then it is far easier for the good man to be virtuous that it is for the bad man to be so so where is the incentive for the bad man to change his ways and attempt to cultivate the right sort of character in order to be good by habit? But ‘even the good is better when it is harder (Aristotle: 1105a10), and the bad man will be rewarded if he perseveres. If a bad man successfully changes his character to that of the virtuous man, then he is satisfying the human function, the human ergon, and he will be able to achieve the ultimate telos for human beings eudaimonia his human flourishing. The incentive for the bad man to change his ways, no matter how difficult it may be, is that he will achieve the ultimate goal of complete happiness. In this way does the right sort of pleasure, lead first to the cultivation of a habit of character of complete excellence or virtue, which in turn then leads to ultimate happiness. However, as Hutchinson (1986) points out, there is a problem with this idea that, ultimately, restraint over which pleasures we decide to pursue is how we describe virtue. If ‘discipline produces virtue and, when misguided, defect of character, by means of pleasure and pain, the virtues (and vices) are dispositions for enjoying and disliking things (Hutchinson 1986: 79). Hutchinson goes on to state that this cannot be so, because children are rewarded in the study of arithmetic through pleasure and pain. So then ‘arithmetical skill is a disposition to enjoy or dislike certain mathematical operations. And that is not true; it is simply a disposition to come to the right answer (Hutchinson 1986: 79). For Hutchinson Aristotles argument is unsuccessful merely because it is too vague, a vagueness which allows for the arithmetical comparison to be made, and this would not be a fault suffered if the argument was constructed with more care. Ultimately, this means that although th e argument is open to criticism, it leaves Aristotle quite confident in his claim that virtue is a form of character, created by the repeated habit of choosing the correct moral path that of the virtue at the mean point between two vices. And it is this mean point which will ultimately lead to eudaimonia. As long as pleasure is taken in moderation, it can still be synonymous with virtue, and allows for pleasure to be a part of our eudaimonia, the ultimate goal of human flourishing. Virtue and Pleasure in Kant For Kant being virtuous means acting in accordance with duty, for dutys sake, and not due to some other motivation in the place of duty (even if the same action would result).There are some philosophers (I will go into detail further on) who have claimed that Kants notion of duty eliminates the possibility of pleasure that is, if you take pleasure in any said action, it eliminates any dutiful intent that was previously present. However, I do not believe this is actually what Kant meant, and in this chapter I will explain why I believe this and attempt to elucidate exactly what Kant meant when he talked about duty, and the implications this has for our conception of pleasure. For Kant, an action can only have moral worth (i.e. be virtuous) if and only if it is done from duty, for dutys sake. So, in order to understand exactly when we can claim under Kants theory that we are being virtuous, we need to understand exactly how we are meant to do our duty, and to do this, we need to examine the categorical imperative. Although Kant does state that there is only one categorical imperative, ‘he offers three different formulas of that law (Sullivan 1989: 149) so sometimes in philosophy the term is used more generally to describe these three formulas (and their associated examples) as a whole, rather than just the first formula by itself. Kant states that ‘there is, therefore, only a single categorical imperative (Kant 1987: 4:421), but what is it, and how does he come to this conclusion? As I mentioned before, any categorical imperative must be synthetic because defining our morality depends on being able to formulate a synthetic a priori principle. A synthetic principle adds something new to our knowledge, and if it is also a priori, it means that this new knowledge does not depend on experience we are able to deduce this synthetic principle independently of any particular experience; we are able to deduce it by examining what we already know to be true about the world. This is because, for Kant, moral judgements are based on how the world ought to be, not how it is, so we cannot depend on our experiences of the world as it is to show us how the world should instead be. Morality cannot be based on experience, because we need an ethical theory that is capable of telling us what we should do, even in entirely n ew circumstances. The categorical imperative is essentially a law, because while everything in the world is subject to the laws of nature, only rational beings possess autonomy, possess a â€Å"(free) will†, so are capable of choosing to act according to any given law. ‘The idea of an objective principle in so far as it is compelling to the will, is called a command of reason, and the formula of the command is called an imperative. (Russell 2007: 644) Therefore, a theory of practical morality would be a theory of commands about how to act according to certain laws. A theory of morality would be a theory consisting of imperatives. Kant refers to his categorical imperative as the only one, because ‘logically there can be only one ultimate moral law [although] each of the three formulas emphasizes a different aspect of the same moral law (Sullivan 1989: 49). The aim of the Groundwork is to prove that such a principle (what Kant calls the categorical imperative) does exist. Such a principle would be the supreme principle of morality (Kant 1997: 4:392), in other words, the categorical imperative is synonymous with morality. Kant describes the categorical imperative, through three different formulas. The first is the formula of the universal law ‘act only in accordance with the maxim through which you can at the same time will that it become a universal law (Kant 1997: 4:421). This law is Kants ‘single categorical imperative (Kant 1997: 4:421); however this is not exactly what our duty is, since the ‘universality of law in accordance with which effects take place constitutes what is properly called nature. (Kant 1997: 4:421). This means that in order for something to be our duty, it must be determined in accordance with universal laws, because duty is not subjective to each individual, but is something that is the same fo r all rational beings, in so far as we are rational. This means that our duty can and should be phrased as: ‘act as if the maxim of your action were to become by your will a universal law of nature. (Kant 1997: 4:421). Kant uses four examples

Integrated Marketing Communications Starbucks Essay

Starbucks key of success is the ability to change the concept consumers had about drinking coffee. With more than 6000 outlets across the world (2003 numbers) and the intention of increasing them in the near future, the company has transformed coffee into a lifestyle accessory with as much elegance as the latest fashion. However, their way to success was not so easy and if we go back in 1971, we will find that coffee didn’t look like it was a great business. There were no signs of getting better, either. Coffee consumption in the United States had peaked in the 1960s, but by 1971 it was on the decline. Most Americans drank something called â€Å"coffee† that came ground up very finely in vacuum-sealed tins. Nevertheless, there was appeared tiny Seattle based chain with innovative idea of how to do business that in a few years changed the vision about the process of drinking coffee not only in USA but worldwide. Starbucks has evolved into a great success due to their imp lementation of Integrated Marketing Communications. What is integrated marketing communication? For many, IMC is concerned with the harmonization of customer oriented promotional messages. Duncan and Everett (1993) suggest IMC has been referred variously as orchestration, whole egg and seamless communication. It is regarded by some as a means of combining the tools of the promotional mix in a more efficient and synergistic manner. Increasingly IMC is seen to include all consistent interactions a stakeholder has with an organization (Shultz and Schults 1998) and therefore any definition needs to include or refer to concepts such added value, relationship marketing, corporate blending and with it, the blending of internal and external communications. One of the primary motivations why Starbucks moved towards IMC was the reduction in costs that it was possible to realize through this approach. The rise in some media costs, most notably television through 1990s, the proliferation of media opportunities and the splintering of audiences has led to a reappraisal of the communications strategies used by organizations and a reformulation of their promotional and media mixes. By reducing their reliance on above-the-line media and by attempting to move towards the use of media-neutral mixes to deliver consistent messages that cut through the increasing clutter, Starbucks has moved, if unintentionally, towards some  form of integrated marketing communication activity. Agreeing a definition of IMC is proving elusive but one of the more popular, simple and intrinsically satisfying views of IMC is that the messages conveyed by each of the promotional tools should be harmonised in order that audiences perceive a consistent image of a product or organisation. One interpretation of this perspective is that the key visual triggers (design, colours, form and tag line) used in advertising should be replicated across the range of promotional tools used, including Point-of-Purchase (POP) and the sales force. At another level IMC is about the integration of some of the promotional tools. One such combination is the closer alliance of advertising with public relations. Increasing audience fragmentation means that it is more difficult to locate target audiences and communicate with them in a meaningful way. By utilising the power of public relations to stimulate word-of-mouth communication about brands and advertisements. Basically, we see that Starbucks’ success was built on two things: the store experience (Starbucks’ image) and the quality of its product – it really is a better cup of coffee The first one is so sacred that on Starbucks employees initiative the chain even prohibited smoking in its stores in Vienna, where cigarettes and coffee are inseparable, because Starbucks doesn’t want anything to interfere with the seductive scent of fresh-brewed espresso. That’s why top-management of Starbucks deeply believed that employees make the store that they work in. A Starbucks employee needed to be very knowledgeable, communicative, and helpful to the customers. Customers need to know the difference in the new roasted coffee Starbucks will offer. Well-educated employees will surely handle this requirement. Starbucks need to use strong cultural incentives to drive the identification of opportunities. In Starbucks all employees are called â€Å"partners,† signaling a level of responsibility maintained by few companies with sales in the billions of dollars. Anyone who has an idea uses a one-page form to pass it to the senior executive team–and gets a response. When the company pursues an idea, its author, regardless of tenure or title, is typically invited to  join the launch team as a full-time member. New-style marketing organizations, by contrast, hire marketers not for jobs but for two broad kinds of roles: those of integrators and specialists. Integrators are marketers with broad skills who coordinate the delivery of products and services to the market from beginning to end. Specialists–more narrowly focused marketers with specialized skills–can be mobilized quickly to provide the particular expertise a given opportunity team requires. Starbucks is one of them and finding its way of capturing the market it will surely pay high attention to the recruitment process. If communications are to be used effectively then there is a need to communicate aspects of the direction in which the organisation intends moving and how it intends to achieve this. In other words, the business philosophy and its aims and objectives, often expressed formally through mission and vision statements, need to be communicated to particular audiences in a way that is synchronised and co-ordinated with the organisation’s other communication activities. At a strategic level IMC has at its roots the overall business strategy of the organisation. Using Porter’s (1980) Generic Strategies, if a low cost strategy is being pursued then it makes sense to complement the strategy by using messages that either stress any price advantage that customers might benefit from or at least do not suggest extravagance or luxury. If using a differentiation focus strategy (e.g. Waitrose) then price should not figure in any of the messages and greater emphasis should be placed on particular attributes that enable clear positioning. In case of Starbucks mission sounds like this:†Establish Starbucks as the premier purveyor of the finest coffee in the world while maintaining our uncompromising principles as we grow†. The development of the mission statement was the start of the company’s marketing management initiative. Starbucks overall objective in the eye’s of the leaders was defined. This mission does not want to jeopardize the quality, ambiance, or service due to expansion into a global marketplace. Besides writing a mission, Starbucks has outlined their guiding principles, which they follow in their business: 1.Provide a great work environment and treat each other with respect and dignity; 2.Embrace diversity as an essential component in the way we do business; 3.Apply the highest standards of excellence to the purchasing, roasting, and fresh delivery of our coffee; 4.Develop enthusiastically satisfied customers all of the time; 5.Contribute positively to our communities and our environment; 6.Recognize that profitability is essential to our future success. There can be little doubt that the elements of the marketing mix, however configured, also communicate (Smith 1996). The price and associated values; the product, in terms of the quality, design and tangible attributes; the manner and efficiency of the service delivery people, and where and how it is made available, for example the location, retailer/dealer reputation and overall service quality, are brand identity cues with which recipients develop associations and images, which in turn through time may shape brand reputations. It is suggested, therefore, that IMC cannot be achieved just by saying the same message through a variety of promotional tools. Effective communication underpins the stability and quality of relationships. While the origins of IMC might be found in the inadequacies of the prevailing structural conditions, an understanding of what IMC is or should be, is far from being resolved and is evolving as the industry matures. The elements involved in IMC are many and numerous. Depending upon the perspective an individual might adopt, those elements might range from a simple configuration of the promotional mix through to a fully integrated and culturally driven mission and corporate strategy. Starbucks chose the second one (Product Concept) and their success over the past 25 years has a lot to do with the quality of the product, which has attracted a loyal and growing following among consumers. The retail strategy has been to put a coffee shop on every corner and to make fresh-brewed coffee by selling only the highest-quality products and charging a premium price. However, the product mix has changed significantly over the years, with beans accounting for about 15% of the chain’s sales and company needs to remember this entering the Russia market. Meanwhile, Starbucks is expanding its offerings, with a line of ice cream for supermarkets and a joint venture with Pepsi Cola to market Frappuccino. At the same time, the company continues to develop sales in alternative outlets, including foodservice and non-traditional retail sites as United Airlines, Holland America cruise line, Seattle Kingdome, an Alliance with Barnes & Noble bookstores, among others. Stoking the niche for seasonal drinks, Starbucks added caramel apple cider and white chocolate mocha just in time for the holiday and winter months. This year’s lineup of new summer beverages will be announced in a few weeks. The last cornerstone of the marketing strategy of Starbucks is clustering. The company locates stores within close proximity in the world and it should do it the same way in Russia. Clustering is becoming important because company’s objective is to become a household name and it can be reached by fierce expansion and high coverage. Starbucks must open their doors and be in the Russian market before anyone else. This would give them a great fist-mover advantage. Once consumers experienced Starbucks service, quality coffee, and ambiance of their stores there would be a great switching cost for the consumer to go anywhere else. The success of becoming a household name worldwide is now close to reality. The company received very high profits. However, Schultz measured his success by not compromising Starbucks ideals to maximize profit and was doing it very successfully. To keep up with this expansion Starbucks opened three manufacturing plants to relieve itself of the large transportation and storage costs. This decision really improved Starbucks’ distribution of the product. Starbucks could now distribute faster, fresher, and more product to many more of their stores. The plants also allowed them to enter the supermarket coffee sales industry  in the spring of 1998 and will allow to dominate in the Russian market. To accomplish the goal of being a household name brand coffee in Russia, Starbucks should choose to implement an expansionary strategy (as they are doing in any other country). Starbucks should use the first-mover element to jump in and gain consumer loyalty. With its fierce expansion, Starbucks should try to open new stores at a rate of more than one per day. This strategy will allow Starbucks to enter a Russian market and win consumer loyalty before anyone else can. After visiting a Starbucks, switching costs for the consumer will be extremely high due to the great service and quality that Starbucks can assure. Their decision to open three manufacturing plants to distribute their product more efficiently was essential to accomplish this strategy. Prior to these new plants it was difficult and costly to deliver the quality of the product. Starbucks saved a great deal of money by using this new distribution method. They no longer have to pay for the shipping and storage of the product. With Starbucks expanding globally, the only adjustment they might want to consider is a plant overseas to help distribution there. The decision to enter the supermarket coffee sales market was a huge step for household recognition in USA and they probably should do this in Russia. Two thirds of the world’s coffee is sold in stores for home consumption. Not only will they be able to reach millions of coffee consumers, but also this will ensure a great distribution channel that will help lock out some potential competitors. Consumers can now enjoy great quality coffee at home or by stopping in a local store. This is a key step in ensuring that Starbucks becomes a household brand name. The only adjustment Starbucks must consider is that they are in a new industry with huge competitors such as Maxwell House, Folgers, and many others. Starbucks must make sure that the organization stays with its mission statement. In accomplishing the market development strategy of promoting the company’s range of services to a wider audience the work group fitted to the theory of the Kotler’ marketing mix. Hence the allocation of the 4 P’s, product, price, place and promotion. Having determined the desired markets that the company would compete in the next step was organising a promotional strategy in these area. Following the apportionment of a marketing budget discussions were held in order to decide the best way of using this allocation. In this idea of market development the company would attempt to sell its range of services to a wider market. Starbucks should have a unique promotional strategy in Russia:  ·Only $300,000 million on advertising annually;  ·Relies on ubiquity and word of mouth;  ·In comparison, McDonald’s spends $3-4 million annually in Russia;  ·No commercials on TV The price as regards building contracting is largely determined by the amount of margin to be added to the build up of the estimate for the project. Price is almost always considered as being the single most important factor for the client as 99% of contracts are let to the lowest bidder. â€Å"The setting of the correct price is of enormous importance in marketing – both in getting the product accepted by the target market, and in generating sufficient revenue for the organisation.† Starbucks pricing policy is also unique. It’s expensive. In USA you’ll pay about $2 for a regular coffee and $3-4 for a specialty one. In the Russian market the numbers will differ but the point will stay the same (expensive). As for place, there is one good phrase about it: â€Å"Starbucks is caffinateing the world† (5,689 stores in 28 countries. And the product itself is always been paid high attention by Starbucks. â€Å"The aroma of our coffee is one of our competitive advantages; it is one of our products, † says Mr. Hong, manager of Chineese Starbucks division. â€Å"You cannot have a complete Starbucks experience if you have smoky air. We need to win people over on  the importance of aroma. Nevertheless, before entering the Russian market Starbucks need to realize that there were some pitfalls: 1.Although Russian marketers evidence the trend of increasing coffee consumption in Russia, more than 50% of population prefer to drink tea and don’t like coffee, at all. 2.The volume of Russian coffee imports is equal to 100,000 tonnes (2003) and will increase 10-20% per year basing a good economic situation to Russia 3.Most Russian coffee drinkers use instant or soluble coffee, with this category accounting for 76 percent of imports. 4.Of coffee drinkers, 91 percent drink both coffee and tea with only nine percent drinking only coffee, he said. Coffee drinking is concentrated in European Russia and the south near Turkey and Armenia, which have strong coffee traditions 5.Even with the increase in imports this year, Russia’s per capita consumption of coffee will only be 650 grams, compared with four kg in Brazil and 10 kg in Scandinavia However, if look at Chinese market, which has like Russian one a history of drinking tea and low level of coffee consumption and see how it all changed after Starbucks entered the market, we may assume that the same situation will repeat with the Russian market because of Starbucks power of brand. In order for Starbucks to become a brand name in Russia, they must not stray from the strategy they set forth in the past. Their commitment to the mission statement, their employees, and expansion is what got them where they are. To stray from these ideals would prove tragic in their goal of world recognition. In order for Starbucks to develop in Russia they must remember the success factors they used in the United States. Should  Starbucks stay loyal to their own beliefs they can only grow bigger. With stores opening all the time in new markets, Starbucks’ greatest challenge is managing its phenomenal growth. Their market is affluent, conscientious and discriminating. They want to know what Starbucks is giving back to the communities they infiltrate and markets they dominate. Starbucks is not a perfect company. But it is a company who has managed to make the voyage to success without compromising key principles of the guiding vision. The voyage ahead is more treacherous. Will Starbucks be able to maintain the integrity of its vision. I hope so. References: 1.www.starbucks.com 2.Kevin Lane Keller, â€Å"The Brand Report Card,† Harvard Business Review, 78:1 (January-February 2000): 147-157 3.Ralf Leszinski and Michael V. Marn, â€Å"Setting Value Not Price,† The McKinsey Quarterly, 1 (1997): 99-115 4.Paul Betts and John Thornhill, â€Å"Starbucks steams into Italy,† Financial Times, October 22, 2000, p. 7. Story is on Starbucks entering the Milan market 5.Niraj Dawar and Amitava Chattopadhyay, â€Å"The new language of emerging markets,† in â€Å"Mastering Management,† Financial Times, November 13, 2000, pp. 6-7 6.Ralf Leszinski and Michael V. Marn, â€Å"Setting Value Not Price,† The McKinsey Quarterly, 1 (1997): 99-115 7.Olson, Dave. â€Å"A Passion For Coffee† Starbucks: A Passion For Coffee. Menlo Park: Sunset Publishing Corp.,1994, pp. 8, 9, 13 8.Olson, Dave. â€Å"Plantation to Cup† Starbucks: A Passion For Coffee. Menlo Park: Sunset Publishing Corp.,1994, pp. 16-19, 22. 9.Suicaorich, John and Winster, Stephen. â€Å"The Coffee Book – A Connoisseur’s Guide to Gourmet Coffee†. London: Prentice Hall International, Inc., 1976, pp. 97-107 10.Mintz, Sidney W. â€Å"The changing roles of food in the study of consumption.† Consumption and the World of Goods eds. John Brewer and Roy Porter, 261-73. London: Routledge, 1993 11.Jay Belt, â€Å"Wired Angels Espresso Cafe† Hanford, California, February 26, 1999 12.Rice, Paul D. Market opportunity assessment for Fair Trade Coffee. Prepared for Transfair USA, February 1997

Assingments 2012-2013

ASSINGMENTS 2012-2013 Marketing Studies (1 year, Diploma) 1 BUSINESS ENGLISH Assignment 1 a) Luis St. Jean is a famous design house in France with annual sales of $1. 2 billion in clothing, perfume, scarves, and other designer items. Each year it prepares more than 150 original designs for its seasonal collections. As head buyer for Cindy’s, an upscale women’s clothing store at the Mall of America in Minneapolis, you think you might like to start offering the LSJ’s line of perfume. You need to know more about pricing, types of perfume offered, minimum ordering quantities, and marketing assistance p rovided by LSJ.You would also like to know if you can have exclusive marketing rights to LSJ perfumes in the Minneapolis area and whether you would have to carry LSJ’s complete line (you don’t think the most expensive perfumes would be big sellers in your area). Write to Mr. Henri Vixier, License Supervisor, Luis St. Jean, 90513 Cergy, Pointoise Cedex, Fr ance, seeking answers to your questions. Your answer should be in a letter format requesting the necessary product information. You can make up all the necessary details. b) You are the marketing manager of a company selling electronic goods.You are having a meeting with the board directors for introducing some new products in the Cypriot market. You need to prepare an agenda for the meeting and send that agenda to the board of directors in the form of a memo. In your answer, include all the necessary details you think are essential. 2 Format: (a) Letter (b) Memo, approx. 2000 words (in total), produced on a laser printer Deadline: 14th December 2012 (No assignment will be accepted after this date) 3 Assignment 2 You are an external consultant for an airline company.You have been hired to assess the current declining customer numbers and provide advice to the company. Develop a report to be handed to the CEO including new ways/techniques to promote the company in both local and inte rnational markets. In your answer you should include examples to support your arguments taking into account the current competitive market, where the flight destinations for Cyprus are increasing as new airlines enter the Cypriot market. Format: Essay Type, 2000 words, produced on a laser printer Deadline: 12th April 2013 (No assignment will be accepted after this date) 4 BUSINESS ORGANISATIONAssignment 1 The group is to analyse a case study and prepare posters around identifying: three key OB issues in the case relevant OB theories for each of the OB issues recommendations for action to improve each of the three issues. The case study will be distributed during Week 5 of the module. Your seminar group will be asked to form syndicate groups of 5 people to develop answers to the case. Your poster group may use words, diagrams, drawings, images and cartoons on the posters to make your key points. The poster presentation will take place during Week 8 at a time and place notified by the tutors in week 8.There will be limited time for your group to work together in seminars and you may decide to meet outside of formal teaching times and communicate by phone, e-mail, conference calls and social networking sites. Each group member must complete a ‘Peer Review Sheet’. This is an assessment by each member of a group on every other group member. It requires objective skills to critically assess the contribution of other members in your group. Your ‘Peer Review Sheet’ must be given to your seminar group tutor during the poster presentation session.A example of the ‘Peer Review Sheet’ follows the Poster Presentations Marking Criteria. The poster presentation will be marked against the assessment criteria shown and individual marks adjusted taking into account the Peer Review. Work will be double marked and externally moderated in accordance with the University regulations. Assessment criterion 5 requires evidence in the form of agend as and minutes for meetings held by the group together with a one page analysis of 5 the group working process. This should be submitted to your seminar group tutor on the poster presentation day together with your ‘Peer Review Sheets’.Please note: All members of your group MUST be present and prepared to answer any question stimulated by your poster from both the tutors and fellow students. Any person who is absent will receive a mark of zero for this assessment and fail the module. Deadline: 14th December 2012 (No assignment will be accepted after this date) 6 BUSINESS ORGANISATION Assignment 2 The final reflective report requires you to identify how you have applied OB theory, learned in the module, to develop your knowledge and skills in working with others.You are to identify three issues, or topics, from the OB module where you can identify relevant experience to which you can apply OB theory. The experiences may be from your studies, from work, or from social gro ups or clubs to which you belong. For each of your three topics you are to identify relevant experience and select and apply appropriate OB theory to those experiences. You should evaluate the theory in analysing what happened and in guiding future action. To help you plan your final report you are to submit a proposal that forms part of the Groups and Teams portfolio. The proposal should be no more than 150 words.Also a list of at least five academic references you intend to use, in Harvard format, should be provided. The final report should be a business report of 1500 words. Actual word count should be specified on the cover page of your report and outside +/ 10% will incur a penalty of 10%. References and any appendices should not be included in the word count. Deadline: 12th April 2013 (No assignment will be accepted after this date) 7 COMMERCIAL LAW Assignment 1 a) P, a car salesman, is advertising one of his cars, made by Ferrari for sale at the price of 50000 Euro in the new spaper.N sees the advertisement and calls to P offering him 40000 Euro. P rejects N’s offer and tells N that he would be willing to discuss an offer for 45000 Euro. N agrees on the price but under the condition that P proves to her that the car is indeed a genuine Ferrari. P promises to disclose all necessary documents in the next 3 weeks. N agrees and waits. 2 weeks later N discovers that P has sold the car to C for 50000 Euro. Advise N. b) Why is Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co (1893) a very important case? Format: Essay, approx. 2000 words (in total), produced on a laser printer Deadline: 14th December 2012 No assignment will be accepted after this date) 8 COMMERCIAL LAW Assignment 2 ‘Corporate personality refers to the fact that as far as the law is concerned a company really exists. As a result of this a company can sue and be sued in its own name, hold property under its own name and most importantly be liable for its own debts. ’ Discuss Format: Essay Typ e, 2000 words, produced on a laser printer Deadline: 12th April 2013 (No assignment will be accepted after this date) 9 ECONOMICS Assignment 1 Analyse the Production Possibilities Frontier (PPF) and explain how it illustrates the main economic concepts of scarcity and opportunity cost.Format: Essay Type, 2000 words, produced on a laser printer Deadline: 14th December 2012 (No assignment will be accepted after this date) 10 ECONOMICS Assignment 2 Given the table below: a) Draw the demand and supply curves and show equilibrium. b) Demonstrate the shift due to the increase in quantity demanded on the same graph, illustrating clearly the new equilibrium. c) Analyse the factors that may cause a shift of the demand curve, both inwards and outwards. d) Analyse the factors that may lead to an inward or outward shift of the supply curve. ) Discuss the laws of demand and supply. f) Analyse the theory behind a movement along the 2 curves or a shift of the curves. Demand 1 Quantity Price 65 EUR 2. 60 78 EUR 2. 30 98 EUR 1. 95 124 EUR 1. 63 156 EUR 1. 30 Demand 2 Quantity Price 52 EUR 2. 60 65 EUR 2. 30 85 EUR 1. 95 111 EUR 1. 63 143 EUR 1. 30 Supply 1 Quantity Price 65 EUR 1. 56 78 EUR 1. 69 98 EUR 1. 95 124 EUR 2. 23 156 EUR 2. 80 Format: Applied Essay Type, approx. 2000 words, produced on a laser printer Deadline: 12th April 2013 (No assignment will be accepted after this date) 11 MARKETING MANAGEMENTAssignment 1 The Body Shop – good luck or good marketing? The body Shop may have grown rapidly during the 1970s and 1980s, but its founder, the late Dame Anita Roddick publicly dismissed the role of marketing. Roddick ridiculed marketers for putting the interests of shareholders before the needs of society. She had a similarly low opinion of the financial community, which she referred to as ‘merchant wankers’. While things were going well, nobody seemed to mind. Maybe Roddick had found a new way of doing business, and if she had the results to prove it, who needed marketers?But how could even such an icon as Anita Roddick manage indefinitely without consulting the fundamental principles of marketing? By embracing ethical issues, was she way ahead of her rivals in understanding the public mood, long before the major retailers piled into Fairtrade and ‘green’ products? Or did the troubles that the Body Shop suffer in the late 1990s indicate that a company may publicly dismiss the value of marketing while the going is good, but sooner or later it will have to come back to earth with good old-fashioned marketing plans? Roddick had been the dynamo behind the Body Shop.From her first shop, which opened in Brighton in 1976, she inspired the growth of the chain of familiar green-fronted shops, which in 2006 comprised 2,100 stores in 55 countries around the world. She was the first to introduce socially and environmentally responsible business onto the High Street and was talking about fair trade long before it became a popular corporate buzzword. Her pioneering products included naturally based skin and hair preparations, such as Fuzzy Peach Bath and Shower Gel and Brazil Nut Conditioner. Her timing was impeccable, coming just at a time when increasingly affluent consumers were 12 ecoming concerned about animal testing and the use of chemicals in cosmetics. She had gone down the classic market route of understanding consumer trends and then developing the appropriate products with the right positioning. She simply had a passion for humanely produced cosmetics and was just luc ky with her timing – more consumers were coming round to her view just as she was launching her business. As for planning a promotion campaign, she did not really need to do very much at all. With her boundless energy, outspoken views, and unorthodox dress sense, she was continually being talked about in the media.Her flair for publicity won free editorial space for the Body Shop worth millions of pounds. Much of the companyà ¢â‚¬â„¢s success has been tied up with its campaigning approach to the pursuit of social and environmental issues; but while Roddick campaigned for everything from battered wives and Siberian tigers to the poverty-stricken mining communities of southern Appalachia, the company was facing major problems in its key markets. Yet until the late 1990s, she boasted that the Body Shop had never been used, or needed, marketing.By the late 1990s the Body Shop seemed to be running out of steam, with sales plateauing and the company’s share price falling – from 370p in 1992 to just 65p in 2003. What was previously unique about the Body Shop was now being copied by others, for example, the Boots company matched one of the Body Shop’s earliest claims that it did not test its products on animals. Even the very feel of a Body Shop store – including its decor, staff, and product displays – had been copied by competitors. How could the company stay ahead in terms o f maintaining its distinctive positioning?It causes seemed to be increasingly remote from the real concerns of shoppers. Whilst most UK shoppers may have been swayed by a company’s unique claim to protect animals, how many would be moved by its support for Appalachian miners? If there was a Boots or a Superdrug store next door, why should a buyer pay a premium price to buy from the Body Shop? The Body Shop may have pioneered a very clever retailing formula over 20 years earlier, but, just as the product range had been successfully copied by others, other companies had made enormous strides in terms of their social and environmental awareness.Part of the problem of the Body Shop was its failure fully to understand the dynamics of its marketplace. Positioning on the basis of good causes may have been enough to launch the company into the public’s mind in the 1970s, but how could this position be sustained? Many commentators blamed the Body Shop’s problems on the i nability of Roddick to delegate. She is reported to have spent much of her time globetrotting in support of her good causes, but had a problem in delegating marketing strategy and implementation. Numerous strong managers who had 13 een brought in to try to implement professional management practices apparently gave up in bewilderment at the lack of discretion that they had been given, and then left. The Body Shop’s experience in America had typified Roddick’s pioneering style which frequently ignored sound marketing analysis. She sought a new way of doing business in America, but in doing so dismissed the experience of older and more sophisticated retailers – such as Marks & Spencer and the Sock Shop, which came unstuck in what is a very difficult market.The Body Shop decided to enter the US markets not through a safe option such as a joint venture or a franchising agreement, but instead by setting up its own operation from scratch – fine, according to Ro ddick’s principle of changing the rulebook and cutting out the greedy American business community, but dangerously risky. Her store format was based on the British town-centre model, despite the fact that Americans spend most of their money in out-of-town malls. In 1996 the US operations lost ? 3. 4 million. Roddick’s critics claimed that she had a naive view of herself, her company, and business generally.She had consistently argued that profits and principles do not mix, despite the fact that many of her financially successful competitors have been involved in major social initiatives. Critics claimed that, had Roddick not dismissed the need for marketing for so long, the Body Shop could have avoided future problems; but by the early 2000s it was paying the price for not having devoted sufficient resources to new product development, to innovation, to refreshing its ranges, and to moving the business forward in a competitive market and fast-changing business environm ent.It seemed the heroes can change the rulebook when the tide is flowing with them; but adopting the disciplines of marketing allows companies to anticipate and react when the tide begins to turn against them. The year 2006 turned out to be a turning point for the Body Shop. In that year, the cosmetics giant L’Oreal acquired the company for ? 652 million. L’Oreal was part owned by Nestle, and both companies had suffered long disputes with ethical campaigners.L’Oreal had been the subject of boycotts because of its involvement in animal testing, and Nestle had been criticized for its treatment of third-world producers. Ethical Consumer magazine, which rates companies’ ethics on its ‘Ethiscore’, immediately down-rated the Body Shop from a rating of 11 to 2. 5 out of 20, following the takeover by L’Oreal. A contributor to the magazine commented about the Body Shop. I for one will certainly not be shopping there again and I urge other cons umers concerned about ethical issues to follow my example. There are plenty of other higher scoring ethical companies out there. 14Not be to outdone, Roddick dismissed claims that she was ‘selling out to the devil’ by arguing that she would be able to use her influence to change L’Ore al from inside the company. Suppliers who had formerly worked with the Body Shop would in future have contracts with L’Oreal, and through an agreement to work with the company for 25 days a year, Roddick would be able to have an input into its ethical sourcing decisions. It seemed that the Body Shop was destined to become a safe, predictable company, carrying out marketing in more of the textbook fashion that had allowed its new owners to grow steadily but surely over the years.Maybe the missionary zeal had long ago gone out of the Body Shop, so perhaps having new owners who placed less emphasis on ethics would not be too great a price to pay in return for bringing the huge w ealth of marketing experience of L’Oreal to the Body Shop. Part of the marketing experience of L’Oreal led it to believe Body Shop as an independent brand and to respect its trusted heritage. It was aware that ecological concerns were rapidly rising up mainstream consumers’ concerns, and having Roddick on board would not only be good for PR, it could also change mindsets with L’Oreal more generally.Roddick died soon after selling out to L’Oreal and her obituaries agreed that she had made a difference to the world. She certainly had put enormous energy into her mission and had been lucky with her timing. However, critics were more divided on whether she was a good marketer for the long haul; after all, its relatively easy to make money when the tide is going with you and your luck is in, but much more difficult to manage a changing a nd increasingly saturated marketing environment.Like many entrepreneurs who have been good at creating things, but no t so good at maintaining them, was it simply time for Roddick to hand over to classically trained marketers who could rise to this challenge? Case study review questions 1. Critically assess the extent to which you consider the Body Shop to be a truly marketing-oriented organization throughout its 30+ years’ history. (50%) 2. What are the basic lessons in marketing that the Body Shop might have taken on board in its early years in order to improve its chances of long-term success? (50%) 15Format: Essay Type, 2000 words, produced on a laser printer Deadline: 14th December 2012 (No assignment will be accepted after this date) 16 MARKETING MANAGEMENT Assignment 2 To be handed out later Format: Essay Type, approx. 2000 words, produced on a laser printer Deadline: 12th April 2013 (No assignment will be accepted after this date) 17 STATISTICS Assignment 1 The assignment is a development of the activities from Chapters 1 and 2 of the workbook. It consists of: (a) A short presentatio n made by groups of 2 or (maximum) 3 students based upon one of the research activities from chapter 1.This will take place during the tutorials in week 5 (week commencing 29th October) and will account for 25% of the marks for the assignment. (b) An individual report of around 1200 words submitted by each student. This will account for the remaining 75% of the marks for the assignment. The handing -in deadline for this is 19th November. Tasks: 1. After forming groups of 2 or maximum 3 students, firstly you need to agree with yo ur RBD tutor which topic you are going to research from section 1. 9 of the RBD workbook. Within a seminar group, each group of 2/3 students will research a different topic. . During your tutorial of week 5, you will present the basic facts that you have discovered to the rest of your tutorial group. This will involve an explanation of what you are researching, how you have chosen to answer the question (for some of the activities there are various ways of m easuring the results), and what your findings are. You should use visual aids e. g. slides, to help your presentation. The individual report involves a discussion of the findings in your own words plus some further research and thought: 18 3.Use the data you have collected to answer the research question chosen by your group i. e. report on what you have discovered. Basically you are repeating here, in your own words, the things that were mentioned in your group’s presentation. 4. By conducting some further research from published sources, try and give an explanation for the results i. e. answering the question ‘why? ’. For example, if you were asked to produce some figures on crime, you might try to explain the reasons why the figures have changed over the years, or why they are higher in certain places or amongst certain groups of people.By researching the relevant sources describe how the data were originally collected, including the sampling procedure where r elevant. For example, if the figures were derived from the Opinions and Lifestyle Survey, you would be expected to obtain some information about this survey. Discuss any potential sources of error in the figures, such as response errors and errors caused by non-response. 5. Learning Outcomes The following learning outcomes are being assessed: Collect data using primary and secondary sources. Describe the procedures involved when conducting a sample survey.Communicate findings using appropriate business formats. Allocation of marks: Presentation: 25 marks See the handout on Blackboard (filename Presentation assessment 2012 -13. docx) for an indication of what the assessors are looking for in the presentation. The content of the presentation carries a higher weighting than the style. Individual Report: Clarity of expression, use of English, grammar Answering the research question Further research into reasons behind the results, influential factors etc. Discussion of sampling procedur es and non-sampling errors. 10 marks 25 marks 20 marks 20 marksAdditional Information: Group sizes are 2 or 3. Four people = 2 groups i. e. 2 different topics. Failure to attend the presentation will result in a mark of zero out of 25. 19 An assessors’ report for this type of assignment is also available on Blackboard (filename RBD assessment feedback. docx). Deadline: 14th December 2012 (No assignment will be accepted after this date. 20 STATISTICS Assignment 2 QUESTION 1 CALCULATE: 8 P 3 8 P 4 7 P 6 6 P 1 8 C 3 7 C 5 6 C 2 5 C 0 5. 9 10. 4 5. 7 6. 2 10. 7 11. 7 6. 8 11. 5 13. 1 7. 1 11. 6 13. 6 7. 8 8. 2 8. 1 4. 4 QUESTION 2 12. 3 9. 9 9. 0 a. b. c. . e. f. 5. 8 10. 1 10. 0 8. 3 12. 9 8. 8 6. 7 9. 2 7. 9 9. 4 8. 4 Find the maximum Find the minimum Find the mode Calculate the arithmetic mean Calculate the geometric mean of: 5. 3 and 7. 8 and 10. 4 If the mean family size is 4. 75 what is the total population of a city of 25000 families? QUESTION 3 If the mean rate of arrival in a restaurant is 10 customers per hour, what is the probability of having 4 customers arriving in any hour? 21 QUESTION 4 Defects Workers 0-2 7 3-5 9 6-8 10 9-11 8 12-14 11 15-17 6 18-20 5 21-23 8 24-26 7 a. Calculate the arithmetic mean b. Calculate the median . Calculate the standard deviation QUESTION 5 Listed below are the commissions earned ($000) last year by the sales representatives at the Furniture Patch, Inc. $3. 9, $5. 7, $7. 3, $10. 6, $13. 0, $13. 6, $15. 1, $15. 8, $17. 1, $17. 4, $17. 6, $22. 3, $38. 6, $43. 2, $87. 7 a. Compute the Pearson’s skewness coefficients. b. What is your conclusion regarding the skewness of the data QUESTION 6 A box contains 20 balls of which 2 are red, 5 are black, 5 are blue and 8 are green. A ball is drawn at random from the box; the color is marked each time and then placed back in the box.The experiment repeated three times. Find the probability that: (i) All are red. (ii) Neither is black. (iii) One black, one is blue and one red. (iv) At least one red. 22 QUESTION 7 Find the correlation between the 2 stock prices for the period given. Draw a graph showing the correlation between the two stocks and briefly explain your answer. Day 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Stock A 12. 4 12. 5 12. 9 12. 1 11. 8 12. 3 11. 4 11. 0 10. 4 10. 4 10. 8 10. 1 10. 2 9. 4 Stock B 31. 0 31. 4 30. 4 30. 0 28. 7 28. 9 29. 2 27. 8 27. 0 27. 2 26. 9 26. 2 25. 0 25. 7QUESTION 8 A company wants to estimate the relationship between its country’s quarterly Growth Domestic Product (GDP) and quarterly net income margin ((Net Income/Sales)*100). Calculate the intercept and the slope and explain the relationship. Quarter GDP % 1 2. 4 2 2. 1 3 2. 0 4 1. 8 1 0. 9 2 1. 3 3 1. 9 4 1. 8 1 2. 3 2 2. 9 3 2. 1 4 2. 2 NI margin % 0. 32 0. 78 0. 67 0. 44 0. 91 1. 10 0. 80 0. 87 0. 78 1. 3 0. 83 0. 84 23 Format: Practical/Calculations, produced on a laser printer Deadline: 12th April 2013 (No assignment will be accepted after this date) 24