Global Marketing Management Case Study Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 2000 words

Global Marketing Management - Case Study ExampleSecond, following the give out of the Soviet Union, a premium and super-premium quality segment was virtually absent in the Russian vodka market imported brands like Finland and Absolute were simply unaffordable (Grigorian). Consequentially, Russian archetype was positioned to occupy a market segment, which was mostly free of competitors but offered unlimited brand expansion opportunities. Eventually, Russian Standard vodka did not me avow rely on its superior quality but sought to sustain a prestigious name and brand image in this way, Russian Vodka brand would perplex appealing to both groups of customers those who respected its quality and those, who were fascinated with its prestige (Grigorian). Unfortunately, brand placement of Russian Standard vodka in Russia was not without controversy. The numerous attributes of the Russian Standard brand failed to create a complete and comprehensible picture of its most advantageous featur es. Simply stated, the brand message sent to customers fell short of comprehensibility customers could not understand what exactly Russian Standard vodka was and would become if they chose to drink it. Furthermore, with the emphasis on the historical traditions and orientation toward the future, the denote and brand positioning guide for Russian Standard failed to develop a sense of pride in Russian consumers (Grigorian). Many of them reported difficulties with understanding the Russian Standard brand and its key message. Many others felt that, instead of priding the legacy of vodka traditions in Russia, the Russian Standard campaign sacrificed historical traditions for the sake of progress (Grigorian). Finally, Russian Standard brand positioning campaigns failed to communicate a message of prestige for this reason, most advertising campaigns were prematurely terminated. Nonetheless, Russian Standard vodka remains one of the most competitive brands in the Russian market. Russian Standard demonstrates a number of competitive advantages. First, the quality of its vodka is difficult to overestimate the product is manufactured in accordance with the premium vodka recipe created by Mendeleev and approved by the Czars government in 1894 (Grigorian). Birch charcoal filters are used to distill vodka, whereas only deluxe grain hard drink from Central Russia are being used in manufacturing (Grigorian). It goes without saying that quality is the main criterion of any brands success. The use of pure undistilled piss from northern parts of Russia adds value to Russian Standard vodka products it is because of its premium quality that Russian Standard managed to achieve Russian market excellence without extensive advertising (Grigorian). Second, after the collapse of the Soviet Union, the Russians have become particularly sensitive to their traditions and heritage. Years of communist pressures denied the Russians their right for self-actualization, self-expression, and historical memory. Russian Standard was one of the initial to remind the Russian people of historical values and traditions, immediately creating a strong bond between consumers and the history of

A self assessment on intercultural negotiating skills Essay - 3

A self assessment on intercultural negotiating skills - Essay ExampleThis paper forget discuss the qualities of a honest intercultural Negotiator. It ordain then discuss on the experiences learned in a class negotiation simulation. Finally the paper will review the different aspects of communication strategies employed in the negotiation.In order for one to meet their goals as an intercultural negotiator, it is essential for them to possess the characteristics of a good intercultural negotiator. first off a good intercultural negotiator is observant. This means that they take time watch how other people communicate with each other where they note the differences between them. second a good intercultural negotiator should know that different people communicate in different ways and should never assume that messages from different cultures should be understand in the same way.Thirdly one should be always positive when dealing with people from different cultures. This means that on e should avoid miscommunication which is brought about by misconceptions about the persons intentions. A good Negotiator should also ask questions freely especially where they feel they have not understood. For instance one should ask for clarification on issues, gestures, and ideas to avoid miscommunication. One should also have good communication skills where they are able to express themselves freely by clearly explaining their communication. A good intercultural Negotiator should be urbane. This means that when one is seeking any clarification or asking a question, they should do it in a respectable and polite manner in order to ensure the other participants ate not offended. Finally, a good intercultural Negotiator should be persistent meaning that they should not birth up easily if they do not understand what is being communicated. One should be patient enough and allow the other person(s) to communicate in their suffer time.During the class negotiation simulation I got to practice the theories that we have

Todays Supply Chain Assignment Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1250 words

Todays Supply Chain - Assignment ExampleTechnology has to be embodied too to ensure swift and real time communication between in the process.Traits of the best supply chains be characterized by sustained technical performance, which can be measured by the rates of deliveries made to clients. Some of the traits include strategic supplier partnership, tuition sharing, customer relationship, internal lean practices, information quality and postponement. Strategic supplier partnership, involves a long standing relationship between the suppliers and the companies. This is usually designed to align the strategies of the suppliers with that of the company. Secondly, there should be appropriate customer relationship which determines the way in which companies manage the complaints of their customers and maintain a long term relationship. Furthermore there is call for to develop a win-win relationship. At the alike(p) time, it is important to settle on the effects of a third customer lo gistic provider relationship on the companies green logistic performance. Thirdly, there is need to develop well defined information sharing between the employees and the customer should be shared with adequate determination on its effects. Information shared should be adequate, accurate, current credible and to ensure enhanced performance and increased relationship. In addition, the supply chain management should be inclusive of the extent to which there are waste elimination practices and creation of value with the chain supply. Lastly a good supply chain practice should determine the postponement endures so as to minimize on the losses.Once a company develops a risk management plan of a supply chain, then it is said to have a mature supply chain. In this case, companies have well assessed risks that can cause a disruption on the normal supply chain and work towards mitigating

Why did two separate German states appear in 1949 Essay

Why did two separate German states appear in 1949 - Essay ExampleWhen one looks beyond the facts, the Cuban missile crisis was just more(prenominal) of the correspondence of powers between the US and the Soviet Union. It was entangled in the Berlin crisis and the Soviets had three underlying motives, none of which was to force a nuclear war. The first motive was to warn the US attack on Cuba, the second was to obtain leverage over the Berlin issue and the third was to undermine the US nuclear superiority in the balance of powers (Betts 1987, 110).Following the Second World War, the Soviet Union together with the US, Britain and France occupied Germany for reconstruction and stabilization purposes. Ultimately, the country was divided into two with the Soviet Union victorious responsibilities for East Germany and the remaining World War II allies taken responsibility for West Germany. Neither side could agree on concessions and strategies and by 1961, the status had escalated into what has been described as the Berlin Crisis (Stern 2005, 18). The power struggle between the US and the Soviet Union during the ongoing Cold War and the USs nuclear and forces superiority did not help. By 1961, Russian leader Nikita Krushchev vowed that when he met with US President J. F. Kennedy in June that year he would push hard for concessions in Berlin and elsewhere (Stern 2005, 18).Based on the facts and circumstances in which Krushchev made that statement, historians have taken the position that the Cuban Missile Crisis was no more than a ploy on the part of the Soviet Union to compel Western powers, specially the US to accept the settlement of Germany, and Berlin in particular on its terms and conditions. The idea was to spend quick and dramatic means for strengthening the Soviet Unions military, diplomatic and psychological position on a number of geopolitical matters, particularly the German issue (Divine 1988, 135).The Soviets would claim however, that

Explain Kants Ethical theories Essay Example for Free

Explain Kants Ethical theories EssayKants ethical theory is an absolute and deontological theory. This kernel that humans are seeking the ultimate end called the supreme good also known as the summon Bonnum. Kant says that morality is a categorical imperative, this is a duty which must always be obeyed in all possible situations. A categorical imperative is what is needed to find what is right or wrong. Kant argued that to typify morally is to do matchlesss duty, and ones duty is to obey the moral law. Kant also reckon that there was no room for emotion. Kant believe that categorical imperative helps us to know which actions are obligatory and which are forbidden. There are three principles within the categorical imperatives these include Universal law, conduct humans as ends In themselves and Act as if you live in a kingdom of ends. Universal law is putting minority views first. If it is wrong for one person than it is wrong for everyone. An action must not be carried out u nless the person believes that the aforesaid(prenominal) situation all people would act in the same way.Treat humans as ends in themselves is respecting a person. This means that you can never use human beings for another purpose or to exploit or enslave them, this is because humans are the highest point of creation and demand unique marchment. Act as if you live in a kingdom of ends, this means treat all with respect. Kant believed that all of these helped to create maxims. A maxim is an absolute moral statement about a universal truth. For example a maxim pip is wrong.Therefore it is a universal rule that murdering anyone is wrong. Kant believes that we can only be true moral agents if we are free to make our own decisions. He argues that our independence to make rational choices is what separates us from animals. He says that is you can do something, you should be able to do something, and if you cannot do something it is unfair to be asked. E.g. it is unfair to ask mortal i n a wheelchair to run a marathon.

A war between the United States and Iran Essay Example for Free

A war between the United States and Iran EssayPreparations for a massive military strike on Iran argon in full swing by the United States of the States. But will these preparations convert to actual bombing on the ground? Are the cardinal countries going to be embroiled in a war soon? These are the questions that are being asked everywhere, in hushed stairs if it is the Pentagon corridors and terrified glances if it is the streets of Tehran. With Iran defying the UNs withdraw for restraint in its nuclear programme openly, it has only become successful in in tensifying the speculations about the war. The issue here is Is it inevitable? Before we get in in to the nitty-gritty of the Iranian crisis, let us look into the different causes of the wars that go been raged in the new-fangled future. The twentieth century demoraliseed with World War I in 1914 and since then, it is interesting to note that the wars live a particular pattern. The causes have always been dependent on three factors Systemic factors, domestic politics and the occasion of the Decision maker. Hence, we would also try to view the US-Iran issue through this prism. However, comparing the pre-nuclear wars in a pre-nuclear age with wars in post-nuclear age would be a barren of space.Instead, it would do well if we look into the causes that can trigger a war in the present times where possessing nuclear post is not only a stark reality simply also the bone of contention in this particular case. It is the claim by the Iranian government that they are ready to start developing nuclear weapons is what has triggered the whole issue. And ironically, it is the very reason that is playing a deterrent in the war. Remarkable is the fact that it is only America that is concerned with Iran onerous to possess the deadly weapon.The first and foremost question that would help us in determining the fate of this discussion would be Why is America so bformer(a)ed? America, the self-declared big brot her of all the earths on this planet, takes up the burden of keep an eye oning peace on earth. To quote Eisenhower, Freedom is indivisible.. . America takes it as its personal duty to ensure that Freedom is maintained all over the creation. If it was Communism that was a threat against Freedom during the cold war, today it is the irresponsible rulers of nations that possess or get to possess nuclear weapons that are threatening the Freedom in the world.And when Truman declared that We cannot hope to maintain our freedom, if freedom elsewhere is wiped out, he meant it. However, the reasons why Israeli attack on Palestine killing hundreds of elegantians is not wiping out Freedom but North Korea developing nuclear capability is has interesting reasons. History has been construe to this characteristic of America where it deems it is her right to attack any country it wills to protect the attacked countrys freedom. match to Jutta Welders (Pg 37, culture of insecurity), the compell ing reason for America to act in this fashion is to maintain its supremacy in the world.An act of aggression under the cloak of Freedom fighters becomes a necessity to project itself as a strong nation which can not only defend itself but protect other countries as well. A bright example would be the Cuban missile crisis. When this crisis occurred, many were of the view that it was kinda unnecessary for America to take up such a strong and aggressive tone. However, it did do that and consort to Jutta Weldes, it is the compelling reason to showcase its power that led it to act strong. In fact, Jutta Weldes considers the Cuban missile crisis as not a crisis at all.To quote her, .. crises are social constructions that are forged by state officials in the course of producing and reproducing state identity. She is of the view that it depends on the social construction that makes us unsex a situation as Crisis. It depends on how we view a nation that determines whether it is a crisis o r not. For example, Iran possessing nukes is such a big issue and is immediately converted into a Crisis whereas an equally notorious state like Pakistan possessing the deadly weapons is not.It has been time and again proved that large number of terrorist activities has their funds traced back to Pakistan. However, Pakistan escaped the beat out but Iraq was destroyed in the name of weapon of mass destructions The only explanation for this is the prism that US uses to define its foreign policies. Attack the nations that would give it a chance to maintain her supremacy in the world. Attacking Pakistan would back fire as it has the capability to strike back. And attacking Iraq or Iran will definitely be easier as these countries have a notorious reputation which required whatever policing and also are comparative weaklings.Hence, the systemic reasons for US to wage a war against Iran are quite a obvious a chance to police a nation that has a history of supporting the biggest threat world faces today, that is, terrorism and simultaneously reaffirm its substitution class as the superpower which it seems to be losing to China. If attacking Iran salvages some pride for US, the role of domestic politics in the whole affair plays another important role. US, the strongest nation in the world today, are also the most vulnerable to attacks by variant terrorist outfits.After 9/11, it has taken its ending of fighting terrorism quite seriously. However, the path it has chosen to fight it is not very often appreciated. The aftermath of 9/11 saw it attacking Afghanistan and driving out the Taliban ruthlessly. Afghanistan was the target because it render the most dangerous terrorist outfit in the world, Al-Qaeda. Their slogan was a regime change is essential for to smoke out the terrorist and the whole war was essentially to transfix one man Osama Bin Laden.The attack resulted in the killings of thousands of innocent Afghanistan who were already tired by the war torn p olitics of Taliban. America could never clutch the villain. However, it overthrew Taliban and today, a democratically elected government exists in place of it. Is Afghanistan a changed country today? Has America finally left its shores after the war? both(prenominal) the answers are No Terrorism has been controlled and yes, America is still guarding Afghanistan with its air raids on civilians.The failure of capturing Osama in Laden was quite frustrating for the Bush administration and it was in search for a new scapegoat. And they found the perfect one in the form of Saddam Hussain. Suddenly, Iraq, the starving nation which was already bogged down by various sanctions and its citizens further troubled by the tyrannic rule of Saddam Hussain finds itself in the course of fire. The reasons disposed are quite fishy. America is suddenly in self-denial of confidential information that Iraq possesses weapons of mass destruction and Saddam Hussain should be relieved of his responsibili ty of taking care of themThe reasons were uttered in the same chilling tone of how Iraq, which cant survive without taking aid from UN, poses the danger of destroying the whole world. The solution that is needed is again a Regime Change. America level-headed introduction of democracy in the country will solve the problem. Thus, despite the worldwide protests that marked the growing contempt against America and the UN Security Council voting against a military attack, America single-handedly went about with its war on terrorism.After 3 years of war, a executed Saddam Hussain, uncountable civilian deaths and threats of civil war ( not to forget the daily suicide attacks by shiities), no one found alleged WMDs. Today, it has been almost accepted that the report on WMD was wrong The flak US received for the irresponsible behavior is enormous and its image in the middle east has gone for a beating as today, many believe that US is waging war on Islam rather than Terrorists. Its belief t hat a regime change is the only solution that can solve the problems of the world is quite naive.It proposes the same thing when it comes to Iran. Seymour M. Hersh, in journal Fact Annals of national security had mentioned his conversation with Patrick Clawson, an Iran expert who is the deputy director for research at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy and who has been supporter of President Bush, who clearly spoke of regime change the ultimate solution. He said, So abundant as Iran has an Islamic Republic, it will have a nuclear-weapons program, at least clandestinely. The key issue is therefore, how long will the present regime last? This obsolescent view that regime change or toppling of government in another country and forcing them to democracy has never worked in obtaining the much desired goal of the war peace. In fact, statistics have shown that the transition period from any kind of rule to democracy has always been bloody and nations become quite war-prone (Democratization and war). The most recent examples are, of course, Afghanistan and Iraq, which are facing gruesome infighting among themselves. So why is America so bent upon making a regime change in those countries?Apart from the unmistakable reasons of dismantling the network of terrorism, experts are of the view that it is also the question of who controls the oil in the future that has been a major driving force behind the American policy. Middle East is the home for oil throughout the world and it is the control of oil that is US after. With its fast disappearance and soaring prices (reasons partly because the war that US is waging), the control of the oil fields will definitely be beneficial for America. In fact, the one who controls oil in the future is the undisputed king.This goes in line with the policy of US for whom displaying its authority is very important as it seems to be losing the crown to the exponential growth of China. Therefore, attacking Iran is also a desp erate flak by US to reiterate that it is America that is still calling the shots. However, attacking Iran has its own dangers. The most important and the immediate is the image of US in the Islamic world. Its continuous attacks on Islamic nations has made it poised against Islam and has become quite unpopular in the Middle East.If not anything else, America through these attacks is only getting successful in inviting the wrath of the people living there. In a conversation with Seymour M Hersh, Richard Armitrage was echoing the same sentiments What will happen in the other Islamic countries? What ability does Iran have to reach us and touch us globally that is, terrorism? Will Syria and Lebanon up the pressure on Israel? What does the attack do to our already diminished international standing? And what does this mean for Russia, China and the U. N Security Council? Yet how many in Washington will consider these questions?According to Seymour, there are people out there who belie ve it is the way to operate If domestic politics are reasons enough to wage war, the role of the purpose maker is of paramount importance. It is the head who declares wars and in this case Bush has quite a penchant for declaring wars. It is widely believed that Bush will declare war against Iran before leaving the White house. In fact, President Bush believes that He must do what no democrat or Republican, if elected in the future, would have the resolution to do, and that saving Iran is going to be his legacy.The personal ambition of Bush also seems to make the fear of turning Teheran in to a sea of fire in to reality. Moreover, with the failure of Iraq where they achieved instant victory but not a decisive one, Bush administration is looking out for scapegoats in a large way. Iran with its close proximity with Iraq is believed to be a supplier of arms and ammunitions to the Shiite attackers in the troubled Iraq. Those attacks are not only killing innocent Iraqis but also resul ting in the death of hundreds of American troops out there.In short, it is a personal failure for Bush as a president as he forced his military in to war for no reasons. It becomes very important for him to fathom some pride and Iran seems to be a ripe case. oneness House member told Seymour when speaking of Bush The most worrisome thing is that this guy has a messianic vision. Therefore, you have President Bush hold to bomb Iran at the slightest pretext. But how can attacking Iran solve the Iraq problem? The strategy that is being followed by the Americans is to start infighting in Iran and force it to take some irresponsible action like an up in the activities along the Iraqi border.The first response to any of American disturbance in Iran is believed to be given across the Iraq border which presently houses many American troops. The white house hopes to take advantage of that situation and make it an excuse to attack Iran. This reason is widely believed to work as the blame of first strike can always be switched to Iran and America will only be fighting for Safeguarding its citizens. Combining the preceding(prenominal) reasons, America declaring war on Iran seems to be a matter of time. The systemic, domestic politics and decision maker reasons a need for another war.The attack on Iran will accomplish three important factors for America. 1. America is believed to be the favorite target for the terrorists and its war on terrorism is necessary to protect itself as a nation. Moreover, this would give the image of the departing super power the much needed boost. An attack on Iran will give the masculine quality to the nation that it believes will extend awe across the world. 2. The second and more compelling reason for the attack is the role that domestic politics plays in this issue. Attack on Iran will bring about a regime change which will help America post Freedom there.This in other words mean another animal government that would act on the whims of US. This is quite beneficial as this gives it direct control over the oil fields of Iran along with Iraqs, thanks to the WMD ghosts. So, that means with a single strike, not only do they believe that terrorism and nukes will be taken care of but also the oil fields. 3. The ternion reason is President Bush. His stint as President of America has mainly been marred by Wars. If in the past it was Afghanistan, now it is Iraq. Apparently, both have them have been failures as there have been no decisive victories.The victories have only been fast as is expected from a war between the super power and a starving nation. Iran war will give him the much needed boost to his image as this war can be a grand opportunity to pass the blame on Iran for the Iraq fiasco. Taking all these reasons into considerations, attack by America on Iran for possessing Nukes is quite imminent. Experts say Iran is still five to ten years away from developing any kind of weapon. However, America is bent upon going ahead with its plans. Therefore, nukes or no nukes, Iran is the golden opportunity to accomplish a lot many tasks. Nuclear disarmament is just one of the small ones.

Philosophies from Aquinas, Augustine, and Irenaeus and other theologians Essay Example for Free

Philosophies from Aquinas, Augustine, and Irenaeus and other theologians EssayThe study of religion and philosophy is ceaselessly confronted with the problem of shame and its broad association to nether region. In facing this debacle, in that location is a tendency for religion to deny the globe of disgust and clearly train that it is a mere event in the undeveloped minds of people. Religion may also uphold that thither is a competent rivalry between worthless and honourable as aversion force out be considered as a rival authority, containing power equal to the divine good. It can also be derived that savage is the imperfect cooperation in the good explained under the presence of a deity deemed as omnibenevolent and omniscient.Some response concerning the flagitious include that debates which inculcate that the true unleash will cannot be established without the possibility of lou delinquencyess. This idea can be translated to the notion that gentle worldly co ncerns gentlemans are not able to understand and comprehend God, that apparitional growth and development necessisitates suffering and that evil is the imp symbolize of effect of the f wholeen and disrupted world. M twain disciplines have attempted to provide a concrete translation of evil and fumble and the proposed assumptions on the connection of evil to blaze have encountered denials coming from other scholars.In this paper, multiple philosophies and valuable insights concerning the association of evil to hell on earth will be explored. The teachings of doubting Thomas Aquinas, Irenaeus and Augustine and of others will be discussed in order to define evil and sin, describe the relationshipof evil to sin, and to explicate the difference and the causality of sin and evil in the contemporary world. This papers central focus is on the inquiry Every evil is sin, solely is all sin evil? The Teachings of Thomas Aquinas on Evil and Sin The sentiment of evil by Thomas Aquinas an d his entire miscellany of philosophy are inherently grounded upon the teachings of the St.Augustine who created a philosophical theological position on evil. Evil is an English noun that is comm except used today to describe anything that is undeniably horrendous, particularly in the aspect of valet de chambre behavior. However, Thomas Aquinas says that the term evil has more inclusive sense than evil does for people. According to Aquinas, we are dealing with evil whenever we are faced by whatever can be thought of as a case of authorizeing compendious. For Aquinas, at that place is no evil substance in the world and neither God nor man creates evil.In saying this Aquinas proves that the world is created and governed by a perfectly good God who is also omnipotent and omniscient. This teaching negates the melodic phrase of gentlemans who say that each time more or less of the good stray aways from an object whence it is evil. Aquinas says no this argument by declaring th at no evil exists materially. Aquinas explicates that compassionate bes are all in all good provided have the tendency that some of their goodness will be removed. Aquinas strongly argues that at that place is a serious sense in which it can be thought of as lacking(p) in macrocosm. Take for instance the thought of Adolf Hitler as wholly good.This example may raise several criticisms since Hitler has enjoyed being a household name for evil, but it is to illustrate Aquinass concept of evil caused by the removal of good. For Aquinas, Hitler is good- he has competent brain, his physique is complete, and he almost bares resemblance to God. But Hitler has some of his goodness removed when he tries to reign over the world with tyranny. According to Aquinas, evil is on that point hardly in the sense that something is missing. Aquinas continues to say that what is not there cannot be thought of as made to be by the source of the being of things. In this sense, Aquinas follows Au gustines thought and says that God can never be the cause of evil because evil is not an actual thing but the absence seizure of a good that ought to be present. What causes people to be bad is the gap between who they are and how they should be but are not. Aquinas points rules out his concept of evil by illustrating that there will be no badness unless there goodness yet there can be goodness without any badness. In the aspect of sin, Aquinas writes that it is not the disobedience of irrational authority, but it is a violation of well-being.According to Aquinas, heologians may describe sin as an act againts God and philosophers may signify it as opposed to reason, but it is St. Augustine who aptly defines sin. Aquinas explains that it is more accurate to define sin as being setback to the eternal law rather contrary to human reason, especially since the eternal law includes many things beyond the scope of reason, such(prenominal) as matters of faith. Even though Aquinas is an a dvocate of the philosophy of Augustine, he recognizes that the Augustine sometimes talks notwithstanding about will in describing sin.Aquinas explains thaat the exterior act, which is the veruy substance of the sin, is evil itsefl and consequently it is necessary to include exterior acts in the definition of sin. However, Augustine and Aquinas both agree that the sin is evil because it harms and diminishes natural good. Aquinas takes into consideration the application of the natural law. According to Aquinas, when it is utter that all sins are evil but not because they are prohibited, that prohibition is understood as an act of positive law. Aquinas emphasizes that since the natural law comes fron the eternal law and acts of positive law are derived from the natural law, and then all sins are evil. It is argued by Aquinas that evil is the privation of good and an individual can identify the extent of privation by what is left after such action. In this idea, Aquinas is stressin g that what rebrinys of good after every sin is the resembling, since there remains after every sin the very nature of the soul and the freedom of choice by which humans can rent good and evil. Aquinas tells that all sins are equal and are evil. The focal point of Aquinas in saying that all sins are evil and that all sins are equal is the only main source capable of commanding humans what they ought to be. As a theologian, Aquinas gives emphasis to God as the main source the nature and eternal and divine law. Aquinas says that since all are the same in turning away from God, all sins are equal. For Aquinas, every sin is evil because it is a dispute from reason and law. Aquinas describes sin as having no cause because it has the nature of evil.It has been discussed earlier that evil is the removal of goodness whats is lacking in humans as a wholly good. Aquinas emphasizes that what is missing cannot be thought of as made to be by the source of the being of things. The same goes f or sins. This concept makes both sin and evil as original which thrive on will that act against reason and divine moral law. equivalent with evil, God can never be the source of sin. Likewise evil can never be the cause of sin. In this sense, the evil of punishment serves as the sequel to sin. He compares evil of guilt to sin and declares that they have no difference.In saying that sin has a cause, Aquinas is quick to clarify that such cause is not necessarily a cause for sin can be impeded. This musing denotes that if there should be a necessary cause for sins, then people will keep on making sins since there is a cause inherent to them that makes them commit sins. Such notion echoes the perspective of Aquinas on whether sin has an internal cause. Aquinas argues that if sin has an internal cause, then man would always be sinning and since it has a cause, there will always be an effect. Aquinas also defines sin by mentioning virtue.Aquinas says, But sin is evil because it takes awa y virtue. Therefore, all sins are equally evil, since every one of them equally takes away virtue. Aquinas thinks of sins as contrary to virtues and that all virtues are equal. Therefore, Aquinas reaffirms that all sins are equal. He also come up with the idea of rancor that is the equalizer of all sins. Aquinas says that sin has malice in relation to turning away from God. This feature in relation to the deviation from God states that mint tag the malice of sins as being more serious.Aquinas adds that if circumstances should themselves have malice, they constitute species of sin and if they should not in themselves have any malice, there is no reason why they should make the sins more serious. On the on the hand, the diversity in sins that other arguments are pointing to is a mere presentation of virtuously indifferent genus. Overall, Aquinas writes that all sins are evil in a sense that they both result in being unnatural, the adversity of the natural rule that man ought t o observe and obey. Evil and Sin According To AugustineMany of St. Augustines teachings on evil substantiate Aquinas concept. They both believe that the immutable God created only good things and He alone is the source of all being. Augustine negates all forms of theological and metaphysical dualism and puts great emphasis on God who is wholly good. According to Augustine, there is no dualism existing in the problem of evil. The thought of evil as not a being, a thing, or substance or entity liberates him from the Manichaean dualism,the public opinion that there exists two powerful beings, the good and evil.He realizes that all the God created are metaphysically and ontologically good in their being. He proposes that if evil were a being, a thing or an entity, then the problem fo evil will not be solved because it has a source. If the evil comes from God, then God is not all good and if it does not come from God, then He is not the powerful creator of all things. Augustine says tha t God is a spiritual and not a corporeal being and he rejects Manichaeisms materialistic dualism but embraces a different dualism between corporeal and spiritual beings, with God, angels, and human soul falling into the latter class. Upon rejecting the Manicheism and its primary concept on the origin of evil, Augustines obliges himself to establish an alternative solution to the origins of evil and starts to proclaim that evil represents a free deviation from God and is not a positive entity in its own right. All of the works of the immutable Creator of men are revelations of Gods nature and wherefore, all of His works are of wholly good. both(prenominal) Augustine and Aquinas believe that evil does not come from God.In his struggle concerning the confusion over evil, Augustine further says that the evil is not something that is completely real biut only fragment that is dependent on that which is absolutely real. According to Augustine, evil is not a thing or substance but he is aware of its existence and that it can be divided into three kinds. Metaphysical evil is the lack of mans graven image not because of his given nature but because they all fall short of complete god that only God can obtain. This is not actually considered evil. The second kind is the physical evil that is the privation of a certain perfection because of nature.This kind is being cleanified by Augustine together with the other theologians as under the jurisdiction of the general order of nature. The third kind if the moral evil, the only real evil. It is a sin or an act opposed to the will of God. The source of the moral evil is the faculty of free will in which man is able to turn away from the right order and deviate himself from the will of God. Augustine says, sin is so voluntary that there is no sin unless it is voluntary. He implies that there needs to be an act of moral will in any sin or the consent to turn away from God and to His will.Augustine emphasizes that moral evil is truly a sin for there is a consent. Sin settles itself in the free will, option, intention, and the motion of the soul, which instigates a wrong order into the world. Evil is nothing but a privation of good until at last a thing ceases altogether to be. An evil will is a kind of will that deviates away from God, the creator. Moreover, Augustine says that it is a disordered love and will, the wrong conformity to Gods will. The writings of Augustine on sin are associated with his Christian definition of evil.Augustine defines sin as the movement or the deviation of will endowed to humans away from God. He furthers his discussion of sin by stating that God can never be the author of sin just as He can never be the source of evil. Such movement of the human will away from the God the Creator is also referred by Augustine as the misdirection. According to him, as there is a misdirection on evil will, there is also a misdirection in the aspect of sin. Augustine explains that sin is therefore an error or untruth and establish upon the mis mood of what is good for us. Augustine says that when people choose to sin, they must have an intention of obtaining goodness or getting discharge of something bad. He suggests that sin is more than an intellectucal error, it is the misdirection of the will. Augustines musing on sin as the misdirection of human will is demonstrated in mans pursuit of bliss or pride. Augustine notes that pride is the an appetite for inordinate exaltation,it when the soul cuts itself from the Source to which it should keep close and somehow makes itself and becomes an end to itself. Augustine continues that inordinate exaltation takes place when the soul is inordinately pleased with itself, and such self-pleasing occurs when the soul falls away away from the unchangeable Good which ought to please the sould far more than the soul can please itself. He also validates his definition of sin by saying that what the people do for the sake of goodness ends in something negative or bad , and what people do in making things good ends in just making things worse.Augustine explains this paradox by writing that except that the happiness of man can come not from himself but only from God, and that to live according to oneself is to sin is to lose God. This paradox explicates that sin is the possibility of man to focus on himself rather than on the wise God. It is therefore suggested that, based upon the writings of Augustine, not all sins are considered evil due to the categorization of evil involving nature. Irenaeus On Evil and Sin Little is cognize about Irenaeus and his works are mostly generated fromScriptures and the biblical domain.The understanding of sin found in the works of Irenaeus of Lyons has some contradictions when compared to the dominant Christian perspective influenced by Augustine in the fifth century. Irenaeus of Lyons interprets Genesis as the disobedience of man with Adam acting like an impulsive chil d. Irenaeus thinks of sin as pains and errors which grow. He says that there is no such a things as original sin or guilt that man inherited from his forefather, Adam. It is seen that he has a different view of the mans fall compared to the teachings of later writers particularly Augustine.This idea posits that Irenaeus thinks of of the fall of Adam and Eve is not a rebellion against God the Creator but is a concrete illlustration of the failure of man to rise to greater heights and that humanity does not lose its original perfection. His view concerning the fall of the humanitys forefatther raises many questions as it does not seems to be based on Scripture but it is derived solely from his rational interpretation. He further suggests that the without loss of life and the presence of evils, humanity will not repent. Unlike, Aquinas and Augustine, Irenaeus imparts that evil comes from God.In this idea, it is clearly manifested that Irenaeus upholds that the appearance of evil is of righteous purpose. According to him, the elements which appear evil, like death are planned by God. He says, it is for this reason therefore that Paul calls Adam himself the pattern of the one to come because the Word, the artisan of the universe, had sketched out in advance, in order to prepare the ground for himself, the future plan of the human race in its relation to to the Son of God, with God first of all establishing natural man order, quite obviously, that he might be save by spiritual man. In the said notion, Iranaeus outlines two distinct phases. Iraneaus writes that the creation of humanity comes first, secondly comes its perfection through the incarnation of the Son, Christ Jesus, who transmits the Spirit of the whole human race. It is evident that the advent of Christ is the sole purpose behind the creation of Adam. It is written that Irenaeus does not identify evil with sin. It is because he acknowledges the two types of evil.The first type is the physical evil tha t Irenaeus refers to as arising from the nature of the creature for its is due to the opposition of contrary forces or to the sequences of events that obey natural laws what seems to be an evil in the short run is a good on the cosmic. According to Irenaeus, the second type of evil is the moral evil that he considers as sin. He declares that this type of evil is sin because it arises from the jealousy of Satan and or certain angels who lured Adam into transgression. Influenced by the writings of Johannine, Irenaeus defines sin as the condition of human existence rather than a collection of individual actions. According to Irenaeus of Lyon, moral evil is to be considered as a sin because it reflects Gods original design that is putting man into the test. This type of evil is generally accounted for mans free will and his ability to discern right from wrong. Irenaeus says that God had foreseen the angels sin as well as that of man, including the consequences, and he had sanctioned i t. Iraneaus places sin in history and writes that the fall of man is the gradual spread of evil because of the inevitability of personal sin, not as a particular shift in the human nature. Moreover, Irenaeus has made a comparison between the natural person and the perfection of the person to describe sin. According to him,body and soul constitute a natural person while the perfect human being is made up of body, soul and spirit. The inclusion of Gods spirit is the essence of Irenaeus idea of the redemption.People have been redemeed and have been saved so that they may flourish into what God wants them to be. For Iranaeus, not all sins can be considered as evil as man is not accountable for some existing evils such as those coming from the natural disasters known as natural evils. The only evil that can be deemed as sin are the moral evils caused by the selfishness of humanity. Sin and Evil According to Other Theologians Lactantius is one of the Christian thinkers to respond to the problem of evil and sin referring solely to Gods laws.According to Lactantius, the party boss good of the humanity is not to be found in the theories of the philosophers, for these have to do things common to animals as well as humans or things not available to all humans. He refers to the one and true God as the chief good and the things which meant to satisfy the body that perishes as not good at all. For him, pleasure, power and wealth are not good and anything and the disobedience of Gods laws are evil and sin. Reinhold Niebuhr belongs to the category of formative Christian moral theorists. He says that sin is required but not necessary. He furthers his explannation of sin by stating that the temptation to sin lies in the human situation itself. Niebuhr stresses that the will and freedom endowed to man is the pedestal of his creativity and it is also his temptation. While Irenaeus declares that people need evil to spiritual grow, Niebuhr upholds his realist theory that peop le do not need sin and no perfection can completely liberate human beings from the reality of sin. Walter Rauschenbusch is included into the group of thinkers who deal with the importance of sin in salvation.According to him, when we undertook to define the nature of sin, we accredited the old definition, that sin is selfishness and rebellion against God , but we insisted on putting humanity into the picture. He further explains that the description of sin as selfishness will be accepted for as long as the humanity is perceived as a great solidarity with God thriving on it. He emphasizes that if sin is selfishness, then mans selfishness consisted in a selfish attitude, in which he was at the centre of the universe, and God and all his fellowmen were means to serve his pleasures, increase his wealth and set take out his egotisms. He also rescue the dosctrine of the origin of sin from literal interpretations by recognizing the active sources of sin in the later generations and in t he contemporary period. He was criticized upon recognizing that both goodness and sinfulness can be determined by social environment. Rauschenbusch explains that what can be evil is dictated by the society and the same goes for sin. He says that the good maybe forced to do bad while the bad maybe forced to do good as dictated by the society. proofIn the tradition of religion and theology, the definition of sin is related to the problem on evil. The question addresed in this paper is whether sin leads to evil or evil leads to sin. The definition of evil and sin according to several theologians were explored in this paper in order to understand the relationship between evil and sin. Based from the literatures studied, it is said that the relationship between evil and sin can be associated with reconciliation, salvation, the fall of Adam and the society itself, and morality.It is clearly manifested that the connection between sin and evil can be interchangeable such that evil can lead to sin and sin can lead to evil. The interchangeable connection is due to the observed idea that evil and sin have the same feature as the deviation from what man ought to be. In this sense, all evil can be sin but not all sins are considered evil due to the fact that sin comprises only the moral and spiritual side of the humanity. The inquiry on whether every sin is evil is answered on the definition of evil in which various theologians categorize into various theories.This paper has observed that every theologian has his or her own conception on evil and sin and it is evident that their concepts have been derived from other theologians who took insights also from other thinkers. This is to say that evil and sin can be both the same in a sense that they both have the same characteristics constructed by thinkers who draw insights from their influences. BIBLIOGRAPHY Aquinas, Thomas. The Subject and Approach of the De Malo, in On Evil, eds. Richard J. Regan and Brian Davies.New York Oxford University Press, 2003. Aquinas, Thomas, Summa Theologiae Volume 25 Sin. New York Cambridge University Press, 2006. Lacoste, Jean-Yves, ed. Encyclopedia of Christian Theology, Vol 1. New York Routledge, 2005. Mann,William E. Augustine on Evil and Original Sin, in The Cambridge Companion to Augustine, eds. Eleonore Stump and Norman Kretzmann. Cambridge Cambridge University Press, 2001. Wogaman, J. Philip. Christian Ethics A historic Introduction. Kentucky Westminster/John knox Press, 1993.