The Legitimacy Theory And CSR Disclosure Accounting Essay

The Legitimacy Theory And CSR Disclosure Accounting Essay The issue of corporate social responsibility has got a lot of attention in the business and political world since the early 1990s and the major reason behind this was corporate scandals. Organizations had started to realize that the basis on which they were achieving economic growth was unsustainable and hence there was a need to develop a process which would intend at balancing economic growth with environmental sustainability and societal expectations. In fact the origin of corporate social responsibility can be found in the 1950s and 60s whereby successful companies were trying to link corporate social responsibility to the power that business holds in society. The theoretical progresses were subdivided in ethical and accountability and the stakeholder approach to strategic management. CSR can be distinguished from the three terms which are included in its designation phrase and these words are; Corporate, social and responsibility. Hence CSR can be explained as being the responsibilities that a company undertakes for the society within which it carry out its operations. To be specific, CSR require a business to identify its stakeholders and include their needs and values in the tactical day to day decision making process of the company. Consequently the society within which a business function and which identify the number of stakeholder to which the organization owe a responsibility can be broad depending on the type industry within which it operate. The different stakeholders to which a company is accountable can be illustrated using the figure below: http://www.industryplayer.com/images/corporate_social_responsibility.jpg Figure 1: stakeholder of a business According to figure 1, a business must respond to two aspects which evolve during their operating process and these are: The quality of management which is represented by the inner cycle and it is both in terms of people and processes. The nature of and the extent to which their processes impact on the society in various areas. The stakeholders who are outside take more interest in the activities undertaken by the company, i.e. most of them look at what has the company actually done. Their objective is to fid out if the company has done good or bad in terms of its product and services, the treatment it gives it its labour force and in terms of the impact of its activities on the environment and local communities. There seems to be an infinite number of definitions of CSR, ranging from the simplistic to the complex, and a range of associated terms and ideas including `corporate sustainability, corporate citizenship, corporate social investment, the triple bottom line, socially responsible investment, business sustainability and corporate governance. It has been suggested that `some researchers distort the definition of corporate social responsibility or performance so much that the concept becomes morally unintelligent, conceptually meaningless, and utterly unrecognizable'(Orlitzky 2005); or CSR may be regarded as `the universal remedy which can solve several social evil such as the global poverty gap, social exclusion and environmental degradation (Van Marrewijk 2003). Some definitions of CSR which are commonly accepted are: The notion of companies looking beyond profits to their role in society is generally termed corporate social responsibility (CSR)..It refers to a company linking itself with ethical values, transparency, employee relations, compliance with legal requirements and overall respect for the communities in which they operate. It goes beyond the occasional community service action, however, as CSR is a corporate philosophy that drives strategic decision-making, partner selection, hiring practices and, ultimately, brand development.  [1]   South China Morning Post, 2002 The social responsibility of business encompasses the economic, legal, ethical, and discretionary expectations that society has of organizations at a given point in time.  [2]   Archie B. Carroll, 1979 CSR is about businesses and other organizations going beyond the legal obligations to manage the impact they have on the environment and society. In particular, this could include how organizations interact with their employees, suppliers, customers and the communities in which they operate, as well as the extent they attempt to protect the environment.  [3]   The Institute of Directors, UK, 2002 Why is CSR relevant today? CSR has become famous in the language and strategy of business and by the growth of dedicated CSR organizations globally. Governments and international governmental organizations are increasingly encouraging CSR. CSR is rapidly becoming a major part of all business management courses and a key global issue because of three trends which are easily identifiable: 1. Changing expectations of the society Following recent corporate scandals which have lead to the decrease in the trust that the public has on regulatory bodies and companies to control corporate excess, customers and the general public tend to expect more from the company with which they trade. 2. Rising affluence This is true not only in developed countries but also in developing countries. Rich customers have enough money to select the product they want to buy and as the society need work and inward investment will not impose severe rules which will penalize companies which invest their money elsewhere. In other words if a company is investing its money in CSR activities and for this reasons its product become more costly, the affluent consumers will not punish the organization and they will buy its product. 3. Globalization Nowadays the least mistake made by companies is instantly make known to the public via the media. On top of that, increasing internet communication between people having the same opinion and the consumers, authorize them to spread their message and giving them the opportunity to take collective action that is they can boycott a product. In other words if a company is taking actions which is against the environment and the society, the public may takes action against the business. According to these three trends, more importance is given to brand which lead to the success of companies and thus there is a shift in the relationship between companies and customers whereby the latter are better informed and feel more powerful to put their belief into action. From the standpoint of businesses, the parameters within which they operate are more and more affected by bottom-up, working class campaigns, NGOs and consumer activists leading to a change in the relationship between consumers and the company. CSR is becoming more and more important in our fast developing world as brands are built on perceptions and concepts which appear to have higher values. Theoretical Frameworks and CSR Disclosure The Legitimacy Theory While there is no generally accepted theory for explaining CSR disclosure practices, recent research in the CSR literature has primarily relied on legitimacy theory (Deegan 2002, p. 285). Indeed, it is probable that legitimacy theory is the most widely used theory to explain environmental and social disclosures (Campbell, Craven and Shrives, 2003, p. 559) while, according to Gray, Kouhy and Lavers (1995), legitimacy theory has an advantage over other theories in that it provides disclosing strategies that organisations may adopt to legitimate their existence that may be empirically tested. The Legitimacy theory, according to Ness Mirza (1991), argues that the voluntary disclosure of social responsibility information can be perceived as a strategy to reduce political costs. Social theory reporting has been explained from a Legitimacy Theory perspective LT has been considered as widely accepted theory to shed light on social reporting practices of a firm. It states that firms will take actions to ensure that their operations are obvious to be legitimate from the point of view of the society within which the organization is assumed to operate. That is, they will attempt to establish resemblance between social values associated with or indirect by their activities and the norms of acceptable behavior in the larger social system of which they are part. Legitimacy Theory specifies a social contract between the organisation and society. Legitimacy is defined by Lindblom (1992) as: a condition or status which exists when an entitys value system is congruent with the value system of the larger social system of which the social system of which the entity is a part. When a disparity, actual or potential, exists between the two value systems, there is a threat to the entitys legitimacy. Hence, Legitimacy Theory implies that managers will not undertake any actions that will be considered as illegitimate in society. By engaging in social reporting, they tend to enhance the relevance of the financial statement as well as that of earnings by making people to believe in the reliability of what is being reported in the financial statements and by providing additional information on issues other than earnings and financial information. This may however redirect the interest of users away from the earnings figure. Institutional theorists (e.g Fogarty, 1992) observe that organizations need to respond to social expectations. Public expectations have undergone significant changes in the last decades such that profit maximization is not the sole measure of performance expected from the economic entity. There are a lot of implicit and explicit expectations from society vis-a-vis the operations of the organization. According to Heard Bolce (1981), with sensitive societal expectations, it is anticipated that successful businesses will react to attend to human, environmental and other social consequences of their activities. In spite of being unregulated, social and green reporting has increased in annual reports of organizations. Empirical tests of the Legitimacy Theory by Hogner (1982) revealed that the extent of social disclosures in the annual reports varied in response to societys expectations of corporate behavior. Deegan Rankin (1996) found that prosecuted firms for environmental charges increased their green reporting while Gray, Kouhy Lavers (1995) found that firms use corporate social reporting to fill the legitimacy gap. It is assumed that the economic entity will have the legitimate right to continue to operate in society to the extent that it fulfils the societal expectations. Otherwise, there will be a breach in the social contract between the entity and the society, and sanctions, such as fines, legal actions, and a fall in the demand of its product, will be taken. Society may revoke the organizations licence to operate or contract to continue its operations, for instance. Under Legitimacy Theory, not only the rights of investors are considered, but a much bigger picture of the public at large is considered. Furthermore, it is also expected that the organisation for its survival will have to adapt to the changing expectations of society. Downling Pfeffer (1975) refer to communication strategies, that the entity can use in order to legitimate or maintain the legitimacy of its activities. Reference is made to the public disclosure of information, in annual reports, for instance, to let the public know and educate them about the actions and performance of the firm and hence the manipulation of societys expectations, is made. In the same vein, they argue that one of the functions of annual reports would be to legitimate the existence of the organisation. Therefore, Legitimacy Theory proposes a relationship between corporate disclosures and societal expectations, as evidenced by a lot of research (Deegan Ratkin (1996); Gray,Kouhy Lavers). Stakeholder Theory Stakeholder theory (Gray, Kouhy Lavers 1995b, p. 53) state that the corporations continued existence requires the support of the stakeholders and their consent are required and hence the activities of the business are adjusted according to that approval. The more powerful the stakeholders, the more the company must adapt. Social disclosure is thus seen as part of the dialogue between the company and its stakeholders. Within the Stakeholders point of view, the success of a business depends on its capacity to balance the differing demands of its various stakeholders. The definition of stakeholder has altered considerably over the past four decades. At one end of the range the shareholder was believe the sole or principal stakeholder. This definition was based on arguments proposed by the Noble prize winner, Mr. Milton Friedmans view. According to him, the sole moral responsibility of a business is to maximize profits. Freeman (1983), however, expands the definition of stakeholder to include a broader selection of constituents including opposing groups such as interest groups and regulators. He defines stakeholders as any group or individual who can affect or is affected by the achievement of the organisations objectives. Stakeholder Theory states that managers ought to serve the interests of all those who have a stake in the firm. Stakeholders include shareholders, employees, suppliers, customers and the communities in which the firm operates a collection which Freeman terms the Big Five. Therefore, all groups in an area in which the firm operates and all individuals in such area are stakeholders. Given that CSR reporting is attempted to underline how the company relates to society in the course of its different social activities, the stakeholder theory can be seen as a guideline which will direct firms to have proper way of disclosing CSR as they will know what type of actions stakeholders are expecting from them. Corporate Governance Corporate governance can be defined as a set of rules and regulations according to which the behavior of a company is affected. Another aspect of it is that it is also concerned with the relationships which exists among different stakeholders of the company and with the goals which the company has in view. Shareholders, board of directors, employees, customers, creditors, suppliers, and the community at large are the main stakeholders of a business. Gabrielle ODonovan defines corporate governance as an internal system encompassing policies, processes and people, which serves the needs of shareholders and other stakeholders, by directing and controlling management activities with good business know-how, objectivity, accountability and integrity. Sound corporate governance is reliant on external marketplace commitment and legislation, plus a healthy board culture which safeguards policies and processes. An essential part of corporate governance is to create a system that try to decrease or eradicate the principal agent problem which will ensure accountability of certain individuals in the business. Corporate governance has several areas of discussion such as the effect of a system of corporate governance in economic efficiency whereby more emphasis has to be put on shareholders welfare. Principles of corporate Governance Honesty, trust and integrity, openness, performance orientation, responsibility and accountability, mutual respect, and commitment to the organization forms an essential part of corporate governance. The most important part in corporate governance is to see whether the management has been able to develop a model which is in line with the standards of the corporate participants. In addition to this they must evaluate this model from time to time to ensure that it is effective. Hence the management should do their wok honestly and ethically, particularly concerning conflicts of interest and disclosure in financial reports. Commonly accepted principles of corporate governance include: Rights and equitable treatment of shareholders: company should respect the rights of shareholders and help shareholders to implement those rights. They can help shareholders exercise their rights by effectively communicating information that is understandable and accessible and encouraging shareholders to participate in general meetings. Interests of other stakeholders: Organizations should be aware of the legal and other obligations that all legitimate stakeholders have. Role and responsibilities of the board: The board needs a variety of skills and understanding to be able to deal with various business issues and have the aptitude to review and challenge management performance. It needs to be of adequate size and have an apt level of commitment to fulfill its responsibilities and duties. There are issues about the appropriate mix of executive and non-executive directors. Integrity and ethical behavior: Ethical and responsible decision making is not only important for public relations, but it is also a crucial part in risk management and avoiding lawsuits. businesses should develop a code of conduct for their directors and executives that promotes ethical and responsible decision making. It is important to understand, though, that reliance by a company on the integrity and ethics of individuals is bound to eventual failure. Because of this, many organizations establish Compliance and Ethics Programs to minimize the risk that the firm steps outside of ethical and legal boundaries. Disclosure and transparency: Organizations should simplify and make publicly known the roles and responsibilities of board and management to provide shareholders with a level of accountability. They should also implement measures to independently validate and safeguard the integrity of the companys financial reporting. Disclosure of material matters concerning the organization should be timely and balanced to ensure that all investors have access to clear, factual information. Nevertheless corporate governance, despite some weak attempts from various quarters, remains a vague and often misunderstood expression. For quite some time it was confined only to corporate management. It is something much broader, for it must include a fair, efficient and transparent administration and strive to meet certain well defined, written objectives. Corporate governance must go well beyond law. The quantity, quality and frequency of financial and managerial disclosure, the degree and extent to which the board of Director (BOD) exercise their trustee responsibilities (largely an ethical commitment), and the commitment to run a transparent organization- these should be constantly evolving due to interplay of many factors and the roles played by the more progressive/responsible elements within the corporate sector. CG and CSR Disclosure Following recent accounting and ethical scandals in firms such as Enron, WorldCom and Parmalat, corporate governance is being regarded as an important issue in the business world due to the fact that rules and regulations have become stricter with regard to societal expectations. In this respect the concept of corporate governance has start to cover some part of CSR. Previous researches has tended to study CG and CSR issues separately and not as combined manifestation in the fast developing business world where CG issues may also have impact on CSR disclosure and firms performance. Examples of studies that have directly or indirectly link CSR and CG are those that talk about the influence of CG reforms on business ethics most often in a particular region( mainly Rossouw 2005; Kimber and Lipton,2005; Ryan 2005); the role of socially responsible investors and shareholder activism (Aguilera et al., 2006; McLaren, 2004; Monks et al., 2004; Guay et al., 2004; Sjà ¶strà ¶m, 2008) and of employee relations (Deakin and Whittaker, 2007; Jones et al., 2007); and, perhaps most remotely, those that critically examine the stakeholder approach, frequently referring to an agency perspective (Hill and Jones, 1992; Jensen, 2001; Sternberg, 1997; cf. Kolk and Pinkse, 2006). There is several corporate governance practice which helps to find out whether corporate social responsibility should be disclosed or not, for example the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) comes across several indicators such as independence and expertise of directors which help to identify economic, environmental and social risks and opportunities and find out whether the financial and non financial goal have been achieved and hence based on this firms will decide whether CSR should be disclosed or not. Corporate governance and corporate social responsibility is therefore expected to be more integrated in the field of business disclosure practices. Nowadays companies are required to disclose other types of information, like what the business has done for the welfare of the society, and not only financial information. For this reason the number of firms which publish voluntary reports has increased. According to the triple bottom line, a business reports strategy and operational performance within three primary dimensions and these are financial, stakeholder and environmental performance. Thus these reports shows that there is proper planning in the business as the latter selects the most important issues to be included in the triple bottom line plan and report. This report is usually included in the annual report which shows that the corporate governance structure does indeed have an impact on CSR disclosure. According to Tricker (1984), CSR disclosure can be viewed as a strategy which leads to towards closing a perceived legitimacy gap between management and shareholders, especially foreign shareholders. Non executive directors are seem as a mechanism which not only acts in the best interest of the owner but also in the interest of other stakeholders and they advise about the presentation of the the companies activities. Zahra and Stanton(1988) said that members in the corporate governance team are more likely to concers about honour and obligations and they would make disclosures which would improve their social prestige and honour. Board Size and CSR Disclosure One important element of corporate governance mechanism is the board of directors as they see whether the business is properly managed by their agents. Previous studies have proposed that bigger board size can increase communication and coordination problem and decrease the ability of the board to control management and on the other hand small board can decrease agency conflicts between managers and shareholders (Lipton and Lorsh, 1992; Eisenberg et al., 1998; Raheja, 2003). Jensen (1993) found that large board size result in less effective coordination, communication and decision making is more likely to be controlled by the CEO. Thus it can be forecasted that ineffective coordination in communication and decision making will result in low quality financial disclosure due to the fact that managers have not been able to perform their roles efficiently. Independent Non Executive Directors and CSR disclosure Previous empirical governance literature that board independence will foster board effectiveness. The difference between socially responsible firms and non socially responsible firms board structures was studied by Webb (2004) and she found that socially responsible firms had more independent directors than non socially responsible firms. Independent directors has the objective to safeguard shareholders interest and they also play an important role in enhancing the corporate image. They are seen as an important tool to keep an eye on management behavior (Rosenstein and Wyatt, 1990) and hence this results in more voluntary disclosure. Forker (1992) found out that the higher number of independent directors supervise the quality of financial disclosure. CEO Duality and CSR disclosure When a person hold the position of CEO and boar chairman, CEO duality occurs (Rechner and Dalton, 1989). This combination reflects leadership and corporate governance issues. However vesting these two powers in only one person gives that latter a strong base which can erode the boards ability to exercise effective control (Tsui and Gul, 2000). Therefore, companies with the CEO duality offer greater power to a person, which enable him to make decisions that do not maximize the shareholders wealth and will help improved monitoring quality and reduce benefits from withholding information that may consequently result in enhancing quality of reporting. Audit Committee and CSR disclosure Prior researches have proven that audit committee plays an effective role in enhancing the corporate governance standards. Wright (1996) found that audit committee composition is strongly related to financial reporting. McMullen and Raghunandan (1996) provide support for the association between the presence of an audit and more reliable financial reporting. The existence of an audit committee was significantly and positively related to the extent of voluntary disclosure (Ho and Wong, 2001; Bliss and Balachandran, 2003). Audit committee roles is providing a mean for review of the companys processes for producing financial data and its internal control, thus its existence is in producing high quality financial reporting. According to Mauritian Code of Corporate Governance (First Edition,Revise April 2004), the board should establish an audit committee with majority of independent directors. The existence of audit committee with a higher proportion of independent directors should reduce the agency cost and improve the internal control that will lead to greater quality of disclosures (Forker, 1992). Managerial ownership The agency theory predicts that the principal-agent problem between managers and shareholders arises when managers hold little equity in the corporation. This will lead to managers to engage in an opportunistic behavior (Jensen and Meckling, 1976). Past studies had showed that an increase in management ownership will reduce the agency problems and improved managers incentive to provide more disclosure. Mohd Nasir and Abdullah (2004) investigated the influence of ownership structure in explaining the level of voluntary disclosures among the financially distressed firms and found that management shareholding levels have a significant and positive association with the level of voluntary disclosures. Coffey and Wang (1998) found that managerial control (percentage of stock owned by insiders) is positively related to charitable giving. The above findings were in contrast to Guan Yeik (2006) and Eng and Mak (2003). In his study, he examined the relationship between managerial ownership and corporate social responsibility and he found that managerial ownership was significantly negatively related to corporate social disclosure. In his study, he found that managerial ownership level of 45 percent above will influence the corporate to have lower social disclosure. Eng and Mak (2003) found that lower managerial ownership is associated with increased voluntary disclosures. Foreign ownership Ramasamy and Ting (2004) examined a comparative analysis of corporate social responsibility awareness by using levels of corporate social disclosure as a measurement of corporate social responsibility (CSR) awareness. In their study, they used employee perception towards CSR awareness. The respondents were questioned on their management of CSR within the company, such as awareness of corporate social responsibility, attitudes to CSR in the company, the types of CSR activity and the respondent involvement in CSR. The results show a low level of awareness in both countries, although companies tend to exhibit a relatively higher level of awareness. Chambers et al. (2003) investigated CSR reporting in seven countries through analysis of websites of the top 50 companies in Asia. This study investigated the penetration of CSR reporting within countries; the extent of CSR reporting within companies and the waves of CSR engaged in. The findings in Chambers et al. (2003) showed that, there are fewer CSR companies in the seven selected Asian countries compared with UK and Japan companies. The mean for the seven countries studied, show a score of 41 percent which is under half the score for the UK (98 percent) and Japan companies (96 percent). Thus by involvement of foreign shareholders in Mauritian Listed companies will enhance the extent of corporate social disclosure in Mauritius. Haniffa and Cooke (2005) found a significant relationship between corporate social disclosure and foreign shareholders indicated that companies use corporate social disclosure as a proactive legitimating strategy to obtain continued inflows of capital and to please ethical investors. Foreign shareholdings in Mauritian listed companies have considerably increased.

Insanity of Hamlet and Ophelia

Hamlet’s insanity comes from his passion to get revenge and grief over his fathers death, while Ophelia has true and justified insanity. Hamlet has reason behind his madness, he is saddened by his father’s death, planning on how to kill his uncle, and his mind is in a fragile place throughout the play. Ophelia is very naive, defenseless, and loyal to the men in her life. She cannot contend with difficulties that occur during the play such as, her father dying, Hamlet’s attitude towards her, and her lack of judgement. The are both insane yet have different reasons and ranging motives behind their insanity. Hamlet is in a unique situation where he his mother has married his uncle, Claudius, and his father has been murdered by his uncle. He wants nothing but revenge for his father. Hamlet is obsessed with proving Claudius guilty. Hamlet receives a lot of pressure from the ghost of his father to achieve revenge and feels like he has some sort of responsibility to get revenge for his father. Hamlet is hasty, erratic, and does not really think about his actions. When he stabs Polonius thinking that it is Claudius hiding behind the curtains, he does not even bother to look behind the curtain he just does it. His wild elocution and deranged actions upset other characters and set them up for other actions. When Hamlet repetitively acts nastily towards Ophelia she winds up committing suicide . When Hamlet says, â€Å" Get thee to a nunnery! † to Ophelia she even questions Hamlet’s sanity at that point and may have been a contribution to Ophelia’s suicide. Hamlet is also upset with his mother, Gertrude, for marrying Claudius so fast after his fathers death. Hamlet feels betrayed by his mother and is enraged with her. In the play Hamlet tells Gertrude how much better his father was than Claudius and tries to make her promise how much better his father was than Claudius. Hamlet says to Gertrude in Act 3 Scene 4, â€Å"Mother, you have my father much offended. † Hamlet feels like his mother has betrayed his father and is angry. Hamlet makes Gertrude feel guilty for doing this. Ophelia madness is brought upon by her love for Hamlet, her loyalty to men, the death of her father, her lover killing her father, and many other things. Hamlet and Ophelia’s relationship is not based on love, but almost around their insanity. It seems as if Hamlet does not really love Ophelia until she passes and then he finally realizes his true love for her. Hamlet states in Act 5 Scene 1,†I loved Ophelia. Forty-thousand brothers could not with all their quantity of love make up my sum. What wilt thou do for her? †. Ophelia truly loves Hamlet and thinks that Hamlet loves her the same way, she is traumatized by the fact that Hamlet shuns her and is rude to her. While watching the play in the castle Hamlet says to Ophelia, â€Å"That’s a fair thought to lie between maids' legs. † His rude comment to Ophelia causes her to become distraught. Hamlet is a possible cause of Ophelia’s suicide. When she finds out that Hamlet has killed her father she talks in riddles, rhymes, and sings songs about death and virginity. In Act 4 Scene 5 Ophelia sings, â€Å"Larded with sweet flowers which bewept to the grave did not go with true-love showers. † Ophelia is hysterical over the fact that Hamlet had killed her father and this is where she completely loses her sanity. She listens to all the men in her life and follows their commands. Polonius and Laertes tell Ophelia to not see Hamlet and that Hamlet does not love her. Laertes states to Ophelia in Act 1 Scene 3, â€Å"Perhaps he loves you now, and now no soil nor cautel doth besmirch the virtue of his will but you must fear. † Laertes is telling Ophelia that Hamlet only wants her love now and will be done with her later. She believes Laertes and does not think for herself. Ophelia is an unpredictable woman who is confused by the males in her life. Ophelia and Hamlet are both undoubtedly insane, but at times Hamlet is on the brink of sanity. Ophelia is clearly crazy throughout the play. She is wild, emotional, and is operated by others. Hamlet’s madness has a source behind it and is at times a sham to throw off others. He is frazzled by his fathers’ death and getting revenge for his father by killing Claudius. He also is angered over the fact that Gertrude, his mother, married Claudius, his uncle, so quickly. Hamlet states in Act 1 scene 2, â€Å" The funeral baked meats did coldly furnish forth the marriage tables. † He is saying that his mother got married so quickly that the left overs from the funeral could cater the wedding. His relationship with Ophelia tears at his heart. He tells Ophelia that â€Å"a woman’s love is brief† during the play within a play nd makes sexual remarks to her. He is very passionate about his fathers death but not about Rosencrantz and Guildenstern’s death . Hamlet is so enveloped in getting revenge for his father, that he does not even care about the death of his two friends. Hamlet is deep in his plot for revenge against Claudius, he makes himself â€Å"crazy† over it. Hamlet and a few others are the only ones that see the ghost, people who do not see the ghost think Hamlet and the others are mad. Hamlet’s relationship with his mother was ruined after she marries Claudius. He feels betrayed by her and his mind is filled with memories of his father. Hamlet has crude passion and purpose behind his insane feelings. Ophelia is entirely insane. Hamlet’s insanity comes from the passion to get revenge for his father’s murder on Claudius and his mother for getting married so quickly to Claudius. Hamlet and Ophelia are both crazy, but Ophelia is absolutely insane and cannot handle the struggles of life. Hamlet could have possibly gotten over his insanity and dealt with his feelings, but his passion for revenge took him over. They are both insane and unstable people as Shakespeare indicates through their deaths.

A Weeping Child, Hidden by an Evil Front Essay

Many people say, those who can become good are not truly evil and that those who can become evil are not truly good. A person who is truly evil must have no remorse for the bad they have done. A truly evil person can never become good. Lady Macbeth and her husband Macbeth commit the ultimate evil. Together, they kill their King and afterwards murder and deceive many others. In the play Macbeth, by William Shakespeare, Lady Macbeth is depicted to be an evil and cruel woman in the beginning, but in the end it becomes clear that Lady Macbeth is not completely evil because she knew that what she was doing was wrong, was merely trying to please her husband, and shows complete remorse for her actions. In the early scenes of Macbeth, Lady Macbeth is portrayed to be a cruel and evil woman, but despite her actions she still realizes her wrongdoing. As she plots and demeans her husband she seems to be the backbone of the plan to kill the King. According to Bernad, a published literary critic, â€Å"She is the ambitious, unscrupulous, cruel woman who would pluck the infant smiling at her breast and dash its brains out. But beneath this iron front is a heart of flesh†¦ † (52). Lady Macbeth is putting on a front of evil to try and make her self think that what she is about to do is okay. She may seem to be evil, but she is in fact completely aware of how wrong her actions are. She even mocks the manhood of Macbeth saying, â€Å" Art thou afeard/ To be the same in thine own act and valor/ As thou art desire? Wouldst thou have that/ Which thou esteem’st the ornament of life/ And live a coward in thine own esteem,† and even suggests he is more of a woman than she is, however, she cannot kill Duncan herself (I. vii. 43-47). She begs the spirits to unsex her,† Come you spirits/ That ten on mortal thoughts, unsex me here,† knowing that she cannot do the terrible things that she must as the woman she is (I. v. 47-48). Even though she claims she could dash her infant’s brains out, she cannot find it in her to kill Duncan herself due to his so called resemblance to her father. All of the evil she seems to be in the early scenes is self-proclaimed. Lady Macbeth puts on this front of evil, but beneath it all she knows that what she is doing is ultimately wrong. Lady Macbeth not only knows her wrongdoing, but is also unselfish, doing all of this with her husband in mind. Her evil persona is simply bravery. Bernad writes, â€Å"To bolster up her husband’s courage, she puts up a brave front; but when alone, she shows how empty handed she is† (52). Although Lady Macbeth does have something to gain from Duncan’s death, she is trying to get her husband courage up to do something that he ultimately wants more than anything. This is a quality of unselfishness, which is far from evil. In front of him, she simply washes her hands of the blood as if it is nothing, but behind closed doors the blood would remain. Lady Macbeth knows as soon as she receives Macbeths letter that he wants to become the King. She says, â€Å"It is too full o’ th’ milk of human kindness/ To catch the nearest way: thou wouldst be great,/ Art not without ambition, but without/ The illness should attend it† (I. v. 17-20) Lady Macbeth knows that Macbeth wants to be the king. She also knows that without being pushed, he will not do this for himself. In order to be the unselfish and ultimately good wife she is, she must put on this brave and evil front to get her husband what he wants. She thinks of her husband and not of herself when she pushes him to do this evil act. Lady Macbeth is not an evil woman; she is simply an unselfish woman who must be brave for her husband. Remorse is another characteristic Lady Macbeth had that is not evil. A completely evil person has no guilt for the bad they do. As the play continues and begins to come to an end, a new side of Lady Macbeth is shown. A side is shown of a more feminine, and helpless woman. Bernad writes, â€Å" She has become like a scared little girl, suddenly conscious of all the wrong she has done†, and â€Å"she has become almost a pathetic figure† (52-53). By the end of the play Lady Macbeth has become crazy, consumed by her guilt. Her previous front of evil is completely erased and her true vulnerable side is shown in her sleep. As she confesses her guilt and wrongdoing, she becomes an object of sympathy. Lady Macbeth says, â€Å"The thane of Fife had a wife. Where is she now?/ What, will these hands ne’er be clean? No/ more o’ that, my lord, no more o’ that. You mar all/ with this starting† (V. i. 44-47). As she says this she knows she will never be able to get rid of the guilt. She asks if her hands will ever be clean, referring to the guilt she will always carry with her. She then goes to bed, and falls into a sleep she will never wake up from. As Lady Macbeth becomes overwhelmed with guilt, as Bernad says, â€Å" She is the heart-broken girl sitting on the doorstep, weeping over her broken doll. No man is so callous as not to have compassion on her weeping† (52). As Lady Macbeth begins to crumble, there is no evil to her. She is simply a broken woman. Lady Macbeth’s unselfishness, remorse, and complete knowledge of her actions show that she is not completely evil. Although she seems to be evil throughout the early scenes, she realizes that what she is doing is ultimately wrong. This is a trait of a good person and not an evil one. Another one of these traits is her unselfishness. All of her bad actions throughout the play were made simply with the goal to get her husband what he wanted. Lady Macbeth ultimately feels guilt and remorse for all of the wrong that comes out of what she has done. Lady Macbeth is not completely evil because she has traits that a completely evil person cannot have. No person with the ability to do good, and care for others is a completely evil person.

The Ancient Egyptian Pharaohs Fair The Negative...

Throughout history, incest, or consanguineal mating, has largely been considered taboo in cultures around the world. This belief may not simply be culturally motivated, but evolutionarily advantageous and biologically enforced. Despite this, in multiple cultures, the prestige of royalty and nobility seem to outweigh this fundamental virtue. Nowhere is this more true than in ancient Egypt, where members of the royal family were encouraged to marry and mate with close relatives, even siblings or parents. How did the ancient Egyptian pharaohs fair the negative repercussions of an incestual bloodline? While grandiose archeological findings may indicate that the nobility of ancient Egypt lived a spectacularly lavish lifestyle and were revered as gods, this romantic viewpoint often overlooks the underlying biological truth - noble bloodlines were often ravaged by congenital disease, a consequence of their consanguineal pairings. Consanguineous marriages, both in the past and in the modern day, are dangerous practice because offspring resulting from these pairings are often afflicted with congenital disorders and birth defects. The reason why this occurs can be found in Mendelian genetics. Samia Temtamy and Mona Aglan, in their study of consanguinity and genetic disorders in modern Egypt, state that â€Å"The majority of birth defects arise as a consequence of homozygosity for recessive traits† (Temtamy and Aglan 2012: 13). When two people that are closely genetically related mate, it