The Top 80s Songs About the Workforce

Vainglory Essay - 1210 Words

The vice that I have chosen to examine further and relate to my everyday life is that of vainglory. The broad definition of vainglory is â€Å"excessive and disordered desire for recognition and approval from others† (DeYoung 60). This is basically an action that strives to bring praise upon oneself, possible at the expense of another person’s well-being. While striving for glory is not always a sinful act, when the drive to receive glory no longer focuses on the acquisition of charity, but instead for personal gain, or becomes excessive in nature, you cross the line from being a glorious person to a vainglorious person. While spending my week focusing on the vice of vainglory, I identified two insights that explained why it is so prevalent in†¦show more content†¦In contrast to the tree ways that vainglory can manifest itself, there are three ways that make vainglory acceptable, for an action that is vainglorious that does not fall under these three categories , is indeed a vice. Therefore, vainglory can be ordained in three ways: when desiring such glory is desiring to give glory to God, when the goal of obtaining glory is to help your neighbor, and when receiving praise is to help assure that you are on the right track to obtaining your highest level of goodness. In simpler terms, vainglory seeks to corrupt the good because it seeks to remove glory from the good, and place all that excessive glory on things that do not last, things that are not true, or things that take us off our own paths to greater goodness. It is also important to mention the daughter sins of vainglory, which someone people may be more familiar with. These daughter sins are composed of any action in which we try to appear superior to others either through means of our intellect, resisting advice, not submitting to authority, or simply through boasting. During my week focusing on the vice of vainglory, I discovered just how prevalent it is in our society. Not only is vainglory fueled by the media that consumes an ample amount of our daily lives, I also believe that it is fueled by the competitive nature that is academia. Competition is not necessarilyShow MoreRelatedFrancis Bacon15624 Words   |  63 Pagessaleable morality. He is a moralist-cum-worldly wise man. Bacon appears as a moralist in his essays, for he preaches high moral principles and lays down valuable guidelines for human conduct. Some of his essays show him as a true lover and preacher of high ethical codes and conducts. For instance, in â€Å"Of Envy†, he puts: â€Å"A man that hath no virtue in himself, ever envieth virtue in others.† Then, in his essay â€Å"Of Goodness and Goodness of Nature† he says: â€Å"But in charity there is no excess; neitherRead MoreChaucer s Squire : An Exploration Of Character Modalities1473 Words   |  6 Pageschivalric tradition, and the natural and pastoral realm of a meadow. By using this particular image, Chaucer forces his reader to decide if this word means this character is vain, humble, constructed, organic or some combination of these things. In this essay, both avenues of interpretation will be explored, in an attempt to parse out the meaning of this association and its various approaches. In thinking of the word meadow, there is a notion of peacefulness and untouched territory. When connecting thisRead MoreSt. Thomas Aquinas s An Unjust Law1433 Words   |  6 Pagesrealization that these are two inconsistent claims. Yet Aquinas believes that these inconstancies can be reconciled. In Aquinas’ view an unjust law is not a law but yet is also able to be issued as law and imposed as law. Throughout the course of this essay, I will first define what Aquinas means by incorporating the claim that â€Å"an unjust law is no law at all†. This will include defining important terms that will correspond with evaluating Aquinas’ claim. I will then map out his main arguments that supportRead MoreFrankenstein by Mary Shelley: A Critical Analysis2039 Words   |  8 PagesWhen the Monster learns the abominable way in which he was created he feels rage and professes everlasting war against [ ¦] him who had formed me (Shelley, 1992, p. 146). The Monster recognizes that he is merely the representation of Victors vainglory (2006, p. 87): A new species would bless me as its creator and source (1992, p. 48), declares Victor. This is when Shelleys theme rings clear: the world cannot be content when fathers and sons (i.e. parents and their children) are not in communion

Value System in Nepal Free Essays

string(66) " system ought to be consistent, quite often this is not the case\." What is value system? In simple way value system means the principle of right and wrong that are accepted by an individual or a social group. Values can be defined as broad preferences concerning appropriate courses of action or outcomes. As such, values reflect a person’s sense of right and wrong or what â€Å"ought† to be. We will write a custom essay sample on Value System in Nepal or any similar topic only for you Order Now 40â€Å"Equal rights for all† and â€Å"People should be treated with respect and dignity† are representative of values. Values tend to influence attitudes and behavior.For example, if you value equal rights for all and you go to work for an organization that treats its managers much better than it does its workers, you may form the attitude that the company is an unfair place to work; consequently, you may not produce well or may perhaps leave the company. It is likely that if the company had had a more egalitarian policy, your attitude and behaviors would have been more positive. A value system is in essence the ordering and prioritization of the ethical and ideological values that an individual or society holds. While two individuals or groups may share a set of common values, they may differ in their determination of which values in that set have precedence over others. The two individuals or groups are said to have different value systems, even though they may have many values in common, if their prioritization of values differs, or if there are different exceptions they attach to these values. Groups and individuals whose differing value systems have many values in common may still wind up in conflict, ideological or physical, with each other, because of the differences in their value systems.People with differing value systems will thus disagree on the rightness or wrongness of certain actions, both in the abstract and in specific circumstances. In essence, a value system (if sufficiently well-defined) is a formalization of a moral code. The premise behind the discipline of rigorously examining value systems and the differences between them (given the provisional name ethonomics) is that an understanding of these differences in prioritization of values can lead to greater understanding about the politics (and motivations) of individuals and groups.While political discourse in recent times has frequently focused on the â€Å"values† held by the people engaging in the discourse (be they candidates, office holders, or media pundits), in reality those being compared share many (perhaps most) values in common. It is in their prioritization of those values that they differ, causing them (as a result of these different prioritizations) to come to different conclusions about what is right and wrong, and to take different actions accordingly.One example of a simple formal value system is Isaac Asimov’s Three Laws of Robotics, which is intended as value system (of sorts) for robots in the hypothetical future of Asimov’s science fiction novels. Simply distilled, the laws stipulate that: * human life is of primary importance and value (â€Å"A robot may not harm a human being, or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm. â€Å") * orders given by human beings to robots are secondary, to be obeyed as long as they do not violate the first law (â€Å"A robot must obey the orders given to it by human beings, except where such orders would conflict with the First Law. ) * a robot’s own existence is of tertiary value, meaning that a robot should preserve its own l ife only if the other two laws have been satisfactorily complied with (â€Å"A robot must protect its own existence, as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Law. â€Å") Naturally, this is a very simplistic set of values, but the idea behind formalization of value systems is that more complex value systems that apply to human society might be derived or mapped from similar principles and structures, and that conflicts between such value systems might be resolved rationally.Definitions Values In order to define value systems, we need to define the characteristics of values that could be represented in a value system. The values that a group or person holds may fall into several different categories. The ones that usually concern us in the area of value systems are the ethical and the ideological. * Ethical values may be thought of as those values which serve to distinguish between good and bad, right and wrong, and moral and immoral. At a societal level, these values frequently form a basis for what is permitted and what is prohibited. Ideological values deal with the broader or more abstract areas of politics, religion, economics, and social mores. In theory, the broader ideological values should derive logically as natural consequences of the particulars of fundamental ethical values and their prioritizations. But although ideally a value system ought to be consistent, quite often this is not the case. You read "Value System in Nepal" in category "Papers" Value Systems As mentioned earlier, a value system is the ordering and prioritization of the ethical and ideological values that an individual or society holds.The specific prioritizations may lead to designated exceptions invoked because one value is deemed more important than another (e. g. , â€Å"lying is wrong, but lying to save someone else’s life is acceptable, because human life is more valuable (more highly valued) than the principle that lying is wrong†). Regardless of whether or not value systems are formed logically, they determine for individuals and societies what actions they are likely to act and how those actions are likely to be justified (or perhaps ‘rationalized’). Characteristics of Value SystemsValue systems can be categorized along multiple axes: * They can be personal, held by an individual and applicable only to an individual, or they can be communal or societal, defined by and applying to a community or society. Communal value sys tems may be legal codes take on the force of law in many societies. * They can be internally consistent, where the broader ideological values derive logically as natural consequences of the particulars of fundamental ethical values, and where values do not contradict each other, or they can be inconsistent.Although ideally a value system ought to be consistent, quite often this is not the case in practice. Note that valuing the consistency of a value system is itself a sort of ‘meta-value’, that could be present or absent in a given value system. * They can be idealized value systems (ideal representations of an individual’s or group’s value prioritizations) or realized value systems (how such a value system is manifested in reality, in the actions and decisions of the individual or group).Idealized value systems tend to be absolute, in that they are codified as a strict set of proscriptions on behavior, while realized value systems contain conditional exceptions that are rules to resolve collisions between values in pract ical circumstances. Personal vs. Communal A value system may be held by a group of people, a community or society, or it might be held by an individual. An individual person’s value system might be consistent with or equivalent to the community’s value system. Consistency does not imply equivalence, though.An individual’s value system might even hold the person to a higher standard, and still be consistent with the community’s value system. (Consistency within a value system, described below, refers to the degree to which contradictions and overt situational exceptions are absent from that value system; consistency between value systems means that any action that might be taken in one value system would not contradict the rules associated with another. ) Exceptions One way of looking at differences between value systems is to think of the exceptions to the â€Å"rules† associated with values.These could be abstract exceptions (which are generalized enough in the way they are defined to take hold in all situations) and situational exceptions (which only can be said to be applied in very specific sit uations). The more generalized the exception, the more useful it is in a wider context for defining a consistent value system. In general, abstract exceptions serve to reinforce the prioritization of values, e. g. : Lying is wrong, but lying to save someone else’s life is acceptable, because preserving a human life is more valuable (more highly valued) than the adhering to the principle that lying is wrong.In a formal value system (idealized or realized), the default exception associated with each value is assumed to be â€Å"as long as no higher-priority value is violated†. However, this hierarchical structure may be too simplistic in practice, and explicit exceptions may need to be specified. Examples of exceptions in practice: * We may commonly agree that telling the truth is an important positive value, and that conversely deception is inherently wrong. But we make both abstract and situational exceptions for circumstances where we may assert that lying is acceptable behavior. Thus lying to avoid causing another person pain as a general rule would be considered an abstract exception, while lying in a particular situation because a specific person, if lied to, might do a specific thing at a specific time would be considered a situational exception. * People may agree that stealing is wrong, but some people may believe that stealing if you are starving and want to feed yourself and your loved ones is more acceptable than stealing if you are a abitual thief who makes a living stealing from people, or if you are an already wealthy person whose greed leads you to steal from your partners, your investors, or those you do business with. Others may find nothing wrong with stealing from faceless corporations and business establishments but may frown upon stealing from individuals. Some may define certain acts to qualify as not stealing if they fit into some of these categories. * People who think that killing is wrong might make an exception for someone acting in s elf-defense, placing a higher value on preservation of one’s own life than on the principle of â€Å"thou shalt not kill†.Someone in the military might accept the value that killing another person is wrong yet may see nothing wrong with killing someone (in self-defense or not) in the course of or following the orders of a military commander (assumed to have a valid reason for ordering the killing), placing a higher value on discipline/loyalty and â€Å"defending one’s country†. Conversely, a conscientious objector might prioritize the value that killing is wrong not only over military actions but even over self-defense. Many people in the business world might include the Golden Rule (which says â€Å"Do unto others as you would have others do unto you†) in their value system, but in practice they might place higher priority on the values like â€Å"Every man for himself† or â€Å"Let the buyer beware†. Conversely, another person might find that prioritization morally repugnant, and accuse the businessman of being unethical (or even of a form of theft) if he sells merchandise he knows to be shoddy, or deceives those he tries to do business with. ConsistencyA value system whose exceptions are abstract, generalized enough to be used in all situations, is said to be an internally consistent value system. On the other hand, a value system whose exceptions are highly situational, or whose exceptions are inconsistently applied, is said to be an internally inconsistent. A value system’s consistency (or lack thereof) does not necessarily say anything about how ‘good’ or ‘evil’ it is. A value system that declares that lying and murder are acceptable, that essentially endorses a ‘might makes right’ morality, could be internally consistent in its approach.Likewise, an internally inconsistent value system, loaded with inconsistently applied situational exceptions, might be considered perfectly acceptable if the ‘meta-value’ of consistent application of values is not part of the value system. (The paradox here is that the absence of this value in a value system makes it consistent, because there is no constraint that says it must be consistent. It could be argued that those who explicitly omit this meta-value from their value system implicit endorse consistency as a value in that act of deliberate omission. On the other hand, those who hold this value ) Idealized vs.Realized These exceptions, especially when they are implicitly rather than explicitly defined, often yield a difference between an idealized value system and the realized value system. The idealized value system is the simple listing of values (in priority order) that a person or society would purport that they employ in determining right and wrong. The realized value system is the one they actually use in day-to-day life. While people claiming to employ a particular value system might say they place more value on x than y, more often than not there are deviations from this in practice. A consistent value system A religion may list a strong set of positive values, but its adherents and even those who are leaders of the religion may stray from those in practice. Idealized value systems often list strict rules (perhaps without any prioritizing order) but do not carefully define exceptions, abstract or situational. Realized value systems, in practice, often have a number of exceptions associated with them, but they may not be explicitly defined or consistently applied. Absolutists hold to their idealized value system and claim no exceptions other than the default.Defining Values Some fundamental values that most people seem to share, at least in theory, are: * â€Å"It’s wrong to hurt, to harm, or especially to kill another person. † * â€Å"It’s wrong to steal from another person. † * â€Å"It’s wrong to lie. † In practice, realized examples of these values would be a good deal more complicated, with exceptions already embedded within them. * â€Å"It’s wrong to hurt another person, except in self-defense to keep them from hurting you, or if it is agreed upon with the other person as a step towards a mutually acceptable greater good (e. g. a doctor giving a patient a painful injection to cure an ailment). † * â€Å"It’s wrong to take something from someone in a non-consensual fashion without negotiating overtly with the other person and agreeing to a mutually satisfactory transfer or exchange. † * â€Å"It’s wrong to deceive another person knowingly for your own gain. † * â€Å"It’s wrong to take deliberate overt action to prevent another person from exercising his will as long as that exercise does not interfere with your own exercise of will, except when the other person’s will serves to violate the aforementioned principle s. In general, these values declare that â€Å"it’s wrong to interfere in another person’s life unless they do things to interfere in yours† This corresponds in essence to what has been called the Wiccan Rede which declares that â€Å"[As long as it] harms none, do what thou wilt†. While this may seem an elegant moral principle, in practice it runs into trouble because of the differing priorities people place on specific individual values, because of the way differing value systems define what is and isn’t ‘harm’, and perhaps most of all because of the different exceptions implicitly or explicitly defined in a value system.Examples of conflicting value systems This section is devoted to the process of using rational analysis to resolve conflicts between value systems. Individualism vs. collectivism In individualism, the needs and wants of the individual take precedence over the needs and wants of a society or community. The implicit excep tion inherent in individualism is usually â€Å"as long as the actions of the individual do not harm other individuals. † Absolutists may claim that even this exception does not hold. In collectivism, the needs and wants of the society or community take precedence over the needs and wants of the individual. Rarely is the exception invoked that this is true â€Å"as long as the actions of the society do not restrict individuals . † It could be argued that a rational value system puts value on the needs and wants of the society or community structure, but does not give this more value than the needs and wants of the individuals within it.It is relatively easy to argue the case for this prioritization: under collectivism, a community could decide (however such decisions might be made) that it would work better if there were no people in it to interfere with the smooth running of society. While this might be true, since people tend to â€Å"complicate† the smooth running of any social order, it would create a society without any people, something which is clearly against the interest of the people in that society—would we rationally advocate our o wn extinction if it made the â€Å"system† of society run better?A rational resolution to the conflict between individualism and collectivism might structure these values in this manner: 1. The rights of individuals to act as they wish is unencumbered, unless their actions harm others or interfere with others’ free exercise of their individual rights, and as long as their actions do not interfere with functions of society that other individuals depend upon, provided those functions do not themselves interfere with these proscribed individual rights and were agreed to by a majority of the individuals. . A society (or more specifically the system of order that enables the workings of a society) exists for the purpose of benefitting the lives of the individuals who are members of that society. The functions of a society in providing such benefits would be those agreed to by the majority of individuals in the society. 1. A society may require contributions from its members in order for them to benefit from the services provided by the society.The failure of individuals to make such required contributions could be considered a reason to deny those benefits to them, although a society could elect to consider hardship situations in determining how much should be contributed. 1. A society may restrict behavior of individuals who are members of the society only for the purpose of performing its designated functions agreed to by the majority of individuals in the society, only insofar as they violate the aforementioned values. This means that a society may abrogate the rights of any of its members who fails to uphold the aforementioned values. Of necessity, as you can see here, the exceptions associated with values like these can become recursive and often convoluted. The name proposed for the discipline that tries to perform this task—mapping and formalizing value system prioritizations and resolving conflicts between disparate value systems through rational analysis—is ethonomics. How to cite Value System in Nepal, Papers

The Significance of Sovereignty

Question: Discuss about theSignificance of Sovereignty. Answer: Introduction: A Sovereign State is a state that is independent in power, which is ruled by a centralized sovereign government, which is a ruling body without any political interference from other external powers. A sovereign state can exist without being disturbed or even recognized by other states, but unless there is self sufficiency, which is a large impossibility, trade dealings and diplomatic talks go on between the states, promoting global harmony (Dworkin, 2002). A complete opposite political entity is a non-sovereign state, which are independent states, which have not yet been recognized of their sovereignty. While sovereign stated exercise de jure or legal control of their states; non sovereign states exercise de facto or factual, not legally approved control of their states. For a state to be declared as a sovereign state, it has to be recognized by the member states of the international community. There are several attributes to it such as permanence, exclusiveness, all-comprehensiveness, inalienability, unity, imprescriptibility, indivisibility, absoluteness and originality (Krasner, 2001). The Declarative theory of the International Law defines the requirements for the recognition of sovereignty as a defined territory, a permanent population, an efficient government, and a capacity to enter into relation with other states. The Constitutive theory advocates the sovereignty of a state upon its recognition by other sovereign states. This essay puts forth a question whether the sovereign status of a state is absolutely necessary to aid its development. In order to answer the question, the characteristics of sovereignty, its influence in geo-politics, its advantages and disadvantages are discussed, with respect to The Republic of China (Taiwan). The Question of Sovereignty Taiwan, formerly known as Formosa, is an island in East Asia, with the highest population and economy when compared to the non-sovereign states outside of the UN. It is one such non-sovereign state, which has declared independence way back in 1912, but still is not recognized as a sovereign state globally. In 1971, it lost its UN membership to the Peoples Republic of China, and in the 1980s, the mode of governance in Taiwan changed from a single party system to a democratic multi-party system. However, there has been a constant tussle between the government of Taiwan seeking sovereignty, and the Peoples Republic of China claiming Taiwan as its province (Copper, 2003). However, it continues to maintain non-diplomatic relations with other states, in order to maintain trade and political relations, and as many as 52 nations from all over the world are involved in bilateral relations with Taiwan. In order to question the need for a sovereign status to Taiwan, we need to analyze the achievements made by Taiwan in six major areas of development, compared to an assumption of its standings if it were declared sovereign. Economy The economy of Taiwan is the 5th largest in Asia, after a quick recovery from the global economic crisis that occurred in the period 2007-2010., even though it reached an all time low in 2009. The major source for Taiwans economical stability is its foreign trade, and its export goods, mainly comprising of electronic and industrial parts are of high demand in the United States of America. Even though a non-recognized state, Taiwan is a part of the World Trade Organization (WTO). There is a visible absence of Taiwans foreign relations with the Peoples Republic of China (Winkler, 2008). However, the lack of interactions with its own neighbor does not seem to affect Taiwans economy; as it holds a key position in the Asian and Global economy (Berger Lester, 2015). Administration Taiwan was declared as a democratic state in the 1980s, when the multi party system came into force. However, political rifts between China and Taiwan have been continuing since long, and this had led to the issue always hampering the political progress of Taiwan (Swaine, 2004). This pressure often leads to impaired international relations with respect to trade and foreign affairs between the two neighboring states. Another issue includes wavering terms with the USA in relation to arms procurement. These are some of the issues which would be non-existent, if Taiwan was declared a sovereign state. However, high level negotiations and discussions are on between Taiwan and China, which is hoped to indicate a better future, aiming at a fully independent and sovereign Taiwan. Military The military of Taiwan dates back to the early 1920s, where it had to face defeat at the hands of Mainland China. However today, Taiwan has a strong military base, with the optimal use of advanced technology in their campaigns (Bush, 2005). The Taiwan army has to be constantly on guard, defending the state from insurgent attacks from China, though their initial motive was an aggressive stance to reclaim their land of China. Today, the Taiwan army is the first-line of defense of the state against any possible invasions. Taiwan has established strong support from several nations including Japan, the USA, and Australia, of assistance in case of any invasions, with the RIMPAC activities conducted every two years on its side. However, as every nation allied with Taiwan is an ally of China as well, establishing a strong Taiwanese army is essential (Dumbaugh, 2007) Education Taiwan has an impressive literacy rate of 97.15%. Initially managed by Japan before Taiwan took over, the education system of Taiwan is considered to be one of the toughest in the world (Hsu, 2004). Science It has been severely criticized for putting too much of pressure on the students, not providing scope for creative and rationale learning, and over-emphasizing on rote learning. In higher education, the stream of Engineering is the most sought after by the students, as Taiwan has a large market in the manufacturing sector. Due to the increase in competition for higher education, whether within the state or abroad, there is a great demand for privately managed cram-schools and tutorials, where students attend crash courses to improve their expertise (Mok, 2003). Healthcare Taiwan is a developed economy, so the healthcare challenges faced by the people are similar to those in the USA obesity and cardiovascular diseases. Healthcare is managed by the National Health Insurance, which has 99% coverage (Chiu et al., 2007). The NHI is highly stringent in its laws and policies, demanding patient satisfaction as its primary achievement. However, there are issues with the Taiwan government not allocating sufficient funds to healthcare, and an absent national healthcare regulatory body, which leads to a comparatively lower quality of healthcare being provided to the people. Sports In sports, Taiwan competes under the name Chinese Taipei. This is mainly due to its non-sovereignty, and opposition from the PRC (Luo Wang, 2002). Taiwan excels in sports like archery, baseball, basketball, football, lawn tennis, and martial arts like taekwondo. It has several champion sportspersons, with the weightlifters and archers bringing in medals in the recently concluded summer Olympics at Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. Sporting talent apart, the name Chinese Taipei is deliberately questionable, as it might reflect the Republic of China, or in reference to provincial hold of the PRC on Taiwan. However, the ambiguity does not seem to affect the sporting performance of the Taiwanese sportspersons. Having analyzed the developmental parameters of Taiwan, it is found to provide an ambiguous answer, as in most cases, lack of the States sovereignty does not affect the nations performance. In spite of being a non-sovereign, wannabe state, Taiwan has shown great strides of development, and has competed with several other nations and super powers in trade and economy. It has managed to ally with one of the worlds largest super power nations, and thus has obtained the support of most nations of the world, lest a military insurgency is planned against it. Taiwan is one among the toppers of the worlds literacy rates, which is a result of a healthy and stable economy. It is self sufficient in its produce, and has a high demand and export value for its products. It has a fairly healthy population, which is an indication of an overall prosperity. If Taiwan was a sovereign republic, the political issues would cease to exist. It need not compete in the international sporting arena under a pseudonym, and it would have support from the United Nations for many issues. However, given todays economic and educational strength, declaration of its sovereignty would be an asset than a need, but would still be welcome. Conclusion Sovereignty is a states right to itself, provided efficient rule is established. It is right for an established nation to take over another nations responsibility only if the former is unable to rule effectively. Taiwan, with its efficient management, growing economy, and high literacy and healthcare rates, has surpasses many developing nations in its progress. If this is the case without sovereignty, a sovereign Taiwan would top the world giving a stiff competition to other major developed nations. The question of whether the sovereign status of a state is absolutely necessary to aid its development can be answered with a yes and a no; a no for sovereignty not being the key factor in any development, and a yes as it is always good and safe to be completely independent in rule and identity. Thus, sovereignty promotes independence, inter-dependence, and a harmonious world at large. References Berger, S. Lester, R.K., 2015. Global Taiwan: Building competitive strengths in a new international economy. Routledge. Bush, R.C., 2005. Untying the knot: Making peace in the Taiwan Strait. Brookings Institution Press. Chiu, W.T., Yang, C.M., Lin, H.W. Chu, T.B., 2007. Development and implementation of a nationwide health care quality indicator system in Taiwan. International Journal for Quality in Health Care, 19(1), pp.21-28. Copper, J.F., 2003. Taiwan: Nation-state or province? Boulder, CO. Dumbaugh, K., 2007. Taiwan: Recent Developments and US Policy Choices. Library of Congress Washington dc Congressional Research Service. Dworkin, R., 2002. Sovereign virtue: The theory and practice of equality. Harvard University Press. Hsu, S.-J., 2004. The effects of an environmental education program on responsible environmental behavior and associated environmental literacy variables in Taiwanese college students. The Journal of Environmental Education, 35(2), pp.37-48. Krasner, S.D., 2001. Rethinking the sovereign state model. Review of International Studies, 27(5), pp.17-42. Luo, Y.L. Wang, W.J., 2002. High-skill migration and Chinese Taipeis industrial development. International mobility of the highly skilled, 18, p.25369. Mok, K.H., 2003. Globalisation and higher education restructuring in Hong Kong, Taiwan and Mainland China. Higher Education Research and Development, 22(2), pp.117-29. Swaine, M.D., 2004. Trouble in Taiwan. Foreign Affairs, pp.39-49. Winkler, S., 2008. Can trade make a sovereign? TaiwanChinaEU relations in the WTO. Asia Europe Journal, 6(3-4), pp.467-85.