Individual Moral Dilemmas: Individual moral dilemmas are ethical conflicts that occur at the

personal level. These dilemmas involve choices and decisions faced by individuals in their daily
lives. They typically revolve around personal values, principles, and beliefs. Individuals must
weigh their own moral convictions and make decisions that align with their sense of right and
wrong.

Example: Deciding whether to lie to protect someone's feelings (individual level) or tell the truth
(personal integrity).

Organizational Moral Dilemmas: Organizational moral dilemmas occur within the context of a
specific organization or institution. These dilemmas involve ethical issues that arise in the
workplace or within the structure of an organization. They often require individuals to consider
their roles and responsibilities within the organization and may involve conflicts between
personal values and organizational goals.

Example: An employee faces a moral dilemma when asked to engage in deceptive marketing
practices by their employer, which may benefit the company but goes against their personal
ethics (organizational level).

Systemic Moral Dilemmas: Systemic moral dilemmas are broader in scope and involve ethical
issues that permeate entire systems, institutions, or societies. These dilemmas often result from
systemic flaws, policies, or practices that can lead to widespread harm or injustice. Addressing
systemic moral dilemmas requires a deeper examination of societal structures and may involve
advocacy for systemic change.

Example: Advocating for changes in a criminal justice system that has disproportionately high
rates of incarceration for certain racial or ethnic groups, highlighting systemic racism and
inequity (systemic level).

These three levels of moral dilemmas highlight the varying scales at which ethical conflicts can
occur. While individual dilemmas are personal in nature, organizational dilemmas pertain to
specific institutions or workplaces, and systemic dilemmas encompass larger societal issues that
often require collective efforts to address. The complexity and potential consequences increase
as one moves from individual to organizational to systemic moral dilemmas.
A dilemma is a situation in which a person or group of people is faced with a difficult choice
between two or more alternatives, especially when all the available options have some negative
consequences or ethical implications. Dilemmas often involve conflicting principles, values, or
interests, making it challenging to determine the best course of action.

Key characteristics of a dilemma include:

A Choice Between Alternatives: Dilemmas require individuals to make a decision or choice.

This decision typically involves selecting one course of action from among two or more options.

Conflicting Factors: Dilemmas arise when there are conflicting factors, such as moral principles,
values, interests, or goals, that make the decision-making process challenging. Each option may
have both pros and cons.

Ethical or Moral Implications: Many dilemmas involve ethical or moral considerations.

Individuals may need to weigh the ethical consequences of their choices and decide which option
aligns best with their moral beliefs.

Difficulty in Decision-Making: Dilemmas are characterized by their difficulty. They often lead
to feelings of uncertainty, discomfort, or inner conflict because there is no easy or obvious
solution.

Trade-Offs: In many cases, resolving a dilemma requires making trade-offs or sacrifices.

Individuals must prioritize one value or principle over another, knowing that there will be
negative consequences associated with their choice.

Impactful Consequences: Dilemmas often have significant consequences, and the choice made
can affect the well-being of individuals involved or have broader implications for society.
Vladimer M. Oligan BSED ENG 3-A

How does globalization contribute to war?

Globalization, the interconnectedness of nations and cultures, plays a complex role in shaping
the dynamics of conflict and cooperation on the global stage. While globalization offers
numerous advantages, such as economic growth, technological advancements, and cultural
exchange, it also introduces factors that can contribute to conflict. One key factor is economic
competition among nations. As globalization fosters increased trade and investment, countries
may perceive each other as economic rivals, leading to tensions and potential conflicts. The
desire to secure access to finite resources, another consequence of globalization, can also spark
conflicts over resource-rich regions, a prime example being disputes in the South China Sea.
Moreover, globalization's impact on income inequality can result in social unrest and political
instability, potentially pushing governments toward external conflicts as a means to divert
attention from domestic issues.

Nationalism and identity politics are further exacerbated by globalization. While the process
promotes international cooperation, it also fuels resistance to cultural changes and the spread of
global values, fostering tensions between nations. Disruptions of traditional societies due to
globalization's cultural shifts and urbanization can lead to social and political instability, giving
rise to conflicts or civil unrest as groups seek to preserve their cultural norms. Furthermore, the
ease of information dissemination in the age of globalization can be exploited for both positive
and negative purposes. Information warfare, propaganda, and disinformation campaigns can
manipulate public opinion and escalate conflicts. Lastly, globalization's impact on the arms trade
can lead to arms races and facilitate military conflicts, with the trade also indirectly supporting
insurgencies, further destabilizing regions. In conclusion, while globalization brings tremendous
benefits, it also introduces complex challenges and exacerbates certain factors that contribute to
global conflicts. It is imperative for international actors and governments to navigate these
challenges carefully, emphasizing diplomacy, conflict resolution, and global governance to
harness globalization's potential for peaceful cooperation and prosperity while mitigating its
potential negative impacts on global stability.
What is market integration on globalization?

Market integration in the context of globalization refers to the process by which national or
regional markets become interconnected and interdependent on a global scale. It involves the
breaking down of trade barriers, the facilitation of cross-border trade and investment, and the
harmonization of economic policies to create a more seamless and interconnected global
marketplace. Market integration is a fundamental aspect of globalization and has several key
components, including trade liberalization, financial integration, technological advances, global
supply chains, standardization, and the alignment of economic policies with the goal of
facilitating global trade and economic cooperation. This process has the potential to drive
economic growth, improve access to a wider range of products and services, and foster greater
international cooperation, but it also poses challenges related to economic inequality, regulatory
issues, and the need for effective global governance.
Task 1

1. Due to various definitions of globalization, there is the absence of a generally accepted

definition to elucidate its concept. In response, Steger (2005) posited that globalization has been
commonly understood either as a process, a condition; or an ideology. Linking this to Bana
Alabed’s case, what concept of globalization do you think was exhibited? Provide justifications.

Bana Alabed's case exemplifies globalization as a process through the rapid dissemination of her
story across the globe via social media, prompting global responses and showcasing
transnational solidarity. This highlights the interconnectedness and interdependence of our
world, as information transcends borders, people from diverse backgrounds engage in global
issues, and global awareness becomes increasingly integral to our collective consciousness.
Additionally, her situation indirectly reflects globalization as an ideology and condition, as it
underscores the globalized lens through which we view events and the impact of global forces on
local conditions, particularly in conflict zones like Syria.

2. In your perception, what globalization paradigm can best explain the power of social media in
awaking and moving people from around the world to the harsh conditions in Syria? Explicate
your answer.

The "Globalization as a Communication Revolution" paradigm best elucidates the power of

social media in awakening and mobilizing people worldwide to the harsh conditions in Syria.
Social media's role as a transformative communication tool facilitated the rapid dissemination of
information, breaking down geographical barriers and creating a global awareness of the Syrian
crisis. It fostered emotional connections, inspiring individuals globally to become engaged,
demand humanitarian action, and advocate for change. Furthermore, social media platforms
enabled the formation of transnational networks and communities, facilitating coordinated efforts
and resources across borders. This paradigm underscores how social media has amplified voices,
democratized information dissemination, and empowered individuals to bring global attention to
critical humanitarian issues like the Syrian conflict.

3. If the same technology brought by Globalization was available during the height of WW1 and
WW2, what are your assertions as to the situations that could have happened or could have
transpired during that time? Give at least three assertions.

If the advanced technology and communication capabilities that we associate with globalization
today were available during World War I and World War II, three key assertions can be made:

A. Accelerated Diplomacy and Conflict Resolution:** Real-time communication could have

led to quicker diplomacy, potentially averting or reducing the scale of these conflicts by
facilitating more efficient negotiation and conflict resolution efforts.
 B. Enhanced Intelligence and Surveillance:** Advanced technology might have
significantly improved intelligence gathering and surveillance capabilities, potentially
altering battle outcomes and shortening the duration of the wars by providing more
accurate and timely information about enemy movements, strategies, and intentions.

C. Global Public Opinion and Anti-War Movements:** The globalization of information

and media could have generated global public opinion against the wars, pressuring
political leaders to seek peaceful resolutions by rapidly disseminating news, images, and
accounts of the conflicts and fueling anti-war movements on a global scale. However, it's
essential to recognize that technology's impact would have been just one factor
influencing the historical outcomes, as geopolitical complexities and underlying causes
played significant roles in shaping the course of these conflicts.

From the three assertions you have provided in number three, choose at least one and classify it
according to the intersecting dimensions of integration in globalization which termed by
Anthropologist Arjun Appadurai as “scapes” (ethnoscape; mediascape; technoscape;
financescape; ideoscape).

One of the assertions provided can be classified as part of the "mediascape" dimension of
globalization as termed by anthropologist Arjun Appadurai. Specifically:

Assertion 3: Global Public Opinion and Anti-War Movements The globalization of information
and media could be classified under the "mediascape" dimension. In this scenario, advanced
communication technology and the rapid dissemination of news, images, and accounts of the
conflicts would contribute to shaping global public opinion against the wars. This would fall
under the realm of the mediascape because it involves the global flow of information, images,
and narratives through media channels and platforms, which can have a profound influence on
how people perceive and react to global events and conflicts.