EDDIT GRAMMAR MISTAKES

　　　If the Sadhu was dropped at my feet, I will not left the Sadhu to the next group. I will take the Sadhu to the safety, because I think protect the Sadhu from death is the most important thing, it is more important than the goal that I want to get over the Himalaya. If I saw the Sadhu is at death’s door, I will not just give him clothes and food, I will take him to the safe place or send him to the hospital directly and give up my personal goal. In my point of view, the right of life is higher than everything. Everyone has their goal, but you can only achieve it when you are alive. Nobody has right to push others to the death. We have responsibility to save people if they are almost dead. Therefore if I were there and the Sadhu was dropped at my feet I will take him to the safe place without hesitate.

　　　Buzz chose to left the Sadhu at the path and let him waiting for the next group to save him because Buzz did not think he can send the Sadhu to the safe place and than climb again. If the situation was different, Buzz may changed his attitude. If the situation is Buzz has many crews with him and good equipments that allows him to send the Sadhu to the safety than go back again, Buzz may choose not left the Sadhu on the path alone. However, I think Buzz is the person who is hard to give up his goals. He has lead his team to get over the Himalaya Mountain, his goal is get away from the modern city and electronic devices so that he could relax his brain and got some new and better idea in the process of getting over the Himalaya Mountain. The personality of Buzz is never to be easy to give up. Therefore the decision of Buzz that left the Sadhu alone and continued their trip is obviously. His personality lead his decision that focus on the goal he want to achieve and in this process he could ignore many things that he thought are not more important than his goal. This is how Buzz’s personality effected his decision.

　　　The “moral” of the parable is care about others and help them if they need your help. Do not be so selfish and only focus on ourselves. In this video, Buzz ignore the fate of the Sadhu because he cares himself more. This parable want to show the audiences that as a person living on the earth, we should not be so cold, we are living with people around us, we are not living alone. Everyone needs help from others. On the other side, if someone needs our help, we should give our hands to them. What’s more, ignore other’s dearth is not just about “moral”. If you are watching a person dying in front of you but you did nothing to help, you are similar to the murderer. The reason is you disrespect people’s life, which is the most important for everyone.

　　　I’ve faced many ethical delimma in my life and most of the time I felt I did right decisions. The education from my parents is always be a good person and help people you think that they need your help. There was one thing, I remember until today and I will never forget. The reason that I cannot forget it is because I thougt I did the wrong decision. When I was in the high school, I attended English class every weekend. The building is located in the center city which is very crowded. One day after the class, the rain came suddenly and I forgot to bring my umbrella. I hided under the shlter of the building. People were running and finding place to hide. I saw a man follwed a girl closely and I saw him put his hand into that girl’s bag! I realized that he is a thief. I was so nervous, I knew I should tell that girl there was a thief behiend her, but I did not do that at the end. I was struggling. I was so afraid that if I tell that girl and the thief saw my face, he may has vindictive, and what if he has other peers with him. I was so afraid I may push myself into the dangerous. I looked around, people stood by me were all saw that, but no one reminded that girl, and we just saw them passed by. I do not know what the thief took from that girl, maybe her phone, which has important contact information in it. Maybe her wallent, which has her important personal ID in it. I was so regreted, because I could protect her from that thief but I did not. After this, I changed my minded, I am still afraid of thievies or bad people, but I insist do the right desision; that is protect people that I can and help them if they need. Almost one year after this happened. One day at the bus station outside my school, I saw a thief was stealing from a student, I shouted at that student and told her to be aware, without hesitate.

　　　I still remember this because I knew I could do better. Actually there is no right or wrong for this situation. The judement is from yourself, you are the one decide which is right and which is wrong. When we meet some ethical delimma, the first thing we may consider is protect ourselves, this is the instinct of human beings. Different people have different concious for the ethical delimma, I cannot say save that girl is the right thing because I may push myself into the dangerous and let my family worry about me. Someone may hold the idea like “this is not my business”. For me, I do not care others’ thought, I will choose to save people and stop the criminal because this is my attitude toward to that kind of ethical situations. For short, if you think you are doing the right thing, then just do it.

　　　There are some interviewees in this movie which included people like the leftie and psychologist Noam Chomsky, historian Howard Zinn and Milton Friedman who once earned the Nobel Economics Prize. In the very beginning, the movie briefly introduces the meaning of the corporation and retrospects the development history of corporation in the past 150 years. However, the main point the director want to show the audiences is how the corporation ignore people’s life, environment and morality just for reach the profit maximization. In the first place this movie diagnoses that some large enterprises and financial group have mental diseases based on the standard of diagnosis by the W.H.O and DSM IV. Their syptoms are like ignore other’s feelings, unabiding relationship, no sense of guilt and antisocial personality. With the process of globalization, corporations that have those kind of personalities plunder and compete, which shock the whole society, even the whole world. The issue that this movie addressed is corporations break the rule of the nature and ignore morality just for gain more profit, which bring huge diaster to the world.

　　　The most interesting point in this movie I think is the way that the director used to do the interview. Directors hided the camara behind the mirror and the interviewees can relax so that the camara can capture the most authentic view of those interviewees. For instance, we can see that when the former CEO of Royal Dutch/Shell Mark Moody-Stuart and his wife is entertain those protester who support “Earth First” and they exchange their proposals of human rights and environment protection. The writter of “the Movement for the Survival of the Ogoni People” named Ken Saro Wiwa and his 8 peers are sent to the gallows by Nigeria militray, which shows the syptoms of no sense of guilt as mentioned before. Whats more, we can see that the dealer of daily necessities named Carlton Brown is calculate the market price of the gold when the “911” was happened, which also reflect the syptom of no sense of guilt. Directors used a special method to help the audiences see the truth clearer. Therefore I think this is the most important point in this movie.

　　　The most controversial point I heard in this movie is some corporation ignore consumers’ health problems but just focus on how to make more money. For example, in this movie, it analyses a case that is the famous transnational enterprises called Monsanto, they inject rBGH into the dairy cattles, which can let dairy cattles have more milk. However, rBGH is forbidden in the Europe and Canada because it may cause the cancer. There are two reporters in the Fox News Network Jane Akre and Steve Wilson want to disclose through mass media but the Monsanto company and the people on the executive level of Fox News did not want this be exposure. Therefore the report wrote by these two reporters was required to fix about 83 times and at the end, people still did not know the truth of Monsanto company. The other example is the “blue giant” IBM provided the punch-card system they produced in the World War two to German Nazi which let the 6 million Jews be slaughtered more quickly. The card records the detail about how the German Nazi disposed the Jews. It is more important to make more money, or it is more important to protect people and provide them a better life. More and more corporations nowadays can only see the profit but ignore consumers’ health. In this movie, I think this is the most controversial point.

　　　The most ethical problem that this movie addressing is corporations ignore the human rights. Those big enterprises are effecting the world so they can feel power in their hands. They used the power to changed the world and control more wealth. They ignore a problem that is we are all living on the earth, when they are destroy the environment, they are destroy their own family. When they are persecute low class people, they are persecute their homology. Therefore the most ethical problem that this movie addressing is those corporations ignore or even trample on the basic human right, which in the future, may destroy the world we are living.

　　　This documentary promulgates the truth and issues that Wal-Mart has but people and consumers still do not know. This movie shows some serious problems of Wal-Mart though interview employees in Wal-Mart. Some of them have been working in Wal-Mart for a long time like 19 years. Wal-Mart is in everywhere nowadays, it provides cheap and complete products to consumers. People needs Wal-Mart and even rely on it. However, not every Wal-Mart’s customers knows that Wal-Mart pollutes the environment and hires child laborers just for lower the cost so that they could provide cheaper products and defeat other chain supermarkets and gain more customers. The key strategy of Wal-Mart is clear to see, that is provide the low price products. Nevertheless, high quality products need more money to produce, so Wal-Mart used some immorality way to cut the cost. The basic issue this movie address is Wal-Mart only focus on the profit and push consumers and environment in to dangerous.

　　　I think there are two interesting points in this movie. The first one is this whole movie is just criticizes Wal-Mart, but we all know every coin has two sides, in this movie, we cannot see any praise or even good comment about Wal-Mart. From my point of view, we cannot just lean on the one side. Therefore, for me this is the first aspect that I think it is interesting. The second one is about the fishing villages in Chile signed contract with Wal-Mart. In the movie, for provide the trouts that Wal-Mart required in the contract, the first fishing village that signed contract with Wal-Mart lost almost everything and their life was ruined. Everyone in the village gave up their job and traditional living way and all of them threw themselves into the trout breeding. In the mean while Wal-Mart keep lower the price so that the villagers should pay more effort on breed the trout. The result is the sea was polluted due to the excessive breeding and Wal-Mart canceled the order with this village because they could not provide trouts anymore. Wal-Mart gave up this village and signed the contracts with its neighbour village. The interesting point is I saw people become foolish and incontrollable for gain more benefit. Both of them show the attitude in front of money. Wal-Mart ignore the environment and the living condition of villages, but those villagers also ignore their future life just for making more money. The second village that signed contract with Wal-Mart may know the result of the first village, but they still choose to catch the money. Therefore I think the most interesting point in this movie is I saw the same attitude when people are facing the money. Whatever they are plunderers or they are preys.

　　　The most controversial point I heard in this movie is the audiences can only see the bad side of Wal-Mart. On the one hand we saw how Wal-Mart destroyed the nature. On the other hand, Wal-Mart did provide cheap product and make consumers’ life more convenient. Therefore I think, Wal-Mart did do wrong with ruin the nature, hire child labors and exploiting workers but we cannot just judge what Wal-Mart did wrong, we still have to notice the positive effects that Wal-Mart brought to the society. Wal-Mart provide cheaper products so that consumers can spend less on necessities of life. Wal-Mart offer many jobs to the third world countries. Wal-Mart offer complete products to make consumers’ shopping experiences more convenient. Everything has two sides. So this is the most controversial point I felt in this movie.

The most ethical issue that the movie address is Wal-Mart has many immoral behaviors in the process of running the business. This is also the biggest problem right now. Even though Wal-Mart offer better life to consumers to a certain extent. The destructions it did are over its contributions to the society. Making money and gaining profit is the goal of every company or even every single person but we should used the right way. Wal-Mart’s problem is it only see the benefit. So I think the most ethical issue is Wal-Mart earns money based on some unhuman ways which brought many serious problems to the society.