The Canterbury Television (CTV) Building-Case Analysis Assignment

The Canterbury Television (CTV) Building-Case Analysis - Assignment Example Most of the earthquakes witnessed in recent times have had devastating effects. Therefore, architects are advised to ensure that modern buildings meet the building standards capable of withstanding seismic waves of reasonably high magnitude. New Zealand is one of the European countries that have suffered from a series of earthquakes in the recent past. One such earthquake occurred on 22 February 2011 in Christchurch killing 184 individuals. Investigations conducted after the incident showed that the building collapsed due to poor design and construction. In addition, a number of players and stakeholders were associated with the incident, a number of them culpable. Table of Contents 1. Introduction 4 2. Key Role-players and Stakeholders 4 3. Management and Organizational Factors Associated with the Incident 9 4. Summary and Conclusions 10 5. Recommendations 10 References 11 The Canterbury Television (CTV) Building-Case Analysis 1. Introduction Natural disasters such as earthquakes hav e become a common occurrence in recent times. Earthquakes have particularly been common in Southern Asia and parts of Europe. Most of the earthquakes witnessed in recent times have had devastating effects. In New Zealand, the Canterbury Television (CTV) Building was the most affected by the earthquake that hit Christchurch on 22 February 2011, according to the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority (2012) report. The building collapsed to the ground leading to the death of 115 of the 184 people who perished in Christchurch. The collapse of Canterbury Television (CTV) Building in Christchurch on 22 February 2011 was one of a kind. Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority (2012) indicates that the building collapsed when an earthquake, 6.1 in magnitude, hit Christchurch in New Zealand. However, it took many by surprise to learn that only the CTV Building collapsed due to the earthquake, leading to the death of 115 people (Wright & Greenhill, 2012). This hinted to the fact that there was something amiss in the design of the building. It was argued that there was no reason for the building to be the only one affected whereas there were many other buildings adjacent to it. Investigations have identified a number of key role players who were responsible in one way or another for the collapse of the building. Most of the role players in the incident double up as stakeholders. This report seeks to identify the key role-players and stakeholders linked to the CTV Building and its consequences. In addition, the paper will provide an analysis and evaluation of the key management and organizational factors linked to the incident, both prior to and after the incident. 2. Key Role-players and Stakeholders 2.1 David Harding David Harding, the architect who designed CTV building, is the first role-player blamed for the collapse of the building. According to Wright and Greenhill (2012), the building did not meet standards when it was built in 1986. Investigations showed that Harding worked beyond his level of competence since his structural plans had several flaws that an experienced designer would otherwise not have committed. Vervaeck and Daniell (2012) also indicated that Harding, the designer of the CTV building, had no tangible experience in designing multistory buildings like CTV. According to Vervaeck and Daniell (2012), the building had poorly designed joints between the columns and beams. As a result, the reinforcement holding the beam and columns together were too weak and did not comply with building standards set in 1986. The concrete used in making the columns also had inadequate steel reinforcements, making them brittle and too weak to withstand high tension such as that of produced by an

Kantian Philosophy Term Paper Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1250 words

Kantian Philosophy - Term Paper Example Conversely, the standards were either only based on desire and the tools of rationality or were emphasized on sui generis rational instincts. Kant also approved the basic principles described by his predecessors that were an examination of the practical reasons which will disclose the obligation that the rational mediators must rely on to believe in instrumental principles (Guyer, 2006). However, he said that a non-instrumental principle called CI should be complied with to grasp the moral requirements there in, and should be visible to basic rational agency. The argument was based in the premise that outstanding doctrine must be considered as sovereign and self regulating, or free from the restrictions of self-sufficient will. Therefore, in Kant’s moral philosophy, the idea was to conceal the reason which outreaches the practical reasons that go beyond the Human ‘slave’ to his desires. Additionally, a self regulating reason in the life of every person could be based on the crucial grounds for reviewing the worthiness of equal respect and also equal importance. The most significant of Kant’s positions are compiled in The Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals’ which was later just called as ‘Groundwork’ but was a much more enriched and developed version (Wood, 2005). Later books such as ‘The Metaphysics of Moralsà ¢â‚¬â„¢, ‘The Critique of Practical Reason’ and many others were based on the principles of Groundwork, but in recent years many scholars have not been happy with the findings of Kant which will be described later in this text. Kant maintained a deontological view, one where individuals should be considered an end, rather than a means to an end. Kant believed that a legitimate act, one that is good, must meet with ethical imperatives to justify it. Thus, the highest good is to act from duty. Kant rejected a measure of conducting goodwill toward others when the motivation behind that act did not stem from moral constructs of legitimate and ethical principles. When an act is motivated by self-gain, regardless of the contribution to serving humankind, it is not justified morally by universal values (Guyer, 2006). The doctrine of responsibility of Kant began with the following perspectives: If the aim of aim was to get happiness, then all we will ask for will be gratificati on and pleasure and optimism that would lead our way to ultimate happiness. But, happiness is not in our control to accomplish, and happiness is basically a chance of luck. Furthermore, if we want to eschew skepticism and nihilism, and our ethics tell us to work that Kant believes that ethics must be universal, appropriate for all human race, and unconditional, which means no exceptions allowed (Wood, 2005). II. Opponents of Kant Philosophy The opponents of Kant’s Philosophy are many and are divided into three categories. The first and most important ones are the Ethical Relativists- who belief that there is no reason or logic that could be established for moral principles and universal ethics. These critics support the possibility that as Kant states virtue results from a realistic reasoning, it should not be the case. Schopenhauer and others believe that virtue has nothing in relation to rational life and on the contrary it can be based on emotions as the Machiavellian rati onal expediency believes in. (Janaway, 1999). The Utilitarianists are the people who consider providing utility as their first priority for the masses with little stress on the means to accomplish it. Kant began with the abstract concepts that in an attempt to know the real insights, he began from the abstract judgment