The Differences Between Plato And Aristotle - 1639 Words

In my final project, I will discuss the difference between Plato and Aristotle, and the two different ideas they both sought highly to philosophize. Plato, well known for his theory on Forms, believed that all things have a true being, and that the world in which we live in is a poor representation of the real world. Aristotle, on the other hand, was well known for his ideas on Form and Matter, where he believed that all objects are made with certain materials and arranged in a particular way. Lastly, for my current events, I will discuss deals with the recent deaths of young black men in America and how it all ties back to the ideas of Plato and Aristotle. The Theory of Forms by Plato envisions a universe that occurs far from our imagination, where essence, beauty, justice, good aren’t affected by the modifications and flaws of this world we live in. Plato’s purpose for writing on the forms to convey to human on how our world is always changing which leads us to start relying on our senses to figure out what is ultimately happening. In Plato’s Allegory of the Cave, he says, â€Å"When he approaches the light his eyes will be dazzled, and he will not be able to see anything at all of what are now called realities†¦.He will require to grow accustomed to the sight of the upper world. And first he will see the shadows best, next the reflections of men and other objects in the water, and then the objects themselves; then he will gaze upon the light of the moon and the stars and theShow MoreRelatedHistorical Views of Leadership: Plato and Aristotle1320 Words   |  6 Pagescommonly held to begin with Herodotus of ancient Athens, it is not surprising that we should examine the historical views of leadership through the eyes of two titans of Greek thought: Plato and Aristotle. Both men lived in 4th century BCE Athens, so much of their background and experience was shared. Aristotle was the younger of the two, and he was Plato’s student. Where leadership is concerned, both philosophers agreed that the â€Å"best men† should rule, and that the purpose of leadership was theRead MoreA Summary Of Plato And Aristotle818 Words   |  4 Pagesmust actively participate in and be involved with political activities. Plato and Aristotle are arguably two of the most prominent philosophers from ancient Greece. Although both Plato and Aristotle are great thinkers, their philosophical views of the role of women as potential rulers differ very much from one another. In fact, many of Aristotle’s writings about the role of women contradict the beliefs of his professor, Plato. This paper will provide an in-depth comparison of the potential for womenRead MoreThe Tripartite of the Soul that Socrates Discussed in Platos Republic1429 Words   |  6 Pages In this paper I will be discussing the tripartite (three parts) of the soul that Socrates discussed in chapter 6 of Plato’s Republic, and I will compare and contrast them to that of Aristotle and Anthony Kenny. In Plato’s Republic the three parts of the soul consist of the rational, spirited and, desire. In this dialogue the three parts of the soul go hand and hand with three parts of a just society. The desire or appetite of the soul is what controls our want for the pleasures of life. An exampleRead MoreBoth Plato and Aristotle are among the most influential philosophers in the history. Socrates was900 Words   |  4 PagesBoth Plato and Aristotle are among the most influential philosophers in the history. Socrates was another famous philosopher who greatly influenced Plato. Plato was the pupil of Socrates and later Plato became the teacher of Aristotle. Although Aristotle followed his teachings for a long time, he found many questionable facts in his teachings and later on became a great critic of Plato’s teachings. Since Aristotle found faults in Plato, hence their work is easily comparable as it is based on theRead MoreDistinctions and Comparisons between Aristotle and Plato Essay1681 Words   |  7 Pagesideas introduced by Plato on the theory of forms, where deducted and critiqued by Aristotle. Both philosophers can be viewed as having opposing ideologies. Nonethe less, Plato and Aristotle are in agreement on certain factors of their philosophy. Many have scrutinized and compared the dissimilarities and similarities of Aristotles doctrine of categories and Platos theory of forms. The observations found are of an interesting nature. The beauty behind the writings of Plato is to not accept whatRead More Foundations of Political Thought Essays1664 Words   |  7 PagesAristotle and Socrates and Plato’s beliefs have similarities mainly evident in their denouncement of democracy for the state. The views of Socrates expressed and written by his pupil Plato are vastly philosophical in nature and he promotes the idea of questioning life to achieve insight. The philosophers who possess the absolute truth are the best equipped to rule society according to Plato and his Allegory of the Cave. Conversely, Aristotle takes a more political science approach of discussingRead MorePlato s Interpretation Of Utopia1630 Words   |  7 PagesPlato and Aristotle shared many differences despite also sharing a teacher student relationship. This essay will strive to establish their understandings of reason and the role reason plays in their comprehensions of politics, differentiating between the kinds of reason and politic s produced as a result. Plato is regarded as the first writer of political philosophy while Aristotle is recognised as the first political scientist. Plato’s interpretation of Utopia is founded upon the existence of threeRead MoreAristotle: The Pursuit of Happiness1358 Words   |  6 PagesAristotle and Plato both are both well known for their focus on defining the purpose of being human. To them, humans have a particular characteristic that no other living thing possesses. That characteristic is that humans strive to achieve a level of goodness. Although they agree with each other that there is a highest good one must achieve in order to live a fulfilling life, they have different ideas on what that good is. On Aristotle’s search to find the highest good of a human being, he firstRead MoreWhat Makes A Good Life?1274 Words   |  6 Pagesthe key to good environment for people to live in. Plato and Aristotle are two philosopher that had great influence of the modern western ways of thinking. Their ideas and theory may not be completely correct, but we should view it as a progression of history and how it influence our ways of thinking. Although they bear some superficial similarities, the difference between Plato and Aristotle are striking. Plato was an idealist, while Aristotle is a realist, and they had ideas on how people shouldRead MoreThe Utopian Views Of Plato And Platos Political State741 Words   |  3 PagesPhilosophers are all known for questioning and exploring Ideals; taking a look at all options and what is most important. While Aristotle and Plato both take a plunge into the unknowns of a political state, Aristotle demonstrates a state for individuals, to rule as equ als, contrary to Plato’s strict utopian structure and group over individual hierarchy view of the ideal state. Plato’s ideal state is strictly structured through a utopian ideal. Everything within Plato’s ideal state has a place and

Diabetes Diabetes And Diabetes - 903 Words

Diabetes mellitus, often simply called diabetes, is one of the most common diseases in the world with approximately 7.8% of the American population or 24 million Americans suffering from the disease (Cuppett). Of this proportion, about 5.7 million people do not actually know they have the condition (Cuppett). This disease is characterized by the body’s inability to effectively produce or utilize insulin (Cuppett). There are three types of diabetes in which a person can be diagnosed with, type 1 or insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus (IDDM), type 2 or non-insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus (NIDDM) and gestational diabetes. Type 1 diabetes is associated with the inability of the body to produce insulin and accounts for only approximately†¦show more content†¦Nutritional counseling, adequate exercise, annual eye examinations, podiatric care and insulin medication are all effective treatment used to counteract the effects of the diabetes in the body (Cuppett). Among the millions of Americans suffering from diabetes, there is a significant proportion that are athletes as well. Chicago Bears quarterback, Jay Cutler, Caroline Panthers defensive tackle, Kyle Love and Olympic swimmer, Gary Hall Jr., are all examples of professional athletes who have lived and played with such a condition (Athletes Living With Diabetes). With knowledge that â€Å"well-trained athletes are more sensitive to insulin,† it is important for both the athlete and his or her attending athlete trainer to be knowledgeable and observant towards the condition in order to provide the most effective treatment for the athlete (Frisch). It is the role of athletes to remain aware of their condition by monitoring and report to the athletic trainer their glucose levels, insulin intakes, medications, eating habits and presence or change in any symptoms. Likewise, it is essential for an athletic trainer to maintain a diabetes care plan for each athlete that contains information, such as guidelines for blood glucose monitoring, insulin therapy, recognition of hypoglycemia and hyperglycemia as well as a list of all medications taken by the athlete (Jimenez et al). A diabetes emergency supply kit, which contains a copy of the diabetes care plan and blood

Communications Between Predecessor and Successor Auditors Free Essays

string(89) " conforming changes necessary due to the issuance of Statement on Auditing Standards No\." Communications Between Predecessor and Successor Auditors 155 AU Section 315 Communications Between Predecessor and Successor Auditors (Supersedes SAS No. 7. ) Source: SAS No. We will write a custom essay sample on Communications Between Predecessor and Successor Auditors or any similar topic only for you Order Now 84; SAS No. 93. Effective with respect to acceptance of an engagement after March 31, 1998, unless otherwise indicated. Introduction .01 This section provides guidance on communications between predecessor and successor auditors when a change of auditors is in process or has taken place. It also provides communications guidance when possible misstatements are discovered in ? ancial statements reported on by a predecessor auditor. This section applies whenever an independent auditor is considering accepting an engagement to audit or reaudit (see paragraph . 14 of this section) ? nancial statements in accordance with generally accepted auditing standards, and after such auditor has been appointed to perform such an engagement. .02 For the purposes of this section, the term predecessor auditor refers to an auditor who (a) has reported on the most recent audited ? nancial statements1 or was engaged to perform but did not complete an audit of the ? ancial statements2 and (b) has resigned , declined to stand for reappointment, or been noti? ed that his or her services have been, or may be, terminated. The term successor auditor refers to an auditor who is considering accepting an engagement to audit ? nancial statements but has not communicated with the predecessor auditor as provided in paragraphs . 07 through . 10 and to an auditor who has accepted such an engagement. [As amended, effective for audits of ? nancial statements for periods ending on or after June 30, 2001, by Statement on Auditing Standards No. 3. ] Change of Auditors .03 An auditor should not accept an engagement until the communications described in paragraphs . 07 through . 10 have been evaluated. 3 However, an auditor may make a proposal for an audit engagement before communicating with the predecessor auditor. The auditor may wish to advise the prospective 1 The provisions of this section are not required if the most recent audited ? nancial statements are more than two years prior to the beginni ng of the earliest period to be audited by the successor auditor. There may be two predecessor auditors: the auditor who reported on the most recent audited ? nancial statements and the auditor who was engaged to perform but did not complete an audit of any subsequent ? nancial statements. [As amended, effective for audits of ? nancial statements for periods ending on or after June 30, 2001, by Statement on Auditing Standards No. 93. ] 3 When the most recent ? nancial statements have been compiled or reviewed in accordance with the Statements on Standards for Accounting and Review Services, the accountant who reported on those ? ancial statements is not a predecessor auditor. Although not required by this section, in these circumstances the successor auditor may ? nd the matters described in paragraphs . 08 and . 09 useful in determining whether to accept the engagement. AU  §315. 03 156 The Standards of Field Work client (for example, in a proposal) that acceptance cannot be ? na l until the communications have been evaluated. .04 Other communications between the successor and predecessor auditors, described in paragraph . 11, are advisable to assist in the planning of the engagement. However, the timing of these other communications is more ? exible. The successor auditor may initiate these other communications either prior to acceptance of the engagement or subsequent thereto. .05 When more than one auditor is considering accepting an engagement, the predecessor auditor should not be expected to be available to respond to inquiries until a successor auditor has been selected by the prospective client and has accepted the engagement subject to the evaluation of the communications with the predecessor auditor as provided in paragraphs . 07 through . 10. 06 The initiative for communicating rests with the successor auditor. The communication may be either written or oral. Both the predecessor and successor auditors should hold in con? dence information obtained from each other. This obligation applies whether or not the successor auditor accepts the engagement. Communications Before Successor Auditor Accepts Engagement .07 Inquiry of the predecessor auditor is a nec essary procedure because the predecessor auditor may be able to provide information that will assist the successor auditor in determining whether to accept the engagement. The successor auditor should bear in mind that, among other things, the predecessor auditor and the client may have disagreed about accounting principles, auditing procedures, or similarly signi? cant matters. .08 The successor auditor should request permission from the prospective client to make an inquiry of the predecessor auditor prior to ? nal acceptance of the engagement. Except as permitted by the Rules of the Code of Professional Conduct, an auditor is precluded from disclosing con? dential information obtained in the course of an engagement unless the client speci? cally consents. Thus, the successor auditor should ask the prospective client to authorize the predecessor auditor to respond fully to the successor auditor’s inquiries. If a prospective client refuses to permit the predecessor auditor to respond or limits the response, the successor auditor should inquire as to the reasons and consider the implications of that refusal in deciding whether to accept the engagement. .09 The successor auditor should make speci? c and reasonable inquiries of the predecessor auditor regarding matters that will assist the successor auditor in determining whether to accept the engagement. Matters subject to inquiry should include— †¢ †¢ †¢ Information that might bear on the integrity of management. Disagreements with management as to accounting principles, auditing procedures, or other similarly signi? cant matters. Communications to those charged with governance regarding fraud and illegal acts by clients. [4] [4] [Footnote deleted to re? ect conforming changes necessary due to the issuance of Statement on Auditing Standards No. You read "Communications Between Predecessor and Successor Auditors" in category "Papers" 114. ] AU  §315. 04 Communications Between Predecessor and Successor Auditors 157 †¢ †¢ Communications to management and those charged with governance regarding signi? ant de? ciencies and material weaknesses in internal control. 5 The predecessor auditor’s understanding as to the reasons for the change of auditors. The successor auditor may wish to consider other reasonable inquiries. [Revised, May 2006, to re? e ct conforming changes necessary due to the issuance of Statement on Auditing Standards No. 112. Revised, April 2007, to re? ect conforming changes necessary due to the issuance of Statement on Auditing Standards No. 114. ] . 10 The predecessor auditor should respond promptly and fully, on the basis of known facts, to the successor auditor’s reasonable inquiries. However, should the predecessor auditor decide, due to unusual circumstances such as impending, threatened, or potential litigation; disciplinary proceedings; or other unusual circumstances, not to respond fully to the inquiries, the predecessor auditor should clearly state that the response is limited. If the successor auditor receives a limited response, its implications should be considered in deciding whether to accept the engagement. Other Communications .11 The successor auditor should request that the client authorize the predecessor auditor to allow a review of the predecessor auditor’s working papers. The predecessor auditor may wish to request a consent and acknowledgment letter from the client to document this authorization in an effort to reduce misunderstandings about the scope of the communications being authorized. 6 It is customary in such circumstances for the predecessor auditor to make himself or herself available to the successor auditor and make available for review certain of the working papers. The predecessor auditor should determine which working papers are to be made available for review and which may be copied. The predecessor auditor should ordinarily permit the successor auditor to review working papers, including documentation of planning, internal control, audit results, and other matters of continuing accounting and auditing signi? cance, such as the working paper analysis of balance sheet accounts, and those relating to contingencies. Also, the predecessor auditor should reach an understanding with the successor auditor as to the use of the working papers. 7 The extent, if any, to which a predecessor auditor permits access to the working papers is a matter of judgment. Successor Auditor’s Use of Communications .12 The successor auditor must obtain suf? cient appropriate audit evidence to afford a reasonable basis for expressing an opinion on the ? nancial statements he or she has been engaged to audit, including evaluating the consistency of the application of accounting principles. The audit evidence used in analyzing the impact of the opening balances on the current-year ? nancial statements and consistency of accounting principles is a matter of professional judgment. Such audit evidence may include the most recent audited ? ancial 5 See section 316, Consideration of Fraud in a Financial Statement Audit; section 317, Illegal Acts by Clients; and section 325, Communicating Internal Control Related Matters Identi? ed in an Audit. [Footnote revised, May 2006, to re? ect conforming changes necessary due to the issuance of Statement on Auditing Standards No. 112. ] 6 Appendix A [paragraph . 24] contains an illustrative client consent and ackno wledgment letter. 7 Before permitting access to the working papers, the predecessor auditor may wish to obtain a written communication from the successor auditor regarding the use of the working papers. Appendix B [paragraph . 25] contains an illustrative successor auditor acknowledgment letter. AU  §315. 12 158 The Standards of Field Work statements, the predecessor auditor’s report thereon,8 the results of inquiry of the predecessor auditor, the results of the successor auditor’s review of the predecessor auditor’s working papers relating to the most recently completed audit, and audit procedures performed on the current period’s transactions that may provide evidence about the opening balances or consistency. For example, evidence gathered during the current year’s audit may provide information about the realizability and existence of receivables and inventory recorded at the beginning of the year. The successor auditor may also apply appropriate auditing procedures to account balances at the beginning of the period under audit and to transactions in prior periods. [As amended, effective for audits of ? nancial statements for periods ending on or after June 30, 2001, by Statement on Auditing Standards No. 93. Revised, March 2006, to re? ect conforming changes necessary due to the issuance of Statement on Auditing Standards No. 105. ] . 13 The successor auditor’s review of the predecessor auditor’s working papers may affect the nature, timing, and extent of the successor auditor’s procedures with respect to the opening balances and consistency of accounting principles. However, the nature, timing, and extent of audit work performed and the conclusions reached in both these areas are solely the responsibility of the successor auditor. In reporting on the audit, the successor auditor should not make reference to the report or work of the predecessor auditor as the basis, in part, for the successor auditor’s own opinion. Audits of Financial Statements That Have Been Previously Audited . 14 If an auditor is asked to audit and report on ? nancial statements that have been previously audited and reported on (henceforth referred to as a reaudit), the auditor considering acceptance of the reaudit engagement is also a successor auditor, and the auditor who previously reported is also a predecessor auditor. In addition to the communications described in paragraphs . 07 through . 10, the successor auditor should state that the purpose of the inquiries is to obtain information about whether to accept an engagement to perform a reaudit. .15 If the successor auditor accepts the reaudit engagement, he or she may consider the information obtained from inquiries of the predecessor auditor and review of the predecessor auditor’s report and working papers in planning the reaudit. However, the information obtained from those inquiries and any review of the predecessor auditor’s report and working papers is not suf? ient to afford a basis for expressing an opinion. The nature, timing, and extent of the audit work performed and the conclusions reached in the reaudit are solely the responsibility of the successor auditor performing the reaudit. .16 The successor auditor should plan and perform the reaudit in accordance with generally accepted auditing standards. The successor auditor s hould not assume responsibility for the predecessor auditor’s work or issue a report that re? ects divided responsibility as described in section 543, Part of Audit Performed by Other Independent Auditors. Furthermore, the predecessor auditor is not a specialist as de? ned in section 336, Using the Work of a Specialist, or an internal auditor as de? ned in section 322, The Auditor’s Consideration of the Internal Audit Function in an Audit of Financial Statements. .17 If the successor auditor has audited the current period, the results of that audit may be considered in planning and performing the reaudit of the 8 The successor auditor may wish to make inquiries about the professional reputation and standing of the predecessor auditor. See section 543, Part of Audit Performed by Other Independent Auditors, paragraph . 10a. AU  §315. 13 Communications Between Predecessor and Successor Auditors 159 preceding period or periods and may provide audit evidence that is useful in performing the reaudit. [Revised, March 2006, to re? ect conforming changes necessary due to the issuance of Statement on Auditing Standards No. 105. ] . 18 If, in a reaudit engagement, the successor auditor is unable to obtain suf? cient appropriate audit evidence to express an opinion on the ? nancial tatements, the successor auditor should qualify or disclaim an opinion because of the inability to perform procedures the successor auditor considers necessary in the circumstances. [Revised, March 2006, to re? ect conforming changes necessary due to the issuance of Statement on Auditing Standards No. 105. ] . 19 The successor auditor should request working papers for the period or periods under reaudit and the period prior to the reaudit period. However, the extent, if any, to which the predecessor auditor permits access to the working papers is a matter of judgment. See paragraph . 11 of this section. ) . 20 In a reaudit, the successor auditor generally will be unable to observe inventory or make physical counts at the reaudit date or dates in the manner discussed in paragraphs . 09 through . 11 of section 331, Inventories. In such cases, the successor auditor may consider the knowledge obtained from his or her review of the predecessor auditor’s working papers and inquiries of the predecessor auditor to determine the nature, timing, and extent of procedures to be applied in the circumstances. The successor auditor performing the reaudit should, if material, observe or perform some physical counts of inventory at a date subsequent to the period of the reaudit, in connection with a current audit or otherwise, and apply appropriate tests of intervening transactions. Appropriate procedures may include tests of prior transactions, reviews of records of prior counts, and the application of analytical procedures, such as gross pro? t tests. Discovery of Possible Misstatements in Financial Statements Reported on by a Predecessor Auditor . 21 If during the audit or reaudit, the successor auditor becomes aware of information that leads him or her to believe that ? nancial statements reported on by the predecessor auditor may require revision, the successor auditor should request that the client inform the predecessor auditor of the situation and arrange for the three parties to discuss this information and attempt to resolve the matter. The successor auditor should communicate to the predecessor auditor any information that the predecessor auditor may need to consider in accordance with section 561, Subsequent Discovery of Facts Existing at the Date of the Auditor’s Report, which sets out the procedures that an auditor should follow when the auditor subsequently discovers facts that may have affected the audited ? nancial statements previously reported on. 9 . 22 If the client refuses to inform the predecessor auditor or if the successor auditor is not satis? d with the resolution of the matter, the successor auditor should evaluate (a) possible implications on the current engagement and (b) whether to resign from the engagement. Furthermore, the successor auditor may wish to consult with his or her legal counsel in determining an appropriate course of further action. Effective Date .23 This section will be effective with respect to acceptance of an engagement after March 31, 1998. Earlier application is perm itted. 9 See section 508, Reports on Audited Financial Statements, paragraphs . 70 through . 74, for reporting guidance. AU  §315. 23 160 .24 The Standards of Field Work Appendix A Illustrative Client Consent and Acknowledgment Letter 1. Paragraph . 11 of this section states, â€Å"The successor auditor should request that the client authorize the predecessor auditor to allow a review of the predecessor auditor’s working papers. The predecessor auditor may wish to request a consent and acknowledgment letter from the client to document this authorization in an effort to reduce misunderstandings about the scope of the communications being authorized. † The following letter is presented for illustrative purposes only and is not required by professional standards. Date] ABC Enterprises [Address] You have given your consent to allow [name of successor CPA ? rm], as successor independent auditors for ABC Enterprises (ABC), access to our working papers for our audit of the December 31, 19X1, ? nancial statements of ABC. You also have given your consent to us to respond fully to [name of successor CPA ? rm] inquiries . You understand and agree that the review of our working papers is undertaken solely for the purpose of obtaining an understanding about ABC and certain information about our audit to assist [name of successor CPA ? m] in planning the audit of the December 31, 19X2, ? nancial statements of ABC. Please con? rm your agreement with the foregoing by signing and dating a copy of this letter and returning it to us. Attached is the form of the letter we will furnish [name of successor CPA ? rm] regarding the use of the working papers. Very truly yours, [Predecessor Auditor] By: ___________________________ Accepted: ABC Enterprises By: ___________________________ Date: _________________ AU  §315. 24 Communications Between Predecessor and Successor Auditors .25 161 Appendix B Illustrative Successor Auditor Acknowledgment Letter . Paragraph . 11, footnote 7, of this section states, â€Å"Before permitting access to the working papers, the predecessor auditor may wish to obtain a written c ommunication from the successor auditor regarding the use of the working papers. † The following letter is presented for illustrative purposes only and is not required by professional standards. [Successor Auditor] [Address] We have previously audited, in accordance with auditing standards generally accepted in the United States of America, the December 31, 20X1, ? nancial statements of ABC Enterprises (ABC). We rendered a report on those ? ancial statements and have not performed any audit procedures subsequent to the audit report date. In connection with your audit of ABC’s 20X2 ? nancial statements, you have requested access to our working papers prepared in connection with that audit. ABC has authorized our ? rm to allow you to review those working papers. Our audit, and the working papers prepared in connection therewith, of ABC’s ? nancial statements were not planned or conducted in contemplation of your review. Therefore, items of possible interest to you may not have been speci? cally addressed. Our use of professional judgment and the assessment of audit risk nd materiality for the purpose of our audit mean that matters may have existed that would have been assessed differently by you. We make no representation as to the suf? ciency or appropriateness of the information in our working papers for your purposes. We understand that the purpose of your review is to obtain information about ABC and our 19X1 audit results to assist you in planning your 19X2 audit of ABC. For that purpose only, we will provide you access to our working papers that relate to that objective. Upon request, we will provide copies of those working papers that provide factual information about ABC. You agree to subject any such copies or information otherwise derived from our working papers to your normal policy for retention of working papers and protection of con? dential client information. Furthermore, in the event of a third-party request for access to your working papers prepared in connection with your audits of ABC, you agree to obtain our permission before voluntarily allowing any such access to our working papers or information otherwise derived from our working papers, and to obtain on our behalf any releases that you obtain from such third party. You agree to advise us promptly and provide us a copy of any subpoena, summons, or other court order for access to your working papers that include copies of our working papers or information otherwise derived therefrom. Please con? rm your agreement with the foregoing by signing and dating a copy of this letter and returning it to us. AU  §315. 25 162 Very truly yours, [Predecessor Auditor] The Standards of Field Work By: ___________________________ Accepted: [Successor Auditor] By: ___________________________ Date: __________________ Even with the client’s consent, access to the predecessor auditor’s working papers may still be limited. Experience has shown that the predecessor auditor may be willing to grant broader access if given additional assurance concerning the use of the working papers. Accordingly, the successor auditor might consider agreeing to the following limitations on the review of the predecessor auditor’s working papers in order to obtain broader access: †¢ †¢ †¢ The successor auditor will not comment, orally or in writing, to anyone as a result of the review as to whether the predecessor auditor’s engagement was performed in accordance with generally accepted auditing standards. The successor auditor will not provide expert testimony or litigation support services or otherwise accept an engagement to comment on issues relating to the quality of the predecessor auditor’s audit. The successor auditor will not use the audit procedures or results thereof documented in the predecessor auditor’s working papers as audit evidence in rendering an opinion on the 19X2 ? nancial statements of ABC Enterprises, except as contemplated in Statement on Auditing Standards No. 84. The following paragraph illustrates the above: Because your review of our working papers is undertaken solely for the purpose described above and may not entail a review of all our working papers, you agree that (1) the information obtained from the review will not be used by you for any other purpose, (2) you will not comment, orally or in writing, to anyone as a result of that review as to whether our audit was performed in accordance with generally accepted auditing standards, (3) you will not provide expert testimony or litigation support services or otherwise accept an engagement to comment on issues relating to the quality of our audit, and (4) you will not use the audit procedures or results thereof documented in our working papers as audit evidence in rendering your opinion on the 19X2 ? nancial statements of ABC, except as contemplated in Statement on Auditing Standards No. 84. [Revised, October 2000, to re? ect conforming changes necessary due to the issuance of Statement on Auditing Standards No. 93. Revised, March 200 6, to re? ect conforming changes necessary due to the issuance of Statement on Auditing Standards No. 105. ] AU  §315. 25 How to cite Communications Between Predecessor and Successor Auditors, Papers

Virtue Theory Relativism and Survival †Free Samples to Students

Question: Discuss about the Virtue Theory Relativism and Survival. Answer: Introduction ICT stands for Information and Communication Technology. ICT has expanded and transformed in a rapid manner since last few years. The role of ICT in any of the business sectors and organizations cannot be avoided as there is one or the other ICT component that is being used in every organization in the current era. Information and data are the two essential components that are associated with ICT which make up for the prime assets for any organization. The growth of ICT has been massive and it is because of this reason that there are several ethical issues that have been observed in the world of ICT. One of the case studies from the field of ICT has been picked up to be studied on the basis of numerous ethical theories. Smartphones are being used by a majority of people in the present times. There are a lot many personal and professional tasks that people carry out on their smartphones. Two of the major companies that provide the users with the Smartphones are Apple and Samsung. Smartphones that are provided by Apple are based on iOS as the operating system and Samsung phones have Android as their operating systems. The essential features of both these operating systems different from each other. However, in 2011, Apple came up with filing of a lawsuit against Samsung as it charged the company of copying its patented features. Samsung in return did not accept the charges that were levied by Apple and accused the organization of copying its features. The charges that were being claimed by both the parties were a clear violation of the Intellectual Property. Honorable Supreme Court came up with a final verdict last year that did not find Samsung guilty of all the charges; however, there were certain c harges that were found to be true and Samsung was asked to pay a heavy compensation as a punishment (Balakrishnan, 2016). There are various theories of ethics that have been created which can be applied to understand the case study from the ethical perspective. One of such ethical theories is the theory of Utilitarianism. In order to justify an act as ethically correct on the parameters of this theory, it is essential that the activity shall result in benefits to larger sections of people in the society. However, in the legal battle between Apple and Samsung, Apple did not experience any benefits; rather, it was observed that the sales of its Smartphones came down due to the presence of similar features by other vendor at lower costs in the market. The situation also did not go well with the workforce of the company as the employees were not provided with clear directions on the methodology to follow and there were drops in the levels of productivity that were encountered (West, 2004). Since, the acts that were done by Samsungs as well as Apple did not adhere to the ethical principles as defined under t his theory, the entire activity is termed and evaluated as ethically inaccurate and unacceptable (Jacobson, 2008). Theory of Deontology There are various theories of ethics that have been created which can be applied to understand the case study from the ethical perspective. One of such ethical theories is the theory of Deontology. In order to justify an act as ethically correct on the parameters of this theory, it is essential that the activity shall adhere to the set of rules, policies and guidelines that define it. The set of features that Apple accused Samsung of copying and reflecting in its phones includes presence of quick links, syncing with the background and auto-correction. Samsung in return filed the lawsuit complaining that Apple copied its camera and folder organization. As per the rules that define the functioning of the companies working in the field of ICT, there is a professional and ethical code of conduct that is required to be followed. Also, there shall be no violation of the Intellectual Property rights that shall be reflected. None of these rules were followed in the execution of activities by the two companies. Since, the acts that were done by Samsungs as well as Apple did not adhere to the ethical principles as defined under this theory, the entire activity is termed and evaluated as ethically inaccurate and unacceptable (Friend, 2015). There are various theories of ethics that have been created which can be applied to understand the case study from the ethical perspective. One of such ethical theories is the theory of Virtue Ethics. In order to justify an act as ethically correct on the parameters of this theory, it is essential that the activity shall be based upon happiness as a virtue and a goal (Grcic, 2013). The major reasons that led to the copying of features exclusive to each other included higher customer satisfaction along with better revenues and results for the companies. This in return led to the damage to both the parties along with the employees engaged with both the firms as well (Hursthouse, 2012). Since, the acts that were done by Samsungs as well as Apple did not adhere to the ethical principles as defined under this theory; the entire activity is termed and evaluated as ethically inaccurate and unacceptable There are various theories of ethics that have been created which can be applied to understand the case study from the ethical perspective. One of such ethical theories is the theory of Social Contract. In order to justify an act as ethically correct on the parameters of this theory, it is essential that the activity shall fulfill the social norms and guidelines that are specified on the basis of a specific social structure or community (Friend, 2017). The number of firms in the field of ICT is huge and if all of these firms begin with the practice of copying the methods and features of each other then there will be a situation of chaos that will be created and it will be the violation of social norms as well. In the case of legal battle between Apple and Samsung, the similar situation of chaos can be seen and observed. Since, the acts that were done by Samsungs as well as Apple did not adhere to the ethical principles as defined under this theory; the entire activity is termed and e valuated as ethically inaccurate and unacceptable. Conclusion The role of ICT in any of the business sectors and organizations cannot be avoided as there is one or the other ICT component that is being used in every organization in the current era. Information and data are the two essential components that are associated with ICT which make up for the prime assets for any organization. Apple came up with filing of a lawsuit against Samsung as it charged the company of copying its patented features. Samsung in return did not accept the charges that were levied by Apple and accused the organization of copying its features. The charges that were being claimed by both the parties were a clear violation of the Intellectual Property. Since, the acts that were done by Samsungs as well as Apple did not adhere to the ethical principles as defined under any of the ethical theories; the entire activity is termed and evaluated as ethically inaccurate and unacceptable. References Balakrishnan, A. (2016). Supreme Court sides with Samsung in Apple patent damages dispute. CNBC. Retrieved 3 May 2017, from https://www.cnbc.com/2016/12/06/supreme-court-rules-for-samsung-in-apple-patent-case.html Friend, C. (2017). Social Contract Theory | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Iep.utm.edu. Retrieved 3 May 2017, from https://www.iep.utm.edu/soc-cont/ Grcic, J. (2013). Virtue Theory, Relativism and Survival. Retrieved 3 May 2017, from https://www.ijssh.org/papers/273-C10018.pdf Hursthouse, R. (2012). Virtue Ethics and Human Nature. Retrieved 3 May 2017, from https://www.humesociety.org/hs/issues/v25n1-2/hursthouse/hursthouse-v25n1-2.pdf Jacobson, D. (2008). Utilitarianism without Consequentialism: The Case of John Stuart Mill. Retrieved 3 May 2017, from https://www.pgrim.org/philosophersannual/pa28articles/jacobson.pdf Nill, M. (2015). Deontology. Retrieved 3 May 2017, from https://cw.routledge.com/ref/ethics/entries/deontology.pdf West, H. (2004). An Introduction to Mills Utilitarian Ethics. Retrieved 3 May 2017, from https://assets.cambridge.org/97805218/28321/sample/9780521828321ws.pdf