A seemingly uncorrelated death of a child becomes an attack on two businesses that brought forth unwanted attention. It reveals how corporations can truly neglect their surroundings and the safety of citizens without remorse. In the quaint town of Woburn, Massachusetts, the death of Anne Anderson’s son due to leukemia quickly transformed from a personal tragedy to an extensive lawsuit. Anne Anderson approached Jan Schlichtmann, a personal injury lawyer, to tackle the case. From the beginning, Anne makes it clear that she does not want money, she simply wants an apology.
Quotation: “It was the modern word’s signature to etch economic dominance and political supremacy into a radical cultural design. It was also its signature to hide the social relations that were brewing supremacy and conflict behind a semblance of “race things.” (Silverblatt, 3) Argument: Here, Irene Silverblatt is arguing that, like all colonial powers, the Inquisition of Peru racialized certain groups, in this case the Native Americans. She argues that the foundation of colonial empire is racial segregation where the people who are conquered were treated as inferior human beings. They purposely created unequal groups where the Africans and their descendant were reserved for slavery and had to give up their way of life.
Strive for Gender Neutral Bathrooms The recent hot debate in our society focuses on the new controversial policy for public bathrooms to be identified as gender neutral. People who identify as a gender other than their biological sex are allowed to use the bathroom based on how they identify themselves. Elizabeth Vliet, is a current physician, has acquired specialized training from Johns Hopkins Sexual Medicine Consultation team, and provides her stance about the gender neutral bathroom policy will promote the increase of danger, especially for women. Vliet has treated numerous patients over the years regarding sex and gender issues.
Bonnie Docherty does not support the idea of using robot for warfares due to moral issues. She states :”It would undermine human dignity to be killed by a machine that can’t understand the value of human life.”. She also convokes the ban on the use of robots in war “before humanity crosses what she calls a moral threshold.”. She emphasizes how these machines will completely change the way of war like what gunpowder and nuclear have done. Thus, she worries about what these machines are capable of doing and who will take the responsible for war
Celeste Headlee argues that due to the increasing use of ‘within reach’ technology, we’re losing our ability to converse face-to-face and that opens a brand new door for modern conversation. A conversation requires a balance between talking and listening, which somewhere along the way we lost balance. We tend to use conversation as a platform to focus more on our own thoughts and feelings rather than it being a place for discussion and understanding. Sometimes, while someone is telling us about their faults and failures, we tend to stop listening and revert back to OUR faults and failures.
The general argument made by Mac Tucker is that the qualification system used in America isn’t up to par with the system used in other countries. More specifically Tucker argues that a better system could be put into place because the one now doesn't work well and Americans actually hate the system currently in use. He writes that many of the high stakes exams taken are set for the students not the teachers. The teachers receive no repercussions because these exams are set for the students and the only ones on the line are them. In this passage Tucker is suggesting that a new system should be put into place so that students and teachers are both able to track their progress and improve their standards.
In “What You Eat Is Your Business,” Radley Balko tackles the issue of who is responsible for fighting obesity. Balko argues that the controversy of obesity should make the individual consumers culpable for their own health and not the government (467). As health insurers refrain from increasing premiums for obese and overweight patients, there is a decrease in motivation to keep a healthy lifestyle (Balko 467). As a result, Balko claims these manipulations make the public accountable for everyone else 's health rather than their own (467). Balko continues to discuss the ways to fix the issue such as insurance companies penalizing consumers who make unhealthy food choices and rewarding good ones (468).
As a resident of California, I can attest that California needs to pass House Bill AB 1321, better known as the Nutrition Incentive Matching Grant Program. Bill 1321 will improve the overall public health in the state of California. This bill would allow low-income residents of California to access and affordable and nutritious fresh produce. Outlined in Bill 1321 is a healthy food incentive program that serves California’s low-income populations who receive Supplemental Food Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits. Bill 1321 strives to secure access to affordable and healthy food options for California’s most vulnerable populations.
In this paper, I will focus on Bonnie Steinbock’s claim on whether or not we should give equal moral consideration to species outside our own species group. I will first determine what moral concern means, according to Peter singer, and explain how he views the human treatment of animals. I will then outline Steinbock’s argument against Singer’s position and explain how her criticism is part of a much broader issue: that is moral concern. I will finally make my argument against Steinbock as well as address any issues she could possibly raise against my argument. Peter Singer believed that all species, whether it be human or non-human, deserve equal consideration of interests and quality of life.
In both David Zinczenko’s “Don’t Blame The Eater” and “ Radley Balko’s “What You Eat is Your Business”, the argument of obesity in America is present and clear from opposing viewpoints. Both articles were written in the early 2000’s, when the popular political topic of the time was obesity and how it would be dealt by our nation in the future. While Zinczenko argues that unhealthy junk food is an unavoidable cultural factor, Balko presents the thought that the government should have no say in it’s citizens diet or eating habits. Zinczenko’s article was written with the rhetorical stratedgy of pathos in mind.
When questions of ethics and morality are brought up for discussion they can be immensely difficult to mediate. What is perceived as ethically “right” to one person may be considered “wrong” to another. It is part of human nature to evaluate issues from a subjective standpoint, as opinions and prioritization of values vary on an individual level. This difference of personal beliefs, therefore, often leads to the existence of biased arguments. Due to this, it is essential for any argument to follow a set of ethical criteria in order to be considered valid and effective.
When it comes to Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics, I believe that he has found a common thread in humanity in the fact that humans strive for the moderate in living virtuously. However, I would argue that the thread is varied enough to have no true worth in discerning the aspects of humanity. People have too different moralities and goals. Because Aristotle allows for these “local variations”, as Martha Nussbaum later terms in her defense of Aristotle, he is acknowledging that there cannot be an overarching analysis of humanity.
Dobson’s words can resonate with young and older Christians. The politically correct, liberals, or the Christian left may perceive his words to be ungracious and condemning; whereas, the word of God clearly dictates acts that are sinful and should not be tolerated (Galatians 5: 19-21). Dobson challenges Christians to stand up as Jesus did since truth by nature is intolerant of falsehood. If being intolerant means agreeing with condemning abhorrent behavior as God mandates in the scriptures (e.g., homosexuality, abortion, sexual perversion), then yes, it is okay to be intolerant. Tolerance is not encouraged in the Bible considering God is not tolerant; ergo, tolerance in itself is not loving, since tolerance denies justice (Kruger, 2013).
The blue eyed – brown eyed experiment in my opinion is indeed ethical. The issue at hand with this experiment is will it cause permeant future psychological damage. Jane Elliott conducted this experiment with her third-grade students which some would say it is too harsh of an exercise for a group that young; She wanted to teach her student that discrimination is wrong which have been a topic they discussed from the first day of school but felt the student would become confused with the fact she just honored Dr. king in the month of February and now she had to explain to them that he was assassinated because of discrimination. Jane Elliott agreed that this exercise can do Psychological damage if not conducted correctly but the benefits are remarkable.
Americans today are well-known for their eating habits. With all the options the food industry gives us it makes it hard to go to the grocery store and resist picking up that bag of barbeque-flavored chips or blueberry flavored candy. Due to these processed foods obesity is a growing epidemic in our country and who is to blame for it? In an article entitled “What You Eat is Your Business” by Radley Balko, Balko argues for less government intervention. Balko believes is it our responsibility to take care of ourselves and make it a priority.
