The ad hominem attacks are not necessary to support his argument that dropping the bomb was the right decision because he refutes opponents’ arguments before resorting to ad hominem, so the ad hominem must have a different purpose altogether. Instead, the ad hominem adds to his argument about the necessity of experience. Fussell explicitly admits his use of ad hominem attacks, which are valid because they occur after the target’s argument had already been refuted and just help connect the disproven arguments to their owner’s lack of experience, which is further associated with an impractical, idealistic mindset. Fussell brings up the arguments of people who opposed dropping the atom bomb on Japan and then argues that their arguments are not valid because they do not have correct information or experience in war. John Kenneth Galbraith believed that the bomb should not have been dropped because he said that the war would end in only a few weeks (Fussell, 18).
Singer admits that there may be a “psychological difference” among the conflicting cases, but he also believes that it provides no excuse to a human’s moral obligation. To explain, just because a person feels ok about not taking action because other people choose to not take action, does not mean that they are morally justified. In his first counterexample, Singer is out to prove that whether there are many people involved in the situation, or one person, it makes no difference. With the idea “global village” and the technology of today’s society, Singer dismisses the idea of distance being a factor. He claims that “instant communication and swift transportation” have made relief organizations so efficient, and that helping them has become as efficient as helping a neighbor.
Someone might suggest this theory because they believe that Joe should act in his best interest and if he does then he will not go on the trip. That his best interest is to the company he works for. I would refute this opposing perspective because Joe might not think that his best interest is
the reluctant security guard A lawyer could tell me how to proceed without violating the law , the company policies , or my employment contract , or at least , in case I should violate one , I will still make a better informed decision Propriety of Firing Tuff Tuff violated company policy ... Paper Topic: The Reluctant Security Guard The Reluctant Security Guard A Case Study Summary of the Facts David Tuff is a security guard of Blue Mountain ... The company policy prohibited the security guards from reporting such incidents to the police Tuff complained against this new company policy ... Because of this , Tuff was fired Propriety of Tuff ‘s Action As a matter of right , Tuff had every right to speak what he spoke to the media ... Thus , his act of revealing company policies to the media is , in the final analysis inappropriate What he should have done If I were Tuff , I would have not been so rash as to incite public outcry against my employer ... Since Tuff violated company policy he violated an agreement he voluntarily entered into ... However , Blue Mountain created a new company policy ing the security guards to just escort intoxicated persons including drunk drivers , from the parking lots onto the public road ...
The world you live in is a sick place, Seahaven is the way the way the world should be.” This quote really shows that he is protecting Truman from the real world. Christof doesn’t believe the world is the best and he has created a better world for Truman. The reason maybe because he wasn’t wanted at birth and so he was wanted. Christof can sound like a nice guy but like anyone they have their cons and Christof’s is invading Truman’s privacy. This is demonstrated when Christof says “I know you better than yourself” and Truman replies “you never had a camera in my
Giving money to the relief fund is considered charity however if it is our obligation wouldn’t that make it our duty? Due to the fact that giving is considered to be an act of generosity then people who do not give are not seen as being wrong but those who choose to, are praised for their support (Singer). The author feels that in order for us to live up to our moral obligations we must fix or understanding of these
The difference between charity and duty in societies are the level at which each word and the associated actions that belong with these words are revered. The idea of duty is associated with obligations something that you have to do. In our society, it is considered a violation to ignore your duty, showing there is little room for discretion. While charity though revered allows for a varying degree of discretion. Charity is not an obligation, “giving aid would be a good thing to do but it would not be wrong not to do it” (Gilabert, 2007).
In comparison to a court decision one cannot use personal feeling towards the final decision in a case, but Huck felt otherwise. Huck is being disciplined for his beliefs and he does not want to be part of a lifestyle that does not support his ways. For example, his choice not to turn in Jim because he knows of what he did shows that Huck understands why Jim is escaping and feels for him rather than just to do the right thing according to society. Huck sees Jim as a friend, a companion whom he finds close not as a slave. With that said he truly is able to see that society's way of treating Jim is completely wrong.
He then asked Jim to set up a session with just Serena and himself so he could tell Jim his side of the story. Jim called him and Serena’s mom separately, and said that the next meeting would have to be with both adults and no child because the reason for treatment was so far removed from the nonsense that was going on. Jim felt he was being ineffective because of the difficult place they put him in. It is not an ethical violation to tape a session, but in this case it was an ethical concern because of what it was being used for. Serena’s father wanted to use it in court against her mother for personal gain.
This shows that when the country is all set and done with what they were doing that it will just hurt the morale of them. This argument could be differential to some, but they have to think that not only could it stop and possibly save countries but it could also save lives of many people. Therefore using torture does not help the cause in the world to this day; it will only keep destroying countries all