Weather the animal’s purpose is companionship or work, it still deserves to be treated in the most humane way possible. As an animal’s owner, a person has more say in the treatment to an animal and he/she is given the opportunity to make a decision of what happens to the animal when given various options to choose from. The freedom to the people is a nice idea but it comes along with more ethical disputes. The veterinarian informs the owner of which decision would best in the situation at hand, but the owner does not necessarily have to choose that option. The owner may choose an option that is inconsiderate to the pet’s life, especially if the owner is emotionally distraught or
Peter tells Jerry, “I DON’T WANT TO HEAR ANY MORE. I don’t understand you” (37), about the story because he does not want to change or become a new person. Peter probably understands the story perfectly, but he does not want to. Jerry never intended to hurt Peter, he was trying to make a point that Peter does understand and that Peter is not alone in the world. Jerry makes Peter kill him so that Peter recognizes that
- Torturing a dog is unethical and wrong as there is no reason to inflict that pain on the animal but it’s not immoral as that is the wrong term to use because another human is not involved. However, if your neighbor objects and starts hammering your door down, then you have a moral problem, particularly if it’s their dog. Murdering a person is
Because he feared losing his job, he did not defend his position with an explanation of his job description or scope of practice. By avoiding the situation, Rashad chose the passive aggressive form of communication. Effective communication is a win-win between two people. Aggressive communication is not an effective form of communication because only one person is talking. Robin overpowered Rashad with verbal assault rather than encouraging ownership, involvement, and teamwork.
Unfortunately, negativity bias was the deciding factor in our decision. I was thinking about all the negative information if we decided to get a dog. I never thought about the positive influence that getting a pet would have on my children. After much critical thinking I decided not to get a dog. References Moore, B. N., & Parker, R. (2012).
A strength of questionnaires for studying parental attitudes is that they don’t have many ethical issues. This is because if the parent doesn’t want to fill out the questionnaire they don’t have to so informed consent would not be a problem. Also, even though the researcher could ask sensitive questions like the respondents own experiences of school, they do not have to answer. Yet, because questionnaires can be confidential and anonymous, parents may be more inclined to answer questions as it would not belittle them in any way or create judgement as the researcher is completely detached from the parent. However, the researcher would need to make it very clear to the parents that they do not have to answer questions and guarantee their anonymity.
Then after I was completed with my critical review I would also invite peer review to see if there was a perspective that I missed. Define free will, truth, knowledge, and opinion. Explain how we use them to form thoughts. Free will is the ability to make a choice or decision on your own. Truth defined is “what is so about something, the reality of the matter, as distinguished from what people wish were so, believe to be so, or assert to be so” (Ruggiero, 2009).
We are after all dealing with children and not lab animals. Yet in his article Crister is trying to persuade the American family that punishing children for over eating is a good idea. The author does not explain exactly how his solution should be carried out or put into place. He also failed to state what the consequences of these actions might be. The author uses argumentation to try to persuade the reader that many parents do not care what their children eat.
My personal preferred lens is the Equality/Rationality in the Relationship lens. The Equality/Rationality Lens means that I use my reasoning skills to determine what should and needs to be done to ensure fairness for all. The strength of this lens is my ability to research all options and implement the options that I feel are fair to the situation and everyone involved. My weakness is that I can put too much thought into what is right in a situation, I tend to impose my will on others without looking to see that there might be other options relevant to the situation. I may also be tempted to exempt myself and others from the rules convinced that the rules were meant for others or that the actions I am taking really are fair for everyone.
These laws are a good solution, but if people don’t follow them then they aren’t working and there should be harsher laws towards animal cruelty. Like I believe if a person is taking the commitment to take a pet into there house they should keep him, and not just because you got tired of him you go throw him at the dog pound. If you are