They think raising taxes on junkfood will help obesity becuase not as many people will buy it. This is a bad idea, let me tell you why. The government has already tried this with tobacco products becuase they thought if they raised taxes on tabacco people would quit using them because they were too expensive. It didn't work though people just paid the extra taxes. Here are a few more reasons why its a bad idea.
Cultural – this could be due to the area you were brought up or the people you are friends with. For example the music people listen to. Moral – is all about what people believe to be right or wrong for example some people may be against animal testing as they feel it is cruel or unnecessary, others may believe it’s a good thing as it helps create new medicines and drugs to save humans. This can affect people in the health and care industry because of their beliefs. For example if a doctor is of the Jehovah witness belief and they have a bleeding patient they may not believe it is right to give them a blood transfusion but as the patient may not share that belief and it is in the patients best interest the doctor should perform the transfusion regardless of his own beliefs.
1999) Although Singer has a great amount of followers, there are people who disagree with his beliefs and moral reasoning. One argument that an individual might have with him is that we should focus on helping the people in our own country. We have poverty stricken and starving people here in America as well. Nobody is helping us, so we must help our neighbors in this country. Giving large sums of our personal profits to other countries will hurt us in the long run, it may be morally rewarding, but financially it is not.
A doctor does not have the right to do this because he or she is not God and should not ‘play God’. This is why euthanasia is opposed. Followers of Natural Law would argue that euthanasia, with regards to the quality of life, might end a person’s suffering which was causing them to have poor quality life, but it does not consider that a person could have gotten better if they were not euthanized and their quality of life could have improved. This is why a follower would object to euthanasia. The case study of Dr Nigel Cox can be used.
But is this true? As we can truly say, nutritionism is not actually benefiting society in general because it lacks real food, it’s more expensive, and causes many diseases; however, nutritionism can be very successful for the world of business of industries. When we talk about real food, it means recognizable, good quality, whole food that rots when it's kept for too long. These foods are the ones our ancestors used to eat on a regular basis until it was replaced with a whole new type of nutrition one, in which chemically-infused, food- like materials focused mainly on nutritional facts. For example, when we go in the supermarket to buy food we read the facts in the back of the product checking what types nutrition it has, and how much it has.
Patients and families paying funds and receiving kidneys: While a person could understand they are looking out for their self-interest, when it comes to moral responsibility, the concern for another human being and the reason for their execution should weigh heavy on their minds and in their hearts. As such, the patients and their families are failing their moral responsibility as they not concerning themselves with the act involved in how they received this kidney. When speaking of a stakeholder’s moral failings, all parties involved have failed in this aspect. All the interested parties in this matter chose to ignore their moral responsibilities to another human life. Instead, they chose either their greed or chose to ignore what was occurring so that they could receive that kidney.
Instead of profiting from a high yield the producers will lose customers because of their anxiety towards the foreign milk. Hypothetically the producers would have benefited from the advancement, but realistically, nations worldwide would want a guarantee that their people are not going to be harmed. It is natural for people to be scared of change, and the fear of genetically altered food is a prime example of
N pet owners would want to lose a family member due to a lack of blood, but the pricing of Oxyglobin is highly sensitive looking at Table A. The problem that hinders both of these products is that there is no sense of urgency for blood substitutes in the market. Their high price assumes that they are safer and more effective than traditional donated blood, but that has not been proven. The acceptance of donated blood has also been a barrier of resistance to the blood substitute market, even with the growing knowledge of veterinary blood donors. Marketing of Oxyglobin has obstacles in its distribution strategy,
Throughout that time these animals become so unadapt to their new surroundings, they become less likely to return to their natural state which gives those experimenting more reason to test them. Most of these senseless experiments are funding by the federal government using the public’s tax dollars and by health charities, which are wasting precious dollars on irrelevant experiments on animals instead of spending the money on promising human-based research (Peta). Norfleet 2 A few companies have banned the use of animal testing, but often the companies that continue to test animals produce inaccurate or misleading results. These results are giving the okay to more and more products being sold to you. Why continue to test animals that may give inaccurate results on products that can still be sold to the human race?
While many Buddhist views tend to stress peace and good deeds, this caveat could possibly discourage people from doing things for others because they may not be completely convinced they are doing them for the ‘right reasons’. “Even if you were to feed all the hungry beings in the world, if you acted in complete absence of these four views, then it would be merely a good deed, not the path to enlightenment. In fact it might be a righteous act designed to feed and support the ego.” (1601) Here, he even implies