Punishing your child for their bad behavior should never cause them physical or mental damage. So what is corporal punishment? How does it affect our children? Is corporal punishment a good or bad thing? If corporal punishment is so bad why did they allow it to continue for so many years?
Many studies in investigating obedience to authority have been questioned for its ethical issues. Milgram’s study has particularly been criticised for being ethically unacceptable. It involved deception, right to withdraw, consent and psychological harm. Participants were deceived as to the exact nature of the study for which they had volunteered, and by making them believe they were administering real electric shocks to a real participant. However Milgram could not have found results that truly reflected the way people behave in real situations if he had not deceived his participants, all of whom were thoroughly debriefed afterwards.
This is unethical because it’s a clear act of deception; although it can be justified as the deception was necessary for the experiment because the participants most likely would not have showed the real obedience levels. Another ethical issue with this is the procedure the experiment made the participant undergo as this would have caused mental stress, because they had to according to their knowledge administer electric shocks to the ‘learner’ in the experiment and although this was a confederate and the shocks were not truly administered as it was fake the real participant was not aware of this and believed that they were administering shocks that kept increasing in power and could have potentially killed the ‘learner’ of the experiment and to make the participant believe in this more they had a recording playing with what to the participant would have believed to be the reaction of the ‘learner’ to the shocks that they were supposedly being given and also there was a supervisor wearing a lab coat that was conducting the experiment giving them verbal prods when the participant was wavering and seemed like they did not want to continue, this reinforced the need for
Later he realizes that this rat can communicate with him, but not only that, he can cook swell. As terrified and and worried he was about meeting Remy, he still thought this could be a good step up for his carrier. He tried proving to people what Remy could do but it didn't work out as he planned since people would only laugh at him because unfortunately, the rat was very shy with others. so moving onto plan B, an idea sparked to both of their minds. this plan cam across as an accident because one day they were fighting and Remy pulled linguinis hair, then only to find that when the rat did this, it controlled different parts of the boy.
The Wolf Ate the Rabbit From reading the book “One Flew over the Cuckoos Nest,” I feel like the Big Nurse won the battle at the end. Through many fights and battles, both the Big Nurse and McMurphy show times of triumph. They both also show times of failure. Because McMurphy was a sane man coming into the ward and eventually became a bit insane, I think the Big Nurse should be considered the winner. Chief begins to realize McMurphy insane ways when he states, “Because he knows you have to laugh at the things that hurt you just to keep yourself in balance, just to keep the world from running you plumb crazy.” (Pg.212) The Big Nurse is the one with all the power while McMurphy lies on the bed like a vegetable.
The mice are what Lennie remembers his Aunt Clara by, and that’s the only thing he has to remember her by are those mice. The mice also show that Lennie hurts things he loves, not intentionally, but that’s what he does. Since he likes to pet soft things, it leads him to kill his mice, his puppy, and Curley’s wife. Like Lennie, mice suffer because they’re small; mice’s physical smallness leaves it in danger, just like Lennie’s mental smallness does the same. Lennie’s puppy represents the victory of the strong over the weak.
In an attempt to explore a fairly under researched subject, researchers Bigelow and La Gaipa looked at the differences in children’s understanding of friendship at various stages of development. They created a unique means of investigating the gradual changes in the understanding of friendship as children grow older. In doing so they helped to shed new light on the important role that friends play in children’s lives. In addition another researcher was also interested in this subject: William Corsaro. However, Corsaro was interested in how children talk to each other and believed that research on children’s friendships should focus on children’s individual understanding of the word ‘friend’.
To then come back and remove the children would be such as another charges to the criminal, and seems unconstitutional, unlawful, and wrong. One could declare that placing these children in crowded circumstances that would happen from the performance of this strategy would do more damage than excellent. Not all juveniles placed in enhance excellent proper care are there due to bad parenting. Some of these children end up there because the mother and father can no longer control their activities, or in between doing stints in teenager area. All mother and father or parents who lose their children would not have the same degree of violation, which runs the risk of children from better surroundings being taught through the same Public Concept adverse activities and assault from other children.
Similarly, both render the victim defenseless. After being tortured, possibilities suggest that a normal life can happen. Therefore, putting someone through suffering is not very smart. When people are in pain, they will say anything and everything to get out of that situation. So, the information received is not always reliable.
In 1964 he was awarded the American Association for the Advancement of Science's (AAAS) prize for research, and his work was seminal for psychological studies about obedience to authority. However, his experiments were also highly criticized for being unethical. Diana Baumrind was one of the first to argue that Milgram's experiment did not provide adequate measures to protect participants from the stress and realization that they were capable of brutal actions; that the entire experiment should have been terminated at the first indication of discomfort in the participants; and that because of the intensity of the experience, participants would be alienated from future participation in psychological research. Others, such as H. C. Kelman, argued that the use of deception in these experiment were not necessary because other, non-deceptive methods could have obtained similar results. Milgram defended his work, arguing that adequate measures were indeed taken to protect participants; participants could withdraw from the study at any time; and that the deception was explained at the conclusion of the experiment.