Because people don't care about anything but economic development, they overlook animal rights[,]” to emphasize his own theory by this form of hyperbole. However, he is actually committing an error in inductive logic. He repents his experiences in “[eating] dog meat,” but does not mention anything about eating beef or pork. This argumentative strategy seems contradicting to me because I think if animals indeed have rights, all animals should share the same right. In other words, when Chu suggests that eating dog meat is wrong, he should also consider whether it is ethical to eat beef or port.
These problems that he refers to are the unknown side effects of genetically processed foods, and the cloning of animals and humans. The real controversy doesn’t seem to be the issues at stake, but the fact that the entire human race needs to come to some sort of agreement on what to do about these issues. The Dalia Lama emphasizes the point, we need to achieve a spirit of oneness, in order to come to an agreement. Unfortunately, other factors come into play when it comes to our belief systems and races and cultures just can’t agree. Due to human nature, we cannot achieve a spirit of oneness, because other factors such as social class, appearance, politics, and religion will still cause discrimination between people.
The Horsemeat scandal contravenes the law as many company’s such as ‘Tesco’, ‘Iceland’, ‘Lidl’ and ‘Aldi’ were misleading their customers into thinking they sold beef whereas in fact they were caught selling horse meat which was a breach of the law. Consumer protection from unfair trading regulation 2008 also limits marketing as customers have a right to be treated fairly and honestly. Therefore aggressive sales tactics and dishonest promotions are strictly not allowed. Advertising special offers that aren't in stock is called bait advertising. An example of this is a camera shop runs a national advertising campaign offering cameras at a low price compared to its competitors.
However, the world remains divided on their opinions on whether abortion is a morally acceptable procedure or not. The debate often goes on between conservatives (“Pro-life”) and liberals (“Pro-choice”) and either side can do little do persuade the other. In chapter 6 of his 1979 book Practical Ethics, philosopher Peter Singer challenges and deconstructs the popular arguments made by liberals and conservatives and seeks out an answer to the problem with a broader viewpoint. Singer seeks his answer by exposing fallacies in the common arguments and shows that most arguments, especially by conservatives, are based on the often contradictory legacies of religious doctrines and not any actual morally significant reasoning. Specifically, he criticizes the conservative view of a foetus’ right to life by saying that the foetus is not quite yet a human being and shows that the liberal replies to the conservatives are hardly ever sound arguments.
Whereas relative is has loads of expectations and depends on the ethics of the situation. Absolute morality tends to be more religion orientated. In the Ten Commandments, there is one saying ‘Thou shalt not kill’ meaning ‘murder is not allowed.” Christians won’t question these rules, as they are from God. This is an absolutist rule. Someone who doesn’t follow a religion may tend to be more of a relativist, and they may say “Murder should be prevented, unless murdering one could stop the murder of more.” Using Kant’s famous example, if a murderer with an axe came to your house asking the whereabouts of your children, you’d have to tell him so that you are being moral as the murderer is his own moral agent and you are not responsible for his choices, you are only responsible for your own and it’ll be wrong to lie, even if it is to protect your loved ones.
This can be from a single person or a group of people and two choices must be made. Sometimes neither choice may resolve the situation in an ethical fashion. With situations like these social and ethical guidelines or common sense may not be the answer and will not provide a satisfying outcome for the chooser. When looking at ethical dilemmas society assumes that the person making the choice will abide by the norms of society like rules, religion and this can conflict with making an ethical decision (Ethical Dilemma Examples, 2013). On February 26th, 2012 George Zimmerman shot and killed Trayvon martin a young man who was supposedly walking home after he bought some skittles and iced tea.
Human Nature and the Expression of Morals A sense of what is morally right and wrong is a fundamental aspect of human nature. It is considered morally wrong to kill living things and morally right to help someone in need. Throughout William Golding’s Lord of The Flies and Harper Lee’s To Kill a Mockingbird, there are several instances where standards of human morality fluctuate. In both novels, such examples convey the authors’ views of what is morally acceptable and what is not. This paper will address how select characters such as Atticus Finch, Tom Robinson, Bob Ewell, Ralph, Jack Merridew and Simon deal with their moral dilemmas.
The behaviors of the exotic animals cannot be predicted, one may not order and command their steps each minute and therefore can kill or maim within few seconds. Many people according to studies have been killed and maimed by these animals within seconds. They can be extremely dangerous when provoked. Interference with the natural system As much as all the animals deserves to exist, keeping the exotic animals is taking them out of their natural habitats and may feel like they are lacking something. Keeping them also interferes with them since they are meant to be free and are used to hunting for themselves.
Even if they were facing death, they stood their ground and continued to spread the gospel message. Early believers were not afraid to speak the message of Christ with boldness no matter the penalty. However, this was not a testimony of human assertiveness that depends upon having an aggressive personality. It is actually the opposite. The boldness of the early church was the result of a lifestyle of prayer and dependence on the Holy Spirit.
“It’s true for me if I believe it,” says moral relativism. In the same breath, it argues “if it is acceptable in my culture to torture people (for any reason), then I am accountable only to the constraints of my society’s beliefs of what is right, and not to any other standard of moral truth”. In asserting itself, moral relativism embodies the concept of ‘that’s true for you but not for me’ and implies that this moral disagreement between cultures leads to the conclusion there can be no absolute moral truth. In this essay, I will firstly outline briefly the arguments for moral relativism before countering them with reasons why the arguments are implausible. Secondly this essay will discuss the logical concept of absolute truth while highlighting a few weaknesses of relative truth.