The first action that Company Q could take to improve its attitude toward social responsibility would be to donate the outdated food to the local food bank. All the food that goes to waste in the dumpster is just going to a landfill and will not be used for human consumption. It is not socially responsible to create more waste when the outdated food can be used and consumed to help those who are in need. The company states that they are worried about employees taking food and claiming that the food is a donation. If Company Q is worried about this happening with employees, they could only allow owners or store managers to decide what is donated.
In the book Fast Food Nation by Eric Schlosser, he states that “Seventy eight percent of ground beef in a USDA study contained microbes that are spread primarily by fecal matter” (1). The fast food and beef industry want consumers to be willfully ignorant of what really is in the meat we consume. In his essay, “Power Steer,” author Michael Pollan states, “Forgetting, or willed ignorance, is the preferred strategy of many beef eaters, a strategy abetted by the industry” (2). Willed ignorance is choosing to be ignorant of a cause so people can live without challenging the way they think, so they can feel safe. Pollan is referring to the fact that many beef consumers willingly choose to ignore and not think about how their meat has been made and what is actually in it.
Hutchinson and Schwartz. In “The Lottery”, when Mrs. Hutchinson realized that she was the chosen one by the community to be killed, she did not tried to run, beg for mercy or ask her family for protection and save her from being stoned to death. She accepted her death without fighting for her life. On the contrary, in the case of “The Jewbird”, Schwartz did everything he could to survive, he even reached and caught Cohen’s nose, but he manage to get the bird by its legs and break it in pieces. These two actions are seeing now as very cruel acts in human society and should be
They are agreeing that these experiments are inflicting terrible pain to animals that humans could never undergo. An Australian philosopher states that: “if experimenting with a human baby is not acceptable then it’s not justifiable to experiment with non-human animals cognitively equivalent, because rejecting them in the first case and accepting them in the second would be discriminating against the species which is arbitrary” (Singer). Ron Karpati starts his essay with the following sentence: “I am the enemy. One of those vilified, inhumane physician-scientists involved in animal research” with this he is agreeing people do see him as a villain and accepts how many people repudiate this act. He states “I became a pediatrician because of my love for children and my desire to keep them healthy”.
Secondly, is the acknowledgement that the worst crime possible is murder; no matter what the circumstance. The consequence of murder is it’s deprivation of future life, and is why there is a law prohibiting it, says Marquis. Don Marquis asks you to realize how unjust it would be to kill you if you were a fetus and relate it to your life now. He states “Thus, reader, the FLO account explains why it is wrong to kill you when you were an infant as it is to kill you now.”(209,I,C) Lastly, he references animal rights. He focuses on suffering.
Fern catches word that her father is going to kill a pig because it is the runt of the litter and will eventually be more of a hassle than of any good. Fern cannot believe that her father would do such a thing. She grabs her father and says, “But it’s unfair, the pig couldn’t help being born small, could it? If I had been very small at birth, would you have killed me?”(3) I find this statement to be a very strong quote from the book because it is showing the innocence of a child who cannot understand that because something is so small you would kill it. She is trying to rationalize with her father, which ties in with Piaget’s Cognitive Theory of Development the period of concrete operations.
Frankenstein wanted to recreate his mother, but instead he made a creature comprised of the socially repressed elements of Frankenstein (the monster) and his wish for his mother. Frankenstein's creature comprises all of the unacceptable traits of humans, those we usually suppress. These traits may actually be a representation of those traits that Frankenstein wishes he had. Mary Shelley tries to humanize the position of the impossible monster to imagine what it would be like for a monster to sustain personhood when everybody around him treats him as an utterly outcast to society. Shelley is trying to show that the creature is not inherently monstrous, but
Singer claims that “ An American household with an income of $50,000 spends around $30,000 annually on necessities…Therefore, for a household bringing in $50,000 a year, donations to help the world’s poor should be as close as possible to $20,000”(879). Singer makes a detailed argument discussing current problems with the way America spends their money needlessly on activities and upgrades such as dining out at a favorite restaurant. He insists “That’s right: I’m saying that you shouldn’t buy that new car, take that cruise, redecorate the house, or get that pricey new suit”(Singer 879). His argument seems simple and straight forward, but I found his essay to be extreme and unrealistic because it is hard to give a precise definition for a “luxury” or “necessity”, a lot of people work really hard for their money to be able to retire, save for unexpected expenses or provide for their families, the process of development of new technologies would stop as well as current economic situation would change drastically. The first reason I think Singer’s idea is unrealistic is because it is really hard to determine what a luxury is.
Consumers have become passive, uncritical(Berry 2) making them easy targets for the food industries to take advantage of that fact and begin to lower their quality, saving them money. The individual person has become to use to the thought of whatever they hear is true and they believe what they hear. The individual person needs to start caring about what they are eating and feeding their loved ones or the food industry can continue to make their money while taking away nutrients or quality that the average shopper is paying for. Berry is correct when saying the individual person supports the agricultural industry by purchasing foods, they should care about the ingredients used for their foods. Food industries now believe they can implant or pitch a thought in your mind and you will follow by purchasing the items, it actually works for them.
Opponents of animal testing also claim that the results are not applicable to human. This may be partly true. Some drugs have had to be withdrawn , despite testing. However , we simply do not have alternative methods of testing. Computers models are not advanced enough , and testing on plants is much less applicable to humans than tests on animals such as monkeys.