Smacking/Spanking of Children Should Not Be Banned A very debatable issue is if spanking children should be banned or not. Many people are on both sides. Some think that it is a form of discipline, and it will help the child to behave. Others think that it is a form of abuse, and if adults cannot hit adults, it should be illegal for adults to strike them. There is a difference, however, between punching your child in the face, and spanking him on the bottom when he is misbehaving.
The parental advisory sticker on music Certain albums contain explicit lyrics. Although there is a parental advisory sticker, some people don't pay any mind to it. The parental adivory sticker should not be used because it may lead to illegal actions, record companies won't make as much money, and adults that are able to buy it would buy it for a minor. By using the parental advisory sticker it promtes illegal actions. Minors will be so eager to get it that they could download it from a computer.
The fact that the school think they have the right to violate the child's private life is funny. But at the same time its a little disturbing to know that they will invade our lives during our generation. As well as our fourth amendment right it is breaking, it is incriminating yourself if you show up positive. The fact that our founding fathers gave us these rights our expressions of these rights should not be stopped by anything regardless. The school system has no right to drug test anyone, due to what cause.
“Why is it when we see a parent smack their unruly child in public - despite the fact it’s entirely legal and the child belongs to someone else - we stare, we glare, we want to call child protective services. Is it really any of our business? And, why is it that when you’re doing the disciplining it’s O.K., but if someone else is, you just can’t bear it?” (Schur n.d.). I was spanked as a child. It did not make me become an abusive parent, nor do I think my parents were.
He does help Batman save innocent people, but when the Dark Knight finds himself in a tight situation and needs an extra pair of hands, who’s hands are better to use than his sidekick’s? According to the Kantian argument, it is universally unethical to expose children to danger. As a mother or father it becomes second nature to keep one’s children out of harm’s way, and as a society this rule is accepted almost everywhere. It is in universality where utilitarianism fails. The most important duties must be universal and without exception to anyone according to Immanuel Kant (DiGiovanna 19).
It is becoming clear that custody evaluators tend to approach these cases with a culturally insensitive approach toward sexual orientation. This phenomenon is similar to the “color-blind” approach, which ignores differences between various racial groups, often times stripping them of their identity and unique needs. While it may seem politically correct to treat cases involving a same-sex parent as you would treat cases involving two heterosexual parents, failing to acknowledge and address critical differences in these cases violates our ethical responsibilities not only to our profession, but also ignores what is best for the children involved. The continuation of this research is vital in creating appropriate guidelines for custody evaluators and developing the proper training for psychologists to become competent to work on these specific types of cases. Moving this research forward as a dissertation project combines my passion for issues of diversity with my interest in the legal system.
Despite the attractiveness of this service, it is considered in most countries to be an illegal infringement on the copyrights of the television channels that originally purchased the works for broadcasting. The dilemma faced by viewers is whether or not it is wrong for them to view their favourite show at their convenience on one of these websites despite these legal issues. I will analyze this issue from two basic ethical points of view: deontological and utilitarian. Based on the results of these analysis, I will conclude with a summation of which I find to be more compelling and why. Deontology is form of normative ethics that judges the morality of an action based on the action’s adherence to a rule or rules.
Researchers have given that answer in their survey’s and facts that they have found. It is up to the parents to take the problem serious and listen to facts that are given. Many disagree with the idea that video games are harmful but cannot back their opinion up with actual evidence that they have found. The more children are exposed to violent video games, the higher the chance that they will have an increase in aggressive behavior. Violent video games give off the message that killing and violence is fun instead of bad.
The owner is treating the consumer as a means only and not as end in themselves. On Kantian grounds such advertising violates consumer rights to rational self-determination, their autonomy. Deceptive advertising is also an example of a nonuniversalizable act. They are blatantly lying about the benefits of their product. The principle of universalizability asks if you can will your maxim as a law for everyone.
Music censorship has been a controversial subject for a long time. Many individuals believe that the words and phrases in songs are inappropriate; but every individual on this planet should have the ability to state his or her own ideas freely. The argument in music censorship is: are kids affected by inappropriate lyrics? My answer would be no, because even if you change the curse words in a sentence, the main idea would still be the same. There’s no point in censoring lyrics.