NVQ Level 2 Questions INTRODUCTION TO COMMUNICATION 1.1 Identify different reasons why people communicate To express need to share ideas and information, to reassure; to express feelings; to build relationships; socialize; to ask questions; to share experiences. Communicating it is the primary form of transmission and reception of information. 1.2 Explain how effective communication affects all aspects of own work A good communication help to understand people needs, build trust prevents misunderstanding. When communication is well set up, allows you to provide better customer service, saving time and avoiding misunderstandings. For example in the case of a member whose primary language is not English, it is good practice to make use of plain English, easy to understand.
Making contact: To greet or ending a meeting can lead to great success. Initial greeting should be as welcoming and positive. I say first impressions leave a big mark, make sure you keep a big smile and a good attitude. Using culture and set it with traditions, some Asian countries do not shake hands. They bow to each one another and keep little very eye contact.
The answer to this question will vary. Some people are moral realists and hold that moral facts are objective facts that are out there in the world, these people believe that things are good or bad independently of us. Moral values such as goodness and badness are real properties of people in the same way that rough and smooth are properties of physical objects. This view is often referred to as cognitive language. Those who oppose cognitivists are called non cognitivists and they believe that when someone makes a moral statement they are not describing the world, but they are merely expressing their feelings and opinions, they believe that moral statements are not objective therefore they cannot be verified as true or false.
Second, he argues that it is only by virtue of something being sentient that it can be said to have interests at all, so this places sentience in a different category than the other criteria: "The capacity for suffering and enjoying things is a prerequisite for having interests at all, a condition that must be satisfied before we can speak of interests in any meaningful way" (175). That is, Singer is trying to establish that if a being is not sentient, the idea of extending moral consideration to it makes no sense. This negative argument is important, because one common criticism of Singer is that his criterion ends up excluding humans who are no longer sentient (like those in an irreversible coma); Singer is content to accept that consequence, but it is important that he show why the exclusion of some humans by his criterion is not problematic, given that he has criticized other criteria
So, oppressed people can not win the respect of oppressor. He believes in this way the oppressed become as evil as the oppressor because acquiescence is the easier way to encounter oppression, also it is not the moral way. In Dr. King’s opinion, the second way is resorting to physical violence and corroding hatred. He believes violence not only brings impermanent results, but also is impractical and immoral. According to King, it is impractical because it slows the process of ending the oppression for all, and it is immoral because it seeks humiliate the opponent rather than win his understanding.
Accenting Repetition: One could use this to show the sender that they are interested about the infor- mation by having steady eye contact, leaning their body forward and tilting one’s head to one’s side, or by scratching a chin to show one in deep thought. Contradiction: Effectively communicating, one should harmonize their body language with their words, because if one perceives communication signals to be mixed. Substitution: One could substitute non-verbal communication for words to communicate by smiling and clapping to communicate approval, raising one’s eyebrows to communicate eagerness or surprise. Complementing: One could use body language with what they are saying by adding a Gesture to a spoken word and by saying hello by waving one’s hand. Accenting: Accent spoken words with body language such as gestures.
Therefore people may think what they're doing is right in their certain situation but in reality they are actually in the wrong. Also this conveys there is no convincing reason as to why people should be good as relativist thinker Mackie says there are no objective values rightness and wrongness do not exist in the world. alternatively this statement proposes that relativist have not defined what is right or wrong so therefore the relativist theory cannot provide a convincing reason as to why people should be good because they do not have a definition at all of what is right or wrong and they clearly recognise that there are different perspectives of what is right or wrong. No two people may agree on judgement, Sumner a cultural relativist suggests that ancestors have passed down traditions and they are just an experience of their culture. This conveys that there is no convincing reason as to why people should be good because if there cultural says they should do something that is morally wrong, for example killing someone to use them as a sacrifice then in their eyes they are not doing anything wrong they are just following their culture and it doesn't convince them to be good.
The Naturalistic Fallacy is one of the main criticisms of Ethical Naturalism and would therefore suggest that ethical language is meaningless as it cannot be correctly defined, given that one cannot derive any moral statements from natural facts. Moore believed there are moral properties, so ethical language is not completely devoid of meaning but it is limited as ‘good’ is a non-natural property which cannot be
Balancing the need to expose wrong-doing with the need to protect “whistleblowers” requires wisdom. Protection is not a basic right. Right to feel protected as one does one's work. (Incorrect) No one can guarantee—or is responsible—for how we feel. We are responsible for noticing and monitoring our own emotions.
In the hard determinist’s judgement, this feeling of freedom is an illusion. (Pereboom, 2009:324). Another argument against hard determinism would be if it were true we could not be accounted for when it comes to our actions, therefore we could do a morally wrong act and if it was determined then we would could not to blame, we did not have the free will to do that act it was determined to be done anyway. Also if we do a morally good act should we be praised for this? Hard determinists would say that it was not our free will that chose us to do this good act we were determined to do it anyway.