Monday, September 28, 2015
Sunday, September 13, 2015
Cecil the Lion
Article / Video
KQ: To what extent can the law justify peoples actions
RLS: Cecil the Lion
A very controversial event occurred this summer which caused alot of debate over social media.
In the beginning of August a dentist with hunting hobbies had paid alot of money to be allowed into the private area where a famous lion called 'Cecil' lives in Zimbabwe.
The dentist 'Walter' paid large amounts of money to be entered into the private area where the lion is located and shot Cecil the lion once with an arrow, who then did not die immediately, but suffered for 40 hours before shot one more and then died. All the details are included in the article and video posted above.
The reason this was a very controversial topic was because people were not sure whether this was an ethical event or not.
The article argues that although it was a very inhumane act towards the animal and the people of Zimbabwe seeing as Cecil was described as being like a 'celebrity' to the people, the hunter still was breaking the law. He was in the area legally, but the only reason he was arrested soon after is because he was already on probation due to his lying about killing a bear earlier on in the year.
But that brings me to my main point, is something considered ethical if it is legal?
why should the law determine what is ethical and what is unethical?
The law is created so that chaos is not evident in different areas, but not all laws are the same, and it depends on the culture oh that particular area, so no one can really know who is correct or not when determining what is ethical.
In terms of consequential theories, this event was unethical because in the end an innocent animal died at the hand of a hunter. But in looking at it technically from a courts perspective it would be allowed.
KQ: To what extent can the law justify peoples actions
RLS: Cecil the Lion
A very controversial event occurred this summer which caused alot of debate over social media.
In the beginning of August a dentist with hunting hobbies had paid alot of money to be allowed into the private area where a famous lion called 'Cecil' lives in Zimbabwe.
The dentist 'Walter' paid large amounts of money to be entered into the private area where the lion is located and shot Cecil the lion once with an arrow, who then did not die immediately, but suffered for 40 hours before shot one more and then died. All the details are included in the article and video posted above.
The reason this was a very controversial topic was because people were not sure whether this was an ethical event or not.
The article argues that although it was a very inhumane act towards the animal and the people of Zimbabwe seeing as Cecil was described as being like a 'celebrity' to the people, the hunter still was breaking the law. He was in the area legally, but the only reason he was arrested soon after is because he was already on probation due to his lying about killing a bear earlier on in the year.
But that brings me to my main point, is something considered ethical if it is legal?
why should the law determine what is ethical and what is unethical?
The law is created so that chaos is not evident in different areas, but not all laws are the same, and it depends on the culture oh that particular area, so no one can really know who is correct or not when determining what is ethical.
In terms of consequential theories, this event was unethical because in the end an innocent animal died at the hand of a hunter. But in looking at it technically from a courts perspective it would be allowed.
Friday, September 11, 2015
Medical Myths
Article
AOK: Natural Science
WOK: Language & Reason
KQ: Why are medical myths with no proof believed by everyone?
This article by the New York Times talks about the medical myth regarding drinking 8 glasses of water a day, which explains that there is actually no scientific evidence behind this statement. The New York Times looks at how widely used and believed this myth has become. This is due to an article written in the paper years ago talking about the importance of drinking water, which was accurate, but then goes in to say that an individual requires 8 glasses a day.
The reason people believed this without even checking is most likely due to two factors; language, as a way of knowing, and natural science as an area of knowledge. Language plays a key role in the advertisement of this myth. It was to use language and persuasive technique that convinced people that their article was accurate, the writer used medical jargon to deceive the readers into thinking that he was a reliable source, and it worked out.
The second factor that this article revolves around is natural science. Since the entire article and topic debate a scientific theory. These articles are more specifically involved with biology and our human physiology, and this New York Times article disproves this extremely common myth of drinking 8 glasses a day, with the use to natural science and stating facts rather than theories.
AOK: Natural Science
WOK: Language & Reason
KQ: Why are medical myths with no proof believed by everyone?
This article by the New York Times talks about the medical myth regarding drinking 8 glasses of water a day, which explains that there is actually no scientific evidence behind this statement. The New York Times looks at how widely used and believed this myth has become. This is due to an article written in the paper years ago talking about the importance of drinking water, which was accurate, but then goes in to say that an individual requires 8 glasses a day.
The reason people believed this without even checking is most likely due to two factors; language, as a way of knowing, and natural science as an area of knowledge. Language plays a key role in the advertisement of this myth. It was to use language and persuasive technique that convinced people that their article was accurate, the writer used medical jargon to deceive the readers into thinking that he was a reliable source, and it worked out.
The second factor that this article revolves around is natural science. Since the entire article and topic debate a scientific theory. These articles are more specifically involved with biology and our human physiology, and this New York Times article disproves this extremely common myth of drinking 8 glasses a day, with the use to natural science and stating facts rather than theories.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)