1. Did Alexis do anything wrong?
Yes, Alexis did something wrong when she used the internet (PC) of private college that she is not belong to it “without paying”. In other words she stole and violated property rights of the private college internet access.
Also, she lied to the librarian when she told him that she is a student of this collage which is non ethical attitude
2. Who benefited from Alexis's course of action? For sure Alexis benefited from her action and her family too, since she got her scholarship.
3. Who was hurt by Alexis's course of action?
- She harms the private college because it serves a student (Alexis) without taking money as other students.
- Also, it affects the college students because it is not fair for them who are paying for their college in order to be able to get internet service as well as studying. Also, Alexis might take the place of other college students who might wait for using the PC’s of their college.
4. Did Alexis have an unfair advantage over her high school classmates?
Yes, because her classmates, mainly who have the same situation “poorness ”, will not have the same opportunity to achieve what she can achieve, and get a
…show more content…
And this happened as a result of many reasons such as, the different situations of different people (ex. richness and poorness). Another reason is each society has its own rules of conduct (morality) so we cannot decide rather than people what is the right thing to do. So, it supports ethical relativism. For example, slavery was commonly accepted by the majority in certain societies, then some would say that slavery was ethically OK where it was the cultural habit (norm).But on the other hand, lots societies believe that slavery is ethically wrong. Moreover, an action can be wrong in some situation but totally right in others. For example, lying is generally wrong, but lying to make up between people is
With money being tight at home, Renisha is unable to have the internet, so she connects to the internet by coming to the Boys and Girls Club. Renisha and many other Club members benefit from having internet access at the clubs as well. Club members are able to compete homework assignments and research projects that require access to the internet to complete. Without this access,
After working here for some time, Lyddie realizes that this was abusing the girls working in the factory, like getting less pay. There was a petition to be signed to raise the pay, but there were also negative effects Lyddie should sign the petition because she can get more money for her sole purpose: to reunite her family and she would also get more free time from working too hard.
They didn’t think they would lose the case. However, the trial cost them over ten million dollars and made them a coed institution. During the trial men at the Institution were selling shirts stating “Better dead than coed” (Allen) to show they weren’t ready to accept women into the male only institute. Even some cadets “galled” (Allen) at the idea women joining their programs. of However, their revolting stopped when the seven to one decision happened at the Supreme Court.
Elle Woods from Legally Blonde begins her journey as president of her sorority, Delta Nu. She is seen as the “happy little blonde” that always wears pink. She is given this stereotype by society. Until she is able to change stereotype, that is all that most people see her as. Her first step in changing her reputation is transferring to Harvard’s School of Law. Her initial drive to attend Harvard was to chase after someone she loved. But Elle soon realized that she enjoyed studying law more than she thought. After many hours of studying and encouragement from a professor, Elle was able to prove herself in front of her fellow students. She showed them that she is more than just pink clothes and scented pink paper. Elle even takes her change a step further, by proving herself worthy to society in a very important court case. Elle is able to take charge and evidently win her case, thus helping an innocent person. Elle finds thrill in this new person she has created within herself and is glad she did it. She feels as if she is finally more than what society had previously seen her as and is proud that she was the one who was able to make that change for herself.
Two days before Thanksgiving, Janet confronted James Cox, one of her students, who was caught plagiarizing. Because Janet was already feeling sexist attitudes from her students, James’
Natalie Sterling, a seventeen year old senior at Ross Academy had just won class president and beat her opponent Mike Domski. Mike was the kind of guy that Natalie and her best friend Autumn tried to stay away from. The girls at Ross Academy were known as demeaning and “boy crazy.” One day, during the pep rally a bunch of freshman dressed in trampy clothing and started to dance inappropriately. The leader’s name was Spencer a girl Natalie used to babysit for. The flirty freshman called themselves “Prostitutes” or Ross Academy prostitutes. Not only was Natalie embarrassed and angry by Spencers action but, she was disappointed. When the principal and Ms. Bee the student council head were talking to the girls punishments Natalie barged in. Natalie explained how she wanted to have a lock-in for all the girls in trouble and any others from school who wanted to come, about feminism and women's rights. Ms. Bee and Natalie agreed that it would be a good idea for
Later on at the supper table, Heather announces that she will be attending Columbia University after she graduates from high school contrary to the plan Mr. Hoodhood already had for her to go to work for him at Hoodhood and Associates and be safe from the world around her. Though her father thinks it’s a school where kids stand around and protest all day. She enlightens him that “it’s a school where students are striking against the war and against racism. ”(201). Heather believes that the school has good morals and beliefs, and she wants to go help and participate in those protests because she believes in the same things.
Priscilla should go to jail for her actions because her actions that should attempted at school were unacceptable. Priscilla should go to jail for hurting Monk Clutter. And for those actions Priscilla should go to jail. Priscilla should go to jail because she attempted to murder Monk; she was not getting bullied so there was no need of getting involved, and lastly Priscilla locked Monk in her own locker. Firstly, Priscilla should go to jail because she attempted to murder Monk Clutter and Priscilla can get a considerable fine and can be able to get arrested for doing those sorts of behavior. Priscilla should meet her consequences and that is go to jail because she hurt Monk very badly and he was found died. Priscilla put him into a head lock as the narrator said this” His neck’s pooping like
Clark refused and made enemies with Leona Barrett, a woman whose son was one of the 300 expelled from the high school. Many parents accused him of going against their people, and were outraged by his actions. Soon afterwards the next day, Thomas Sams one of the students Clark expelled, begs Clark to let him back into the school. In tears, Sams explains he doesn’t want to be a part of the crime gangs on the street anymore. At first Clark was skeptical, Sams was in trouble multiple of times for smoking crack, but after a dramatic lecture about the harm crack can do to a person he allows Sams back into the school. Under Clark’s heavy hand the school begins to undergo a transformation, the school walls were repainted and behavior of the students at the school were better. Only problem is when Clark made the students take a practice minimum basic skills exam, only 33% passed, the school needed 75% of their students to pass the test to not have the school be put in receivership.
From a relativist's perspective, moral values are only applicable within certain cultures and societies. Something that may be viewed as morally correct in the United States could be unethical in Zimbabwe and vice versa. For example, in Somalia, it is acceptable, or moral for a family to kill a female family member if she is raped, while here in the United States the murder of a family member is viewed as extremely unethical and cruel. A more simplistic example of this is the fact that it is not unethical in American culture to consume beef, while in India it is viewed as unethical. The reason for this is because of the diverse cultures and their own set of moral standards. This theory states that there are many values and ideas that can be considered morally correct while disagreeing with one another. However, there are also few downsides to this theory. Relativism may lead to immorality because of opposing perspectives and cultures. Just because one culture views something as good or bad, right or wrong, does not mean this is true. This theory is based off of personal preferences and values, which can lead to conflict and clashing of values. Relativism also does a poor job of establishing an absolute set of ethics, and does not take into consideration that the values and norms of a society can change over time.
Moral relativism is the idea that there is no absolute moral standard that is applicable to any person at any place at any given time. It suggests that there are situations in which certain behavior that would normally be considered “wrong” can actually be considered “right”. Moral relativism has played an increasingly significant role in today’s society, particularly regarding the differences between the countries of the world. This essay will summarize and explain both arguments in favor of and against moral relativism. Despite what many relativists believe, the arguments against are not only stronger, but also more accurate.
Each person has their own beliefs but they still respect the idea that other people’s views can differ from theirs. Cultures are better preserved with this principle of moral relativism and the root of each culture is everlasting. Since there are no wrong beliefs, each culture can have practices without being criticized for how they act. Moral relativism allows individuals to be diverse in their beliefs and to further express what they believe to be right and wrong.
Moral Relativism is generally used to describe the differences among various cultures that influence their morality and ethics. According to James Rachels, because of moral relativism there typically is no right and wrong and briefly states : “Different cultures have different moral codes.” (Rachels, 18) Various cultures perceive right and wrong differently. What is considered right in one society could be considered wrong in another, but altogether all cultures have some values in common.
Ethical Relativism What is right and wrong is a widely opinionated discrepancy among the human race. It varies between cultures, societies, religion, traditions, and endless influential factors. Ethical relativism is described by John Ladd as the “doctrine that the moral rightness and wrongness of actions varies from society and that there are no absolute universal moral standards binding on all men at all times. Accordingly, it holds that whether or not it is right for an individual to act in a certain way depends on or is relative to the society to which he belongs”(Pojman, 24).