“Can anyone believe it is possible to lay down such a barrage of poisons on the surface of the earth without making it unfit for all life?” (Carson, 1962) Rachel Carson’s argumentative essay is written to enlighten humanity on the atrocities being bestowed upon the earth’s microscopic worlds and biological systems via the invasions of harmful mutating chemicals that will potentially affect future generations and their health. Carson proposes insecticides initially made to function as bug repellants
Clement, Grace. “‘Pets or Meat’? Ethics and Domestic Animals.” Journal of Animal Ethics, vol. 1, no. 1, 2011, pp. 46–57. JSTOR, JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/10.5406/janimalethics.1.1.0046. In the article "'Pets or Meat?' Ethics and Domestic Animals," Grace Clement addresses a topic that surfaces in the minds of many: are loveable house pets and the "meat" animals people consume one in the same? If so, why is it morally okay to eat the "meat" animals? Clement describes the similarities between a common
“Rikki-tikki-tavi Argumentative Essay” The big idea and or the moral or lesson of the story is the theme. In the story “Rikki-tikki-tavi” by Rudyard Kipling, the author reveals to the readers that in order to be a hero, you have to face your fears and be brave in life. The family would be in danger without Rikki protecting them from Nag and Nagaina, the viscous cobras. Rikki-tikki had to overcome his fears and be brave by fighting the beasts. For that reason, I think this is a great theme for the
Kant to focus less on theoretical obscurity and more upon practical issues and leads to the notion of good will which Kant explains at the outset of Section I in Groundwork: It is impossible to think of anything at all in the world, or indeed even beyond it, that could be considered good without limitation except a good will (Gr. 4:393) Good will includes several features: it is neither merely designed to make us happy, nor does it rely on the consequences of an act or unconditional good. While
Normative determinations differ from scientific determinations in that they follow a procedure. Returning to the matter of stealing cake, Jack could acknowledge that rather than stealing from Tom, he has other choices in accordance with moral law. While he may realize that in accordance with causal law he will ultimately face the effect of his theft, only via a normative determination will he experience practical freedom. In this Critique, Kant’s main purpose is not to draw the reader’s attention