What Is A Vaccine And What Does It Do - 1622 Words

One day, a parent may make the choice to not to vaccinate their child. Regardless of the reason, this poses a severe threat to their child, not just medically but socially too. This also puts the public’s health at risk. A doctor may feel that they are being put into an ethically moral gray area when having to make a decision about what to do in this situation. According to the Hippocratic Oath, a doctor wants to do what’s within the best interest for the child and the public. Although it may be going against the autonomy of a parent if said family chooses not to vaccinate their child, doctors have a right for dismissal. This right ensure that he/she will do what’s ethically right for everyone involved, even if it may be against the†¦show more content†¦This schedule is designed to protect children at their most vulnerable states. If a parent chooses to give some vaccines to their child and not others, theses vaccines may not be beneficial anymore and co uld actually increase the chances of contracting diseases. These vaccines protect children and others from a multiplicity of ailments. The vaccines can protect someone from chickenpox, measles, pertussis, polio, rotavirus, and many more diseases. These ailments can often be life threatening, especially with a child of a young.3 It has been shown that when infants don’t receive the DTap vaccination their immunity to pertussis disease is decreased. Consequently, these children have a 19-fold to 28-fold chance of becoming infected with pertussis bacteria. This can cause brain damage, respiratory failure, or even death.4 In 2012 and 2013 the highest levels of pertussis were reported since 1955. A report from the CDC estimate that there were about 1.4 cases of pertussis per 1000 infants younger than 6 months old between the years 2012 and 2013. Out of 5351 cases of pertussis in children under 7 years old, 40 % of them either did not receive the pertusiss vaccination, or did not r eport being vaccinated.7 Recently an outbreak of measles was traced back to Disneyland theme parks in California. It has been reported by the CDC that 113 cases have been tied to the theme park as of

Rhetorical Analysis Of Steve Jobs Commencement Speech

Harmon 1 A Rhetorical Analysis of Steve Jobs Commencement Speech for Stanford Universitys Graduating Class of 2005: Jobs titled his speech Youve got to find what you love. Steve Jobs is best known as an American entrepreneur, inventor and industrial designer. He was the cofounder, chairman and CEO of Apple Inc. and founder, CEO and chairman of Pixar Animation Studios. Jobs and cofounder of Apple Inc. Steve Wozniak are wildly recognized as pioneers of the microcomputer revolution of the 1970s and 1980s. The Rhetorical Analysis is a prepared text of the Commencement Address delivered by Steve Jobs on June 12, 2005, published by Stanford News which is produced by the office of University Communications and updated daily on the web†¦show more content†¦Jobs found an effective way of balancing his use of Ethos, Pathos and Logos to control the delivery and receipt of his message. His tone is informal, he speaks in the first person singular to his audience (I) himself and (you) his audience to the components of (we) as equals. He constructed a persuasive rhetorical stance with the use of Ethos: The persona of the rhetor is larger than life, a world renowned an innovative genius in his field. A very credible and appropriate choice to excite college graduates. Isnt this an uncertain goal college graduates aspire to achieve? Yet from the onset of the speech, the rhetor engaged his audience with his use of pathos to soften the larger than life figure addressing them. First with his use of pathos announcing the title of the speech they would hear.‘You’ve Got to Find What You Love’ suggesting to his audience, this is not about me. It is about me only to the extent of aiding you on your journey to achieve your success. I am here for you today. After the traditional â€Å"I’m honored to be here and your University is one of the finest in the world he unified his audience and himself. We are both honored to be in the prescience of each other and we are both important people in the world. He immediately went a step forward with this rhetorical stance by sharing that he never graduated from college or attended a college graduation. Jobs announced his message was simple. Many rhetors have chosen to tell their story. That is notShow MoreRelatedSteve Jobs Stanford Commencement Speech Analysis1394 Words   |  6 PagesSteve Jobs’ Stanford Commencement Speech: Speak from the Heart A- Speaker and Subject Identification. When technology, innovative and new products subjects is brought up, a few names come to mind. Between these names is that of Steve Jobs, the founder of Pixar Animation, NeXT, and Apple, Steve Jobs, was widely known for changing the world of personal computers and electronic fields. His determination led to significant developments that have affected the lives of everyone of us. There is no denyingRead MoreSteve Jobs Commencement Speech Analysis1462 Words   |  6 PagesOn his commencement speech to Stanford students on June 12, 2005, Steve Jobs, the CEO of Apple computers and PIXAR animations, used carefully crafted inspirational anecdotes and rhetorical devices like ethos and pathos to move his audience to explore, follow their dream and do what they love no matter the odds. Jobs’ gave his commencement address at Stanford students graduation ceremony in 2005, which had an audience size of about 23000. The audience is composed of immensely diverse groups of peopleRead MoreArt of Public Speaking5805 Words   |  24 Pagesall major aspects of speech preparation and presentation. Throughout The Art of Public Speaking I have followed David Hume’s advice that one â€Å"who would teach eloquence must do it chiefly by examples.† Whenever possible, I have tried to show the principles of public speaking in action in addition to describing them. Thus you will find in the book a large number of narratives and extracts from speeches--set off from the text in a contrasting typeface. There are also many speech outlines and sample

The Philosophical Study of Morality Free Essays

Introduction Our behavior reflects on our personalities. Morality speaks of a system of action in regards to standards of right and wrong behavior. Morality describes the principle that presides our behavior. We will write a custom essay sample on The Philosophical Study of Morality or any similar topic only for you Order Now Without this principle, societies cannot survive for so long. In today’s Society, morality is frequently thought of as inseparability to a particular religious point of view. Moral describes the principle that controls our behavior. In everyday living, we are witnessing such crimes of killings. But we, the citizen of this country are looking for this as the usual that happens every day. And we’re not looking for the reason of those people who kill or commit crimes. We don’t really know what’s the reason behind it and if there’s no reason, but we judge them for no reason. What is moral being instead? Judging others or committing crimes? They are saying that we are religious country and they said that the person here is also religious, but how those people commit crimes if they are really religious? Does being religious can be a Moral person? Or Does Moral principle helps us being a Religious person? The word carries the concepts of: Moral Standards with regards to behaviour; Moral responsibility, referring to our conscience; and A moral identity or one who is capable of right or wrong action. It explored the action of morality and examines how people should live their lives in relation to others. Background of the Study According to www.allaboutphilosophy Morality as it relates to our behavior is important on three levels. Renowned thinker, scholar and author C.S Lewis defines them as: to ensure fair play and harmony between individuals, to help make us good people in order to have a good society, to keep us in a good relationship with the power that created us. Based on this definition, it’s clear that our belief is disapproving to our moral behavior. On point 1, Professor Lewis says most reasonable people agree. By point 2, however, we begin to see problems occurring. Consider the popular philosophy â€Å"I’m not hurting anyone but myself†, frequently used to excused bad personal choices. How can we be the good people we need to be if we persist in making these choices? Bad personal choices do hurt others. Point 3 is where most disagreement surfaces. Exposition of the problem There are different definition of morality, first is the moral standards it explains the right and wrong behavior of a human person the second is the moral responsibility it explains the conscience or the guilt of a human person, and thirdly is the moral identity it explains that each Human have their own decision and capable of right and wrong action or doing. Morality speaks about ethnics, principles, virtue, and goodness. Morality is very complicated to explain yet; morality always depicts our behavior it controls and limits us. Is Morality Objective? According to philosophynow.org/issues/115/Is_Morality_Objective Great moral philosopher differs about the character of morality. Immanuel Kant’s influential duty-based theory of ethnics maintains that truth-telling is universally binding on all of beings. In a pristine world a crystallized moral ideals, perhaps morality could be objective and universally binding on all people. However, we live in a world of moral flux, impermanence and flexibility. And it is because of this that morality is not nor could ever be objective. -Albert Filice, Scottsdale, AZ Morality is objective. That is, moral claims are true or false about aspects of human interaction that involve the ideas of rights and obligations. Further, the fundamental moral maxims apply universally, and reasonable people can agree on their truth. -John Talley, Rutherford on, NC. Is there any way to know the difference between right and wrong? Does religion have anything left to offer? From time to time we hear that the established churches are in bafflement that too often their leaders have nothing to say that’s applied and helpful where does the truth on these signify lie? The relationship between religion and morality has long been hotly debated. Does religion make us more moral? Is it Essential for morality? Does moral partiality emerge independently of religious intuitions? Philosophical Response A recent report in psychology today concluded â€Å"the most significant predictor of a person’s moral behavior may be religious commitment. People who consider themselves very religious were least likely to report deceiving their friends having extramarital affairs, cheating on their â€Å"programmed† in each of us. This is in keeping with the writings of Paul Apostle, who points out that even those who do not believe in God frequently obey God’s as given in the ten commandments, â€Å"for when gentiles, who do not have the law by nature do not have, these although not having law, are a law to themselves, who show the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness and between themselves their thoughts accusing or else excusing themselves† (Romans 2:14-15; NKJV). Again those who do not believe in God are left with the only possible conclusion they can come to that our decision are based solely on our need to survive, what we call our conscience based on learned behavior, rather than part of a Devine design. Many scientific researchers have failed to disintegrate â€Å"religion† and â€Å"morality† into theoretically grounded elements; have adopted illiberal conceptions of key concepts in particular, sanitized conceptions of â€Å"prosocial† behaviour; and have neglected to consider the complex interplay between cognition and culture. They argue that to make progress, the categories â€Å"religion† and â€Å"morality† must be fractionated into a set of biologically and psychologically cogent traits, revealing the cognitive foundations that acclimate and obligate relevant cultural variants. Being religious doesn’t make us Moral person because we, in ourselves know if we commit mistake and if we are doing good deeds. Yes, doing right seems that you are having with the lord but doesn’t mean that we are moral. Being a moral is seeing in our action not only to our faith by our god. Every one of us have different definition of god, so that being a moral person is not depending on being a religious one. The question of whether or not morality claims religion is both topical and ancient. In the Euthyphro, Socrates famously asked whether goodness is loved by the god because it is good, or whether goodness is good because it is loved by the god. Although he favoured the former proposal, many others have argued that morality is dictated by, and indeed inconceivable without God: â€Å"If god does not exist, everything is permitted†. (Dostoevsky, 1880, 1990) According to Aristotle, there are two meaning of good. There is good absolutely and there is good for somebody. The first one is he/she was doing it because it is good. And the other one is doing it for others, in short doing it for a purpose or reason. In that based, we can judge the others by doing wrong because we are all people, maybe it is right for them because it was for their love ones. Conclusion Moral philosophy is the branch of philosophy that contemplates what is right and wrong. It explores the nature of morality and examines how people should live their lives in relation to others. Almost every day, the Philippine media are always flooded with stories of horror about people getting killed. Killing in itself is very dreadful but what makes it more alarming is the fact that most of the killings that took place in the Philippines were perpetuated not by hardened criminals but by policemen who were expected to protect the welfare of the people. According to the administration, most of those killings occurred in order to protect the lives of the policemen whose lives were at stake during their encounters with criminals. These said killings call to reignite the discussion about what can be said as morally right or morally wrong through looking at the mere essence of morality in this society. Right and wrong is determined by the particular set of principles or rules the relevant culture just happens to hold at the time. Is something right (or wrong) because the gods command it, or do the gods command it because it is right? According to Rights-based Theories, We are to act in accordance with a set of moral rights, which we possess simply by being human. The right to life does not require that we give what is needed to sustain life rather merely that we refrain from taking any action that would take life. How to cite The Philosophical Study of Morality, Papers