In Oliver Twist, Dickens did not try to sugar coat the criminal world. He described this world frankly.
This was clear in his <span>"to show [criminals] as they really are forever skulking uneasily through the dirtiest paths of life...would be a service to society."
Dickens believed that by showing the real picture of the criminal world as it is (realism), the society would be inspired and motivated to find effective solutions to solve this problem.</span>
Answer? 1) Yes, it is a bit ironic. If a company has an Ethics program that's comprehensive enough, executives should not have to be caught in business criminal activities.
2.) First let's talk about Ethics programs. These are basically programs that embody the business philosophies of a company such that every stakeholder understand how business is run in the company. It basically defines to employees, staff, investors, vendors and customers the rules of Business Ethics as defined by the firm, from the maximum amount of tips to collect from customers to how intimate employees get with clients so that there's no confusion. Now, all this is to clarify but the question here is how effective was the program if criminal activity was discovered? It's simple. The most comprehensive Ethics programs can't control human circumstantial behaviour. As clear as rules may be, they are always still broken. And this is because, with humans, there an infinite number of things to put into consideration, most of which won't always follow rules. One may be 100% compliant with said rules but find themselves weak to give in at some point for any possible reason the person deemed more important than upholding the companies ethics. In other words, these rules are held by the people it binds and the delivery will always be subjective. Whenever it is deemed unfavorable to uphold, it most likely will be dropped.
Therefore, it might have been the most effective and comprehensive Ethics program in the world but only as effective as the executives demmed it subjectively.
Answer with Explanation:
The evaluation of every matter requires a framework based on a useful ideas that are required for a better judgement for deriving a solution like if we want to resolve a mathematical problem, then we will use mathematical functions like +, -, *, etc so that we are able to solve the question because these are the ideas that are based on a useful ideas (Logic). Likewise when we want to assess whether the argument is good or not, we will require an ethical standard framework to evaluate the good in the argument.
So yes, I agree that ethics is an essential element of a good argument because it is the framework which decides which argument is good or not. These ethical values in a particular argument is a move from not good to good argument. Greater the ethical values in an argument the more is the argument good as per ethical principles.
No I don't think so because his or her peers could "cheat" meaning that they could lie and get him out of trouble. Another reason why they shouldn't is because if some of his or her peers didn't like he or she they could make it so that he or she would for sure get in trouble.
Answer:b) naturalistic observation
Explanation:
Naturalistic observation is a technique under which observation of the subject is done in its natural environment.
Usually this technique is used when lab research will be unreasonable.
How Does Naturalistic Observation Work?
This technique may be used just because people's responses may be more effective when they are in their comfortable environment than when they are in a lab for research purposes.
Sometimes the result of the research are more effective when the behaviour is observed in an exactly moment when it happens. By watching how people respond to certain situations and stimuli in real-life, psychologists can get a better idea of how and why people react.
