Good and bad pointsGood points of duty-based ethics<span><span>emphasises the value of every human being<span>Duty-based ethical systems tend to focus on giving equal respect to all human beings.This provides a basis for human rights - it forces due regard to be given to the interests of a single person even when those are at odds with the interests of a larger group.</span></span><span>says some acts are always wrong<span>Kantian duty-based ethics says that some things should never be done, no matter what good consequences they produce. This seems to reflect the way some human beings think.Rossian duty-based ethics modified this to allow various duties to be balanced, which, it could be argued, is an even better fit to the way we think.</span></span><span>provides 'certainty'<span>Consequentialist ethical theories bring a degree of uncertainty to ethical decision-making, in that no-one can be certain about what consequences will result from a particular action, because the future is unpredictable.Duty-based ethics don't suffer from this problem because they are concerned with the action itself - if an action is a right action, then a person should do it, if it's a wrong action they shouldn't do it - and providing there is a clear set of moral rules to follow then a person faced with a moral choice should be able to take decisions with reasonable certainty.Of course things aren't that clear cut. Sometimes consequentialist theories can provide a fair degree of certainty, if the consequences are easily predictable.Furthermore, rule-based consequentialism provides people with a set of rules that enable them to take moral decisions based on the sort of act they are contemplating.</span></span><span>deals with intentions and motives<span>Consequentialist theories don't pay direct attention to whether an act is carried out with good or bad intentions; most people think these are highly relevant to moral judgements.Duty-based ethics can include intention in at least 2 ways...If a person didn't intend to do a particular wrong act - it was an accident perhaps - then from a deontological point of view we might think that they hadn't done anything deserving of criticism. This seems to fit with ordinary thinking about ethical issues.Ethical rules can be framed narrowly so as to include intention.</span></span></span>Bad points of duty-based ethics<span><span>absolutistDuty-based ethics sets absolute rules. The only way of dealing with cases that don't seem to fit is to build a list of exceptions to the rule.</span><span>allows acts that make the world a less good place<span>Because duty-based ethics is not interested in the results it can lead to courses of action that produce a reduction in the overall happiness of the world.Most people would find this didn't fit with their overall idea of ethics:</span></span></span>
...it is hard to believe that it could ever
Answer:
(1) The couple has just one child, who is handicapped or unable to work because of non-hereditary diseases. (2) Both parents are only children themselves, and have just one child so far.
Explanation:
Normally, that would be described as fad dieting looking for a quick fix to problems. I found a similar question with some choices. Out of those, this describes fanaticism; Being overly concerned with something to the point where you will try anything to get rid of it. This is increased as popular celebs promote it, even if others advise against it.
According to the argument posed
by Dovidio and his colleagues, cooperation has an especially positive impact
when it leads people to define a new, inclusive group. An inclusive group makes
room to accommodate new members while an exclusive group seeks to limit
membership to those who can meet some strict requirements of who have a special
status.
