One of the beautiful things about Kantian ethics is that it is based on the individual. The individual can decide if their actions are worth doing to another person by weighing if the person would want the action done to them. The Kantian point of view is completely different from the Utilitarian point of view because the Kantian point of view deals with the individual‚ whereas the Utilitarian point of view deals with the group and the needs of the group. When you hear the words “basic human rights”
Premium Morality Immanuel Kant Rights
In the said meeting CCI also formed a prima facie opinion on the existence of the case and directed the Director General (DG) to inquire into the matter pursuant to its powers under Section 26(1) of the Competition Act‚ 2002 (“the Act”). SAIL challenged this direction before the Tribunal claiming that CCI could not have formed a prima facie opinion without hearing it first. SAIL also contended that CCI has not recorded any reasons while forming the prima facie opinion and that the time provided by
Premium Common law Court Prima facie
PHI 180: Introduction to Ethics Reading & Study Questions for Unit 2: Ethical Theories 1 Explain Marquis’s presentation of the "typical" anti-abortion argument. 1. Fetuses are living and human. 2. Humans have the right to live. 3. Fetuses have a right to life. 4. Women have a right to control their bodies. 5. The right to life is morally more important than the right to control one’s body. 6. Abortion places the right to control one’s body over the right to life. Abortion
Premium Ethics Morality Human
states have differing requirements of proof. Monaco’s case was tried in New Jersy under the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination (NJLAD)‚ under which Monaco contended that prima facie requirements are less rigid in their application. While it was established that Monaco met the first three requirements of a prima facie case the court granted the defendants motion for summary judgment because Monaco was unable to meet the fourth condition and prove that his age was the decisive factor in his
Premium Discrimination Employment Gender
against you in federal court”. The information that is provide is not enough information to prove that Carol was discriminated again. She will need to prove that there is a discrimination and she must first establish a prima facie. According to Bennett-Alexander & Hartman (2009)‚ prima facie is “presenting evidence that fits each requirement of a cause of action.” However‚ the information that was provided is not showing that there has been a disparate treatment. And therefore it is not recognized under
Premium Employment Discrimination Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
person based on their religious beliefs and/or convictions. Also‚ Title VII requires an employer to provide reasonable accommodation for an employee ’s religious practices and observances‚ unless doing so would cause an undue hardship to the employer. (Ross Runkel‚ 2013) “For example‚ this might require an employer to modify schedules to allow someone a day off for a holy day‚ or require an employer to allow the wearing of religious buttons.” In our case‚ the constructive discharge claims the religious
Premium Employment Religion Faith
Our lives are littered with problems‚ some have simple solutions but many especially the ones that pertain to our health or to the health of our families are extremely difficult to solve. Health is the most important thing that someone possesses‚ or in the words of Ghandi “It is health that is real wealth not pieces of gold and silver.” So when one has to make a decision about wealth they have the liberty to lose some‚ but when deciding about one’s health no one wants to lose some. The solution to
Premium Ethics Vaccine Vaccination
TORTS FINAL EXAM OUTLINE INTENTIONAL TORTS 3 2. Battery 3 3. Assault 3 4. Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress 3 5. False Imprisonment 4 6. Trespass 4 6.1. Trespass to Land 4 6.2. Trespass to Chattels 4 6.3. Conversion 4 AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES 5 7. Consent (Privilege) 5 8. Self Defense (Privilege) 5 8.1. Self-Defense by Force Not Threatening Death or Serious Bodily Harm 5 8.2. Self-Defense by Force Threatening Death or Serious Bodily Harm
Premium Tort Common law Law
Integrity in practice Ethics should not be tied to morality or religious beliefs. When making ethical judgements we should refer to pre-existing values and principle such as human rights‚ freedoms and socio-cultural values. There are what W.D. Ross called prima facie ‘general principles of right conduct’1. Each judgement is then affected by context and should be examined as such. Ethics should be questioned and constantly re-evaluated‚ they should be consistent and should be tested. We should not accept
Premium Ethics Philosophy of life Psychology
grounds‚ i) That it had a prima facie case ii) That the “balance of convenience” was in its favour iii) That it would suffer “irreparable injury”‚ if CIPLA was not injuncted A prima facie case is a case where there are sufficient evidences to support (but not necessarily force) an outcome‚ provided the evidences are not challenged. There the prima facie evidence is the patent that Roche acquired in Indian in 2007 for Erlotinib (Tarceva). The irony is that the prima facie evidence is the main point
Premium Prima facie Legal burden of proof Judgment