Answer:
Explanation:
<u>One of the examples of behavior that would be considered deviant in one society and not in the other is the eating of certain animals. The examples are:</u>
- Some societies in India consider the cow a sacred animal and never would consume beef.
- Muslim societies do not eat pork meat.
- Insects are considered a tasty snack in many countries, including Thailand, while it would be considered gross by many people from the west.
- While some of the western European countries (like France and Belgium) have specialized butcher shops and restaurants for horse meat, eating it would most likely be considered taboo in the US or UK.
- The most radical example is the eating of dogs, which occurs in some Asian countries, most notably China. There is even a whole festival for dog meat consumption in Yulin, and every year there are protests across the globe because of this event. Slaughtering dogs for meat consumption is prohibited in the US and plenty of other countries.
<u>With all of this, we can conclude that some food consumption can be seen as deviant in some parts of the world, while in others it is a normal occurrence and part of the every-day diet.</u>
Despite various taboos and laws, what we have to understand is that our connection to the animals is culturally constructed. The fact that people of the US feel closer to dogs, cats, and horses, but not to sheep and pigs, is not the fact supported by nature. There is nothing in nature itself and the nutrition of horses, insects, and various other species that prevents us to eat them. These deviances surrounding different meats are all culturally constructed. <u>This does not mean they are less real or that we should eat all the animals, just that we have to realize that our ways are no naturally more or less right than someone else’s.</u>
The correct answer is D.
<u>It is an observational study</u><u> because the researcher is </u><u>NOT</u><u> manipulating the explanatory variable</u>, whether a person drinks green tea or not, in order to study the effect of the value it takes, over the dependent variable: LDL cholesterol level.
<u>In opposition, experimental studies manipulate the explanatory variable</u> in order to assess the effects caused on the dependent variable by such deviance.
Answer:
The correct answer is :
- slander
- privilege
- malice
- private
- permission
Explanation:
It refers to the fact of making a false statement in public or in private about practices that a person has. It has to do with talking or saying something fake about his or her financial status, morals or reputation. It is a malicious intent that pretends to damage somebody's image.
The correct answer is A) true.
It is true that Moral Law theorists regard ethical value-statements as statements about moral character, not as statements about some alleged moral law.
Theorists and scholars affirm that ethics is the study of the moral act of humans. Moral has to do with the duality of good and bad in life. So moral character is the foundation of Ethics. There are no laws that appeal or enforce morals, which is part of the inner decision of humans on how to act.
