Im doing a essay i have logos and pathos. Just need Ethics 

Ethos (Credibility), or ethical appeal, means convincing by the character of the author. We tend to believe people whom we respect. One of the central problems of argumentation is to project an impression to the reader that you are someone worth listening to, in other words making yourself as author into an authority on the subject of the paper, as well as someone who is likable and worthy of respect.

Edited February 24, 201411 yr by MoreVERIFIED

Change colour of text please, it's black and unreadable on the Animate theme. No I won't highlight it.

Shows a lack of morality within humans in that a higher level of species is abandoning a lower one.

 

 

your pretty much leaving the dog for dead so animal abuse lol

I would argue that abandoning animals is a good thing. Every animal must should to live on it's own otherwise it's just a pet. If I have a dog I want him to be ableot to survive on his own if he had to.

I would argue that abandoning animals is a good thing. Every animal must should to live on it's own otherwise it's just a pet. If I have a dog I want him to be ableot to survive on his own if he had to.

... Dogs are meant to be pets, nothing else.

They're not supposed to be able to adapt to the wild, they're meant to be domesticated to ensure they live at a quality of life that will keep them alive.

If the prompt explicitly states that the act committed was simply just "abandoning" a dog, my personal view is that the person who committed this "abhorrent" (at least that's how it's made out to be) moral fault should not be subject to sit in a jail cell for any amount of time. Then again, my views on the world (~society) are that every living being, no matter the scale, complexity, or intelligence it holds, are equal and should be treated as such. 

 

I find it quite hard to actually fight for the side of being in favor of jailing a man/woman. I see the view of, "we will jail you for hurting another being", but jailing essentially has the exact same negative effect as the dog was given, but rather from a mental standpoint. Imagine having to be confined to an area in which you had to know the ins-and-outs of acceptable interaction in order to just be able to survive and not get a shivvy (shank, knife) stuck in your kidney during yard time. Furthermore, this line of thinking can draw parallels with the Code of Hammurabi methodology of (opinionated) just punishment, Eye for an eye. I believe that if you show a person compassion, even if they are "morally corrupt" or "wrong" in your eyes, they will return the favor (being a compassionate action) to another living being at one point.

Just think about the main issue at hand and the logistics behind it without an active perspective judging it in it's entirety. You don't want to punish the person, you simply want the animal to not have been abandoned & hurt (assuming it was). Thus, I think it would be in your best interests if you were to go from the standpoint of the contrasting side (to not jail).

Maybe start out with the idea that 'whatever you give will come back to you', which is basically karma, but I generally avoid labeling it as such because of the eccentric word associations with it). Based on this principle, the world will 'balance itself out' through a negative outcome in the person who abondonded the dog. The interference of others not commonly involved in the conflict (ie - judicial system, placing person in jail for action) creates an even bigger displacement and seems to invariably increase the magnitude of the situation as well as perpetuate the cycle in which is functioning. 

An alternate argument (it may be a stretch to combine the aforementioned paragraph and this argument) you could use is that through the abandonment, the dog's mental & physical strength are better off. Moreover, you could infer that the dog has gained some sort of wisdom or aversement when it comes to attachments, which, depending on your thinking, can be a positive or negative thing. 

 

Another thing I suggest would be to pull quotes from that of past philosophers which deal with morality/ethics, some of my favorites in both Eastern and Western philosophy are as follows:

 

"What one does not wish for oneself, one ought not to do to anyone else; what one recognizes as desirable for oneself, one ought to be willing to grant to others.”

-The Golden Rule as doctored by Confucious, ~510BC

 

"Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law without contradiction."

"Act in such a way that you treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any other, never merely as a means to an end, but always at the same time as an end."

-First and Second Formulations from Immanuel Kant's Grounding for the Metaphysics of Morals

 

I am extremely tired so I am going to sleep now, if you require any further guidance or references, send me a PM or wait to contact me until tomorrow. I hope I was able to help in one way or another.

 

Namaste and Gassho, my brother.

... Dogs are meant to be pets, nothing else.

They're not supposed to be able to adapt to the wild, they're meant to be domesticated to ensure they live at a quality of life that will keep them alive.

 

I am the poles apart from you on this statement. I am in no way trying to 'personally offend you' or 'assert my dominance' over you, so please do not take it that way. That being said, I will list my standpoint on the statement coupled with the evidence that lay behind it.

 

All living beings must adapt to the "wild", which in it's quintessential view, is everything which surrounds us. Moreover, since everything in existence is in a constant state of non-permanence (change), if they couldn't adapt to abandonment (as a form of 'change'), then that must mean their extinction is nearing unless a change is made.

We as human beings have domesticated dogs as 'pets', and it is the very thought of saying that you 'own another living being' is vastly foreign to my perception of ethics.

Edited February 24, 201411 yr by Slick

... Dogs are meant to be pets, nothing else.

They're not supposed to be able to adapt to the wild, they're meant to be domesticated to ensure they live at a quality of life that will keep them alive.

 

Dogs might be meant to be pets.

Not all humans might be meant to be pet owners.