Skip to main content

Disclaimer

Disclaimer  

==========

Last updated: April 29, 2018

The information contained on www.gadgetreview.com.ng website (the "Service") is for general information purposes only.

Gadget Review assumes no responsibility for errors or omissions in the contents on the Service.

In no event shall Gadget Review be liable for any special, direct, indirect, consequential, or incidental damages or any damages whatsoever, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tort, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Service or the contents of the Service. Gadget Review reserves the right to make additions, deletions, or modification to the contents on the Service at any time without prior notice.

Gadget Review does not warrant that the website is free of viruses or other harmful components.

Popular posts from this blog

Ignorance Can Be Bliss

Norcross's argues that individuals participating in the consumption of factory-raised meat are comparable to the actions of Fred the puppy torturer. He then concludes that any individual who could partake is such wrong actions must be immoral. While the actions of consumers of factory-raised meat are wrong, the example of Fred shows moral indecency. Such an analogy fails since it does not take note to the cultural norms that inhibits individuals to view the consumption of factory-raised meat as immoral, changing whether the act is indecent.

Before digging into Norcross's argument, I would like to establish a clear awareness of the difference between wrong and indecent and how those each relate specifically to moral acts. To do something "wrong" is to commit an unjust action or conduct. As to be "indecent' means to be grossly improper or offensive. To be "moral" involves conforming to a standard of right behavior by one's ethical judgment. If o…