Essay On Child Labor Free Sample

Several youngsters in the present era are compelled to work due to their parents’ inability or unwillingness to pay for their own education, joblessness, or the sheer size of their families. They have no choice but to labor to provide for their basic requirements, such as nourishment and water (Kamruzzaman and Abdul 2). Kids are often paid less than adult laborers for the same work. Because it violates a kid’s rights and freedoms, this is seen as child abuse. The issue of child labor has persisted throughout the history of humankind. Numerous levels of exploitation of minors took occurred throughout time. Poor and underdeveloped nations were particularly affected by the issue. Children were enslaved in the 1800s to keep industrialization moving forward—agribusiness, manufacturing, quarrying, and street vending all employed children under the age of 14.

Teenagers from low-income homes were often compelled to contribute to the family’s financial well-being by working 12-hour stints under hazardous circumstances. Using children as laborers is an inhumane act perpetrated by abusive individuals, and this is a result of the impoverished area, which causes parents to use their youngsters to earn additional money for their daily needs. As a result, infections spread among kids, worsening the condition and posing an even more incredible difficulty. Instead of attending school to master anything novel, they spend their time working (Kamruzzaman and Abdul 4). It is merely a stumbling block to their long-term aspirations. Other factors to consider are making their life more difficult and robbing them of the fond memories of their childhood.

Counterarguments in support of child work exist. “Notwithstanding all these universal and state laws prohibiting child work, there exist justifications in support of underage employment,” says (Kamruzzaman and Abdul 6). Poor households, as per to several, may be further in a poverty state if adolescents were not putting up on the daily expenditures. Shelter and food are essential for life, and a shortage of finances will make it more difficult for them to get these.

Poverty increases children’s vulnerability to abuse and manipulation. It is argued that encouraging teenagers to work and having a safe workplace might be beneficial in some instances. Children’s work is not counted as child labor if it does not interrupt with their leaning, according to the authors of the study. Youngsters may work in peace with just a few hours of labor each day. They also teach their youngsters to be more physically active to keep their bodies in form. Using children as work has a slew of problems. It carries significant risk, but the potential profit may be enormous if proper management practices are implemented.

However, we must not take advantage of those unable to pay for their needs. Instead, it is intelligent to assist them and handle them better than you do other individuals. Eliminating underage labor may be a tiny but essential milestone in the battle against impoverishment. In addition to freeing children from work, this entails allowing them the time and resources to pursue their own goals and aspirations.

Work Cited

Kamruzzaman, Md, and Md Abdul Hakim. “A review on child Labour criticism in Bangladesh: An Analysis.” International Journal of Sports Science and Physical Education 3.1 (2018): 1-8.

Chopin’s “The Story Of An Hour” Essay Example For College

It is harder than it seems to try and break the bars that lock married women in a patriarchal society. Being a married woman in a patriarchal society is equal to lacking spiritual freedom, and social and economic freedom. Literary works like Chopin’s “The Story of An Hour” try to criticize the overrated and over-glorified structure called marriage. The short stories mirror how married women feel oppressed in an institution that is supposed to give them happiness according to society. The main character, Louise Mallard, is an example of a woman who yearns to be free and independent because marriage seems to oppress her. There are too many standards and expectations from a wife that married women cannot even breathe. The only time such women can be happy and feel alive is when they are widowed. Contrary to what society would expect of a widow. Louise Mallard mourns her husband for a little time, and it dawns on her that she is free. Although she is sick heart disease, which is most likely a result of the depression in marriage and dies at the of the story, Louise is happy for a moment because she thinks she is no longer married. In essence, Chopin’s story makes some readers uncomfortable because it mocks the overrated marriage institution in a patriarchal society by showing the happiness of a short-lived widowhood.

Chopin creatively mocks the marriage institution for oppressing women in marriage and leaving them in a state where they crave to be free at all costs, including becoming a widow. Analyzing the story from feminist lens, the inequality that exists in marriage makes married women unhappy and oppressed. Louise Mallard shows how marriage makes women dependent and lacks freedom to a point that any chance to have a little freedom and independence is welcomed. Louise Mallard becomes happy a short period after she gets the news that she is a widow because she realizes that she is “free! Body and soul free!” (Chopin). When Chopin uses the phrases “free body and soul free” to help Mallard emphasize her feeling and attitude toward the death of her husband, some readers get uncomfortable. Readers who over-rate marriage by setting so high standards for women to meet and make marriages work would be uncomfortable to realize that the death of the head of the house makes a wife happy. The mockery that Chopin raises is towards the roles of a man in the marriage. The man is ideally supposed to protect, profess love and provide for his wife. On the contrary, Mallard’s husband and other husbands in the patriarchal harm their wives mentally, physical and psychological rather than protecting them. Their providence for their wives is in exchange for the fundamental human right, freedom. No, they fail to profess enough love in marriage, and that is why when Mallard ‘dies’, Louise feels that her body and soul are freed. The patriarchal society would not want to view marriage from this perspective and agree that the definition of roles in marriage favour husbands and oppress wives. Ultimately, such a mockery piece towards the marriage institution would not have thrived well in the male-dominated society that over glorifies marriage.

Also, Chopin points out the unknown truth that the over-glorified institution, famously known as marriage, confines women in a dangerous mental state that leaves them more addicted to their pain than being willing to heal and change their lives. Chopin uses symbolism to show the stagnation of women in a marriage that drags behind the process of self-liberation. When Louise Mallard cries and gets lost in the imagination of herself mourning over Brentley’s body, she symbolizes the low capacity of women to embrace freedom and feminism because they are so used to being oppressed and confined by societal standards set for married women. It is undeniable that when an individual experiences continuous pain, they tend to get addicted to pain and resist change. It gets harder to embrace change, especially when the individuals live in a society that praises them for enduring all the unnecessary pain in the name of saving their marriage. When Louise Mallard weeps first before realizing that she is free, she shows her addiction to the pain caused by marriage that is defined by patriarchy and misogyny. She is so used to the pain that she does not want it to end because it disrupts her normalcy as a married woman. Similarly, the second time she only thinks about weeping over her husband’s body. “She knew that she would weep again when she saw the kind, tender hands folded in death.” (Chopin. Pg. 2). Chopin uses irony to mock the evil patriarchal society by describing Brentley’s dead body organs as kind and tender. She knows well that Brentley was not as kind and tender because evidently when Louise rejoices over being free body and soul, it means that the presence of her husband was not really full of kindness and tenderness. In this manner, the heads of houses, husbands, are mocked for messing up with the mental well-being of their wives. Therefore, even as feminists push forward the agenda of gender equality, Chopin will blandly blame the patriarchal society for making some women unwilling to support their own liberation. The normal life of these women, as they have been taught, is to endure pain and save their marriages, and they are addicted to the pain, just like Louise Mallard is addicted to the pain that she thinks of herself crying. Readers who support patriarchy and over-glorify the standards of the marriage institution do not openly subscribe to the channel of Chopin’s thoughts. In the patriarchal society, Louise will be expected to cry, not to think of herself crying, and feel helpless and hopeless because the driver of her life is gone. Therefore she would luck direction in life. However, in reality, it is only hard for her to let go of the pain and trauma, not a matter of really losing a husband.

Lastly, the climax of Chopin’s story is satire and sarcasm that mocks the patriarchal society for overrating the role of the husband in a marriage institution. At the end of the story, Louise Mallard dies “of heart disease– of joy that kills.”(Chopin, Pg. 3). society gives the man more responsibility in marriage because women are not equal to men. In this case, Brentley’s presence after being thought to have died would have been a relief to Louise. However, his presence and the fact that he is alive is the cause of Louise Mallard’s death because it escalates her heart condition. If indeed marriage is an achievement for women, then Brentley being alive would have healed Louise because it means that she maintains her glory of being a married woman. However, Chopin uses sarcasm to say that, a husband being alive is joy, as viewed by the society, but to the oppressed wife, that joy, kills them. Therefore when she ends the story with the idea that a husband who is thought to be dead is alive and the wife dies because she wished that he should have been truly dead, it becomes problematic to the readers who embrace marriage and patriarchy.

Conclusively, Chopin’s “The Story of an Hour” makes some readers uncomfortable because it mocks the overrated marriage institution in a patriarchal society by showing the happiness of a short-lived widowhood. Chopin creatively mocks the marriage institution for oppressing women in marriage and leaving them in a state where they crave to be free at all costs including becoming a widow. Also, Chopin blames the patriarchal society for making women addicted to the pain that they are encouraged to endure in marriage. Lastly, the climax of Chopin’s story is satire and sarcasm that mocks the patriarchal society for over rating the role of the husband in a marriage institution

Works Cited

Chopin, Kate. The Story Of An Hour. 1894.

Essay On Christian Ethics Sample Assignment


Making biblically informed decisions for ethical dilemmas in one’s personal ministry context requires the use of the rules and principles to make judgments amidst the messiness of practice and real life. Often, we find ourselves faced by the possibility of conscientious discrepancy with one another, irrespective of having a nearly common foundation with respect to rules, values, and principles. This is because we are subject to the biases of our pride, fears, and selfishness and finite (limitation in our ability to predict and what we can know), that resultantly makes our rules and principles conflict at this level.

In practice, needs to resolve ethical dilemmas always arise, within which the actions to be taken and decision making require advancing several values and relevant rules at the expense of other values and the associated values. For instance, general code of ethics in ministry practice requires us to ensure confidentiality as well as a duty to warn. Though these seem to be good rules guiding us on how to make decisions as well as providing clear answers for multiple situations.[1] Nonetheless, they cannot be applied across cases such as where a congregant proposes that he could hurt his child or wife. For such cases, both good decision making and practice skill are needed to resolve the dilemma. Our ability to identify the appropriate facts and predict possible consequences for different courses of action is often limited, yet an action must be taken and decision made in one way or the other.

Considering such situations faced by humans, acknowledging how God works with Christians to grow in Christ’s image, and the critical role played by the Bible in guiding us, this paper examines how combining the deontological and consequentialist parameters can be used to develop a practical model for guiding ethical decision-making. The current paper presents the model as a simple problem-solving approach that assumes and is not a substitute for the development of Christ’s character and mind.

Utilitarian/consequentialist and deontological parameters

Ethical decision making could be broadly viewed as one based on two forms of the utilitarian/consequentialist and the deontological criteria. These terms are a basis for describing two different measures of whether something is morally bad or good or if or not something ought to be done. The deontological criteria relate to moral duty or obligation.[2] The criteria necessitate identifying the rules and moral imperatives related to the situation and determining the ‘oughts.’ In Christianity, the criteria can be summarized by reflecting on “the will of God in such a situation.” [3]

A critical phase in the application of deontological parameters for decision making in an ethical dilemma is understanding the parameters themselves.[4] Some argue that ethics can be achieved by relying solely on deontological criteria or believe that deontological parameters alone are adequate in decision making without considering the consequences. For instance, with respect to the ninth commandment “Though shall not lie” (Exodus 20:16) is perceived to be an exceptionless and absolute rule that should be obeyed under all circumstances irrespective of the consequences. According to this model, when the Nazis asked Corrie Ten Boom (popular for her efforts in hiding Jews from deportation and arrests during German’s occupation of the Netherlands) if she knew any Jew, she ought to have directed them to the hiding place in her home.[5]

Therefore, attempting to resolve all moral or ethical dilemmas by invoking a specific deontological model alone, even where the model/principle is biblically based, could lead into decision making and actions that contradict God’s will. Typically, an ethical dilemma exists where several deontological principles are applicable but are conflicting to some level. For example, the Sermon on the Mountain and the Ten Commandments entail deontological parameters critical for guiding our understanding of Christ’s mind and adhering to God’s will. Nonetheless, they cannot be applied legalistically or mechanistically lest we indeed become Pharisees. Would “turning the other cheek” (Matthew 5:39) imply that we are required to never resist evil in any way?

Majority of Christians explicitly acknowledge that God’s will is completely embodied only within God’s trait of justice and love that was incarnated in Christ. Consequently, justice and love are regarded to be the sole ‘exceptionless absolutes’ per the deontological perspective. The scripture’s moral principles and rules avail crucial guidelines for comprehending how justice and love are in different situations. Nonetheless, they cannot be applied as absolutes or be enforced into legal systems that eliminate the need for making judgements.

Nevertheless, for humanity and God, moral reality has always remained embodied. This partly implies that the deontological ‘oughts’ should not be entirely isolated from the utilitarian or consequentialist principles. The utilitarian/consequentialist principles for ethical decision making relate to the results.[6] Christian based actions and ethical decisions need to always attempt to account for or consider the possible consequences of the action or decision and the end served. We often to some degree falsely believe that moral actions and /or judgments could be exclusively judged based on their consequences. That would only require determining whether the action or decision had a desired or ‘good’ result, if so, it would be considered a good act. Most Christians believe that valuing the consequences is equitable to an implicit acceptance of the means to the such end, irrespective of what it could be (for instance, terrorist activity as an opposition to unjust tyranny).

Adapting such an approach is no better than the fallacy of a single-minded deontological ethical decision-making process. Considering that some degree of deontological foundation is required to define a ‘good’ result, pure utilitarianism is accomplishable. Moreover, the ‘good’ results are not derivable from the raw facts of a case. ‘Evils’ and ‘goods’ ought to be balanced and prioritized against each other within the means and the ends. A key limitation of the utilitarian approach in ethical decision making is that at its best, the decisions cannot be more than predictions or guesses grounded on what we perceive the results could be, as opposed to be the actual consequences.[7] Therefore, encouraging the wife of the previously mentioned congregant to divorce her abusive husband may be based on the belief that he will be incapable of hurting her and the children, but that is not a surety.

Therefore, the ideal model for guiding ethical practice and decision making in the case the prementioned male congregant would be using both utilitarian/consequentialist and deontological parameters of the case. Under this model, the first step would entail identifying and exploring the issue. This would include identifying the values or issues as stake, the desired ends, and possible alternative means as well as unintended consequences. The second phase would require identifying the moral imperatives of the congregant’s suggestion that he could hurt his child or wife followed by a determination of God’s will under such a circumstance. Additionally, there would be a need to analyze the principles at stake, particularly related to justice and love. The case would also require examining existing codes of ethics, rules, biblical injunctions, rule-governed exceptions, or commands appropriate for the case. For this case, the social work Code of Ethics ought to be considered.

The third step would involve exploring the utilitarian/consequentialist parameters. This phase would involve determining or predicting the possible intended and unintended results and evaluating the cost and benefits of an action or decision made (who are the beneficiaries and who is to pay). Moreover, the phase necessitates determining what is to be given up under each likely course of action and the values to be maximized or slighted. The fourth step would be prioritizing and integrating the utilitarian/consequentialist and deontological parameters by determining a course of action or decision that optimally maximizes the exceptionless absolutes of justice and love.

The fifth phase would require making a judgment based on act and character. After the collection and analysis of professional, biblical, and other relevant data, one should pray for the Holy Spirit’s guidance and wisdom. This would be followed by making a judgment and acting out of one’s character guided by Christ’s character while striving to do the best for the case and at the time. The last phase would encompass evaluating the experience, repenting or rejoicing, and determining whether to proceed or change with such an approach in the future.

Ultimately, making ethical decisions in evangelism requires an ethical integration of the Christian faith and one’s practice as a professional social worker, a task that often proves challenging. Applying both social work and Christian values in combination with principles of practice related to evangelism in a manner that upholds integrity for ourselves and clients/congregants is notably challenging too.[8] Nonetheless, practical and ethical judgments are crucial in our profession. Making such decisions is not simple. The process requires identifying, prioritizing, and acting guided by a combination of the utilitarian/consequentialist and the deontological criteria of a case.

Ethical decision making and analysis is crucial when faced by an ethical issue within which all values cannot be maximized simultaneously at the case level. Per the proposed combined model of decision making (the utilitarian/consequentialist and the deontological principle), an ethical dilemma exists where there are several conflicting legitimate moral obligations in a particular case.

For instance, one could believ in the client’s self-determination as well as the in the protection of human life, which are both legitimate moral obligations. Often, these values are not in conflict, but in such a case where a congregant threatens to kill or harm his children or wife, one is faced by an ethical issue whereby the taken course of action can compromise one or several personal moral obligations. Ethical principles and values could and do conflict at the case level.

Consequently, there arises a need to acknowledge what the Code of Ethics and the Bible can and cannot do for us. The Code of Ethics and the Bible could provide vital direction and guidance, but are inadequate in giving prescriptive models that will guide how we handle each new case, especially owing to the fact that not all values at a specific time are fully accomplishable and not all rules can be obeyed. In some instances, one of the multiple Code of Ethics and biblical rules may need to give way to an alternative to ensure the the maximum accomplishment of justice and love to the levels allowed by the situation. Hence, at the problem level, there will always be a need to be accountable for decision making that prioritizes our values while maximizing the ‘good’ being sought to the best levels possible.


Brittingham, Matthew. H. “‘Millions of Jews Died in That War… It Was a Bad Time’: The Holocaust in Adventures in Odyssey’s Escape to the Hiding Place.” Genealogy 3, no. 4 (November 15, 2019): 63.

Conway, Paul, and Bertram Gawronski. “Deontological and Utilitarian Inclinations in Moral Decision Making: A Process Dissociation Approach.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 104, no. 2 (2013): 216–35.

North American Association of Christians in Social Work. Christianity and Social Work: Readings on the Integration of Christian Faith and Social Work Practice. Edited by T Laine Scales and Michael S Kelly. Botsford, Ct: North American Association of Christians in Social Work, 2016.

[1] North American Association of Christians in Social Work, Christianity and Social Work: Readings on the Integration of Christian Faith and Social Work Practice, ed. T Laine Scales and Michael S Kelly (Botsford, Ct: North American Association of Christians in Social Work, 2016).

[2] Paul Conway and Bertram Gawronski, “Deontological and Utilitarian Inclinations in Moral Decision Making: A Process Dissociation Approach,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 104, no. 2 (2013): 216–35,

[3] Paul Conway and Bertram Gawronski, “Deontological and Utilitarian Inclinations in Moral Decision Making: A Process Dissociation Approach” (2013).

[4] Ibid

[5] Brittingham, Matthew. H. “‘Millions of Jews Died in That War… It Was a Bad Time’: The Holocaust in Adventures in Odyssey’s Escape to the Hiding Place.” Genealogy 3, no. 4 (November 15, 2019): 63.

[6] Paul Conway and Bertram Gawronski, “Deontological and Utilitarian Inclinations in Moral Decision Making: A Process Dissociation Approach” (2013).

[7] North American Association of Christians in Social Work, Christianity and Social Work: Readings on the Integration of Christian Faith and Social Work Practice, ed. T Laine Scales and Michael S Kelly (Botsford, Ct: North American Association of Christians in Social Work, 2016).

[8] North American Association of Christians in Social Work, Christianity and Social Work: Readings on the Integration of Christian Faith and Social Work Practice, (2016).