Martin Luther King Jr. believes there are two specific types of laws: just and unjust. Just laws are ones in which humans must obey in order to maintain the safety, equality, and freedom of the individual. He states that “one has not only a legal but a moral responsibility to obey just laws.” Justly, these laws benefit society and are intended to align with the moral conscience of the human being. On the other side “one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws” as, according to St. Augustine, "an unjust law is no law at all.” Unjust laws are simply a moral mistake in the governmental system that require being broken, whether that be through civil disobedience or simple negotiation to prompt the change. The way in which one determines
Human Cloning and the Value of Human Life To recognize the value of human life, from conception until its natural end, is an achievement of civilization to be safeguarded as a primary good of the person and of society. Today, however, in many societies it is not unusual to see a sort of regression of civilization, the result of an incomplete and sometimes distorted conception of human freedom, which often finds public legitimization in the State legal system. That is, it happens that the respect due to the inalienable right to life of every human being is opposed by a subjectivist conception of freedom, detached from the moral law. This conception, based on grave errors regarding the person's very nature and rights, has frequently succeeded by using majority rules, in introducing into the juridical system the legalized suppression of the right to life of innocent, unborn human beings. When freedom is detached from objective truth it becomes impossible to establish personal rights on a firm rational basis.
What we have to do is discover what they are.”1 The clashes in cultures between difference of morality does not mean that morals are relative, all that it... ... middle of paper ... ... suggest that man is incapable (or perhaps too indolent) in finding the truth. If we are to accept the vast differences in morals and ethics in the world as a beneficial standard to society we then accept that there is no right and wrong, and thus there is no action that is best, and no action that can be justified. We must realize certain values and beliefs that are ignorant to those commands of God. Part of man's mission is discovering the preexisting and universal code that God intends for us to ascertain. This was the very reason Jesus was sent to us almost 2000 years ago, and it will be the same reason for his return, to help instill those morals, values, and principles.
As a human race we must strive to fulfill these commands, for they are our moral duties and obligations. Our obligation to morality sometimes leads to a dilemma. What happens when a law contradicts the morally right thing to do? Would it be moral to act illegally by breaking the law? No matter how drastic the measure, we are still required to act morally--even if one must break the law to do so.
Should one find the law to be in the best interest of each individual as well as society as a whole, he should abide by it and make every effort to live by its standard. But reversely, should the law be found guilty of evil intentions and causing more harm than good, it is the duty of every person under that law to disregard it and make an attempt "to wash his hands of it, and, if he gives it no thought longer, not to give it practically his support," (Disobedience 6). As both ... ... middle of paper ... ...Jr. by making himself a moving target. Although King, Jr. took many steps beyond Thoreau's advocacies of civil disobedience, his actions rang true to the central theme of standing powerfully, and non-violently, against an unjust system of government. Both advocated disconnecting oneself from social law as to better follow the divine laws set forth by God, and despite the great diversity in which each man carried out his beliefs, the underlying fact still remains: "we cannot, by total reliance on law, escape the duty to judge right and wrong" (Alexander Bickel), the distinction between just and unjust rests on the shoulders of mankind and it remains the duty of each individual to act accordingly.
An ethical decision that does not uphold one's personal moral beliefs is not a good decision and shouldn't be made. Something that will bring good into one's life is a decision that is made upholding their personal moral beliefs, whether or not that decision agrees with the ethical stance on the issue. It is the individual's responsibility to make a moral decision regardless of the ethical standing in order to achieve this good. Society wants most of the people to do what is right most of the time, encouraging the people to be moral in their decisions, causing good in our everyday life, even concerning the most minute details of our lives.
Thus, the only time a person can be sure he is right is if he is constantly open to differing opinions; there must be a standing invitation to try to disprove his beliefs. Second, there is the criticism that governments have a duty to uphold certain beliefs that are important to the well being of society. Only "bad" men would try to undermine these beliefs. Mill replies that this argument still relies on an assumption of i... ... middle of paper ... ...s beliefs are not reflected in their conduct. As a result, people do not truly understand the doctrines they hold dear, and their misunderstanding leads to serious mistakes.
To have a truly authentic existence, Sartre dictates that we live according to our own beliefs, that we insert meaning into the acts that we do, not finding meaning from what other people say. We should no live in regard to what other people think or say, because this would also push us into bad faith. We choose, act, and take responsibility for everything, and thus we live, and exist. Life cannot be anything until it is lived, but each individual must make sense of it. The value of life is nothing else but the sense each person fashions into it.
We see that self-reliance is a requirement for human dignity, and human dignity is a requirement for a right. Thus, if a program, event, or law does not promote self-reliance, it violates human dignity, meaning it cannot be a right. Self-reliance suggests that one is to stand on self-sufficiency to allow human dignity- as these are the qualities that are inherent in every person. For this reason, welfare is not a right, but a benefit, a privilege that is granted on behalf of the nation-state to its people.
Egoism and altruism both conflict with ethical utilitarianism, which claims that an individual should not treat themselves with higher regard than they have for others as egoism instructs, by elevating ones own self-interests and "the self" to a status not shared with others. But it also goes without saying that one should not sacrifice their own interests to help another fulfill their interests, as long as one's own interests are considerably comparable to the other person’s interests and own well-being. Egoism, utilitarianism, and altruism are all forms of consequentialism, but egoism and altruism contrast with utilitarianism, in that egoism and altruism are both forms of consequentialism which is subject-focused or subjectively based. However, utilitarianism is held to be a neutral position, it does not treat the subject's own self-interests as being more or less important than the interests, desires, or well-being of other individuals. Ethical egoism does not involve individuals to harm the interests and well-being of others when making decisions; what is in an individual's self-interest may be coincidently detrimental, beneficial, or neutral in its effect on others.