By imbuing each subject with the moral premise that the "many" is always good and the "one" is always bad, the dictatorship manages to virtually eliminate any thought of opposition. In opposing the dictatorship, one is opposing the will of all people with one's singular will, and thus is evil. The moral creed that the dictatorship inculcates gives it a moral s... ... middle of paper ... ...; The metaphysical basis of collectivism is, "There are no men but only the great WE." The moral basis is, "We exist through, by and for our brothers." The implication is that things that exist have the right to exist, and things that do not exist have no right.
It is important to distinguish between freedom’s kinds of values, because in defining a system of government, the attitude towards freedom is a key component. If freedom has no independent value, different schools of political thought might have the standpoint, that we should not value freedom at all, only the things that it is means to. Some might think that they know better what is good for people, and feel justified in constraining people’s freedom. We intuitively value freedom, and usually do not even notice, that we have it, because it woven through so much of our everyday life. We take freedom for granted, even though in some countries it is not so trivial.
Because of the fact that even with international law and communication we will always have people who refuse to see themselves as equals with other nations; these are the ultranationalists. Using the source as our guide for the views on nationalism, we are automatically to assume that if you are a nationalist (anyone who shows pride in their nation) you are a supporter of genocides and wars. When we look back in history it is easy to find places where “internationalism is to believe in peace…” But it is hard or rather borderline impossible to find times when “Nationalists… cause world wars and [are] supporters of genocide,” that is since they are not. Nationalists are purely people who honor their nation; it is the ultranationalists that originate the wars and that start the genocides. It is by using this information we can gather that the source has a fairly bias origin in assuming that nationalists start wars.
On the inside, Proctor considered himself a fraud. He believed he was unworthy of his wife, Elizabeth. But of course, no one could tell from the outside. He seemed the same, strong, powerful, and overall intimidating. His excessive pride keeps him from unleashing his greatest secret.
The Fountainhead is the story of an individual, Ayn Rand’s vision of the ideal man. It is the tale of his unabashed refutal of tradition, his struggle against conventionality, and his eventual triumph over the parasites who fear and lust after his greatness. This man, Howard Roark, succeeds because he thinks of his own accord and embraces reason. While others let themselves be controlled by tradition and trends of public opinion, Roark only follows his own logical judgement. That is why—in the midst of a sea of “second-handers,” people who live only in others’ eyes—Roark stands alone and magnificent.
An unruly mob is nothing to a god who has legitimate power. That same king who seems powerful to the mob is nothing in the eyes of a god whose omnipotence prevails over the trivial matters of a king. And even a god will have no power if their target does not believe in their existence. Power is a very strong tool that can either be used for the better of mankind or the destruction of it. Theodore Roosevelt stated “speak softly and carry a big stick”, claiming that power of negotiation needs to be backed up with actually military strength.
Offensive realism or offensive neorealism has received a lot of attention and its main innovators is John Mearsheimer. According to the offensive realism, states act aggressively because they want to be secure, it is system that makes them to do so. States often have no reason to go in conflict with each other, they are primarily thinking about themselves. Mearsheimer have listed five assumption of international politics that supports his opinion. First of all he argued that there is no government, all states are capable to use their own force and force against other, no one state can be sure that another state would not use force to fight against, all states seek primary to keep their own territorial integrity and states are often rational actors.
Persuasion and attraction is soft power. Realism is a theory essentially about power and security, states seek power and security because they exist in a self-help system, people seek power, people seek prestige most of all they seek autonomy. Realists don’t believe in the utopian levelled ‘scheme that would provide a perpetual peace in the world, all states are alike functionally, they all need to perform similar tasks to function. With this in mind Power is historically unsurpassable, which is why the realists believe that if states do not have the capability to protect themselves with special regards to their military capabilities, their nation will not be secure nor will they be able to perpetuate themselves in an anarchic international system. A
In light of this observation, philosophers have studied the moral grounds of patriotism. One can wonder what the object of patriotism is and whether this object is morally acceptable: is it a country whatever that country is standing for? Some will argue that being a patriot is not about questioning your country; it is only following the motto “my country, right or wrong” and blindly loving it; others will say that patriotism should be avoided for this very reason. But a patriot can also favor the welfare of his country by attempting to make it respect moral standards and it seems that to make patriotism morally acceptable, a country has to keep up to certain high moral principles that give a satisfying reason for a patriot to support it, so is the object of patriotism a valuable country? Or is the object of patriotism simply a political ideal?
Like Rauch says, people must not try to eradicate hate speech, rather criticize and try to correct it. There is no wrong in standing up for yourself but there is an enormous wrong in limiting speech, hateful or not. V. Conclusion If it wasn’t already obvious, I believe that Altman is wrong. I believe that strengthening the proverbial skin of society is more important that pitting it’s individuals against each other on issues of what’s ok and not ok to say. Altman appeals to his own morals in which giving individuals the equality that is due to them and the right to not be treated as a lesser member of society are of ultimate importance.