In his book, Mill says, “The only part of the conduct of any one, for which he is amenable to society, is that which concerns others.”1 On this kind of situations, Mill illustrated that the government should stand up and assist his people from a danger. Furthermore, Mill believes that to deal with the criminal in a fairly approach and perform “court of justice”1 to prove his “fair share in the common defense”1. Mill also discussed on why individuals should worry about tyrannies. In his book, Mile says, “the ‘tyranny of the majority’ [are the] evils against which society requires to be on its guard.” He believes that a society should be cautioned against the tyranny of the majority because they are dangerous. He also believes a democracy society is a successful and effective approach to defense these tyrannies.
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. Albeit good morals, I am more inclined to appeal to my own; to fight for yourself, to find strength in discouraging situations, and to reduce the evil of ignorance by rising above and against it. When people can learn to accept that hate is never going to disappear so long as everyone is different then maybe they might stop taking ignorant speech personally. Until then, regulation of hate speech should not be permitted to occur.
Thoreau came to conclusion that person should obey conscience rather than law in order to defend the justice and moral p... ... middle of paper ... ...clusion during understanding that each person take response of injustice of the laws and main problem lie in social omission and lack of personal interest to resistance for governmental unjust policy. Therefore, society must use non-violent resistance against injustice through civil disobedience, because the society through their actions and inactions sharing responsibility for any actions of the state, including unjust actions. Works Cited Dictionary. 2011. 26 October 2011.
Martin Luther King said that people should use disobedience for unjust laws but just laws must be obeyed. That if the careless imitate civil disobedience then it can not be confined (Suber, 1999). There are many ways to act upon civil disobedience, legal or illegal, violent or non-violent. Sometimes people are disobedient without realizing it. Civil disobedience is a part of life whether a person believes it to be right or wrong.
These societies “consisted of a governing One, or a governing tribe or caste, who derived their authority from inheritance or conquest” (Mill 5). This sort of rule was viewed as necessary by the citizens but was also regarded as very dangerous by Mill as the lives of citizen’s were subject to the whims of the governing power who did not always have the best interests of everyone in mind. Mill proposes that the only time “power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others” (Mill 14) and this is one of the fundamental building blocks of Mill’s conception of liberty. Rousseau, on the other hand, places more importance on the concept of a civic liberty and duty whose virtue comes from the conformity of the particular will with the general will. “Man was/is born free, and everywhere he is chains” (46) is one of Rousseau’s most famous quotes from his book.
Needless to say that, “as soon as any part of a person’s conduct affects prejudicially the interest of others, society has jurisdiction over it” (chp 4; 73). Mill obviously is implying that harming someone means injuring his or her interests. Everyone has interests they consider important and ought to be protected by law as rights. Being that Mill is a utilitarian, utility imposes that it is the “permanent interest of man as a progressive being” (10) that should be protected by law. Unfortunately, morality and immorality play a roll within the harm principle; many actions may be interpreted as immoral harming others interest but not being protected by rights.
For Mill the only time we must justify our actions to society, or the government, are when they concern others and most importantly, bring them harm. Mill makes it clear that harm is much more than mere offence, he also gives some examples including physical harm and harm to our financial interests such as taking away property or money without our consent. Mill also accepts harm in certain instances such as judicial punishment, so ... ... middle of paper ... ...onally accept harm as legitimate reason for the government to restrict individual freedoms, everyone's understanding of what constitutes 'harm' is different. Utilitarian's may propose that harm is anything that is detrimental to an individual's happiness. If freedom is as important as Mill suggests then we can consider any restriction on freedom harmful, in which case the Government must constantly consider the degree of harm necessary to justify and outweigh the harm they will undoubtedly be causing by imposing restrictions on individual freedom.
In order for laws to be enacted, they must be known by the constituents. Laws are created, enacted, and enforced to preserve civil society. For Locke and Rousseau these laws are made by the people who will have to abide by them. Considering that these laws were agreed by the majority, it is expect that they will follow said laws. Those who break the law in civil society are punished to the full extent of the law by an impartial judge.
The composition of such categories change from various places and times, and is the output of social norms and conventions. Also, crime is not the prohibitions made for the purpose of rational social defence. Instead, Durkheim argues that crimes are those acts which seriously violate a society’s conscience collective. They are essentially violations of the fundamental moral code which society holds sacred, and they provoke punishment for this reason. It is because of these criminal acts which violate the sacred norms of the conscience collective, that they produce a punitive reaction.
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.