As time has changed so has the American people, we often interpret our freedoms in a self serving manner, disregarding the good of the whole and also the good for the future. Thus there are no true flaws in the Constitution, it appears that the conflict emerges in the individual and their self, and poses question when we must decide when to compromise the morals that our Constitution was founded on, or when to stick to what we know is right and honest.
Through yell... ... middle of paper ... ...tunately see the opposite of how cultures are not to be oppressed by each other. The KKK is a hating group that will never succeed in their actions because they are not peaceful but ignorant and ethnocentric. Arguments are a great way to prove points when they are conducted with positive outcomes in mind but no one should argue about culture. No one should kill someone else because of their culture. Discussion of culture is commended, but no culture is better than another.
If torture is for the greater good, then I’m not so sure that the greater good is something I want to see. Curing diseases at the cost of animal lives is immoral, and nobody has the right to make that decision. Medicine to save many lives at the cost of one or more is worth its weight i... ... middle of paper ... ...ind an alternative let it be this: “If you want to test cosmetics, why do it on some poor animal who hasn't done anything? They should use prisoners who have been convicted of murder or rape instead. So, rather than seeing if perfume irritates a bunny rabbit's eyes, they should throw it in Charles Manson's eyes and ask him if it hurts.” - Ellen DeGeneres.
Because no matter what you would believe, you would also have to believe that someone else was as equally correct as... ... middle of paper ... ... It leaves one with no answers, just because one lives in a different culture it makes it all right to kill because that is what others do. This is not a valid argument and doesn’t help in any way for people to describe why we are the way we are. Although that might not be the role of philosophy, I would contend that it plays an important part in understanding a theory of how it is we should live our life. Moreover it doesn’t leave us with any truths to the validity of their actions.
The first speaker solidifies this point when saying, “The right to free speech refers only to freedom from prosecution, so it doesn’t give you the right to force your ideas onto others, and doesn’t give you the right to be listened too by anyone”. 2 The arguments from the opposition are as convincing, and filled with persuasive points. The largest argument repeated through the debate is essentially that, “The problem with no platform today is the lack of such a definition for harm. What we see instead is the justification of no platforming on the basis of a variety of complaints, including feeling uncomfortable, or offended or threatened”. 3 With harm being such a subjective term, we can never truly agree on what is harmful, which leaves us with the question of who should be non platformed and who should be allowed to speak freely.
Other times, these perspectives can change over time as people develop. It is also my belief that people who are rigid in their ethical decisions are not mak-ing a true ethical decision after all. Instead they are just passing judgments on others and typically being righteous or domineering. This in my opinion is not ethical behavior and does not provide what is needed by society for everyone to be empowered and satisfied.
Although we, as individuals living in Western society find this practice morally abhorrent, we have no reasonable basis on which to condemn it. We can never really say whether or not a cultural practice is acceptable unless we are able to rid ourselves of our preconceptions and biases. Ridding ourselves of the preconceptions, however, is impossible. This is because; the values one has are dependent on the environment we are exposed to within our culture, the norms of behavior we accept come from the institutions also formed within a particular culture and the cultural bias that taints our opinions of other cultures and the practices. Values are defined as the ideas that are important in life.
These stories themselves are often the motivation for what we determine to be evil upon examining an alternate story, but we do not have a choice about whether or not we tell stories at all. That is in our nature. Alternately, without our stories we would not experience good and beautiful. The most dissatisfying aspect of a matter-first explanation of morality is that it absolves us from any responsibility for how we impact the natural world and other human beings. This could come as a welcome relief, after considering the incomprehensible responsibility of being an agent of creation.
Respecting an unfamiliar culture without knowing anything about that foreign culture is impossible. According to Midgley, respecting a culture requires a favorable judgment that is made by understanding. For example, Midgley mentions the ancient Japanese practice of a samurai trying out his new sword by slicing a wayfarer. While we might not live in Japan we are supposed to praise the samurai for his actions. A samurai must do such actions to honor himself as a samurai and not let down his emperor.
For nothing so strongly impels a man to regard the interest of his constituents as the certainty of returning to the general masses of the people from whence he was taken and where he must participate in their burdens" ( quoted by Christensen). Mason's argument for term limits was compelling at the time. However term limits were considered a matter of "detail" and not suitable for inclusion in the fundamental law of the country. The rejection of term limits was correct at the time of the framing because it was a limitation on the freedom of Americans, and no excision of freedom should be taken lightly, no matter how small. However, the founders never envisioned the evolution of the political careerist or the destruction such an animal could afflict on the republic.