He debated about what the law ought to be and whether morality should be enforced by law to form a good society. Furthermore, John Stewart Mill did not write specifically on law and morality. His argument constituted mainly on the anti-enforcers side of law and morality because he believed in individual liberty. John Stuart Mill's assertion that the only justification for limiting one person's liberty is to prevent harm to another Mill believes individual should be given liberty to do what they want unless they harm others. According to Mill, liberty should not be enforced by law as any imposing would lead to breach of individual liberty.
However it's not clear where the line should be drawn or how a consensus on the issue could be reached. John Stuart Mill put forth an idea, commonly known as the 'harm principle', in which he argued that the government may only legitimately interfere in our actions to prevent harm, or the threat of harm, to others. For Mill it wasn't enough to simply do something that people didn't like rather, one has to actually cause another harm. Mill's argument seems designed to protect our individual freedoms against government paternalism, through which our ability to express ourselves may be restricted under the pretence that we are being protected from ourselves. 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.
It is not your responsibility to eradicate the wrongs done in your institution, but it is your responsibility to not take part of it so that it loses the following of many and so that your conscience may be clear. There are ways in which you can go about no longer supporting an unjust institution but violence is not one of them. Thoreau wants a rebellion against the government. He wants reform, and by following this institution you are opposing this reform. If you do not support the unjust actions within your institution then you must not support the government overall, act with your own principles, and break the law if they go against said principles.
Given these circumstances there is no legitimate need to search for further evidence. All the proof needed to give a ticket for... ... middle of paper ... ...e police officers. Miranda established the precedent that a citizen has a right to be informed of his or her rights before the police attempt to violate them with the intent that the warnings erase the inherent coercion of the situation. The Court's violation of this precedent is especially puzzling due to this case's many similarities to Miranda. The logic used by the Court in order to justify their conclusion is fraught with weak reasoning and dangerous interpretations of the Constitution.
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. Those, however, who want to start or continue harming themselves it will be judged to society’s likings. According to the harm principle, we should not force upon someone to stop harming him or herself. The thought might sound cynical but it’s just that we don’t coerce them. Society shouldn’t make use of the law or moral condemnation to make adjustments to someone’s behavior, unless the person causing he ... ... middle of paper ... ...ents within themselves as well.
Through responsibility, the ways an individual’s actions can harm another member of the society becomes too vague and ultimately becomes illogical. The definition must be more specific, and must account for human fallacy and exceptions. Mill does not permit exceptions, however harm is subjective and there may be scenarios he does not consider. In order to become viable, his argument requires further specification. With this further refining, however, it becomes a logical method of looking at liberty.
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.
This paper will address some of the issues surrounding hate speech and its regulation. I will explain both Andrew Altman and Jonathan Rauch’s positions in the first two sections. The third section will be on what Altman might say to Rauch’s opposite views. I will then discuss my view that hate speech should never be regulated under any circumstance especially in the name of protecting someone’s psychology, feelings, or insecurities like Altman prescribes. In the end, I will conclude that we should not agree with Altman despite his well intentioned moral convictions to push for hate speech regulation.
This is based on the assumption that killing is wrong. Who knows? Maybe murder is really okay as some cults claim. However, if we are to accept anything is okay, then no law or Constitution would be valid anyway. Thus, it is not against the Constitution to ban such activity on the basis of other law.
Above all we desire a meaning to life. We can find meaning by acting morally. Therefore, one is not obligated to obey a law that contradicts morality. After all, it would be morally wrong of the government to deny anyone meaning in life. Works Cited * Singer, Peter.