Accordingly, while admitting that it is reasonable and necessary to disobey unjust laws undermines the interests of the pubic, we should also recognize the value of laws, deeply respect it and behave strictly as the just laws. Otherwise, a society without the limitation of laws would undoubted come into disorder and chaos. In conclusion, it is indeed every one’s responsibility to respect and obey just laws. But whether to disobey unjust laws calls for a prudent consideration about whether it is for any higher purpose.
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.
When someone believes that they are being forced into following unjust laws they should stand up for what they believe in no matter the consequences because it is not just one individual they are protesting for they are protesting for the well-being of a nation. Thoreau says ?to resist, the government, when its tyranny or its inefficiency are great and unendurable.? People should only let wrong and right be governed by what they believe not the people of the majority. The public should always stand for what is right, stand when they think a government is wrong, and trust in their moral beliefs.
Both philosophers sought to instruct others on how to live a virtuous life and help contribute towards the common good of all people. However, Aquinas and Gandhi hold different views on how their shared goal is to be met. When comparing the two philosophies, one finds that Thomas Aquinas’s philosophy of natural law is superior to Gandhi’s philosophy of Satyagraha since it allows individuals and countries a way to justifiably defend themselves against those who wish to do them harm. Thomas Aquinas held the view that violence was necessary when it was justified and meant to ensure the common good. Thomas Aquinas’s philosophy can be broken down into one easy to remember phrase, ““Good is to be done and pursued and evil is to be avoided.” All other precepts of the natural law are based on this” (Aquinas I-II.94.2).
Moral language in traditional schemes usually has a structure that resembles that of law. Traditional, natural law ethics used this model with integrity, for it saw moral principles as terminology to law and God as alike to the sovereign. Now, however, ethics has become autonomous activity, so that it is now an inarticulate metaphor. The virtue ethicists reject this model. Ethics should help us develop admirable characters that will generate the kind of insights needed for the difficulties of life.
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.
For example, the state in which we live creates laws that are binding on us. We obey the laws of the state because we have an interest in not going to prison, or not being executed, or not being ostracized. These external authorities can therefore only bind us in regard to hypothetical imperatives (i.e., if we want to avoid some punishment, we ought to follow the state’s laws). In contrast, in order for finite rational beings to do moral duties (necessarily in the form of categorical imperatives) because they are moral duties, the authority of the moral law must come from within, from our intrinsic nature. When we rationally will some end and consequently will the means to that end, we impli... ... middle of paper ... ...ill that their maxim for that action should become a universal law, and if it’s true that rational agents ought to always treat all other finite rational beings as n end in themselves and never merely as a means, then it must be true that rational agents, as ends in themselves, create the universal moral law.
Dworkin argues that society values political integrity for its own sake because of the resulting ability to have internal harmony without direct compromise. Under the acceptance of political integrity, he claims that political society becomes a special form of community that promotes its moral authority to assume and deploy a monopoly of coercive force. He promotes the view that the community should be seen as a distinct moral agent in that the social and intellectual practices that treat community that way ought to be protected. With political integrity integrated as an imperative aspect of the law, these practices are accepted without refuting our instincts through internal compromises, such as checkerboard solutions.
(Pollock, 2010) Ethical standard also specify Values in which alternative or judgment of the agency must consider in which high priority are right on them. Ethical standard are based on entirely Justifications for the law that serves as a tool of behavior change, or social engineering. When Laws are used to control behavior, it must have totem of ethical standard in which sanctions are provided morally. In addition, by teaching people what behaviors are acceptable and what ones are not ethical standard must be used. As Law becomes society value so does ethical standard because every person is a value to society, and society has a right to protect this value, and even against his or her will.
First, it resonates with Jean Paul Sartre’s view that the meaning in life is defined by ourselves, and an ensuing positivity emanates from moral relativism. If we know that we can decide how to live a good life, then we will not wait for the single true morality to find us, but rather start to create a better world for every like-minded fellow creature (one who wants to seek a good life). In this way, we can form alliances to hunt down criminals who object to universal moral facts (e.g., Hitler), while sharing with each other our points of view on how we should