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.
How are the people, oppressed by others and by the government, supposed to react? Certainly, they do not enjoy being treated unjustly, however, they should still obey the laws. Is it to the laws of the land that command total submission or to his convictions by which he is convinced that the system is totally unjust? Therefore, how should citizens defend their liberties, without using violence or disobeying the law, if they think it’s unjust? If an individual obeys the law, he would automatically be thought of supporting the unjust system but in case he does not, he would be accused of disobeying the law.
Because of the law being so essential it allows us to have the assumption that any violation of the law whether divine or civil must hold consequences. Because of the contradiction between the two it is up to the individual to choose which law to adhere to, and to accept whatever consequences are to come with it. Socrates and Antigone chose to obey the law that illustrated an image of higher authority and because of this, it resulted with their demise. Which eventually lead to their acceptance of the consequences their actions lead to, thus allowed the rules of both divine and civil law to be upheld, despite their lack of obedience towards the
...cience?? He believed that conscience should tell a person what to do not just a majority vote. To follow a government blindly ruins people they should only trust what they believe is right. The use of civil disobedience is a respectable way of protesting a governments rule. 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.
Martin Luther King Jr. believes there are two specific types of laws: just and unjust. Just laws are ones in which humans must obey in order to maintain the safety, equality, and freedom of the individual. He states that “one has not only a legal but a moral responsibility to obey just laws.” Justly, these laws benefit society and are intended to align with the moral conscience of the human being. On the other side “one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws” as, according to St. Augustine, "an unjust law is no law at all.” Unjust laws are simply a moral mistake in the governmental system that require being broken, whether that be through civil disobedience or simple negotiation to prompt the change. The way in which one determines
She makes impulsive actions to uphold her family’s honor. Antigone defends her actions by revealing how the law interferes with family matters. Her behavior clarifies her morals, which pertain to the idea that family is a legitimate reason to defy higher authorities, and her thoughts on family and its significance. Though Creon’s law may be seen as irrational, he believed that it was the right decision at the time. In order to maintain... ... middle of paper ... ...e of her brother and her culture.
According to the law, anyone who buries Polyneices shall be stoned to death. This poses a problem for Antigone, for she is determined to honor her brother's memory and put his soul to rest. With no help from her sister, Antigone feels that she, and she alone, can solve this problem, even if it means death. An even more significant characteristic of an epic hero, which Antigone possesses, is facing darkness. Creon, with knowledge of her criminal actions, captures Antigone.
Each protagonist was making decisions that were in conflict, but were still moral. In writing the plays, they authors implied that one version of morality, that of Antigone and Sir Thomas More, was more acceptable than the other. However, this is not the case since the decisions of King Henry and Creon were also couched in morality and were being made with regards to the good of the individuals under their command.
Macbeth feels that Macduff is a traitor, when he finds out Macduff chose not to attend his banquet. In a spiteful, impulsive act of revenge Macbeth orders several murders to Macduff’s castle to kill his family. Macbeth thought that the killing of Macduff’s family would shatter his will to fight leaving him demoralized. In fact, the murder of his family did the exact opposite. The death of Macduff’s family made Macduff fight harder than ever, in order to avenge his family's name.
When Creon came to know of Antigone’s plan he called for her and when she did not deny of the fact that she buried her dishonorable brother’s body he grew angry and assumed Ismene her younger sister had helped her. Ismene being the good sister that she is lied and said she had helped Antigone, after that Creon ordered for them to be locked up. Haemon, Creon's son and Antigone's fiancé, promised to be loyal to his father and not talk to Antigone but he tried his best to persuade his father to spare her life, but they end... ... middle of paper ... ...ad noble intentions and was completely loyal to the state, but in the end he is only human and his main weakness was his poor judgment. This play makes one reconsider what make people righteous and what make them temporarily lose judgment. I find it very interesting because no matter how old this play is, the concept is real and initially got through to the audience.