The interests of these individuals as well as the value of their life are viewed as being inherently less important than the interests and lives of the reference group. From a liberal standpoint (and the standpoint of many non-liberals as well), it is important that every individual has the right to equal existence amongst their fellow human beings. Therefore, Altman’s justification for regulation of hate speech appeals to an intrinsically valuable liberal belief. Altman’s prescription not only appeals to the concerns ... ... middle of paper ... ...ing its targets down, therefore people must learn to successfully overcome the feelings that it intends to induce. Like Rauch says, people must not try to eradicate hate speech, rather criticize and try to correct it.
In Rawls’s “The Original Position and Justification” he makes a central point about how in order to have a just society, we must make decisions about principles of justice without knowing certain information about one another or ourselves. Rawls call this ‘blind eye’ the veil of ignorance. One way he supports his central point is stating that no one should be advantaged or disadvantaged in the choice of principles by their place in society. Furthermore, Rawls goes on by stating that the idea of the original position is to reach a state of reflective equilibrium. In this paper, I will provide reasons and examples that Rawls uses for his central point, as well as two reasons to be skeptical of the claims made.
Therefore, through re-education, there would be lower recidivism rate and higher moralities than before, making society a more worthwhile place to live in. Bystander effect is a serious problem in our society, and something must be done in order to solve it. There have been attempts to solve this issue, and one of them is Good Samaritan law. Although its purpose is to prevent bystander effect, bystanders should not be punished with law because it intrudes principles in constitution, it places burden on society, and it does not solve the problem fundamentally. Solution should be re-education instead, which would not only solve bystander effect but also raise the level of people’s moral standards.
While knowing and understanding things as they are is important, this theory alone does not suffice for the main prop... ... middle of paper ... ...individual is critiquing society he should also coordinate his cognitive process with society. Critiquing society involves being able to criticize society enough to want social change. Examining the subjugation in a society allows for society to not reproduce itself. Traditional theory does not address its connection with society therefore does not critique society and continues a cycle of reproducing society as it is. Critique in Critical theory involves observing the disruption and conflict that causes for struggle within a society.
When should civil disobedience be condoned? Should it be condoned? Civil disobedience is defined as the refusal to obey government laws, in an effort to bring upon a change in governmental policy or legislation. Civil disobedience is not an effort to dissolve the American government, because without government our society would result in chaos. Sometimes, when there is an unjust law and the government won't take the initiative to fix it, the public must act as civil disobedients to bring awareness and fix the unjust law.
We are shaped by the events of history, and shown how to behave within our culture. There is no way to externalize ourselves from the community because of how embedded it is in our psyche(221). With this notion, if a community can have a shared understanding of what the common go... ... middle of paper ... ...aditions of certain cultural practices, but not to the extent of making it a political theory. In todays world, we need a solid foundation to each individual in order to have a working, non-oppressive, self-respecting society. The liberal approach respects the ideals of certain cultures, but not to the extent of the communitarian.
Beauchamp, CC2011, p 0226). In order to be liberated from discriminatory practices, society must practice reverse discrimination, as it is morally justified for the greater good in the end. Once the equal playing field is reached with the addition of minorities through preferential treatment, reverse discrimination becomes unnecessary. James Rachels bases his moral reasoning for reverse discrimination on what people deserve. Although he is conscious that reverse discrimination appears unfair to those directly affected, he proposes that fairness is dependent on desert.
What right does the group have to decide what will bring the greater good when they are harming a large number of people? Furthermore, collectivism, “encourages conformity and discourages individuals from dissenting and standing out.” (Gorodnichenko)1 With such a system, only the group could determine what's good
The principle of universality is defined as “acting only according to the maxim by which a person can at the same time will that it should become a un... ... middle of paper ... ...nces of an action, believe that these benefits cannot be achieved with less suffering or at a lower cost to those who are being punished. They want to prevent offenders from doing further harm and believe that is it not morally right to punish criminals in order to give them what they deserve. Punishment is only justified if it promotes the general happiness according to utilitarian’s. As well, utilitarian’s would promote rehabilitation as a goal for punishment to reform and educate offenders to make them into more productive members of society. Utilitarianism would believe that retribution as an unethical form of punishment because it does not produce any consequence with no benefit in mind.
To make Welfare more temporary, inefficiencies had to be addressed and solved. Welfare legislators decided to put the inefficiencies and prescriptions on the recipients themselves and not take into account any other barriers that could be preventing poor individuals and families from getting out of poverty. Moral prescriptions make poverty a cause and solution affair where the cause is moral negligence and the solution is a set of rules and regulations aimed to change morality which will gain people the self-esteem and knowledge to get a job and get out of Welfare. The first part of the moral prescriptions described in Flat Broke With Children is the Work Plan/Family Plan that is an important part of Welfare reform. (Hays, 23) The Work Plan and the Family Plan are two different means of getting people out of Welfare that contradict themselves at times.