During Thoreau’s time, he mentioned two main unjust aspects, such as the slavery and Mexican war that cause him to reach the conclusion that individual conscience is crucial and has major priority than current laws. As proof of his idea, Thoreau explained that person should act from own conscience instead of laws in order to avoid sharing responsibility for the government unjust actions. Also, Thoreau claimed that the individual conscience is a base of social morality and principles, which helps to develop to better society. According to Thoreau’s society should show their civil disobedience for any unjust of government. Thoreau came to conclusion that person should obey conscience rather than law in order to defend the justice and moral p... ... middle of paper ... ...clusion during understanding that each person take response of injustice of the laws and main problem lie in social omission and lack of personal interest to resistance for governmental unjust policy.
Bibliography · Lockyer, A. (1988) ‘Aristotle: The Politics’, in M. Forsyth and M. Keens-Soper, eds. The Political Classics. Oxford: Oxford University Press · W.F. Hardie Aristotle’s Ethical Theory (1968) · The Internet Encyclopaedia of Philosophy.
The source agrees with government intervention in crisis but allowing the government to intercede completely would allows them to surpass laws (taking away rights and freedoms), inevitably breaking rule of law. It would support the patriot act because it protects society from crisis but the patriot act allows for the confiscation of property and the suspension of rights and freedoms. By embracing the source, we would be embracing a society where the government can take away our rights and use their power to accomplish their own selfish means. Because of their negative consequences that result from the ideas in the source, society should not embrace it.
You are attempting to break the law to show that the law is unjust, and it is an act of saying that the law can be made better than it is now. He’s gathered his facts and understanding of the law, it is 100% clear there’s a problem. For civil disobedience to be justified a real injustice must exist, or else it wouldn’t addresses a sense of justice of the majority.
(2) Rattan, Gurpreet (2014) “Disagreement and the First-Person Perspective” Analytic Philosophy. Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Pg. 1 – 23. (3) Adam, Elga (2007) “Reflection and Disagreement” Princeton University Copyright the Authors Journal compilation, Blackwell Publishing, Inc. Pg. 478 – 502.
Bennet, J. (2007), paraphrase of Locke, J. (1690) An Essay concerning Human Understanding, Bk II, ch. 27, paragraphs 17-22, in Warburton (2011), ‘The Self’, Exploring philosophy, Milton Keynes, The Open University, pp. 107-109.
Pgs: 3, 5, 6, 9, and 11. · “Declaration of Independence” ONLINE: http://www.archives.gov/national_archives_experience/declaration_transcript.html. 20 Nov 03 · Singer, Peter, Practical Ethics: Second Edition. 1993, Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK. Pgs: 298-306 · Smith, Michael P, et al, Political Obligation and Civil Disobedience Readings.
For this, I argue that Rousseau’s idea of forcing citizens to be free is a dangerous notion. In stating that citizens must be compelled to submit to the general will, Rousseau offers a form of government that stifles individual liberty and allows for the tyranny of the majority to prevail. The notion of forcing citizens to be free is a product of Rousseau’s version of the social contract. While Rousseau is more optimistic about the state of nature than Thomas Hobbes in Leviathan, he still recognizes that it may become necessary for men to exit the state of nature and unite under a sovereign. When this time comes, Rousseau contends, men must enter a social contract with one another.