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.
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
While Mill was not a strong supporter of strict underlying moral principles offered by Kant, he also believed in the necessity to establish such moral rul... ... middle of paper ... ...acts still recognized the necessity of punishment. Their observations do not seem surprising, considering that there still is no alternative to punishment. Refusal from punishment only will encourage criminals to continue committing wrongdoings, resulting in violation of human rights and basic principles declared by many ethical principles, including utilitarianism, Kantian ethics or the “Golden Rule”, for example. However, punishment only should applied towards people who committed some wrongdoing and are guilty because otherwise punishment will stop being “ethical”. Works Cited Kant, Immanuel.
Firstly, injustice is sometimes unavoidable, since it is difficult for legislator to take every situation and every possible result into account. Secondly, justice is a concept with relativity that different individual may view the sam... ... middle of paper ... ... whether it is just or unjust, it does not mean that we have no respect to laws. When disobeying laws, one must have higher purpose respecting the will of the mass. Gandhi and King both pointed out that they never advocated breaking laws on the sly for personal convenience, they attacked unjust laws at their own risk in order to improve the society. 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.
In my opinion, this is a natural reaction because man has rebellious nature, which we cannot change. The only way one can learn moral values, is by living in a society observing those values. This is the natural way of change. However, enforcing it can drive the people away and they will react in a negative way. Why not to enforce?
Anthony Burgess: The importance of moral freedom for all in A Clockwork Orange Moral freedom is one of the most if not the most important of any freedoms available for humans. Moral freedom is the ability to either choose to perform good and bad deeds or both. Totalitarian governments take away one’s individual choice and thus, suppresses and suffocates thee soul. The setting in A Clockwork Orange, is a general parallax to a totalitarian and oppressive government. Alex the main character is the representative of the common man, and his struggle in this type of government.
Whereas, Woody Allen uses the character of Chris to relate the nihilist theme: the world exist without a higher power or a moral justice system; therefore, there is no reason to conform to social constraints. Match Point challenges the ideals presented in Crime and Punishment, that one has to b... ... middle of paper ... ...esponsibility of moral obligation and punishes themselves. Chris, was able to move on from this, he moved on from the guilt and the crime, his indifference is the root of his success. By contrasting Match Point’s murder scene, to the murder scene in Crime and Punishment, Woody Allen challenges Dostoyevsky’s argument that society is bound by moral obligation, rather the reality is that there are no constraints binding individuals to a moral compass; therefore, one can do anything without fear of repercussion. The latter which reflects the society and the social standards that govern the actions of society.
The protagonists tend to be characterized as rebels as they attempt to stay ethical and honorable in a depraved society. However, when the main character in some of the most well known dystopian novels revolts, he or she is less successful at staying moral than a more passive character. For example, George Orwell’s 1984 features a society where the government watches the citizens’ every move. The government controls its people by terrorizing them and observing both their thoughts and actions. The story is told through Winston Smith’s perspective.
The Native Son The novel, Native Son, by Richard Wright deals with a lot of themes all surrounding the protagonist, Bigger. Wright wants to show that, considering the conditions of Bigger's existence, his violent personality and his criminal behavior are not surprising. Bigger wants to feel like a human being with a free, independent will. His overwhelming sense of fear arises from his lack of power feeling in the face of an unnamed, hovering doom. Bigger’s crime is an act of rebellion, an affirmation of his independent will to act against the voice of social authority.
In a democratic society, it is generally considered the Government's role to promote morality and justice within its citizens and seek to restrict supposedly immoral and unjust acts. Thus if an act is to be considered immoral, it seems obvious to suggest that the government is justified in restricting it regardless of whether it is harmful to others. However, since everybody has a different understanding of morality and freedom, no Government could legitimately restrict an act on the basis of it being 'immoral'. Thus it seems more plausible to suggest that the Government should only restrict actions which everybody can agree should be restricted. However it's not clear where the line should be drawn or how a consensus on the issue could be reached.