This pe... ... middle of paper ... ...individual’s appraisal of the causes and consequences of violent acts. Freewill enables individuals to analyze situations and choose options that appeal to their sense of morality. Violence born out of oppression garners the support of many because it functions to liberate the oppressed. On the other hand, violence resulting from wounded egos, failure to communicate receives condemnation because it only seeks to advance the needs of the minority. The negative consequences of violence such as loss of property and death make it a costly affair preventing feuding sides from unnecessarily resorting to it.
In addition, civil disobedience shows the opponent that you are willing to let them do anything to you, as long as there is a change brought about for the better. Also, another benefit of using civil disobedience is that people who practice it are showing that they are serious about what they want. They are prepared to go to any extremes of listening to the other party, and only for their own beliefs and against what they know is wrong. This can send a very powerful response, and bring about a positive change. Violence is not more effective than civil disobedience as it causes more hurt and hatred between the two parties.
To begin with, there are a number of reasons why people opt to incriminate victims for the crimes that have happened to them. These reasons stem from misconceptions about victims, perpetrators, and the nature of violent acts. Victims are sometimes erroneously portrayed as passive individuals who seek out and submit to the violence they endure. Offenders are perceived as hapless individuals who are compelled to act violently by forces they cannot control. The most popular explanations for blaming victims include belief in a “just world”, attribution error, and the Invulnerability Theory.
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.
Therefore, to inflict harm to one,it is simply useless. However, the punishment fits the crime therefore, it is morally just. Capital punishment is an expression of society's moral outrage at offensive conduct. This may be appealing to many but it is essential in an ordered society. It asks our citizens to rely on legal procedures rather than to self-help their wrongs doings.
While this equalization is better achieved thought legal and just means, from time to time that may need to be broken. I do not condone the use of violence to gain something; I merely understand that sometimes there is no other choice but to do what must be done. To answer the question from the start, only when a life may be saved can the morally good end warrant or justify an ethically, politically, or legally dangerous means for its achievement.
During the criminal sanction, they could... ... middle of paper ... ... but it may be seen as a learned willing action to protect. Torturing a person in other words is seen as unconstitutional, but to understand why it is somewhat problematic, just imagine being in the position of a torturer and torture, both predicaments is understandable hard to bare with from a citizen standpoint. Mitigating the stance on torture becomes somewhat impossible, especially for those who carry out the action, and or for those that make the laws and pass them. Justifying this action is undoubtedly hard to differ between moral or immoral actions. In this situation as mentioned before, it seems that the lives of millions of individuals compensate one individual life.
Breaking the rules might seem like a bad thing to do, but breaking the rules the right way is always a good idea. Many people see breaking the rules as getting in trouble and looking like a bully but there are different ways to break the rules and still look cool. The article "Cool People Only Break The Rules -- But Only The Right Rules" explains in many ways that breaking the rules aren’t always a horrible thing. The journalist Elizabeth Winkler has a saying which is being cool isn’t just about breaking rules. It’s about breaking the right rules in the right context (Winkler, 2014).
The New Book of Knowledge. Retrieved November 12, 2013, from Grolier Online http://nbk.grolier.com/ncpage?tn=/encyc/article.html&id=a2025050- h&type=0ta (Copper, 2013). Raphael (1483–1520). (2013). (S. J. Freedberg, Rev.).