We Must NOT Regulate Hate Speech

For example, lying is always considered morally wrong--even a “white lie.” Therefore, one must not lie even if it does more good. In our society although individuals accept lying as being morally wrong, “white lies” have become an exception. Only having absolutes creates a theory that is extremely hard only to abide by, especially when deontological though permits you from making a choice when that choice would clearly be optimal... ... middle of paper ... ...individual beliefs, one can form their own educated opinions regarding what kind of action he should take. Morals are also not always concrete. Relativist thought contends each group of people may contain different morals.

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.

Many posit the notion that nothing good will ever come from violence while neglecting the positive things that have emerged from it. It may seem illogical but since kindness is often abused one needs to resort to violent means to demand justice and peace. Violence is gradually converting into a virtue as it becomes an imperative component in making progressive reforms. In order for one to triumph one must be dauntingly assertive even if it means turning to violence. Using forceful tactics should not necessarily make one malicious if the reasons behind them are benevolent.

Virtues usually help people do good, but when they do not help, people must violate them for the sake of the principle. Franklin would argue that virtues are not the core of morality, but, doing good is the core. Therefore, people must sometimes sacrifice their virtues if it is necessary to achieve morality. Franklin uses his guidelines in this flexible way because he is a reasonable and practical person. If Franklin strictly followed his guidelines all the time, it would be unproductive and inefficient.

When people are sure that they are right, they would be cowardly not to act on that belief and to allow doctrines to be expressed that they believe will hurt mankind. To this, Mill replies that the only way that a person can be confident that he is right is if there is complete liberty to contradict and disprove his beliefs. Humans have the capacity to correct their mistakes, but only through experience and discussion. Human judgment is valuable only in so far as people remain open to criticism. Thus, the only time a person can be sure he is right is if he is constantly open to differing opinions; there must be a standing invitation to try to disprove his beliefs.

Such resistance is usually for the greater good of society as it represents the discontent of a general population. Civilians must profess discontent since it is necessary to understand current and ongoing issues that harm society as a whole. Justification of disobedience comes when the state does not have the moral, attentive, and supportive capacity to rule well among its citizens, which can lead to excessive coercion, ignorance, and support for small ruling elites. People have every right to defend themselves, even if sacrifice and consequences are at hand. This paper will argue the justification of civil disobedience so long as it remains non-violent and is used to defy the powers of the state and government when the rule of law is in need change for the greater good.

King emphasizes the fact that one must follow just laws to avoid anarchy and respect the rights of other human beings. However, he and others have a “moral responsibility” to fight against unjust laws for the benefit of society. He states that individual “who willingly accepts the penalty of imprisonment in order to arouse the conscience of the community over its injustice, is in reality expressing the highest respect for law” as they are adjusting the basic intent of the law to realign with its moral law through the form of civil disobedience. It is important to note that this view is not ‘new’ or radical according to King. Legality is a very arbitrary term within a historical context as King points out that what the Nazi’s did was legal while what the “Hungarian freedom fighters did in Hungary was "illegal.

‘“Cultural relativism implies that another common place of moral life illusion moral disagreement, and such inconsistencies hint that there may be something amiss with relativism. It seems it conflicts violently with common sense realities of the moral life. The doctrine implies that each person is morally infallible”’ (Vaughn 14). Rachels states that, “cultural relativism would not only forbid us from criticizing the codes of other societies; it would stop us from criticizing our own” (Rachels 700). However, there are some reasons one may accept relativism and it is because it is a comforting position.

Dworkin, on the other hand, adds to the harm principle because he believes in evaluating a moral position on whether it has moral principles or whether it is secured on illogical grounds (such as emotions). Dworkin’s view provides a filter for the harm principle, where he provides more of a restriction to what can seem morally right. Drawing from these points on the views of Mill and Dworkin I believe they would both be in favour of sex work being completely legalized. Mill would agree on the grounds that prostitution does not directly harm those around them. Individuals may be putting themselves at risk but it is their free choice to make that decision.

They also want people to think for themselves and not comply to laws that they do not agree are just. We should ultimately challenge our government to make it work for us and not against us. Dr King said, “One has not only a legal, but a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws.” So if the majority is working against what you believe is morally right take a stance against the majority, because “Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice