I consider myself a conservative and I believe the most effective means of protest is non-violent direct action. Non-violence is an extremely effective form of protest because people can get the rights and authority that they fight for from the hostile class, government, or country without using the means of protest violence. Non-violence is a philosophy and strategy for social change that rejects the use of violence. According to Socrates in Plato’s Crito persuasion is the most effective means of protest. He says that persuasion is not like other means of protest.
I try to avoid conflicts and protect the least advantaged without creating unnecessary hassles for the rest. One of my weaknesses is that I trust reasonable systems to solve most problems. Because of that I run the risk to be considered authoritarian and assuming that my way is best, which is not at all my intention. At some point I could become isolated because not everyone can guarantee equality. My obsession with justice could drive those I care about most away from me.
His views on life tenure and judicial reviews were split upon the framers and intimidated anti federalist, but it is the most methodological way to deal with the separation of powers and prevent different branches from overpowering one another. Although I agree with his claims that the Judicial branch is the least dangerous, because the lack of direct involvement and inability to initiate a change, I believe that without the Judicial branch, the separation of powers would be missing a key feature to prevent a tyranny. Without the Judiciary, it would be easy for the government to take advantage of their powers and overrule the
Morality is not simply about avoiding the wrong, but is also about doing what is virtuous. This theory is secular in the fact that it is non religious and therefore universal as it can be applied to all, and we all strive for happiness. Virtue ethics also values morality for its instrumental worth as when people acquire good habits of character, they are better able to regulate their emotions and their reason. This, in turn, helps us reach morally correct decisions when we are faced with difficult scenarios. Furthermore it emphasises the need for people to break bad habits of character, as they prevent one from achieving full happiness and being a moral person.
To begin with, the word “sacred crow” is something that is well respected and people do not want criticized. Document t B talks about serving the jury system and how it works. Americans attend the jury because they are accustomed to and can receive consequences for not attending. Based on the facts that Document B exhibits, the American jury system is not a good idea solely because people will be criticized
Cultural relativism is the idea that the moral principles someone has are solely determined by the culture one lives in. These ideas seem to make sense because we as a culture understand that the judgments people make in a different culture will differ from ours whether we choose to support it or not. Our culture has different moral judgments as well and does not look at something like killing someone for stealing as morally right since our culture values human life above theft. Cultural relativism does not exist because some principles are universal and not relative only to culture. People also have the ability to think morally for themselves so morality is relative to someone’s point of view.
Limiting government is very similar to the Checks & Balances principle because it too is the thought of restricting power of the branches. However, limiting government falls as the second most important because each branch could be limited but, if no one was checking up or over-seeing the what a branch was doing then the branch would basically be able to do whatever they pleased because no one was telling them that what they were doing was wrong, and that they weren’t abiding by the articles making their actions
Another premiss is “Severe laws against marijuana do not discourage use of marijuana, but rather breed this contempt not only for drug laws but for laws in general.” This ties in with the first premiss, but can stand alone as its’ own as well. The conclusion would be “Severe laws against marijuana are more dangerous to society than the activity that they are designed to prevent.” This is a conclusion that explains its two premisses and makes an argument against the laws in which are enforced to prevent the use of marijuana. Also, in this case for this particular argument there are no extra superfluous premises. This is mainly because almost all the argument is used for the conclusion and
They believed that the rules of Confucianism were a human creation and didn’t follow nature. My first reason I think Daoism would be helpful for North is because it doesn’t set rules. Although, some may think not having rules would be bad, I think this idea is good because it would filter all those
However, by looking back the history, we can make a responsible conclusion that the liberalization of speech can neither jeopardize the stability, nor undermine the nation. Instead, it helps to evolve nations into new stages where civilians’ free will is protected and democracy is finalized in the mainland of China. Indeed, speech as a way of expressing thoughts and views, when it carries out free thoughts, it also produces chaos. Especially when the conflicts of interest are confronted, people can hardly leverage between personal and public interests. Recalling to the Li Gang incident, a famous case across