Locke also gives a justification for the state, for one a state would give a firm, clearly understood interpretation of natural law, unbiased judges to resolve disputes, and it would resolve the problem that personal recourse to solving problems is unjust. Whilst it is usually thought that Locke’s justification for the state is less
‘Our ethical decisions are merely the result of our social conditioning’. Discuss. The base of our ethical decisions can only be described as a mystery to a non-philosopher, but debates have taken place between many philosophers determining whether our decisions are due to having free will, or if everything we do is pre-determined anyway. Libertarianism is the view that human agents can, when faced with a moral choice, freely act and retain moral responsibility for that act. However determinism take an opposite view to this; hard determinism is the theory that everything in the universe, including all human actions and choices has a cause which proceeds it.
It is necessary for it to be elastic. While the clause may allow, perhaps, small, technical violations of the principles of the Revolution, it is for the greater good of the Union. The clause essentially establishes that the pursuit of harmony between order and liberty is not unconstitutional. Staying completely true to Republican ideals is impossible, and will only cause greater problems, like complete anarchy. The means justify virtuous ends.
I support John Locke because he expressed the radical view that government is morally obliged to serve people, namely by protecting life, liberty, and property. He explained the principle of checks and balances to limit government power. He favored representative government and a rule of law. He denounced tyranny. He insisted that when government violates individual rights, people may legitimately rebel.
If determinism is true, then we don’t have free will. Discuss. It can be argued that if determinism is true, then we do not have free will. However, this argument really depends on which stream of determinism is being referred to. The argument that supports this idea the most is the fatalism argument - the idea that everything is predetermined before we are born and our actions do not affect this.
Mill believed it was extremely important that an indivduals free will should not be crushed by society. Mill believed indivduality is what it is to be human and anything that takes away your indivuduality is wrong. Mill state in his book On Liberty “Whatever crushes indivduality is despotism.” Despostism is the idea of dictatorship so Mill is saying that anything that stops our indivduality for example religion is controlling us and not allowing us to be free, which is wrong. Althought we are free we must consider others, this means that we can use our freedom however we must make sure we are not spoiling the freedom of others. This is supported by Paul Kurtz who states humans have the right “to satisfy their tastes” but however they shold not “impose their values on others.” For example you may want to murder someone with your free will however if you go ahead and commit the crime you are negatively effecting others in society and this is wrong.
'Only Hard Determinism is justifiable' Discuss. Determinism is the idea that all actions are governed by laws outside of one’s control. Some philosophers believer that one’s ability to make free choices is an illusion whereas, others state that there is something else beyond understanding that may cause one’s actions to be determined. There are a variety of theories which are response to dealing with debate about free will and determinism. Hard determinism is the theory that human behaviour and actions are wholly determined by external factors, and therefore humans do not have genuine free will or ethical accountability.
One of the most important dilemmas in front of the United States is the interpretation of the federal constitution by Supreme Court. The debate on the constitution interpretation is between the originalism and living constitution. The viewpoint of originalism is that the constitution had an original sense and that its texts should be understood with the meaning from which they were written, and the understanding of the constitution does not change with the times. The viewpoint of living constitution is that the constitution understands changes and each generation can interpret it to adaption to the society problem. I agree with the originalism way of thinking because, the constitution is a basic document that needs to be used as a guideline.
This essay will argue that while individual rights are important in liberal democracies, they cannot override the need for national security, as without it the liberal democracies themselves would be unable to exist. This will be shown by looking at arguments both for and against the relevance of individual rights when compared to national security. The theories of important liberal thinkers such as Nozick, Dewey, and Mill will be examined in the context of the modern world and shown to be ill equipped to account for modern security threats. The fundamental importance of individual rights to a liberal democracy will also be examined with arguments for and against. These arguments will focus largely on the United States of America, as it has been pivotal to the importance of national security in the modern world.
As such, the law is entitled to create laws that protect the society even if it means infringing on an individual freedom to make his or her own decisions. Hart on the other hand, argued that people’s right to freedom, to act as they deem fit, should be upheld and the only justification for infringing on that right is when the behaviour causes harm to others. This paper argues that an individual’s freedom of choice, to act as