In most cases violence is used in hope of getting attention and media publicity. Peaceful protests has a very distinctive difference from moral force protest; one of the most important ones being that, by violence, these supporters are terrorizing the general public, and trying to get the governing body to recognise their terrorism, and give in to their cause. This type of protest is usually ineffective such as in the
In the vigilantism cases, although we could all relate to the frustration involved for the actors, we all agree that one must stay within the bounds of the law to seek out justice. The next discussion involved civil disobedience and we found that we agreed that civil disobedience has been helpful historically to help change the laws and improve our society. However, the general consensus on civil disobedience was also that the acts of disobedience must be done in a peaceful manner for the acts to be effective. The final acts of crimes among professionals had another anonymous decision. Our team found that we did not agree with those professionals who chose to commit crimes.
With reference to Singer’s statement that, “… prevent evil… without sacrificing something of comparable moral significance”, in as much as the act of helping a friend who is suffering in a critical condition is morally good, in contrast, it is morally wrong to rob people at gun point. It would be sacrificing something of comparable moral significance for another. In other words, it is wrong to do a wrong action because of a right one. Singer also emphasizes the fact that you must be in the position to help. I think is a plausible idea since you cannot give what you do not have.
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.
If we take to violence we will not be able to reach God after we die, unless we repent. Some chief exponents of non-violence are Mahavir Jaina, Gautam Buddha, Ashok and Mahatma Gandhi were the chief exponents of non-violence.Mahavir Jain and his followers were strictly no-violent. They were wearing thin pieces of cloth on their nostrils to filter air to breathe in. Because they feared that worms might get into their bodies and die. Still to this day, the jainas follows the same principle.
Many will agree with this, although almost everyone has participated in the morally wrongness of this situation and many few can be excluded from this act of injustice. Overall, the morals of the common person needs to change. It needs to change to be less selfish and be willing to give without getting. This change will not happen for many people. The amount of narcissism in our society has increased from generation to generation, lessening the amount of self willingness to only give for a non profitable reason.
On the other hand its weakness is that human can affect it in other aspects besides deathless and birth less nature but in definition they do not recognize that. Prominence over human welfare and determinative nature regarding human experience –since both deal with human then they can be combined. The strength is that it when we put our lives according to the sacred we are likely to live a life free of problem associated to ungodliness. On the other hand it is important to perceive the true reality that underlies our religion .If we don’t do so we are likely to suffer and destroy what is already positive about our religion hence suffering. In that case religion will be the dividing factor instead of a bonding factor as it should
In my opinion, the penalties for hate crimes should continue to be more severe than that of a regular crime because so many innocent people are injured and even killed simply because they are different. People should have the right to live in America free of fear that something will happen to them simply because they were not born a certain color, they practice a different religion or that they happen to be
We often consider violence in terms of the aggressor, yet violence can be in a variety of ways even including self-defense. Violence and nonviolence are some argument Therefore, there is some questions that arise out of the argument of violence and nonviolence: “Is violence ever acceptable or nonviolence?” First of all, Comparing Violence and Nonviolence, nonviolence is less bloody. At first, no matter the situation, people never are violent in my opinion. I think of issues such as wars or if someone is trying to kill you or your family. How could someone not do anything?
One of the most important principles un-derlying the conduct of war has to be pro-activeness. This is aptly captured by the following saying by Sun Tzi: "In the conduct of war, one must not rely on the enemy's failure to come, but on one's readiness to engage him; One must not rely on the enemy's failure to attack, but on one's ability to build an in-vincible defence. In war, as appropriately pointed out by Sun Tzi, one cannot rely on the failure of the enemy to attack us. Instead, one must be ever ready to take on the enemy. In addi-tion, the defence must be so strong that the enemy would not even dare to contemplate an attack.