According to King, it is impractical because it slows the process of ending the oppression for all, and it is immoral because it seeks humiliate the opponent rather than win his understanding. So, violence destroys community and brotherhood by planting hatred rather than love. The third way based on King is nonviolent resistance. He believes in this way no individual or group need give in to any wrong, nor need anyone resort to violence in order to right a wrong. According to king, this is the method that oppressed people must follow to win against the unjust system while loving the perpetrators of the system.
The gradually declining dialect limits the ideas that individuals have the potential of formulating and expressing, promoting a narrowing of thoughts and awareness to their system of control. It is therefore ideal for a totalitarian system. By the ‘destruction of words’, ‘thought-crime’ is made almost entirely impossible by curtailing frivolous and rioting words. Such narrowed public thought is the inner- party’s aim, as a populace that lacks the ability to think vividly, eliminates the threat of an uprising against the government. This system of communication is therefore used as a mind-control tool.
The dehumanization of another group allows unthinkable crimes to be committed; neither party is benefited by this separation. The Rational Optimist explains the gains of working together while, The Grapes of Wrath and District 9 show us that the dehumanization of others only hinders progress and hurts those involved. This human defense mechanism against the unknown is born from fear and breeds evil. We must turn away from it, reap the benefits of working together, and allow progress to unfold before
Mill would say that if God is omniscient then surely he is aware of our suffering and would therefore intervene in the evil as he loves us all. Yet God still allows our suffering to continue which suggests that God is not powerful (omnipotent) at all and cannot stop us or save us from this evil. Mill also believes that the natural disasters and natural problems within the human body such as curable or incurable cancers and diseases such as motor-neurone disease (causes of the body to shut down slowly) for example show faults in the design. These disaster show poor design but how can an all knowing
It was considered braver to touch an enemy with one’s coup stick then to kill a man, as one could easily kill a man by shooting them with an arrow (or rifle) from far away without any danger to themselves. The Whites on the other hand viewed killing as a necessity, where a dead enemy is a better option. Despite warfare progressing with rifles and horses being widely available to the Indians, fatalities in Indian warfare remained low. The Whites also found the Indian belief of scalping an enemy horrific. The Whites believed that after killing an enemy it was disrespectful and unlucky to touch a dead enemy.
Allowing a human life to intentionally be ended disregards the sacredness of human life and has no direct difference to murder despite the intentions to prevent pain. Furthermore, euthanasia would become the first step of a slippery slope whereby value of human life will be depreciated and reduced to economical and personal convenience. However, these farfetched consequences cannot surpass the empathetic argument of mercy on the patient whereby quality of life overrides quantity. The most convincing argument that renders the killing of terminally ill morally permissible is the understanding that all humans possess autonomy. John Stuart Mill argues in (On Liberty (1859), ‘The only part of the conduct of anyone, for which a citizen is amenable to society, is that which concerns others.
These are two ideas that turned to war and could have been solved without force. These wars are unnecessary and need to be prevented and or stopped to make the world a better place and it would also make peace again. Peace is the thing we need to shoot for but many need to understand the reason why. Then again these wars are unwinnable because a conclusion will not be reached no matter how hard we try. The only way we can stop it is by being smart about our future decisions and hope to god that whatever decisions get made don’t ruin our country’s fate
Utilitarianism Would you authorise someone to be tortured to save innocent lives? Deontologist would argue that you should never torture anyone because this is wrong in every situation. For deontologists the act is most important and not the consequences as the end never justifies the means. I agree with the telegocial approach which believes that whether the something is right or wrong depends on the consequences. I would agree that you can torture someone as the consequence is to save innocent lives which is good.
All the evidence is there and it proves why this tale is one of caution. The story warns the reader that if you were mean and greedy, no one would like you. Also, the book shows how a man like Scrooge would not leave a positive impact on the world. One of the biggest fears in life is to die alone without leaving some sort of positive impact on the earth, or at the very least in one persons life. People should take caution in these facts, so that they can live their lives happily and not obtain the same unfortunate fate as
The concept is for the church to stay out of the state’s business and opponents are clearly crossing the line. They would not appreciate if the government came in to their church and tell him how to operate so they should mind their own business and stay out of the government’s business. Self-determination without compromise is a civil right. People should be able to choose a good death after they’ve lived a good life. It is the right of a terminally ill person to end excruciating pain.