In the article titled “The Folly of Capital Punishment”, Jeffrey Reinam concludes that capital punishment is immoral to our society; and thus, should not be legalized. Reinam reasons the death penalty is unjust, inhuman, and goes against the progress of civilization. Reinam’s primary argument and rebuttal to Ernest Van Den Haags deterrence argument, is that the death penalty goes against the advancement of civilization. Reinam explains that throughout history we take steps to "lower tolerance for one's own pain and that suffered by others". Due to the states high visibility, size, and moral authority, it is capable to have an impact on citizens beyond the immediate act it authorizes.
The democratic system found in the United States is heavily slanted to the majority; their convictions are often implemented in legislation and used as the standard by which things are measured. Henry David Thoreau argues in “Civil Disobedience” that majorities are not right simply by virtue of being the majority. Thoreau clearly favors the individual and his convictions when he claims that “if a plant cannot live according to its nature, it dies; and so a man” (Thoreau). As Thoreau’s claims idealize the individual they also diminish the role of the government. Similar progressions can be found in Antigone, penned by Sophocles centuries earlier.
As Randolph Bourne put it, ‘war is the health of the state’. Emma Goldman saw the state through the symbols of ‘the gun and the handcuff’. The state robs life, liberty and property. Another area of coherence is seen through anti-clericalism. As anarchists see authority as unnecessary and undesirable, religion too (with the exception of some more spiritual beliefs such as millenarianism, Taoism and Buddhism) is opposed to.
He knew that by resigning his command he would prove that the ideals of the Revolutionary War were real, not mere excuses to avoid paying taxes. Many Americans were equally devoted to liberty and law and would have done the same thing in Washington's place. But, fortunately, Washington combined that devotion with ambition and ability to lead America through eight years of war, facing a skeptical Congress and a frustrated army. Direct democracy was very much opposed by the framers of the United States Constitution and some signers of the Declaration of Independence. They saw a danger in majorities forcing their will on minorities.
Acceptance of the gods actions are mainly because of great fear the human civilization feels towards the imperious justice system laid upon them, also justice rules over humans by the realization of authority by power. The gods can behave however they want to because they know the mortals are afraid for their wellbeing. Even though the gods disagree and argue the final say of Zeus seems to over bear most of the situations throughout The Odyssey. Fear and acceptance are two major components to how justice in the odyssey permeates. Works Cited Lawall, Sarah, et alia.
The Disdain of Total Equality Total equality may seem fair and justifiable in the eyes of some people, but in many cases it turns out to be little more than a form of oppression, in which a group of people limit the abilities of others. Throughout the story Vonnegut speaks of this necessity for equality and the means that the government goes to achieve it by using devices called ‘handicaps’; one example of this is George’s earpiece, “A buzzer sounded in George’s head. His thoughts fled in panic, like bandits from a burglar alarm.” Vonnegut’s simile here creates a sort of loud diction, which expresses the sheer discomfort invoked by these restraints on the person wearing them. The governing body in this society views this as the solution to a problem, one that happens to be relatively impossible to solve, this is how Vonnegut incorporates satire into his story. He is poking fun at the age old concept of ‘equality,’ one that has inspired wars and movements alike; he accomplishes this by creating a system to make everyone equal, a system that happens to be just as stupid as the idea of ‘total equality.’ Under this system equality is achieved, but it is at the cost of individual freedom and a society full of stupid people, this in-turn creates the situational irony found in the story.
Questioning authority can have a major effect on society, and can change it for the better. Although it is sometimes easier to just follow convention, the questioning of authority can have powerful repercussions, evident in the Declaration of independence, the Magna Carta and the Women’s Suffrage Movement. The Declaration of Independence shows that our founding fathers were frustrated with the English Monarchy, as the monarchy was unfairly taxing them and housing English troops against their will. The founding fathers could have just waited for the taxes to blow over, but they believed that if they questioned the authority of King George III, it would make the American society stronger and better. The Declaration of Independence showed that
The definition of justice is the quality of being morally right. In our society today we have a fairly good justice system. A group of intelligent people who vote on the laws and make our country a better place. In the play Antigone by Sophocles, Antigone, the main character is punished by her uncle Creon for burying her brother. King Creon lets it be known that Polyneices, Antigone’s brother, the traitor is not to be buried, but his sister Antigone defies the order because of the values she holds.
He was against the Mexican War declared by American Government, as it was unjust to colonize other nations (United States itself was separated from British colonization through revolution). For this misdeed, he was imprisoned for a night. Although the crimes and the length of imprisonment of Thoreau and King were not same, both shared the same motive. Jacobus has pointed out that both Thoreau and King were willing to suffer for their views, especially with punitive laws denying civil rights to all citizens (King, 211). Socrates, a great philosopher in human history, also had followed the same path of breaking unjust laws.
Not only is this right one given to us by our founding fathers but taking them away would be rewriting what this country was founded on. That alone is worth standing up for, but there are other reasons why banning guns would not only hurt America but make it a more dangerous place to be. The idea that a person intending to do bad things must think twice about it due to the fact that the subject may or may not be wielding a fire arm has protected more lives than can be determined and banning guns would just concrete this truth. I think in order to determine what must be done, the people in charge must take into account the best solution for America and not just appeasing a certain party, this being said the right to bear arms as according to the Constitution, must be preserved because it benefits the American people far more than it