Sandel argues that Democracy attempts to be grounded in this neutral state which allows tolerance of many religious and moral convictions and thus excludes the influences that our individual moral and religious convictions have upon us in political debate. Sandel’s first attacks this way of democracy by claiming the principles of a liberal democracy are moral convictions; freedom, tolerance, and equality are all moral convictions based in Liberalism. Since Liberalism states it respects all values, making no moral judgments, but has principles which are moral values it has created a contradiction within itself and cannot be used as a governing philosophy. He then continues to state that a person cannot separate their moral convictions from themselves in debate and should not. Humans’ personalities and way of life is greatly influenced by our moral convictions so to have discussion about how humans should live together without taking into consideration what shapes us, is not only a mistake, but it is impossible.
In fact attentiveness appeals for reconciliation. As Martin Luther King made an explanation that “Past promises have been broken by the politicians and merchants of Birmingham and now is the time to fulfil the natural right of all people to be treated equal” (Rottenberg, Winchell). Martin Luther King’s response to the clergymen’s declaration is that violating the law is wrong method to approach the consequences of what African American’s considering for. He does not think that they have disrupted the law. As he defines the answer to the clergymen’s is that a law was unethical so does not considers as a law, because the law is made to guard the citizens not to penalize them.
In such document, he says the previous quote addressing the action of fighting a law using one’s conscience. The ideal of contradicting a law due to a conscientious and ethical skew of that law is upholding the highest and upmost respect for the law. Dr. King speaks of breaking a law due to the neglect of conscientious submission because of its unjust and immoral roots. First, one must identify a law as immoral and unjust using the nature of the law and referencing the general moral rules of life. If a law is in direct violation of any moral rule, then action is required.
Augustine defends the god of theism by rejecting the existence of evil as a force or power opposed to god as it would reject the premise that god is omnipotent. Below are the ways in which he justifies moral and natural evil, which respectively mean evil caused by human acts, and evil events caused by the processes of nature. To justify evil, he solves the problem by defining evil as a ‘privation’ – which means when something is ‘evil’, it is not defined to contain bad qualities but is seen to be falling short of perfection, or what it is expected to be. Take a rapist as an example. Adopting Augustine’s idea of ‘evil’, we are to say that he is not living up to standards expected of human beings.
Visualizing an infallible government, free of harm, fault, and malfunction Thoreau was a true transcendentalist. Vindicating nonviolent actions, civil disobedience is bluntly defined as “refusal to obey civil laws in an effort to induce change in governmental policy or legislation”. Martyrs like Mahatma Gandhi and Martin Luther King Jr. also believed and preached their own theories on civil disobedience. Having distinct motives for advocating civil disobedience, Mahatma Gandhi wanted to stop the South African government
Although many people believe that the civil war was only about slavery that is not totally true. The civil war was about many factors and issues that divided the North from the South. The civil war was fought between slave states and free states. For this reason it makes it seem as though it was a slavery war. The civil war created many economic downfalls for both the Union and Confederacy.
Page 386 (7 and 8) 7 As Thoreau discusses his essay on civil disobedience, he discusses several political ideas such as that the government is not really needed in a person's life and that it can change a person. Many people might think that he might be a patriot with his ideas or as traitor. I might self saw Thoreau neither as a patriot or a traitor, because a patriot is a a person who vigorously supports their country and is prepared to defend it against enemies or detractors and a traitor is a a person who vigorously supports their country and is prepared to defend it against enemies or detractors. I would say that Thoreau was more in the middle of this spectrum. He neither loved the government nor betray it.
Judging a Book by its Cover “In Defense of Prejudice”, the author Jonathan Rauch, indicates that it is foolish to believe eradicating racism and other forms of prejudice is possible. The article describes the war on prejudice as the “most uncontroversial social movement in America”. Universities, work places, newsrooms and Capitol Hill have declared anti-discriminatory policies in an attempt to eradicate prejudices. The majority of society believes that the elimination of prejudices will make society fair and safer for the minorities. Jonathan Rauch declares himself as not racist in spite of the fact that he is a strong believer in not eradicating prejudices.
Martin Luther King stated, “A just law is a man-made law of God. An unjust law is a code that is out of harmony with the moral law” (Schaefer, 2011, p. 187). King believed, “that people have the right to disobey unjust laws under certain circumstances” (Schaefer, 2011, p. 187). I agree with King’s beliefs in regards to civil disobedience. If a person feels strongly about something, the only way for things to change, are for people to take a stand.
The legitimacy of the law and the obligation to obey the law are derived directly from the right of every citizen to vote. Denying prisoners the right to vote is to lose an important tool of teaching them democratic values and social responsibility. In fact, the denial of voting rights on the basis of attributing moral indignity is inconsistent with respect for the dignity of each person. Furthermore, denying the right to vote does not meet the requirements of a legitimate punishment, and deprivation of this right does not dissuade criminals from committing a crime or rehabilitates them