The first of these dangers is susceptibility of Americans to extreme individualism, and isolation from the community. Secondly Tocqueville fears that American’s would develop an excessive desire for material things. Moreover, he believes democracy would cause American’s to lose the ability to think for themselves and, instead conform to society. Tocqueville’s final concern of Democracy was that an intense aspiration for total equality would in turn create a society who sacrifices many rights. Tocqueville argues that the only thing which will keep Americans away from these dangers, which would undoubtedly lead to despotism is religion as source of moral education.
Rorty sees democracy as a common search for justice. It is here where they stop seeing eye to eye with one another. Dewey views democracy as not only a political structure, but rather as a mode of associated living. With this being said, it is important to realize that their idea of democracy would not even be relevant if it were not for the views on philosophy. The idea of philosophy can be interpreted in many ways.
Utilitarianism is the ethical theory for all times, when faced with a moral dilemma, utilitarianism identifies the appropriate considerations, but offers no realistic way to gather the necessary information to make the required calculations. Utilitarianism is an effort to provide an answer to the practical question what ought a man to do? It is guidance for government and personal action is based upon the maximization of the good; by government for those within the society, and by individuals. Utilitarian considerations play an important role in emotion regulation. Although the application of utilitarian principles may strengthen majority rule, unfettered democracy can lead to tyranny.
Their basic altitudes towards the democracy and nonviolence conflict with each other. King’s own account of his philosophy of nonviolence indicated the extent to which he was influenced by Thoreau’s theoretical framework for thinking about civil disobedience and political obligation. Thoreau has confidence in democracy and the belief of unifying individuals of the society to realize it. However, Nietzsche overtly objected to democratic politics, with thinking that love, freedom and democracy are all the results of recognizing the right. Although democratic practices were on the way in the capitalist countries, he asserted that democratic politics possessed no advancement.
Out of the ideologies that I compared and contrasted I would have to say that I agree more with Liberalism because of the belief that the most important goals should be individual liberty and equality. I think it is extremely important to set limits and obey boundaries but I also believe that we can and we should achieve that without violating people’s individual rights. Liberalism goes against anarchism in a sense that anarchism believes that there should be no government at all. In the United States, "liberalism" is most often used in the sense of social liberalism, which supports some regulation of business and other economic interventionism which they believe to be in the public interest. Liberalism suggests that government should intervene to “help” but never to “curb freedom.” Liberalism also says that ordinary men and women are entitled to satisfactory lives, but that individual liberties, including the right to prosper from ones efforts, should not be curtailed.
Although all of the previously stated authors make strong arguments in their essays, some of their larger interpretations are flawed. An excessive emphasis on individualism in a society serves merely to bring detrimental effects to the society as a whole; while at the same time, a lack of stress on individualism can have equally damaging effects. Foremost, in order to contextualize individualism in the realm of society, it is pertinent to appositely define individualism. The term ‘individualism’ refers to the virtues of self-reliance and personal independence, in addition to the ability to rely on one’s inner beliefs to discriminate between right and wrong. The genuine definition of individualism, however, is not the issue of debate.
With this being said, society only has the right to restrict behavior on the basis of justice, and not because society deems it to be immoral. Within the Principle of Liberty, Mill also claims that it is not acceptable for society to put restrictions on an individual’s conduct, for reasons that they feel would be in the best interest of that person. The majority only has the right to develop laws that confine the conduct of individuals with the purpose of protecting the basic rights of others; otherwise they would be obstructing that person’s right to individuality. Mill believes that everyone is entitled to certain moral rights that cannot be denied. Every member of society is entitled to rights of security of his person and property, as well as basic liberties such as freedom of opinion and the right to live his life as he so chooses.
The two men have very similar views on the subject of just laws and unjust laws, but each goes about dealing with the problem of injustice differently. "On The Duty of Civil Disobedience" is a writing by Thoreau where he expresses his belief that the less the government does to govern, the better it is. He preferred less involvement from the government, referring to the government as a machine. He felt it was only necessary because the American people needed to feel its presence and hear its din. He believed that his first obligation was not to the government, but to do what he felt was right.
It was introduced in an effort to increase tolerance for a diversity of cultures, race, gender, ideology and alternate lifestyles. Also, political correctness tried to compel everyone to avoid using words and behaviors that discriminated or offended various groups of people. Although, political correctness was founded with good intent, it does more harm than good. The most noticeable example of harm is how political correctness proponents try to please everyone at the same time. It is impossible to try to please two sides of a population at the same time.
This is not a good love when dealing with patriotism. How does turning a blind eye to wrongs or bad decisions the country has made benefit the people of the country now and also in the future? In a democracy such as the one in place in the United States of America, the citizens need to be able to see these flaws and speak their voice so changes can be made. In many cases the opposite also holds true. People feel they are being patriots by protesting everything the government does and find flaws with everything in this country.