Conclusion -> draw together main ideas/arguments An outsider does not fit into society and they will do what they see to be right. Although the legal system is meant to be fair, it is only fair to society. If some one is different society tries to outcast them. More often than not, justice does not reach as far as the outsider. Justice is what is seen to be right and just by society and this means that society is catered for.
Of the remaining criteria we might consider, only sentience―the capacity of a being to experience things like pleasure and pain―is a plausible criterion of moral importance. Singer argues for this in two ways. First, he argues, by example, that the other criteria are bad, because (again) they will exclude people who we think ought not be excluded. For instance, we don't really think that it would be permissible to disregard the well-being of someone who has much lower intelligence than average, so we can't possibly think that intelligence is a suitable criterion for moral consideration. Second, he argues that it is only by virtue of something being sentient that it can be said to have interests at all, so this places sentience in a different category than the other criteria: "The capacity for suffering and enjoying things is a prerequisite for having interests at all, a condition that must be satisfied before we can speak of interests in any meaningful way" (175).
It is about giving equal access and opportunities and getting rid of discrimination and intolerance. 1. 2 Someone could ignore a colleague, because they are discriminating them purposely because they come from a different area, class, culture, religion, or they may not actually have anything to do with them because they feel they have nothing in common with them. Indirect discrimination occurs when policies and practices, which appear neutral or fair because they are applied to everyone, actually disadvantage people and particular groups within society. 1.3 By supporting a person’s equality you are treating them as an equal and including them in all activities, you will be reducing the likelihood of discrimination.
So by forming a delinquent subculture, it becomes a means of achievement through an illegitimate opportunity structure. In terms of evaluation, Miller disagrees with Cohen's approach to explaining delinquency and argues that it is false to assume that all working class delinquents see mainstream values, goals and success as superior and desirable and therefore develop delinquent tendencies due to this and a lack of approved methods of getting to said goals. There is also research carried
Ethnocentrism is the way an individual look at the world from his/her own beliefs in their culture. They feel that their culture, race, or ethnic group is more significant and that their culture is more superior than any other culture of other groups. In feeling this way the individuals will judge other groups, such as their behavior, the language in which they use, religion. How it could be detrimental to society is that it could lead to false speculation about the differences in cultures. It leads to society making premature judgments about other cultures, not knowing all the facts about another culture.
Actions are then just if they sustain or are consonant with such harmony. Such a conception of individual justice is virtue ethical because it ties justice (acting justly) to an internal state of the person rather than to (adherence to) social norms or to good consequences; but Plato's view is also quite radical because it at least initially leaves it an open question whether the just individual refrains from such socially proscribed actions as lying, killing, and stealing. Plato eventually seeks to show that someone with a healthy, harmonious soul wouldn't lie, kill, or steal, but most commentators consider his argument to that effect to be highly deficient. Aristotle is generally regarded as a virtue ethicist par excellence, but his account of justice as a virtue is less purely virtue ethical than Plato's because it anchors individual justice in situational factors that are largely external to the just individual. Situations and communities are just, according to Aristotle, when individuals receive benefits according to their merits, or virtue: those most
If a person believes that political doctrines are void of content, that person will be quite content to see political debates go on, but won’t expect anything useful to come from them. If we consider the other case, that there is a patriotic justification for a political belief, then what? If the belief is that a specific political position is true, then one ought to be intolerant of all other political beliefs, since each political “position” must be held to be false relative to the belief one has. And since each political position holds out the promise of reward for any probability of its fixing social problems, however small, that makes it seem rational to choose it over its alternatives. The trouble, of course, is that the people who have other political doctrines may hold theirs just as strongly, making strength of belief itself invalid as a way to determine the rightness of a political
Cultural Relativism, a term used to describe individual’s beliefs that should be accepted in one’s cultural but also can be denied in society. In James Rachels’ essay, “The Challenge of Cultural Relativism”, she brings up varies examples that contradicts with one society’s beliefs to another society. She uses this term and analyzes it different situations proving that it can be controversial at times since no one should have the same thinking process as another person. For example, if you were to take to civilizations of the past and tell them to trade beliefs. They would find it outrages since it would be unorthodox to their teachings.
William Graham Sumner was another supporter of the laissez-faire idea. Sumner’s writing was a strong example that the government structure should not do anything but create peace. This concept is further backing the idea that government should be remain as small as possible. He writes in Social Classes Owe to Each Other that each social class owes eachother nothing, and that each citizen is entitled to the pursuit of happiness and an equal opportunity in doing so, but not everyone has the right to nor are they entitled to the right. This reflects the laissez-faire argument of what little the government interaction with social classes would
We tend to dumb down the truth because we cannot accept that people are made up of both good and bad. Which seems odd because that sentiment should be something every single human being can relate to. Its evident that Lincoln had prejudices and faults, but that does not and should never demean his political genius as well as the irreplaceable role he