This relates back to the experiment, because the participants obeyed even though they knew it was not right to shock the learners, and King probably would have encouraged the participants to stop. Moreover, King strongly disagrees that the government should have the authority to guide people when there are many wrongdoings in the governmental system. His ideal social relations are far from dependent on obedience because he believes everyone to be equal. Also, he knows that total obedience often lead to tragedies like the segregation and racism that African-American are suffering from. Milgram’s conclusion really advocates King’s belief, because the surprising conclusion of obedience to authority is what King does not believe to be the way of social relations.
He argued that they lack the power to act so they are weak. According to Hamilton (1788), they possess “merely judgment; and must ultimately depend upon the aid of the executive arm even for the efficacy of its judgments” (p.256). Hamilton (1788) pointed out that the court may sometimes be biased but, “the general liberty of the people can never be endangered from that quarter” (p. 256). In respect to the interpretation of the law, Hamilton (1788) believed that the constitution is “a fundamental law…” (p.257) and, “if there be an irreconcilable variance between the two, the constitution ought to be preferred to the statute, the intention of the people to the intention of their agents” (p.257). He is indirectly saying; court’s rulings give back power to the people.
G.E Moore argued against Ethical Naturalism as he believed that defining concepts such as ‘good’ are impossible and any attempt to define ‘good’ is to commit The Naturalistic Fallacy. The Naturalistic Fallacy is one of the main criticisms of Ethical Naturalism and would therefore suggest that ethical language is not very meaningful as it cannot be correctly defined. Moore believed there are moral properties, so ethical language is not completely devoid of meaning but it is limited as ‘good’ is a non-natural property which cannot be defined. Moore disagreed that ethical language could prove whether something is moral or
It does not settle the west. It does not educate.” Thoreau also uses powerful imagery in order to persuade his readers towards his ideals. He believed that one must be conscious of the laws they choose to obey and disobey, whether or not they are in the minority. The people should not be tricked into believing that neither the government nor the majority will know what is right and what is wrong. Instead, Thoreau remarks that it is up to every man to decide for himself what is right based on his moral standards and ethics.
It is not thought that adherence to original meaning is one alternative among many, a choice that might be made or that might not. (Whittington, 2008). It is dangerous to leave to the judges the authority to interpret the constitution in a way that cannot be free of subjectivity. Indeed, if the judge has his sole conscious to indicate the objective interpretation of a piece of original law, America will be subjugated under a regimen of contradictory interpretations. “Judges should not feel free to pour their own political values and ideals into the constitution” ( Whittington,2008, p162).
“Relativist ethics are unfair.” Discuss. Relativist Ethics are not unfair in today’s society, as they change depending on the situations and are subjective, dealing with smaller details of actions. In the modern day, situations all have factors that can give them good or bad motives. For example, the subject of abortions differs depending on the person. Some may say that it should be allowed because it allows rape victims to abort an unwanted child.
Alexander Hamilton once stated, "Why has government been instituted at all? Because the passions of men will not conform to the dictates of reason and justice, without constraint." By saying this, Hamilton meant a government is required because people cannot make decisions based upon their instincts. The voice and thoughts of one are too irresponsible or unreasonable to make decisions. Mankind needs laws and obligations to live by, not only to keep peace but to protect ourselves from our basic nature.
In conclusion, people should express their own personality and style without, being forced to convert to a new country’s national culture. Forcing an immigrant to change culture, language, and religion is against the 1st amendment and should not be broken based on our founding father’s laws. Forcing a non-resident to adapt to a new country is morally wrong and should not be allowed. Being an immigrant, this will be extremely hard on being unique. Even if someone is less fortunate and was born in a third world country, it doesn't make it any better if you force them to learn your culture and
Henry David Thoreau believed the government to be an unjust institution; he believed people should first do what they think is right, and not abide by the laws of the government. This meant at all cost Henry would not follow the laws formatted into the constitution,
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