Mill believed it was extremely important that an indivduals free will should not be crushed by society. Mill believed indivduality is what it is to be human and anything that takes away your indivuduality is wrong. Mill state in his book On Liberty “Whatever crushes indivduality is despotism.” Despostism is the idea of dictatorship so Mill is saying that anything that stops our indivduality for example religion is controlling us and not allowing us to be free, which is wrong. Althought we are free we must consider others, this means that we can use our freedom however we must make sure we are not spoiling the freedom of others. This is supported by Paul Kurtz who states humans have the right “to satisfy their tastes” but however they shold not “impose their values on others.” For example you may want to murder someone with your free will however if you go ahead and commit the crime you are negatively effecting others in society and this is wrong.
(Solomon, Higgins, 2010:235) Soft determinism maintains that we possess the freedom required for moral responsibility, and that this is compatible with determinism, even though determinism is true a person can still be deserving of blame if they perform a wrongful act. (Pereboom, 2009:308) The immense issue I have with soft determinism is that how can you have free will if everything is determined, this contradicts
For example, if it is morally wrong to lie, then everyone should never lie. Even if the consequences of a lie are great, it must not be done. Kant’s theory is cold and unemotional. However, Kant viewed this as the best way to make ethical decisions. Kant’s view uses a categorical imperative, in which ethics is based upon an absolute, objective, deontologcial theory, in which intentions are more important than consequences.
This principle is basically asserting that fundamental liberties come first over anything concerning justice. Every person is entitled to equal basic liberties that should be exercised. These liberties include: political liberty (right to vote, public office, etc. ), freedom of speech and assembly, the liberty of conscience, freedom of thought, freedom to hold and own property, and freedom from arbitrary or unjust arrests. To allow human beings to be human, meaning the capability of humans to choose what they do and do not do and strive for whatever personal endeavors they aspire for, necessitates that the fundamental liberties be protected and held equal.
Ones holding the conception of freedom as a means for justice would believe this. Libertarianism is the idea that government regulation should be limited or even seize to exist, in the name of innate human freedom. Justifying a situation would ultimately require simply making sure ones liberties are intact and a third party wasn't harmed. This would call for a minimal state where people work for the good of themselves and only
Actually there are two sides in this issue, one of them is the ideals and the literal concepts that they have wished to keep and the other one is the lived fact that exists on the reality. On one hand, the American dream ideals of freedom are: people are equal; all humans have the same rights and no superiority at all. These are the theories that have been figured out to establish a society based on justice and fairness. Being free according to the American Dream is to illuminate any constrains or restrictions. On the political side, everyone is free to reject, to revolute and simply to say no.
The sole thesis of the declaration is the importance of man’s rights. This idea explains the necessity of preserving man’s rights. This country was founded on freedom, therefore, its past, present, and future must encompass a low based on freedom. When it says “imprescriptible rights”, it means that no law or declaration should tarnish or deprive man of the natural rights they have holding liberty, freedom, etc. 2.
He insisted that when government violates individual rights, people may legitimately rebel. Locke believed that human nature is characterized by reason and tolerance. That everyone had natural rights from the moment that they were born. Natural rights were life, liberty, and property. He believed that the government had an obligation to protect the citizens natural rights.
Freedom is a topic which is strongly debated on and is entwined with the ideas of liberalism and other ideologies (Anderson, 2012, What is Liberty, para.1).Freedom can be divided into two sub- sections known as negative freedom and positive freedom (Heywood, 2007; 324). Negative freedom is the exemption from any external influences which include the exemption from any interference (Pettit, 1989:1). Negative freedom thus means the absence of external forces on an individual which results in the individual being able to pursue decisions as he/ she desires. Positive freedom is the possibility where a person can act in such a way to achieve an identifiable goal; this would include personal development, self- realization or even self- mastery (Heywood, 2007; 324). This essay will criticise negative and positive freedom, outlining the concepts of them and their relevance to the concept of democracy.
The property of a citizen should be kept in safety, Hospers says, “libertarians support legislation that protects the property rights of individuals against confiscation, nationalization, eminent domain, robbery, trespass, fraud and misinterpretation, patent and copyright, libel and slander” (Velasquez 677). Citizens within society must sustain the right to live without the fears of property abuses, if these rights are ever crossed capital punishment should be enforces upon the criminal. As a result, the only action the government should take should be the protection of a human’s right to life, liberty, and