In the hard determinist’s judgement, this feeling of freedom is an illusion. (Pereboom, 2009:324). Another argument against hard determinism would be if it were true we could not be accounted for when it comes to our actions, therefore we could do a morally wrong act and if it was determined then we would could not to blame, we did not have the free will to do that act it was determined to be done anyway. Also if we do a morally good act should we be praised for this? Hard determinists would say that it was not our free will that chose us to do this good act we were determined to do it anyway.
The idea of legal paternalism in ethical reasoning is somewhat of a kind gesture from the Government to try to help individuals from themselves in the assumption that those individuals do not know what is best for them. But, forcing individuals to paternalistic laws in order to protect them is limiting their natural born rights and is unconstitutional. The Government must respect people's choices because respecting individuals choices manifest a respect for them as liberated individuals protected by the constitution of the United States. Government should not interfere with people's personal lives; because
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.
All these are exceptions of the exclusionary rule do have good points. I do think that these exceptions should be allowed only if they are used correctly. These exceptions are not fully going against the person’s rights, but they are on the boarder of possible doing so. Even though I am for the exclusionary rule and the Fourth Amendment, these exceptions serve as a purpose and I believe they should be allowed. It may be hard for people to understand, but I believe that these exceptions are not abusing the system or the defendant’s
The argument that supports this idea the most is the fatalism argument - the idea that everything is predetermined before we are born and our actions do not affect this. This theory is referred to as hard determinism If this is true, then the claim that we do not have free will seems fairly convincing. However there are more ways of looking at determinism through soft determinism and libertarianism. Broadly speaking, determinism is the position that every event could not have had another outcome, and therefore any decisions that we make as humans do not impact this ultimate outcome. This clearly is supportive of the title statement as if true, then all outcomes are already decided and therefore our decisions are similarly already decided by some sort of greater power.
In this case I would try to reason with the two of them and refer to the laws that prohibit racism. I would try to rationalize the situation with them and get the to understand the magnitude of what they are dealing with and the consequences of their actions. David and James may have personal issues that cannot be reconciled or rationalized. If that is the case and there truly is no middle ground or compromising then we may need to pick the man with the least impact on the project and swap him out with someone else in the
With reference to Singer’s statement that, “… prevent evil… without sacrificing something of comparable moral significance”, in as much as the act of helping a friend who is suffering in a critical condition is morally good, in contrast, it is morally wrong to rob people at gun point. It would be sacrificing something of comparable moral significance for another. In other words, it is wrong to do a wrong action because of a right one. Singer also emphasizes the fact that you must be in the position to help. I think is a plausible idea since you cannot give what you do not have.
He impugns us to do what is morally right, and to not be afraid to take a stand against injustice. Henry David Thoreau’s position on civil disobedience is neither morally irresponsible nor politically reprehensible. Civil disobedience is technically illegal, and is punishable, but who is ultimately responsible for determining what is right or wrong? Van Dusen strongly believes that defiance of laws go against the democratic nature of our government: “Bit civil disobedience, whatever the ethical rationalization, is still an assault on our
Ethics Awareness Inventory which is where I did my assessment which supports my principles that human beings are entitled to basic rights; consequently, actions have to respect the rights of others. Someone who does not respect other people is not respected person. This person has to treat others the way he would like to be treated. As individuals we suppose to have the right to make our own decision, and if those decisions affect others in a harm way we already know there are consequences for those who attend to break the laws they could have everything in their own way regardless of whom pays the consequence. Those unethical behaviors we could not accept, because that will have affected in us all.
In cases where the primary reason for the offense is related to poverty or mental illness, in my opinion, the primary focus should be rehabilitation, as these offenders are less likely to repeat if they have what they need. Retribution is the one method that I feel really does not have a place in today’s society, if the court feels that the individual is beyond rehabilitation, then it is in societies best interest to protect it from that individual for as long as allowed by law. Deterrence can be a very effective method when trying to curb deviant behavior, but people must know how hard it is to get away with the criminal behavior, and how likely they are to be convicted if arrested, then it can be much more effective than just letting people stumble into the situation then finding out. Ultimately rehabilitation would be the ideal but not everyone can be rehabilitated and these people have to be punished in a way that lets others get the benefits of rehabilitation. References Forer, L. G. (1992).