Unjust laws do exist, but there is a proper way to reform them. This issue is not a straightforward issue. The fairness of any law depends on one's personal value system. This is especially true when it comes to personal freedoms. Consider, for example, the controversial issue of abortion.
Therefore, the general will of the people requires that laws be amended to reflect morality and justice. Only through civil disobedience can this be achieved; blindly obeying unjust laws will only enforce unjustified public opinion. Although some argue that the general will of the people can be accurately portrayed by a government entity without
Thoreau’s purpose is to convince the citizens of America to not follow the majority, but do what is felt to be morally right. Thoreau believes that citizens have the right and responsibility to disobey laws and regulations if they are unjust and not moral. Another one of Thoreau’s main points is that there
For example, if I hold the view that killing is wrong then I cannot be expected to fight in a war as it would undermine my views and conscience. This view is also universally recognised in Libertarianism, so much so that if a doctor is asked to carry out an abortion they are completely entitled to deny it if it goes against their own individual conscience. John Stuart Mill is an influential figure in Libertarianism and argued that the erosion of conscience from state or social pressure is wrong. If we are crushed by the majority then our free will is taken away. For instance, Mill argued that the way the government mislead and mistreated its society in Nazi Germany crushed the dignity and free will and forced them to do certain things that they may have believed to be
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
They believe we as human beings are prone to sin. We have a proclivity to do terrible things or to be tempted to so (p.30, 2008). They believe our freedom or success of government is dependent on virtue. They further added that only moral people would remain free. On those premise it is asserted that religion play an important part in nurturing the virtue needed for a free society.
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.
Controlling Organized Crime Paper CJA/384 * Doing offenses and stopping offenses are actually more a part of culture than we realize. Offense is something that is dependent on people actually believing it and the activities of the people. People often see their activities as god and some see them as bad. There are people who are carrying out there offenses in culture that do not see them as illegal. In this paper you will see where we recognize the issues, specify the legal links, and we will also clarify the arranged offenses through analysis and evaluation the effectiveness.
As James Rachels said, “Cultural Relativism might be true, but it might lead to some consequences, such as no longer being able to say that the customs of other societies are morally inferior to ours, or we could decide whether actions are right or wrong just by consulting the standards of our society and even the idea of moral progress would be called into doubt.” Cultural Relativism has some good advantages; it helps us to keep an open mind about other people´s beliefs. On the other hand, Cultural Relativism is not a good system that should be followed by each culture separately because there are some universal rules that should be followed, for instance no murder. Laws should be created under morality, and they might not be perfect, but they are the best rules that we as humans have. Even though societies still have arguments about their beliefs because it is impossible to have complete peace because of our differences. For example, For the Greeks it was believed that it was wrong to eat the dead, whereas the Callatians believed it was right to eat the dead, or the Eskimos saw nothing wrong with infanticide, whereas Americans believed infanticide is immoral.
The organization needs to consider how its activities will influence others and good results. In the detailed analysis it alludes to organizations who sidestep the law by offering the items independently and later join them to make the item that is illicit, despite the fact that this could be viewed as lawful it is just a terrible good decision. It is ethically wrong to settle on a decision to ensure one gathering of individuals while disregarding the wellbeing of an alternate, which is precisely what happens at the present time