In the philosophical view of determinism with respect to free will, it focuses more on the circumstances surrounding the agent instead of just the individual agent. A strength to determinism is that there is a cause for everything, therefore nothing is left to chance and that there is always a reason to be traced back to. On the other hand, the same theory states that agents are not responsible for their own actions because previous events dictated their behavior, and that is considered by many to be a weakness of determinism. Critics of determinism claim that having a universal view of determinism will lead to moral irresponsibility and moral decay (Nichols and Knobe 664). Compatibilism, also referred to as soft determinism, is “the view that all events, including human actions, are caused.
Misdemeanor is Felony is a crime typically one involving violence regarded as more serious than a misdemeanor, and usually punishable by imprisonment for more than one year or by death a no indictable offense, regarded in the US as less serious than a felony usually punishable upon conviction by a small fine or by a short term of imprisonment. While civil is the system of law concerned with private relations between members of a community. Civil laws usually have to do with disputes between private parties and government not covered by criminal law usually lead to the award of money or fine. This Civil and criminal laws impact use by controlling our behaviors. They control us because they put fear in some people’s heart which might stop them from committing a crime.
Now that you have identified it, what do you need to add to your own argument to convince your audience that this alternate position should be rejected in favor of your own position? The position that may cause my audience to think twice is that hands free devices are the answer to distracted driving. However I would remind them that anything that takes our undivided attention off the road is equally as bad as holding the phone in our hands. 12) Can you think of anything else that your audience might need in order to be persuaded by your argument? No because I believe that I covered all my bases in the
Thoreau wrote the Essay on Civil Disobedience, in which he addressed the question, “when do larger moral imperatives justify violating a law supported by the majority”. His response was that when a law “… is of such a nature that it requires you to be the agent of injustice to another, then, I say, break the law’’. This follows from basic English Common Law, in which you can do something as long as it doesn’t hurt someone else. Thoreau’s philosophy is that you disobey a command (law) when it is hurting someone else. Another area of his thinking is that government is symbolic of a ‘machine’, and man should commit non-violent disobedience to ‘gain access to the machine’.
Whose expert witness would you prefer to be and why? In this particular case the witness should accept the attorneys offer. It is the right decision with out question. The inventor is reclusive meaning he is withdrawn or secluded from the outside meaning this is his invention, his ideas, his hard work, and his case. He has the right to do whatever he pleases with his own invention, he is not under any circumstances to sell it to savvy investors.
So, to sum up freedom most pertains/explains in to the person or people itself. Independence, on the other hand, means a freedom with rules and regulations it pertains for the country. It is being free but always entails .great responsibilities. You’ll need to think twice for every action you want to do unlike in freedom you yourself will create your own limitations and just do what you want. Independence means standing by your own without depending onto others, you must be on yourself and should not rely to someone’s decision, support/influence.
Superson’s goal is to defeat the skeptic and does not believe self-interest is sufficient enough to do so. I understand the approach Superson is making about self-interest but I don’t think she is looking at all aspects of the topic. I think people will always act in self-interested ways regardless of the circumstances; people act according to their dispositions, not by force, unless they are being coerced of course. It is human nature to instinctively maximize our personal utility. We act in ways that we see fit, whether or not an act is considered moral is completely dependent upon the individual.
Hobbs believed that if man had complete freedom it would result in chaos. This perception of the original state of nature is what would exist if there were no ruling power to execute and enforce the laws to restrain and individual’s fears and desires. The “Hobbesian Trap” can be seen throughout society today. For example, the nuclear arms race is run by each country’s fear of another even though no threat has been made. This is essentially what Hobbes believes what happens at the human level and that this fear would justify chaos if there are no laws and regulations on freedoms.
In November 2011 there will be a vote on a bill that will double the prison sentence of anyone convicted of committing armed robbery, in the state of California. The goal of the bill supporters is that the increased in penalties will deter a person from committing armed robbery. California Senator Tony Strickland is aware of the popularity of this bill, but has asked me for my recommendation on whether or not the measure will have an honest deterrent effect on the rate of armed robbery. In order for me to make a decision on whether or not doubling the maximum prison term will have any effect on deterring persons from committing armed robbery, I decided first to research what compels a person to commit armed robbery, and then to research the recidivism rate in the state of California. There are three social structure theories that one could examine that would give you a better understanding as to why people commit armed robbery or any crime they are: * The Social Disorganization Theory- The social disorganization theory suggests that because social change, social
In the constitution we are told to keep the government and its power at a minimum. As a nation if we feel that the government is taking too many liberties or creating unjust laws we have the right as the citizens to challenge it and if the case, end it. Nowadays it isn’t uncommon to see the citizens of America wanting the government to do everything for them and by doing this many other followers being thinking the same way. This alone begins a movement that threatens our rights. By voting and being active within our government we can continue limiting the power to our advantage and by involving those who don’t; we can begin creating more citizens that help create a better nation.