Contracts give obligations to both people in the agreement. Right to anonymity when wrong-doing is being exposed. (Incorrect) The United States Constitution gives us the right to confront those who accuse us of wrong-doing. Many are afraid to come forward because of fears of reprisals or punishment. Balancing the need to expose wrong-doing with the need to protect “whistleblowers” requires wisdom.
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.
I felt Kane’s argument was a bit ineffective since he kept focusing more on Jim Getty (his competition) thus making him look like a bad person. It seemed as if Boss Jim Getty had committed some crime, however Kane did not explain what he had done wrong. I do feel that he made those who were classified in the lower-class happy that someone wanted to do something to help them. However, Kane forgot to mention what his promise to help this class of people would entitle. I believe that without mentioning what you would like to do in order to help people out you leave the audience doubting if your promise will live up to it.
After the examination Socrates concludes that the act of escape would be just and he would be morally unjustified and committing the act. The first argument that Crito presents to Socrates brings up the issue of what the majority think. Crito says, “Many people who do not know you or me very well will believe I might have saved you had I been willing to give money, but that I did not care to do so.” (Grude, Pg 47) Crito’s argument is clearly concerned with his own reputation, especially with what the majority
Locke believes that civil disobedience is justifiable if the government’s legitimate authority is questioned by the people, since he believes that we all consent to leaving the state of nature through a social contract with the Leviathan, a ruler or ruling body, which will ensure safety to all its subjects/citizens. This means that the people need to back the legitimacy of a government’s authority over them. If this doesn’t happen then civil disobedience is acceptable in a lockean ideology. This means that any form of civil disobedience is an show of lack of
In the vigilantism cases, although we could all relate to the frustration involved for the actors, we all agree that one must stay within the bounds of the law to seek out justice. The next discussion involved civil disobedience and we found that we agreed that civil disobedience has been helpful historically to help change the laws and improve our society. However, the general consensus on civil disobedience was also that the acts of disobedience must be done in a peaceful manner for the acts to be effective. The final acts of crimes among professionals had another anonymous decision. Our team found that we did not agree with those professionals who chose to commit crimes.
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.
Whitman wroted that the governments role was to be "... not of an officious intermeddler in the affairs of men, but of a prudent watchman who prevents outrage," that is strengthened by his underlying logic that "... although government can do little positive good to the people, it may do an immense deal of harm." (Whitman) Simply put, if the governemnt has less has to do with meddling in peoples affairs and rights then society will be better off. Also that the role of the government is to act as a protector of smaller groups and individuals from bigger groups so everyone will be happy. The basis of laissez-faire is that the bigger the government factor, being it’s rights and powers, the worse of the country is. William Graham Sumner was another supporter of the laissez-faire idea.
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
This essay will be in an affirmative position in regard to Albert Einstein’s quote “nothing is more destructive of respect for the government and the law of the land than passing laws which cannot be enforced”. This quote means what’s the point in making a law when you can’t make sure that it’s enforced and upheld. Also it is saying that if the law isn’t respected. One of the reasons laws are put in place are to maintain a civil society. Therefore if laws are not respected we will lose a civil society and everything will turn to chaos.