Confucianism doesn’t believe in punishments, instead it they believed that the sense of shame will turn any man over to the good side, people are naturally good, and that leaders should lead by example. Well on the other hand Legalism is the exact opposite, believing that only through strict punishments and laws that people can be in order, people are naturally bad, and a ruler should be firm and use punishments and rewards to govern the people. Confucius would evaluate the nature of zero tolerance policies to be bad/disagree/legalist as it believes that humans must be controlled by strict laws and punishments and that people are naturally bad. But Han Fei would evaluate it as good as the strict laws and punishments, are much like to his form of Legalism, but he might want to add rewards into the policy. Confucius would disagree with Zero Tolerance policies as he dislikes punishments, believe that people are naturally good, leaders should lead by example, and instead of actual punishment, make them feel ashamed.
Mahatma Gandhi used civil disobedience because he knew that it was the only way that the Indian communities would be able to fight the laws of the Great Britain government. Gandhi called his method of civil disobedience, “Satyagrahis”. Gandhi stated that Satyagrahis was a peaceful form of civil disobedience and that any form of violence was prohibited, even if the government of Great Britain brought violence upon them. Gandhi also felt that if somebody were to join the Satyagrahis movement, they would have to know the consequences and must be willing to pay for their actions. After some time passed since the movement began, many people who were part of the movement were put in jail.
Machiavelli understood that obtaining such a government could not be done without separating political morality and personal morality. The Prince became this ideology of a totalitarian government that rules and acts immorally. As opposed to all previous political writings, the predominant view of Machiavelli is that the ends justify the means. Good and evil become relative to the state system, not absolute concepts that the state needed to adhere to. Efficiency took the place of good.
Is it possible to rule the state without the use of violence? Max Weber believed that if violence is justified, then it is possible to use it. He defined state in terms of violence, but emphasized on the fact that violence is not necessarily, but rather an extreme measure. However, Gandhi suggested that state should not use violence in any form, and promoted Satyagraha. He used this idea to present a non-violent resistance against the British colonization and for Indian independence movement.
Locke stands firm in the belief that people can incite a revolution against their government when it begins to work against what is in the best interest of the populace (Locke, p. 112). He places limits on these actions - such as what a conqueror is entitled to and what would justify as tyrannical behavior - but still justifies the right to instigate a shift political power. On the other hand, Hobbes finds private discourse against one’s sovereign to a disease (p. 197). He finds contempt in the populace under the sovereign, noting that most of were incapable of understanding the inner mechanisms powering the sovereign (p. 207). By deeming the collective population incompetent and likening their anti-governmental chatter to a plague, it is not a reach to assume Hobbes would not prescribe a right to revolution.
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.
A man has an obligation to act according to the commands of his conscience, even if it goes against majority opinion, the reigning leadership, or the laws of society. In cases where the government supports unjust laws Thoreau's idea of service to one's country ironically takes the form of resistance against it. Resistance is the highest form of patriotism because it demonstrates a desire not to overthrow government but to build a better one in the long term. Thoreau just wants to eliminate the ideas that make it a bad government not the entire government itself. Thoreau then talks about the issue of change through democratic ways.
He believes that the citizens have the right to rebel against the government if they feel that they are falling into a tyrannical situation or if their rights are not being secured. In his piece he states, “ Men will be able to have a government that does not govern at all.” This makes the reader really question the importance of the government and whether it is really as organized as everyone makes it seem. To support the fact that men could govern themselves Thoreau makes clear that the government does not take care of the duties that citizens accredit them for. Those duties are: keeping the country free, settling the West, and educating. Thoreau believes that the citizens should be involved in the government’s decisions because they pertain to them.
The purpose of the march was to express their discord in a civilized manner. If someone isn’t allowed to express their grievances in a civilized manner King explains that “they will seek expression through violence; this is not a threat but a fact of history”. Sometimes King is very
Both the text 1984 and the film V for Vendetta are satires that criticize humanity, society, and individual thought. Orwell and Brothers both make an effort to criticize each of their government’s practice of manipulation. For example, “Ignorance is Strength” sheds light on the oxymoronic messages the government expresses that manipulate their people. It shows that the government wants people to be ignorant and not to second think their actions or what is being fed to their minds, particularly. Thereby, it makes the government superior and in control of what people know about itself, its affairs, and even what they know about themselves.