Like the Puritans, he planned to combat natural inclinations by building a life of strong moral preservation. While Franklin did not have as devoted a belief in God as the Puritans, he did believe in God and believed in the importance of good deeds and services. He also believed that all crimes were punishable, like the Puritans, who believed that God gave punishments to all wrongs. Franklin listed out virtues and sought to accomplish each in a specific order. His notion of virtues differed, however, from the Puritans who believed that being close to God was most virtuous and focused on reading scripture and prayers instead of being good citizens.
Why Police Officers Shouldn’t be Allowed to Carry Firearms By Sai Avuthu Police officers are law enforcers who are employed by the government. Their whole purpose is to ensure a crime free society and bring justice to criminals who disobey the law. Essentially, they represent peace. However, carrying firearms, weapons of killing and destruction, is the exact opposite of peace. Although police officers stand for peace, there are many countries where people view police not as the hero but as the villain.
Nonviolence, civil disobedience, is justifiable because it obligates individuals to promote justice, equality, and solutions by them refusing to obey laws or/and policies that are unjust. Historically, civil disobedience has been used as one of the most outstanding examples in the 1950s to promote justice for “colored-people”. The Civil-Rights Movement led by Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. engaged acts of nonviolence to protest segregation and justice. Peaceful marches, boycotts, and sit-ins were performed by colored individuals that pursued equal rights in the United States. They wanted the same rights as a white person; the right to vote, the right to attend school, and the right to sit on the front seats of public buses.
For example because it is seen as absolutist, it provides a firm moral foundation of rules and clear guidance. Although this is the case for the primary precepts, the secondary precepts are flexible enough accommodate for different people and different situations. The primary precepts can be interpreted to fit in with the time and practices. The natural law is based on our innate ability to reason and it is believed we all have the same ideas of morality within us (out conscience). This means that natural law offers a universal moral code that is for the best of the whole society that can be accessed by everyone.
Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. stated that there is such a thing as a “just law, and unjust law”. I side with Dr. King on the definitions of a just law, a law that agrees with the laws that our god has given us, and an unjust law, which is a law that can be enforced my one group of people on a minority but not have to follow themselves. This brings about a lot of questions on what laws are just or unjust, how should we as people respond to unjust laws, should we as people be able to disobey laws that we deem unjust, and If we do disobey these laws should we accept the punishments that come with breaking such laws. The answers to these questions may differ from person to person, because many people have different moral codes in which their interpretations may conflict many others. There have also been many examples throughout the world of just and unjust laws being enforced on many unhappy citizens.
He believed it was “a crime for anyone who is being brutalized to continue to accept that brutality without doing something to defend himself.” This corresponds with the second amendment in the United States Constitution: the right of individuals to keep and bear arms. Therefore, when someone is in an hostile environment, he or she can use violence a gun to defend or protect others. Also,“when the laws fails to protect Negroes from whites’ attack, then those Negroes should use arms, if necessary, to defend themselves.” During the 1960s, there were countless of Sibley 2 African American’s getting persecuted and lynched just because of their skin color. Nonviolence would not protect anyone when a member of the KKK, or other extreme racists, would come toward someone with murderous and homicidal
However it ma not always be best o use our conscience as our moral guide. As if we do use our conscience, the how can people be committed for crimes, as they believed it was right Butler was a christian theologian and philosopher who believed that the conscience was a God given ability to reason. Due to the fact that they were both christians St Paul and Butler agreed on many of their ideas. Butler thought that the conscience should be seen as a judge within everybody, a judge that makes moral decisions for us, he suggests that as it is within all of us and appears to have a higher authority we therefore must listen to it, and take on board the decision in which our conscience makes. One of the main weaknesses is the idea that not everyone can have the
King always paid tribute to Gandhi as one of the most important sources of his own values, while Gandhi used Thoreau’s thoughts in developing “Satyagraha” which is a term that Gandhi used to describe his policy of nonviolent resistance. Gandhi states, “Shower what suffering you like upon us, we will calmly endure all and not hurt a hair on your body” “We will gladly die and will not so much a touch you.” (“On Civil Disobedience”) Gandhi was very inspired and it taught him not to give up
Martin Luther King Jr. states “Oppressed People cannot remain oppressed forever.” (Cahn, 2009 p. 387) As we have seen throughout history, this is a true statement. Oppression is not something that sits well with any type of person that is under the oppression. To resist the oppression, one must carefully chose those laws that they fill are unjust and oppresses them, and once they are chosen then one can make a stand against the oppression. Oppression is unjust law that limits the power of the people that are oppressed into feeling powerless. The United States fought of the oppression over the colonies in the late 1700’s by first peacefully protesting the unjust taxes waged against them.
For example, Jerome Skolnick and James fyre define police brutality as a conscious and delibrate action that a police officer undertakes toward suspects who are usally members of a powerless social group for example racial minorities or homosexuals. When police officers receive free drinks, meals and other gratuties, because they are police officers, whether intentionally or unintentionally, they convoy an image of corruption this is their authority just because they are police it doesn’t mean they can have stuff for free its basically people trying to bribe the police so that don’t arrest that person or gives them a quick eye on stuff. There is three distinct catagories for direct criminal activities known as, grass eaters, meat eaters and birds. Grass eaters are characterized as people who may accept bribes or given, but do not ask for them. Secondly, meat eaters, is when officers know of crimes being commited but do not penalize the indiviual as long as they make a cut from the funds.