King makes it clear that there are specific circumstances that advocate towards civil disobedience. Keeping this in mind, it is essential that citizens are given the opportunity to be involved in legal matters, such as laws and defying the law in an effort to improve the state. However, in the event that civil disobedience is necessary King emphasizes that citizens must comprehend the difference between just and unjust laws, as well as partake in disobedience through civil means. On the other hand, Socrates believes no laws that are worth breaking. His reasonings support his overall idea that an unjust law or act, does not defend retaliating through unjustly means.
According to Galen Strawson, moral responsibility to punish some of us with eternal torment (hell) and rewards others with eternal bliss (heaven). I am going to argue that we cannot be morally responsible for our actions which is also Strawson’s argument. He has a basic argument that claims you perform the action that you perform because of the way you are, in particular mental respects. To be truly morally responsible for your action, you must be truly morally responsible for your character, personality, and motivational structure or in other words, who you are. We are born with determined predispositions that we are not responsible for and we are exposed to certain influences that we are not responsible for.
They appear too restrictive in terms of the theme of isolation. Considerable evidence, however suggests the probability that politics was a motivating factor in the genesis of the novel. The theme but also to the tight construction McCullers claimed and reviewers have so often questioned in that the parable is a key not to broader implications. The situation and setting and dramatized through character and action in the thematic patterns are delineated. The parable’s theme is an affirmation of the democratic process, but its implications are the universal problems of illusion versus reality and the nature of man himself.
According to the story, the human understanding of justice is that it revolves around the actions assumed by the law rather than the actual outcomes. The idea of justice constructed upon the process accepted is based on the simple fact that it ensures that all the pertinent issues are addressed. Additionally, if the process is not followed correctly, it’ll become too complex to explain to the accuser how an action done good to them will now make up for an action done wrong to them before. This idea should be applied in today’s culture because the public is accountable for serving justice and it is obligated to follow the correct process in doing so appropriately. Much of the Assyrian law concept of justice is comparable to the Babylonian law because both had many very harsh punishments.
Judge Danforth, on the other hand, uses his authority in a slightly different way to influence the trials. Danforth believes highly in the law and doing what is right. He does not show mercy for he feels that would be weakness upon his name. This mindset allowed Danforth
- Detail the distinction between just and unjust laws. Why is it important Dr. King make this distinction? - One has a legal and moral responsibility to obey “just” laws because they are a “ man-made code that squares with the moral law or the law of God.” Any “just” law uplifts human personality. One has a moral responsibility to disobey “unjust” laws because they are “ a code that is out of harmony with the moral law.” Any “unjust” law degrades human
The author’s antithesis embedded in the anaphora, “injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere,” illustrates how crucial it is to battle injustice so that justice is not harmed (King). King does not want to threaten the justices in the nation through his protests, but rather the injustices in the nation. The general truth in the aphorism effects ethos by stating that the people’s justices will be endangered if injustices are not dealt with soon. The antithesis in the statement highlights that, while there are reasonable laws, there are also unreasonable laws that must be confronted in order to keep the nation in peace. Inequality is not felt by just those who are subjugated.
When creating a law, we must consider ethics. Laws should be based on what we believe to be right and just; this concept, of course, seems to be very ambiguous—this is because the concept is very ambiguous. Although, at first glance, one may believe the concept to be straightforward, it becomes clear, in cases such as that of Swiss Chem TU, that the application of the concept is largely dependent on an individual’s interpretation of the notion. As a result of these ambiguities, two moral theories arise: the consequentialist moral theory, and the categorical moral theory.
Antigone, the character, imitates the struggle between what she deems to be morally upstanding and what the law actually says is equitable. On the other hand, Kreon represents the opposing side because he views the rules of government and power as the ultimate advisor in life’s unraveling. Though Antigone is ultimately hindered, she decided what was truly just rather
The ongoing issue of unethical practices in justice professions can be very unidentifiable if a person does not know what to look for. To be an ethical person it is essential to understand what it means to be ethical to oneself. A person with good ethics is someone who portrays a strong moral character, with the ability to determine the difference between good and evil duties. Duties refers to the actions a person takes in order to be considered a commendable act (Pollock, 2015). Back to the example of Lewis Kearney, instead of the security guard arresting him and exercising his professional duty, the guard could have used his knowledge to set Kearney up with a help program.
Although it can be seen as a reasonable theory to implement in times of controversy, there are a few issues that still arise from this theory. Some weaknesses include inconsistency, and lack of substantiation, but one of the biggest flaws of living constitutionalism as argued by originalists, is that judges are given too much power, and belittle the power of the legislature and the American people. The main question that arises is how does the public know that judges are the best representatives to comprehend the nations fundamental values? Judges are granted the responsibility to alter the meaning of the constitution based on their own personal motives and beliefs, and they have powers that are far beyond those of legislators, who were structured to ensure representation of the American people. Congress and judges come from different environments, and different motives.