Essentially, innocent lives must be in danger in order for war to be the just cause of action. With this in mind, comparative justice takes into account the idea that there may be rights and wrongs on all sides of the conflict, but in order to go to war, the suffering of one side must significantly outweigh the suffering of another (Just War Theory). This principle in particular is problematic in that it allows for gross exploitation in the political system, but more on that later. Politics, however, does play a role in these principles. The idea of competent authority dictates that only those authorities give power by the public may wage war (Just War Theory).
The topic of royal or political authority has long seemed the enemy of civil conversation, giving rise to fierce debate between individuals between whom before might have been peace and amity. While conflict between individuals over their political beliefs is often resolved through recognition of differences of their respective personalities in shaping their personal opinions, the social, economic, and political contexts of both parties are oftentimes less recognized as contributing to the formation of these differences, instead being regarded as belonging to the realm of analysis by pundits and other intellectually interested parties. This view, however, only cements the inevitability of future conflict. Instead of being solely the ideological
For him, politicians certainly are immediately connected with populism, however, he claims they are not truly fundamental. As Barr asserted populism is reflect[ing] the specific combination of appeals, location and linkages that suggests a correction based on enhanced accountability rather than increased participation. More specifically, it is a mass movement led by an outsider or maverick seeking to gain or maintain power by using anti-establishment appeals and plebiscitarian
“Time to Assert” contains several opinion based facts within the argument when describing how to deal with crime. Within “Time to Assert,” it comments, “A case like Michael Fay’s is important because it provides a chance to challenge an inhumane practice that ought not to exist anywhere” (Time to Assert 179). This quote from the editorial illustrates no true factual evidence and supports more of a biased argument that is heavily based on the editors opinions. The editorial implies no evidence that effectively helps with supporting the argument. According to “Time to Assert,” it explains, “The Fay case provides a legitimate opening for American citizens and companies to bring political and economic pressure to bear in the propagation of freedom and basic rights” (Time to Assert 180).
This is a valid tool for a leader to maintain order Machiavelli claims. Force and fear are what keep people in check. Coups and Assassinations are all justified as long as it is in the people’s best interest. “Politics have no relation to morals,” Machiavelli once said. The challenge of being moral in Politics is making difficult
Although, stealing is against the law - he had correct intentions, which he will prove as he defends himself to Hobbes and Locke. Thomas Hobbes removes the foundation of ethics and states that politics determines the common good, unlike his predecessors Plato and Aristotle. He determines that the concept of right or wrong and that society needs a sovereign to establish manner. Hood lives in the civil state where the sovereign has deemed it wrong to steal. This causes Hobbes to believe Hood followed a wrongdoing; disobeying the sovereign.
He thinks that the concept of liberty is, in fact, not compatible with that of peace: peace corresponds to a perpetual research of predominance and so it has to be taken away. In conclusion, having considered both Machiavelli and Hobbes’ analysis and thoughts about the concept of liberty, they can be said to be one the opposite of the other. However, it would be interesting to see what both Machiavelli and Hobbes would argue about the limits that this individual liberty has. As John Stuart Mill states, “The liberty of the individual must be thus far limited; he must not make himself a nuisance to other people. But if he refrains from molesting others in what concerns them, and merely acts according to his own inclination and judgment in things which concern himself, the same reasons which show that opinion should be free, prove also that he should be allowed, without molestation, to carry his opinions into practice at his own cost.” A man could enjoy his liberty of action and expression following his own instincts and appetites as long as it does not affect negatively the liberty of others.
Do we recoil from torture because it treats a person only as a means to an end? It is a principled view that might account for our rational rejection of torture, but Kant’s Categorical Imperative is too much at variance with Anglo-American norms to explain the instinctive revulsion the practice commonly elicits. (As the death penalty illustrates, note that popularity does not contradict abhorrence.) In his paeans to torture, Dershowitz is merely echoing Bentham and, beyond it, the reigning utilitarianism of our time, which, from conditional welfare to advertising, routinely flouts Kantian ethics. And yet, is there a doubt that the wrongness of torture finds its source, not in a holy book or in the final link of a chain of observations, but deep in humanity’s moral intuition?
Antigone Essay When unjust laws exist, it is up to us for to decide if we are satisfied to be under such obedience or if we should either go beyond the bounds of moral principle if we find it to be a justifiable reason. Many, such as Henry David Thoreau, express that we should rather put our priorities in front and break an unjust law for it is the fault of an inequitable government who should provide for reform. If the law is unjust to such an extent, then we should go beyond and disobey that law. The boundaries of law should not be followed if it comes to the point if we wonder if we are treated as humans or subjects.We are loyal to the government, but if the government is not loyal to us, then we should take it as an leeway to break the law. We break the law, knowing that there will be consequences afterwards and that we should willingly accept the discipline, following civil disobedience.
Firstly, the authors are divided over the question whether populism is a threat to democracy. Populism weakens the liberal side of democracy as minority rights are hurt for the sake of mass-politics (Canovan 1999, 7; Mudde 2004, 562). In addition, populists diverge from democratic actors due to their anti-pluralist attitude. More precisely, populists discredit their opponents (Müller 2015, 85; 2014, 487 f). One might argue that democratic politicians also argue against their opponents, but they do not deny the very right to opposition.