One is that it is too narrow; the other is that it is too broad. This latter view is not often expressed because, as already noted, most people think that free speech should be limited if it does cause illegitimate harm. George Kateb (1996), however, has made an interesting argument that runs as follows. If we want to limit speech because of harm then we will have to ban a lot of political speech. Most of it is useless, a lot of it is offensive, and some of it causes harm because it is deceitful, and because it is aimed at discrediting specific groups.
The second reason for that is that the idea Peacemaking is a philosophy and it is not a viable criminological theory because it cannot be analyze and empirically tested. Martin (2001) opposes that the word ‘theory’ in peacemaking did not do this philosophy any justice in regard to descriptive and applied purposes. The issue with peacemaking as a theory is that the ideas of the peacemaking philosophy has it fundamental background to spiritual revolutions, connectedness, service and empathy for others, awareness, and peace are defined narrowly by academicians. Criminology has been publicized as an unbiased science, a means of accurately measuring crime and ways to deal with crime. Additionally, criminologists find it tremendously repulsive to hypothesize such philosophies as connectedness and spirituality.
Locke’s ideas of enlightenment were influential in the creation of the document. Like Locke’s phrase from Two Treatises on Government, “life, liberty, and property,” Jefferson, however, changed this phrase to “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” This phrase is slightly altered by Jefferson and exemplifies Locke’s belief in natural rights implying an individual’s own rights. Locke also believed that when a government were to become destructive, the people have the right to rebel and abolish it. A government that does not protect these rights becomes a tyranny and is determined to be overthrown. Montesquieu’s and Rousseau’s ideas of enlightenment were also incorporated in the document.
The separation of powers is a way for the branches to not have to much power. For example, according to James Madison, Federalist #47, “Liberty requires that the three great departments of power should be separate and distant.” This means that the branches should not all have the same powers and should be very different from each other and not have to much power over one another. Separation of powers helps guard against tyranny by not allowing the branches to be too close to each other or this could very lead to tyranny. The branches should be close enough to check up on each other and have everything fair but not to close to where we could have tyranny in our government and
Continuing, it could be inferred that Ben Franklin is using Pathos by acting as if he naturally hates the Americans and desires to ruin them. Throughout the letter, Ben Franklin sounds like a patriot of Great Britain by insulting Americans and giving them ideas of what to do to them. Although, as Franklin includes ideas in his letter, he additionally incorporates counterpoints that would make him sound like he is trying to help. For example, Franklin claims that the laws of the conqueror are just; however, it is possible that such laws could be contrary to the laws of mankind, ultimately contradicting what he first claimed. Towards the end of the letter, Ben Franklin includes a paradox by claiming that Britain should massacre the Americans as they can bring in citizens from Britain so there wouldn’t be any rebellious acts.
However, they are not exactly achieving this, in fact is seems that it is beyond the bounds of possibility. Obviously they are already aware of their circumstances, therefore applying an actual veil of ignorance is impossible, and to get anywhere close to what the veil of ignorance calls for they would be obligated to something akin to color-blindness, or race blindness among others to erase the idea of
Any expression, therefore, that impedes on one person or a group of people should be stopped because it has not done anything to benefit anybody. Mill’s statements on the freedom of speech is what I will rely on for my argument. Mill’s view on the freedom of speech is still relevant today because he does not take the view that there shouldn’t be any freedom of speech, but that it should be limited at certain times and this issue is very relevant in today’s society. Mill states a bold statement in the footnote at the beginning of Chapter II of On Liberty, in defence of the freedom of speech ‘If the arguments of the present chapter are of any validity, there ought to exist the fullest liberty of professing and discussing, as a matter of ethical conviction, any doctrine, however immoral it may be considered’. Mill clearly is in the defence of the freedom of speech here because this liberty has to exist with everything so that we have ‘absolute freedom of
Unless of course, this expression is inciting violent or illegal behaviour, or threatening others, in which case it is directly harmful and should therefore be prohibited. I think J.S. Mill would agree with me on these points as he states “the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others.” (Mill, J.S.,1978). Joel Feinberg, who also had very influential views on the Freedom of Speech debate, may respond to Mills view and propose that the Harm Principle is not enough: “In some instances, Feinberg suggests, we also need an offense principle that can act as a guide to public censure. The basic idea is that the harm principle sets the bar too high
Another strong strength is that emphasis is laid on individual’s own experience and viewpoints. Looking at the major weaknesses of existentialism, it can be pointed out that it is based on philosophical concepts that are not practical and are somehow vague. Because of this, it is not empirical in nature, and it is non scientific and hard to confirm with science. Therefore it is problematic to many people as they believe that it is impossible to know how true or how well its works if it is not scientifically proven. I found it appealing when Sartre mentioned that there is “no proof of souls or spirits or ghosts or deities and thus their existence is nothing other than what people make a decision to believe”Pecorino (2000).
However, this is not seen as a solid basis upon which absolute doubt, required by Descartes, can be built. Ironically, his skepticism offers such that I am in a state of doubt, I will also have doubt about the possibility that there could even be a deceiving being. As such, my doubt about the possibility of such a being serves to undermine the greater doubt that is supposed to be generated by this being. In order for the evil demon to generate such a degree of doubt it must be possible for it to exist. However, Descartes does not provide enough proof for his claim of its possibility.