I think that Utilitarians favor exploring the alternatives because doing something to someone, even a criminal, who has committed a heinous crime, morally wrong, and two wrongs do not make a right, it is setting the wrong view for society. I do not agree with not punishing people who do wrong things. I feel that no matter how big the crime or infraction is, there must be punishment, if not then society will keep breaking the rules, and then we would live in an unsafe world, we would not have a sound mind, and be able to function,
Therefore, this is the direct result of the negative mentality and the unwillingness to acknowledge that he was not liable guilty, the corrupt justice system would not be resolved. It is apparent that although the reader may think that the human nature would want righteousness or and kindness, it goes to show how people allow themselves to be manipulated and lose their self control so
The situations the individuals were put in during this are contrary to the current situations that individuals are put in.The whole reasoning of America’s history being bloody as circumstantial to the violent behaviour of today 's individuals, becomes therefore inconsequential. On the other hand the discussion on freedom and its limits could, according to many, be dangerous, because we could evoke a so called ‘slippery slope’, meaning that a relatively small first step could lead to a chain of related events
A stain in one’s name is a serious dishonor. Rumors, as well as wrongful actions, affect how the world sees us and how we see the world. Thus human beings are victims of their own reputation. To avoid this, one tends to use pride as a shield. However, instead of protecting us, pride hurts us even more by impeding us from solving our issues.
On the one hand, I think lying is not always the answer; I personally avoid telling a lie because if you are going to lie you have to be carefully thinking about the consequences that those bring. I know that big lies can be a problem. For example, hiding your relationship with someone saying that you are single when you are not. That would bring so many consequences for yourself and for others too. That is why it is better to not tell big lies because that would affect you and other people negatively.
Those opposed to utilitarianism proposes restitution for crime victims and therapies for criminals. From the apparent inefficiency of the utilitarian approach to fighting crime, its critics assert that it is based on false beliefs (Hooker, 2011). They claim utilitarianism-based punishment is not only useless but also unjustifiable and cannot be
Rather than being misjudged, opposers contend that outsiders are merely misunderstood. However, there is one major issue with this idea: misunderstandings actually lead to misjudgments. For example, a person’s actions could have the purest intent, but the actions are misunderstood, or taken the wrong way. Based on that, someone else will make false conclusions about that person. Depending on how those actions are interpreted, that person could be rejected, causing them to feel like an outsider.
If people have no place to voice their will or take part in deciding their own destiny, the community might grow disinterested and passive in their relationship with their government. Mill believes this is problematic for society because history, as he sees it, has shown that more democratic societies have more ‘energetic, and ‘developed’ societies as well as more ‘go ahead characters’ not seen in more totalitarian societies. Yet, this criticism might fail to cover a deeper problem of disinterest; it might lead to a level of moral deficiency as well. Mill fears that a loss of ability and activity, leads to a society losing its sense of communal responsibility and social justice. In their aloofness, people might be less inclined to believe that they have any responsibility to society since society has ceased to have any rights or purpose under absolute authority.
So, if people were not subordinate, there’d be no need to seek rewards or avoid punishment. This would allow people to break the law, not follow simple instructions, and break any rules set upon them. Further, this would stop them from doing their job or behaving correctly if there were no rewards or punishments. However, complete obedience may not be beneficial for society either. If every person in society did everything they were told to do by a superior, the results would most likely turn out not as expected.
Although one comportment or disorder might be regarded as norm in one culture, it could be regarded as abnormal in another culture, and thus making therapy less equal in altered populations. Counselors must take into justification every culture, otherwise they are unwitting and are under culture coercion. Unfortunately, individuals come with bias and pre-conceived concepts. These biases and pre-conceived concepts generally impinge on treatment and therapy, because when working with culturally diverse populaces heedless of their beliefs and values, the outcomes of therapy are ineffective. Those who are attentive in the study of multiculturalism have even defined counselors negatively in the sense of treatment by calling them impervious to the beliefs and values of their culturally distinctive clients.
Therefore, people may see going against an unjust law as something to avoid because of the aftereffect they will be having to face. Furthermore, It is right to oppose something that is unjust. Individuals should do what they best believe is right in their opinions but laws shouldn’t be fully subjected by the people only or else it may lead to future conflicts and misleading mistakes. Overall, by desired changes, it causes destructive tension for
However, this wasn’t a wise or fair way to do this. Instead, this method is just creating more bad blood between the movement leaders and Native Americans. The leaders could have slowly introduced Native Americans into modern society. Perhaps giving them some rights that made them feel a part of the United States, instead of complete outsiders, which is what the Dawes Act accomplished. I feel like the act was very unjust and shouldn’t have occurred.
This quote shows how some people don’t care about other people or their opinions if it gets in the way of their goals. They insult and threaten people to try to scare others into listening to them and to prevent them from opposing their beliefs. Although some might object that these ideas and plans should be supported, I maintain that it is a threat to people if it continues to get out of hand. Therefore, I conclude that politicians need to have their power limited, as well as language, to prevent them from becoming a negative
People are taught to learn from their mistakes but what do you learn from if there are none? If people are not getting in trouble and you are not getting any consequences for certain things then what is going to stop people from doing them. Littering and speeding is going to become more and more acceptable and the world is going to become dirtier and more people are going to get hurt or die from crashes. That is just two of the things just imagine if people did not have any of these minor offenses, our once beautiful nation might turn into complete anarchy. Secondly people need to not look at these as more of a warning.