I will focus my analysis on how the social contract states that we must give up our individual rights in order to obtain equality and security. However, by doing so, we retain our individuality and freedom. In chapter 6, of the social contract Rousseau argues that people need to give up their individual freedom and unite for the common good of all in order to overcome the natural threats to their own existence. It is their own existence that motivates them to give up their individual freedom and unite. The problem with the social contract lies in the opposing forces of individual freedom versus the sovereign that was formed when they united.
Torture is against the law, therefore torturing the man would break the law. Using the universalized maxim would also mean violating the principle of humanity because according to the principle you have to "always treat a human being (yourself included) as an end, and never as a mere means" (Garcia, Kant Slide 19). By torturing the man, he would be treated as a mere end instead of an end. Therefore, following both
These actions include infringing upon other member’s rights or causing harm towards others. In essence, society is responsible for their own individual interests but, looking in the best interests of others for the preservation of the state. Locke makes society’s responsibility clear by stating “Everyone as he is bound to preserve himself, and not to quit his station willfully, so by the like reason, when his own preservation comes not into competition, ought he as much as he can do to preserve the rest of mankind, and not unless it be to do justice on an offender, take away or impair the life, or what tends to the preservation of the life, liberty, health, limb or goods of another” (Locke, 23). Moreover, Locke also begins holding the state accountable to society by establishing the manner in which the state should maintain boundaries and insuring the law of nature is in place. Locke suggests that state must be present in areas that men himself cannot outright be in judgement such as punishing
Hate, strife, physical and domestic violence and verbal abuse are the opposite of love. To physically or verbally abuse someone only serves one purpose: to treat someone, whom a person deems lesser than himself or herself, to be even more insignificant than how they see themselves. It’s all about power; it’s all about justifying “feeling good,” justifying that they did something to deserve it. What we can do to stop this injustice is that we can raise awareness around the world to influence people to stop abuse. Poverty “Our life of poverty is as necessary as the work itself.
Not being able to work with individuals of different backgrounds significantly hinders our personal and societal development. Political correctness and its effect on communication with others, deserves to be studied because it is important to learn how to work with others who have come from diverse circumstances. Another reason that political correctness is
In addition, technology should not be used up to the point that invading individual privacy even for security purpose. Though national security as a whole might seem more crucial than privacy, the right of every individual should be considered as more important for several reasons. First and foremost, to prevent the existence of excessive totalitarianism. According to , if the individuals knew their actions are being observed, most of them find it much harder to do anything that stand apart and different from others (Solove, 2014). Then, they tend to follow the social norm and force themselves to live under control of dictatorship.
Thoreau has to utilize material items as a way to evoke a spiritual outcome, meanwhile Franklin is materialistic so that he does not have to have debt to his creditors. Thoreau believes that everyone should live according to their true passions, because by finding ones passions will allow one to have freedom. Another way to acquire freedom is by minimizing ones need, rather than what one wants. Thoreau argues that luxuries not only acquire excess labor, but also oppress humans spiritually because they are infiltrated with worry and constraint. Since people believe that they need excess possessions to be happy, this forces people to work more and lose their inner freedom along the way to social and economic mobility.
The third argument King has in favour of nonviolent resistance is in how it creates a stage for oppressed groups to speak their truths. King views nonviolent resistance as the only morally sound method in addressing these issues. When reading this, I found it to be slightly unclear, however, I have concluded that it is because hate breeds hate, which is why a different approach is needed being nonviolent resistance. This would prove to be a powerful movement, but frustrating as one must expect to face various forms of violence but stay in a state of peace within oneself. In intentionally placing oneself in violent scenarios and not having to endure extreme mistreatment in attempt to address another.
Our racism here is institutionalised, it is a veiled racism, it is a racism considered taboo. Instead of discussing racism and fighting against it, our society began to fight against the idea that racism exists, as it would be much easier than dealing with the real problem. This makes me very sad about my country! Instead of questioning, it seems easier to forget that the problem exists, or simply give up the fight. Today’s we even ask ourselves more about the social ills that afflict us, but unfortunately, we are going through a dark period in which people who fight for a more just and egalitarian society are having their voices
It is essential if we are to truly and fairly enforce the laws. Neutrality is not a sign of weakness; it is a true sign of strength and selflessness and a belief in the fairness of all our actions. Knuckling to the pressure of choosing one side sends the wrong message to everyone. Once we lose our neutrality it is extremely difficult to get it back, if we ever do, and we begin to placate instead of mediate. If we have to take enforcement actions, those we sided with feel betrayed and those we sided against see opportunities to escalate the situation.