In the Second Treatise of Government, John Locke argues that citizens have the right of revolution when the government acts against their interests. To Locke, revolution was an obligation, however, many other philosophers do not view it that way. Edmund Burke, for example, believed that gradual change was better than all out revolution. Other philosophers such as Thomas Hobbes believed that the people need to obey their government due to a ‘social contract’ between them and the state. This essay will argue that a right to revolution needs to be granted to citizens in the case of a tyrannical government because it is the government’s duty to serve its citizens, and if it fails to do so, the people need to replace it with an alternate form of
Borders of the First Amendment are at the center of the legal debates about free speech and hate speech. While free speech is considered to be a basic right, as the Supreme Court has given the right to free speech. However, when such "free speech" crosses the line and becomes a threat, the courts have stepped in and punished the speaker. First Amendment does not protect free speech that has the intention of doing harm or damage.
Dr.King states “But such an ordinance become unjust when it is use to maintain segregation and deny other citizens the First-Amendment privilege of peaceful assembly and protest” (King 4). Dr. King definitely points out if your a Black man in the south simply trying to have a peace parade there is a high chance they will be arrested unlike a white person who could simply get away with it. Dr. King arguments also deals with a person should deal with the consequences with whatever crime the person committed no matter what race you fall under. He would like many of the White moderate people to change their mind of their perceptions of Black people in order for the social progression throughout America can improve gradually. Dr. King says “ I had hoped that White moderates would understand that law and order exist for the purpose of establishing justice and that when they fail in this purpose they become the dangerously structured dams that block the flow of social progress” (Dr. King 5).
Some people might think of destruction or immorality when the words “civil disobedience” come up, but in reality, it’s quite the opposite. Many times in the past, civil disobedience has lead to social reform and building up a better future. It’s a form of resistance that commonly centers on a person’s morals as it’s basis. It’s a powerful tool in protests that has been used many times in the past and continues to be utilized today. Civil disobedience and breaking the law to some extent go hand in hand, which brings up the question, is it justifiable?
Because of this John thought they had to be stopped. In today’s society people do believe in equality for all including for atheists. Locke’s views on slavery was nontraditional to people of his time. He believed it put people under a “state of war”. He meant that if someone was to be enslaved that would mean taking away their rights and freedom.
Williams transitions from this example into the discussion of something he calls “the precedent effect”. The fear of this effect is that certain horrendous utilitarian acts might encourage people to behave immorally because of the precedent that may be set by these actions. Even though Williams admits that the precedent effect would only occur if people where confused as to why utilitarian’s had to commit a horrendous act, Williams believes that this confusion is a very real possibility if utilitarianism is ever used in
Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. once had a dream in which he calls for an end to racism in the U.S. and calls for civil and economic rights. So much has changed since then, but there are still problems that are in the process of being solved. When a person treats a group differently because of that group 's religion, it 's unfair. For a character who has different beliefs, it should not address them the right to criticize another individual. Nowadays, humans judge other humans by the way there features stand out.
Our elderly teaches us to be obedient, but disobedience is a virtue proving one's ability to stand against a wrong. Oscar Wilde argues that disobedience is a valuable human trait that can create social progress. Disobedience is necessary to make changes within ourselves or amongst our community. For example, Martin Luther King Jr. served as leader in his community and argued that civil disobedience was one way to change the laws and feelings being set against colored people. King believed in order to get his point across was by taking action, but he did not want violent protests and the use of physical force.
Civil disobedience is defined as the refusal to comply with laws or to pay taxes and fines, as political protest or peaceful form. I strongly believe that peaceful resistance to laws positively impacts a free society; especially depending on the situation at hand, similar to Martin Luther King non-violent tactics to stop racial segregation. An action like that doesn’t result in an instant change in the world but it brought notice to the problem. There was a gradual change that he contributed to the civil rights movement. He wanted Justice for his people and he did everything in his power to do so.
Accommodationist believe that, although the Constitution says that congress shall make no respecting an establishment of religion it is only referring to congress aiding a specific church organization. Their argument is that as long as government doesn’t favor one religious group over others that it is legal. Like any group you have extremist that are very strong willed in their belief. Accommodationist extremist push for religious control as far as prayer in schools to be dictated by the local officials. The main religion would be dictated by a poll.
All freedoms should have a restriction somewhere, and this limitation should happen when one breaks a law for the purpose of a religion. Americans should have their freedoms, but safety is even more important. Harming others for the purpose of a religion is a threat to society, and can bring down the nation. It is not fair for the purpose of people to break the law just because of a religious belief, while other people get punished for breaking the law. The first amendment is a controversial topic that still gets debated today.
If the government tried to put the interests of citizens before their own, and not allow the citizens to get punish for what rights are obligated for them then they will see by putting the people first will benefit America as a whole. In my opinion I feel that the constitution is a petty factor for determining the democracy of a government and the rights of the people in that
However, there is nothing wrong with fighting against something that feels unjust, but fighting sometimes may lead to destruction within the public. The law shouldn’t be based off of just the people’s opinions but also what the government think is best. It’s acceptable to do what is right but many are afraid to stand up to the the government due to the fact that they have more power.
At long last, the Second Revision develops the reason for human rights. The reason such a variety of skilled individuals are pulled in to the Unified States is that this nation is known for accentuation on social liberties and individual opportunity. With a method for securing ourselves `and our friends and family, which the Second Revision legitimizes, others would not have the capacity to infringe on our rights. Residents in different nations despise social equality as we do in light of the fact that there is ceaseless clash going ahead in those nations. Maybe this is the manner by which the U.S. contrasts from different nations as far as rights for the general population.
That this unalienable right (religion) is formed by personal opinions and evidence created in an individuals’ mind. He continues on with saying how religion is an obligation given to every man to respectfully pay homage to his creator, and man cannot be a member of civil society without it, but if the General Authority imposes his religious beliefs in civil society he shall live in a state of reservation. Additionally, Madison recognizes that even if this Bill were the want of the majority, that it would crush the want of the minority. He also strongly believed in the legislative’s body removal from all religious mandates, claiming that to have a free government you must preserve the separation of power and each branch must never cross the line which over step’s the individual rights of the people and that previous rulers that have