We find that most societies agree with it though some people always violate such commandment. In reality, it is wrong to kill no matter what the situation (McGowan, 2016, p. 7). We should not steal is another God’s rule that most institutions, societies, and cultures recognize as a wrong action, even though most of us break it all the time. The Ten Commandments is fixed. We can’t live or function without God’s rule or the law.
that values differ with cultures.” Due to the effect of changing moral values, one cannot deny the value that another believes to be true. As stated before, the culture that allows people to commit child scarification believes it to be a morally good thing since it serves as a form of faith to God. Although the practice may sound morally wrong for another culture, denying one’s culture only perceives that the other culture is morally right. Also if one does not abide by their value, then one will feel as if they feel they are committing a wrong act. Values are changing, not only through cultures, but also in time.
First of all, the checks and balances guards against tyranny because if we don't stay in check someone might gain too much power. This is very bad because then if they have all the power they want they can do pretty much whatever they want. Many people would end up not agreeing to the laws they make this would basically guarantee a tyranny. The next reason is because checks keep a strong government. An example is without keeping check then the government wouldn't be as strong because of having multiple people with power there would only be one.
We as people of decision should in fact be held responsible for our actions because although the quote "The crazy things I'd do for love" is used as a statement of expression, we all have our own mind. Whether or not one has been taught right from wrong, everyone has their own perspective of love but the law is the top priority so even if you feel it's right or wrong to take extreme measures, the law decides for you. The example given in the third paragraph of Diane Ackerman's "Love's Vocabulary" where she states that in some countries, outrageous crimes are excused if it was an act of passion. This statement is disagreeable because of the fact that an act of passion does not excuse murder nor does it excuse any other extreme crime such as
King believed that Passive Resistance is for men to react to unjust law in a nonviolent way. “ One has not a legal, but a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws.” King thought that you should obey the laws but when laws are unjust you should disobey them in a passive resistance way. Both Gandhi and King had similar ways of displaying peace in a passive resistance
Understanding different views will eliminate problems as a whole. For example, the United States is known for the rights and voice they give their citizens, especially in their government. Citizens can even protest what they disagree with. North Korea has a totalitarian government where their people do not have input. Meaning it is frowned upon to go against the government and speak against
The second reason why I should submit to the laws is because it shows respect to the ones who made them. When people disobey the law, they are just not disobeying something that was written on paper, but they are disrespecting the people who took time out of their lives to make the laws. Each law was designed to keep each person safe, so the least we can do as citizens are to obey those laws and hold each other accountable for following the laws. Finally, I should submit to laws because it makes our law enforcement jobs safer and easier. Our officers and first responders put their lives on the line each day to save someone else 's life which they do not even know.
So, its depends on the circumstances. Profiling does takes place but under some valid reason. Without a valid reason the profiling is actually violating an individual’s Civil right as well as liberties. In my opinion Civil Rights and Civil Liberties are always the most important aspect in every individual’s life. So, I think that the government should always be there to protect their citizens from any danger hindering their
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
Many clients are either on parole, probation, or have open cases with DCPNP. They share their fears and paranoia but ultimately deserve the respect for their information not to be abused or mistreated. As long as clients are aware of the parameters that would break confidentiality, further solidifies the integrity of the agency and its clinciancs. Lastly in priority ranked order is “People have the right to understand the trust and all available information” (Loewenberg et al., 2000). Ultimately, no information should be kept from clients as it inhibits the rapport and the transparency of the agency.