He pointed out in The Division of Labor in the Society that “the remedy for the ill is nevertheless not to seek to revive traditions and practices that no longer correspond to present day social conditions, and that could only subsist in a life that would be artificial, one only of appearance. We need to put a stop to this anomie and to find ways of harmonious cooperation between those organs that still clash discordantly together. We need to introduce into their relationship a great justice by diminishing those external inequalities that are the source of our
In the previous quote, Katherine Anne Porter speaks about how it troubles her that slimy politicians violate the public. Porter makes a logical statement when it comes to untrustworthy politicians, for instance, “Our duty, Dr. Ross, is to circumvent them [politicians]. To see through them and stop them in their tracks in time and not to be hoodwinked or terrorized by them, not to rationalize and excuse that weakness in us which leads us to criminal collusion with them for the sake of our jobs or the hope of being left in peace,” (Porter 550). Avoiding and combating these kind of politicians appeals to the audience’s logic because it is the best solution to the
Civil disobedience is the refusal to conform to a certain law or policy in a form of peaceful or non-violent political protest. However, it is still illegal and considered as a crime and deviant act as it goes against the law (a formal norm) enforced by the government. In this essay, two different sociological perspectives, namely the functionalist and symbolic interactionist perspectives, will be applied to analyzing the issue of civil disobedience. In the case of the Umbrella Movement, civil disobedience falls under the category of positive deviance. This is because the protestors are simply over-conforming to once again remind the government how the existing method for selecting the chief executive goes against Hong Kong’s human rights treaty, binding agreements that require the government to establish mechanisms that allow for equal, meaningful participation in public life.
Winston, however, fears the Party and its total control on his life and on society. He secretly harbors dreams of a revolution and the destruction of the Party. His failure to be manipulated is later rectified through other tactics until he becomes a “perfect” member of society, relying on and loving the Party. Citizens of Oceania are constantly manipulated with fear to rely on the government for
In cases of unjust laws, by obeying them, the country is put in harm and not in benefit. In Gandhi’s Satyagraha it is stated “An oppressor’s efforts will be put in vain if we refuse to submit to his tyranny,” (page 38). This means to make a change in the law, it is the responsibility of citizens to stand up for the wrong of the country. This act is what giving back to the country means, not, obeying unjust laws. As mentioned before, unjust laws don't seem unjust to everyone, there are some people benefitting from it in the wrong way which is why it is unjust.
Why in society should we be putting anyone down, just because we do not agree with them? The thing is we should not stifle their creativity and rights, only because they do not have the same life as you and will never have the exact same mindset on beliefs and life. Hate speech is interfering with others rights, trying to make everyone the same, and not accomplishing anything. Hate speech interferes with another right of ours; the pursuit of
It is overly simplistic to mark these two theorists as cold-hearted realists and demonise them, for both placed many caveats upon the use of extreme force. Chanakya forbade the king from attacking another just king, for the aggressor could not hope to hold the gains he made against just king. Machiavelli agrees with Chanakya, saying, “one cannot call it virtue to kill one’s fellow citizens, betray one’s friends, to be without faith, without mercy, without religion.” As regards cruelty and mercy, Machiavelli states, “he is to be reprehended who commits violence for the purpose of destroying, and not he who employs it for beneficent purposes. The lawgiver should, however, be sufficiently wise and virtuous not to leave this authority which he has assumed either to his heirs or to any one else; for mankind, being more prone to evil than to good…”. Thus, Mansfield’s statement about Machiavelli can be extended to describe Chanakya as well: for both these men, “there is just one beginning—necessity.” Even in victory, both recommend generous behaviour towards the vanquished, letting them keep their traditions and treating captives well—both sought stability and order internally as well as externally.
The offended party's own carelessness disentitled him to bring any activity against the careless litigant. Here Plaintiff's carelessness does not mean break of obligation towards the other party yet it implies nonattendance of due consideration on his part about his own security. "The principle of law is that if there is an accuse bringing on the mishap for both sides, however little that accuse may be for one side, the misfortune lies where it fizzles." This guideline worked an awesome hardship especially for the offended party in light of the fact that for a slight carelessness on his part, he may lose his activity against a litigant whose carelessness may have been the fundamental driver of harm to the offended
Often ignoring domestic and international laws and relying on the threat and use of violence for success (O’Sullivan, 1986, pp.1-5). If the government is able to serve its people well, then there is no need to think of the possibility of a civil war. But the existence of citizens - terrorists, who attempt to invalidate the law and jeopardize the government’s authority is a sign of an impending a war not just against the government but all the people who support it. Faced with the dilemma of giving in to the terrorists demands to stave off threats to lives and properties, the government must choose to concede or resist their