Dalrymple’s states that the origins of evil are found in all of us, he describes this type of evil as “the evil that is found in the everyday actions of men.” Dalrymple goes on to explain, “There is obviously something flawed in the heart of man that he should wish to behave in this depraved fashion “According to Dalrymple it is a legacy of original sin, it is inherent. Man’s inherent self-interest will eventually end up hurting others. Therefore, as a whole, we require some form of regulation to make sure we do not destroy one another. The need for government oversight contradicts the other half of Dr Dalrymple’s reasoning that this toxic environment is a side effect of Great Britain turning in to a welfare state.
Thomas Postlewait 's form of inductive and dedcutive methods is necessary in histioriography in order to find important details about this specific time period. A common problem that scholars might have to beware is that they cannot let their own intepretation fill in the facts, but at the same time they have to give their own personal interpretaiton. He states how scholars has the most influence on what actually happen during certain time period. In lecture, the professor restates Postelwait 's idea that if one scholar states that this specific idea is what happen other scholars would be ready to go against it. This is an essential idea in order to keep certain scholar 's idea outside the fact that he might of retrive through the use of
Thoreau, knowing the widely accepted value of justice, says "If the injustice is part of the necessary friction of the machine of government, let it go, let it go; perchance it will wear smooth - certainly the machine will wear out. If the injustice has a spring, or a pulley, or a rope, or a crank, exclusively for itself, then perhaps you may consider whether the remedy will not be worse than the evil; but if it is of such a nature that it requires you to be the agent of injustice to another, then, I say, break the law. Let your life be a counter friction to stop the machine. " His goal here is to inspire individuals to break unjust laws, to ultimately achieve the perfect idea of a government. By convincing his audience that civil disobedience is ethically and morally right, he achieves that goal.
This last ruling decision established that subsequent presidents cannot just undo the federal exchanges from the ACA, however, this event will maintain challengers to oppose the law and their arguments should be subject of examination. The best way to critique the credibility and reliability of an argument it is by identifying the fallacies on it. Fallacies are common reasoning tricks use to persuade individuals believe an argument that lacks from evidence and logic. There are many types of fallacies which objective is to distract, delay or deflect arguments. The intentional fallacy is presented with arguments because they seem appropriate in debates when an individual find themselves out of a logical road and uses fallacies to back up his/her argument.
His discussion on the ethics of war is no different. However, his specific steps to achieve peace (love) between enemies (location 4513-24) are more important to me than the ethics of war. Not to let enmity be forced on us, recognizing the other person as human like us, and understanding the source of enmity is Moltamann’s basic prescription for moving forward in a loving fashion. Our failure to listen to the experiences of others continues to be a catalyst in formal war declarations. Our failure to acknowledge the abusive cycle of perpetrator and victim where the US, due to unethical policies in the Middle East, created a generation of victims which eventually led to a few victims advocating for terrorist actions such as 9/11.
Debate According to the dictionary a pacifist is a person who believes that war and violence are unjustifiable. C.S. Lewis claimed not to be one in The Weight of Glory. He said that "The main contention urged as fact by Pacifists Lewis claimed that humans decide what is good and what is evil by their conscience. But, he argued that a person's conscience can be modified by argument.
In Jonathan Rauch’s article In Defense of Prejudice, Rauch gives a compelling argument as to why people prejudicial talk should not be diminished. In agreement with Salman Rushdie: "without the freedom to offend, it ceases to exist,” Rauch believes society should not be seeking ways to end this type of speech. This is because taking it away would cause a regression in society’s development. Instead, all should come to terms with the idea that with freedom of speech; comes unwanted opinions. I strongly agree with the viewpoint Jonathan Rauch presented in his article; it is upon all of us to stop pointing fingers and calling each other bigots because they do not fit into our molds of right and wrong.
Even though this type of an attack is certainly horrific and all efforts should be made to prevent such attacks in the future, another more perfidious and incremental threat to the US is on the rise- domestic terrorism. Despite the fact that the legal distinction of domestic terrorism may or may not be applied based on legal or perhaps even political motivations, the carnage that domestic terrorism can unleash upon the US is formidable. Domestic terrorism comes in any forms and is driven by many different ideologies. The domestic terrorist can desire the destruction of the US, the elimination of certain populations of Americans based on the color of their skin or the god they choose to worship, or they may wish to overthrow the government and establish their own version of utopia. The aforementioned examples are of course not an exhaustive list, and there may be individuals or groups that are as yet unknown.
People such as Martin Luther King Jr, and Henry David Thoreau took Sophocles's works as an influence over their own publications and actions. In “On The Duty of Civil Disobedience,” Thoreau writes, “They think that, if they should resist, the remedy would be worse than the evil. But it is the fault of the government itself that the remedy is worse than the evil.” He argues that it is the fault of an unjust government rather than unjust people when rules are broken and blames are placed. MLK Jr. also writes, “An unjust law is a human law that is not rooted in eternal law and natural law.
As we go through our everyday lives, the evils of the world are easily visible to us. Between selfishness, burglary, and murder, it is reasonable to believe that humans are evil creatures. Although this is not proven, it is the favorable side to take. The proof for this side of the argument is plentiful. The fact that we have a government alone, shows that we don’t trust ourselves to make good decisions, and we need law to keep us in check.
Kevin O’Rourke The Strange Death of Silas Deane History is never set in stone, nor is covered by the shadows of murky waters, history is in the “eye of the beholder” meaning it is the sole purpose of the individual and the job of the historians to interpret documents such as letters, decrees, bills, speeches, and photos to visualize the events that have occurred in the past. History, in context, is the study of the past, but looking much deeper into the past reveals that history is much deeper, there are hidden occurrences of nettle and happiness in which the people of today can relate too. The backgrounds and various cultures of today can interpret history in different ways all rooting back to their culture religion, or moral ideology,
“Defining Evil” Summary Stephen De Wijze piece titled “Defining Evil” explores the definition of an old saying, “dirty hands” in which people who have committed evil crimes lose moral innocence and have a permanent stain on their morality. The main idea being, what should be considered evil. Wijze recalls three conditions throughout his text to describe what is considered evil, he labels them as A,B and C. Moreover, Condition A is the “Deliberate violation of a person(s) with the intention to dehumanise.” (Wijze 218) Condition B is that “The action or project will inflict one or more of “The Great Harms” to sentient beings with the relevant moral standing.”
A person’s relationship with history is very much like their relationship with brussel sprouts: you either love ‘em or you hate ‘em, with most people identifying with the latter. As we are told countless times, history is important because if we forget it, we are doomed to repeat it. It is a logical claim, for how can someone learn and move forward if they do not reflect and fix their mistakes? History, however, has a tendency to be boring, a never-ending waterfall of dates and names that can only be learned through mind-numbing memorization. Is this truly the only way, however?
Zinn’s focus in Tyranny is Tyranny is the plight of the lower class Americans just as the war began and just after. He focuses on the problems they faced and how the government was shaping out to be. In the fourth chapter of a people’s history of the United States, Howard Zinn explains in detail the hardships people were facing. He also explains what he feels was the founding fathers motives behind the war fought with Britain.