Since it is not an option for cruel punishment to be used as a deterrence, the question arises; how does the state exhibit and enforce their supremacy upon the general public to ensure that individuals abide by the norms and customs of society? The goal of this paper is to answer this question through the utilization of French philosopher Michel Foucault’s theory of power. The paper will outline the key components that caused most democratic countries to move away from the idea of cruel penalties as a way to ensure obedience to the set rules. The paper will also differentiate between sovereign and disciplinary power, primarily concentrating on the prevailing relationship between modern society and disciplinary power. By doing so, additional scholars will be incorporated to examine various viewpoints on the notion of power and contrast any critiques present with Foucault’s ideas.
When a society develops, it will become necessary for a government to compensate for the eventual defect of moral virtue in individuals. However, as this is what is necessary for government to supply, that is the extent the government should be involved according to Paine. The freedom and security of a society is the aim of a government, aims which should not be overstepped. This concept of limiting government to its intended purpose is seen most clearly in the libertarian movement in modern times. Libertarianism is still keenly influenced by Paine’s anti-Federalists sentiments within this paper simply applied to modern issues.
Freedom of speech in the United States is guaranteed under the First Amendment. Despite this being a right, there are many different theories that have developed over the years in order to defend freedom of speech or arguments that wish to restrict speech more than it currently is. By comparing and contrasting the theories of free speech, I will explain why the law currently regarding freedom of speech is reaches the expansiveness in which the freedom should carry and the justification for it. Before the theories are explained, we should outline what parts of speech are currently not protected under the First Amendment. Unprotected speech includes obscenity (for example, works that lack serious value), fraudulent misinterpretation, defamation
In this essay, I will discuss John Stuart Mill’s argument concerning government in relation to utilitarianism, and why freedom of speech is important. Utilitarianism is a form of philosophy that relies on moral systematic theories, which include principles that offer discussion. Utilitarianism is considered to be a version of consequentialism, which is that the morality of an action is determined exclusively by appeal to its consequences. The foundation that forms the premise of utilitarianism is contingent on two parts. One being from an account of utility or what is intrinsically good.
In accordance with Kant's method of thinking you have to start by creating a maxim. The maxim in the situation would be, I will break the law when doing so it will allow me to do much more good for humanity, in order to promote the goal of maximizing public safety. To check the maxim, we have to follow the two principles that fall under the categorical imperatives. Categorical imperatives are the "commands of reason that do not depend on a person's desires" (Garcia, Kant Slide 13). The two principles are principle of universalizability and the principle of humanity.
Rational humans should be treated as an end in themselves, thus respecting our own inherent worth and autonomy to make our own decisions. This part of Kant’s ideology may limit what we could do, even in the service of promoting an overall positive, by upholding the principle of not using people with high regard, thus serving as a moral constraint. Deontology remains as the stronger ethical framework as it explicitly lists out how one should act morally through absolute, universal laws, and also by promoting not using others as a mere means, but rather as an end in itself. On the other hand, Utilitarianism, a consequentialist theory, stems from the idea that every morally correct action will produce the greatest amount of good for the greatest amount of people. The morality of an action is determined by the outcome of that action.
Applied to punishment, utilitarianism holds that punishment is justified to the extent that it promises to produce better consequences than a failure to punish. Utilitarian penal philosophy is concerned with crime reduction, a necessary adjunct to the advancement of social welfare . In AG’s reference (No.6 of 1980), the court held that it was unlawful to cause bodily harm for no good reason. The consensual harm must involve some form of social utility, that is, "it must be shown that the public interest positively requires that such conduct be permitted ’’ . In Brown, the punishment of the defendants might be justified on the basis of utility as the importance of protection of public health and moral outweighs the harm to individual.
While Locke’s philosophy would justify that governments can legitimately ban speech because of consent and humans’ impersonal ownership of themselves, Mill’s compelling ideas on progression and truth better avoid the slippery slope of setting precedent for limiting speech- a power a cunning leader could readily abuse. Before discussing Locke and Mill’s views on offensive speech, I should present a preliminary explanation on what likely classifies as speech to clarify the argument I present. By a strict definition, speech would be words coming directly from a person’s mouth. In a modern setting speech goes far beyond spoken word. It includes any form of communication and external expression of self.
It ignores human needs and personal aspirations. For Helvetius, to be free the government must provide rules that teach man right from wrong, and thereafter man would be free. In conclusion, I have detailed explained the freedom and free will in reference to the one explained by the great philosophers Helvetius, Hegel, Fichte and Rousseau. I also took into account the criticism of their theories. From the above essay they are well described and that how does this theorist are the same and their criticism.
This model presupposes an important distinction between politics and the political. Politics is referred to the ensemble of practices, discourses and institutions which seek to establish the sphere what every people can live side by side although they are in conflictual positions against themselves. The political, on the other hand, is referred to the dimension of antagonism that lies under people’s relations (it can take different types). So under the Mouffe’s democracy, politics’ main aim is to conceive others not as enemy but adversaries. She calls this transformation “antagonism to agonism”.