In reality, rules like this does not do any good to our society. “The government should take appropriate measures to safeguard life by making laws to protect you and, in some circumstances, by taking steps to protect you if your life is at risk”
The Prime Directive In the novel Anthem by Ayn Rand the society that she portrays lives under one injunction, or prime directive, for everyone to be equal. There are numerous rules and controls instituted to help keep the citizens’ in order and while some of them seem to be beneficial, others are constricting the basic rights that every person should have. The one thing that all of the rules do share in common is the restriction of a person's freedom, individuality, and life in general. Ayn Rand knew that by writing this novel, it would spark many conflicting views about equality and liberty in today's world.
The act includes the refusal to obey a particular set of law, commands, or demands by an occupying international power or the government. The civil disobedience may be founded on the need for integrity, sound policies, and promoting justice. Based on these principles, the refusal by Bartleby to conform to be consistent with the set norm might not necessarily imply that his actions were unethical. His constant refusal to follow the routine emphasizes the general need to have a clear set of changes in the working environment. One of the reasons for the act of disobedience could have been due to the repetition and the set procedures that the employees were expected to follow.
Therefore, cultural relativism is imperfect. Gensler’s argument against cultural relativism is flawed because although moral views are inconsistent, local standards still determine even the most basic moral principles, so hurting others would be appropriate if the community approved of it. This flaw is damaging to Gensler’s argument because cultural relativism claims that anything that is socially approved must be good, and clearly a number of things would not be considered moral by most people. Hobbes’ Argument for Leaving the State of Nature (Hobbes, pp. 105)
However, we already said that it would be unjust for them to refuse to return to the cave. This seems like a case where an unjust act will put the individual preforming the act in a beater off position. However, this again depends on what is meant by better off. Earlier I described the difference between being better off in a secular way and being better off in a personal way.
Civil disobedience is the active refusal to obey certain laws and demands of a government. People argue that going against the government is not right and that it is breaking the law. Although in some cases it may not be right, it does not mean it is breaking the law. The Declaration of Independence states, “... whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends,” meaning Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness then, “it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government…” (Bill of Rights Institute).
It will never be fair to punish a person when the judge knows that the words existing in the statute are not what the legislative branch intended to punish. Similarly, not punishing someone whose conduct is exactly what the legislature wanted to punish due to the fact that
C3- One will never do justice willingly but only when compelled to do so (Republic II, 360c, l. 5). Glaucon argues that it is natural for humans to want to do injustice, while barbaric to suffer it (Republic II, 358e, l. 3). He means it is human nature to take the shortest route in the path to good fortune, regardless of fairness, supporting the claim as “the desire to outdo others” (359c, l. 5). In his view, laws were made to enact a stasis between desires for injustice and fear of revenge (359a, ll. 6-7).
Martin Luther King Jr. writes, "I can urge them to disobey segregation ordinances because they are morally wrong." When King writes "they are morally wrong," he is contending that the segregation ordinances are in opposition to eternal and natural law. In fact, natural and eternal law being a 'higher law' is the basis of King's philosophy of 'non-violent civil disobedience.' King views the segregation laws, a human law, to be in disagreement with natural and eternal law; therefore, he believes that these laws should not be followed. King writes, "Any law that degrades human personality is unjust.
Thoreau had excellent ideas; however, his ideas are radical to both his time period and today. Disobeying the law is frowned upon by most societies, but some people are similar to Thoreau and deem that there is nothing wrong with forms of peaceful protest. While it is important that every individual follow his or her own conscience, it can only be obeyed completely freely to a certain point. One’s conscience might tell them that they should not pay their taxes, when another’s does not; this is why laws are established. If one does not abide by a law, there are consequences because they followed their conscience.
So if segregation is morally wrong, it can’t be a just law and Dr. King looks at it as being acceptable to violate the segregation ordinances because it is an unjust law. Another example of an unjust law is when a larger group creates a law that the smaller group couldn’t have a voice in because obstacles prevented them from voting. At the time period different methods kept Negros from becoming registered voters. In other words it wouldn’t be fair to say the governing body that enacted the segregation laws were voted in by the majority, when a large portion didn’t a have voice in the matter. King argued it was justifiable to break this law because a law couldn’t be just when the Negro communities weren’t given the same rights to vote on the segregation laws.
Now you have changed your vote for the same reason. I do not think you have the right to play like this with a man’s life. This is an ugly and terrible thing to do.” By juror 11 establishing this point it had made a few heads turned to prove that what the other jurors are doing is unjust. Remarkably, replicating the other juror’s answers just to proceed about with their lives displays that they could care less about what the trial is actually about.
One cannot deny that going against the majority of the people is something that is unwanted and usually will not benefit the whole nation. Although this is true, I affirm that it is appropriate to go against the government with the intentions of not harming anyone. Majority does not always mean that it is morally right. In the article “Civil Disobedience” by Henry David Thoreau, he asks, “Can there not be a government in which majorities do not virtually decide right and wrong, but conscience?...Why has every man a conscience, then?”
But, you can’t always trust them, you can’t have this hope that they will always have a good influence and never break the law again. As you know, ex-cons had made a mistake, those who trusted them before might have thought that the person would make good choices, but it turned out that the person made bad choices and broke the law. So, that’s why ex-cons should not have the rights to vote again. Ex-cons should not have the rights to vote again. They Have already broken the law, so it is unfair to let ex-cons have the rights to vote again.