Is it ever appropriate to go against the government? It is appropriate to go against the government if their actions are not morally right. There are many cases where it would not be appropriate. One of the reasons when it would be appropriate is when the government chooses what is best for them than the people. The second reason is when there is something that people do not think is right, people can speak out for themselves.
Anyone who has morals would be morally wrong if they used those morals to make immoral ends. People with morals should not be seen doing immoral acts. Within “Letter from Birmingham Jail” King states another point that shows what was happening in the United States is ethically wrong. He states, “privileged groups seldom give up their privileges voluntarily” (2). Therefore King’s use of ethos played a big role in changing America’s frame of
I couldn’t represent this county in the legislator. I couldn’t even tell you or Jem not to do something again.” ( Lee 75 ). Atticus is giving Scout the lesson that he has to do what he feels is fair and right because if he doesn’t, he couldn’t live with himself. One should the right thing even if it means going through some tough times, the alternative, is humilation within oneself which is much worse than what others can say. Doing what is fair is more important than affirming others humanity especially in situations where people are being dehumanizing.
It would make no sense whatsoever to restrict the right to keep and bear arms to state governments, since the principle on which our policy is based, as stated in the Declaration, recognizes that any government, at any level, can become oppressive of our rights. Therefore, we must be prepared to defend ourselves against its abuses, but the movement against 2nd Amendment rights is not just a threat to our capacity to defend ourselves physically against tyranny. It is also part of the much more general assault on the very notion that human beings are capable of moral responsibility. This is a second and deeper reason that the defense of the 2nd Amendment is essential to the defense of liberty. Advocates of banning guns think we can substitute material things for human self-control, but this approach will not wash.
If a democracy allows for people to be oppressed then the whole reason for creating a government would be pointless. Human rights are codified in the laws of a society. Further those same laws represent the morals of the society since the majority of a society will want its beliefs to be expressed in the laws. Therefore, by protecting human rights we uphold the ideals of a democratic society My thesis is civil disobedience is a useful technique for people to lobby for
In his argument, he says that any law that restores and lighten are just laws, and anything that corrupts or are treats people without respect are immoral. After giving his argument he concludes that segregation is something morally wrong. He is giving all this argument because he is trying to tell authority that he is a good normal citizen. He wants and will follow the just laws, and he also thinks laws are something essential for a world to function. Although he still has already proven his point, he starts to get into the philosophical principle of breaking the laws.
The decision is hard as the leader is standing for pacifism, he has publicly proclaimed his views against torture and violence, and that was one of the reasons why people voted for him. To agree on torture for him means to betray the beliefs people chose him for. Moreover, he personally is against the torture and frankly believes that it is wrong. But he is convinced that torture is a needed measure within the current situation, and by going against his own moral standing he is doing that for the sake of his people. As for the rebel, we do not know whether he is personally responsible for the terrorist campaign, and he definitely does not deserve to be
So humans, by tempering them, are challenging the will of God, and as a result, they are likely to make human affairs worse, rather than better. They believe that the human beings are imperfect creatures who are always in an urge for power, and can be persuaded to behave in a civilized fashion if they are deterred from expressing their violent anti social impulses. They believe that this can be done, only if they are governed by tough and strongly imposed law, which will be backed by sanctions, long prison sentences, and the use of corporal or even capital
A representative democracy is the best way to keep society out of the state of nature, and still preserve individuals’ rights. The flaws that exist in the argument presented in Leviathan by Thomas Hobbes stem from the fact that a singular leader cannot be trusted to create just covenants. While that one individual can remove society from the state of nature, their own human nature will trigger members of society to invoke their right of nature. Thus taking society back into the undesired state of nature. The best way to prevent this cycle is creating a representative democracy where a multitude of people have power, making it more likely for the laws covenants that are created to be just for all of
Where this argument ends; however, is on the question of people should help in a crisis? Whereas, some are convinced that we shouldn’t have the law because it society responsibility to help others. Others maintain that we should have the law because it will bring kindness to our world. We should care about our society enforcing laws regarding good Samaritans because our society is more violent as of late and has caused the loss of human life. Imagine if our society has this type of law and how different our society would be from what we see today.