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.
As a matter of fact King’s plan can be ethically justified. 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).
While having a discussion with Scout Atticus says, “The main one is, if I didn’t I couldn’t hold up my head in town. I couldn’t represent this county in the legislator. I couldn’t even tell you or Jem not to do something again.” ( Lee 75 ).
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.
Without human rights, people are open to oppression from others. 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.
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.
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.
He wasn’t promoting rebellions. Instead he believed when one breaks an unjust law they must do it on their own will and accepts whatever happens to them. By doing so, King himself stayed in Birmingham jail for breaking the unjust law. Hoping to ignite a fire in people to see the injustice happing in Birmingham and in other places across the
Imagine what they might think for the society when they get the right to make a decision for the society. Think about the values they might have for the society if they did something wrong, that had a bad affect to the society. If they destroyed our values in the past how do we know of which values they have in mind. Is it for a good cause of the society ar a bad cause to the society? Though, criminals should have second chance in their life to change their bad habits, and be a good influence.
Thoreau alleges people have the right to oppose an oppressive government, it is their duty to rebel against it. If a government does not serve its purpose of protection and fair treatment, the duty of its citizens would be to overrun it. An individual 's liberty is conveyed through its government, by allowing a tyranny, men are giving up their right to think and act for themselves. He declares that if the government mandates the people to follow unfair laws. the people should break those laws.
Stare Decisis Examining Hofsherier’s equal protection analysis the majority in Johnson not only held that the analysis was wrong but also concluded that stare decisis did not compelled to court to follow Hofsheier as precedent. In addition, Johnson indicated that Hofsheier’s analysis was faulty, which resulted in a number of sex crimes against minors. The Court referred to these “broad consequences” as the reason why stare decisis should not be allowed in order to correct an error in our constitutional jurisprudence. Stare decisis is one of the most important doctrines for the legal system.
After all, the constitution says “all men have the right to bear arms” and the fact that the government is exercising that right by putting up weird laws that don’t even work is very wrong. You can say it denies us of the rights we automatically have as human beings. And the current government system isn’t giving us the support we need in this crisis, then how much can we trust them? If the average citizen can analyze the government’s laws and see that it will not work, what does that say about our own government’s competency? Or maybe it’s not that the government is incompetent, it’s just that they are extremely corrupt and care for the anyones well being but their own.