Locke defended the moral right of revolution to resist tyranny. In conclusion both Locke and Mills have polar beliefs about liberty, they have different definitions for liberty, and they have explained and justified liberty and how it’s a threat. Political thought of John Locke and John Stuart Mill is seen on the same tangent and same conceptualization of liberty but they differ in certain crucial
Incredibly, Leo Tolstoy, one of Russia’s most famous writers, greatly impacted how Russians viewed government and life in general. At a time in Russian history when life seemed to fall apart for many low-class Russians, Tolstoy addressed the problems with Russian society, using a completely new style in his literature at the same time. Russia in the 1800s seemed like an out-of-place, backward nation relative to the rest of Europe. Beginning in the late 1700s, nearly all of Europe, excluding Russia, began leaning toward liberal views of
In the Giver there are many things missing in the peoples lives, things we would say make a human human. The people in Jonas’ community are emotionless; they are never angry, sad, in pain, or in love. Jonas’ community is afraid of pain therefore they took away all emotion and deprived the people of their own being. The people in Jonas’ community are also missing color. Everything is gray; there are no pretty pink flowers, there is no sparkling water, or anything beautiful in their lives.
Nevertheless, facts based on reality become easier to reject wholesale, rather than using a thought process of discovery, which is why unchallengeable beliefs gain prominence in liberal circles, yet at the price of social divisions and decline. The moral relativism needed to produce the liberal world view means the outcome often bears no resemblance to actual events, itself taking on the fantasy of an Alice in Wonderland scenario. As a belief fails scientific inquiry, this consequently produces a no blame society devoid of any consensus morality and the inability to further distinguish right from wrong. Accepting a definition of morality requires a consensus of standards, entailing individual responsibility and accountability. Removing this consensus relegates moral truths to a plurality of opinions and if there are no moral truths, ergo there are no moral facts.
This course of action cannot simply be justified through consequentialist views such as the DDE, where the overall outcome is the only important decision factor. Non-consequentialist factors are of equal importance in the morality of an action. When viewing MacAskill’s cases and his response to the harm-based objection, it is important to consider the non-consequentialist, right-based theory of Libertarianism that maintains if an act violates a right, then it is morally wrong; individual rights are a fundamental element in deeming an action morally permissible. Libertarians do not focus on consequences when evaluating actions, instead believing that rights are so important that they must not be violated even to produce better consequences. This belief goes directly against the DDE, which evaluates an action solely based on the consequences produced.
The assumptions behind A Theory of Justice are essentially redistributive: That is, Rawls posits equal distribution of resources as the desirable state and then argues that inequality can be justified only by benefits for the least advantaged. Nozick points out “that resources are produced by people and that people have rights to the things they produce. Thus, attempts to improve the condition of the least advantaged through redistribution are unjust because they make some people work involuntarily for others and deprive people of the goods and opportunities they have created through time and effort.” The rational human individuals might be able to choose a social structure with greater rewards for the majority of people and small rewards for the minority on the grounds that one is more likely to end up as part of a majority than a minority. Legal justice is generally considered a matter of appropriate
Much like Socrates and King, Hobbes understands the “price” of liberty that an individual can claim through a type of self-sacrifice for the freedom of the community. When Hobbes states that an individual must “lay down his rights”, he defining the individuals courageous ability to evaluate and examine life through the lens of philosophical discourse. The “liberty” of the mind is one way in which Hobbes defines the ability of thoughtful individuals to understand the effects of his own actions in relation to others, which defines the ability to critically evaluate human interactions through logic and reasoning. In philosophy, logic and reasoning help to liberate the mind of the individual by analyzing the internal and external aspects of governance, communities, and human relationships. Hobbes is certainly defining the courageous aspects of philosophy that define the “rights of nature” in human societies, which provide a context for freedom and liberty of individuals through a moral and ethical framework.
Causa sui states that “we can never be ultimately morally responsible for our actions” (Your Move: The Maze of Free Will, Pg.1). In summation, if you’re responsible for what you do then you’re responsible for the way you are. But since you aren’t responsible for the way you are, then you aren’t responsible for what you do.
However, as Fitzgerald argues, the wealthy today have drifted into a direction of selfish growth, one achieved by disregarding the poor. But the real problem is not inequality itself: it is the complete ignorance of the fact that it exists altogether. Perhaps if we establish that the problem exists, we can move forward to address it; if we realize that some live without color, we can move forward and start
Accordingly, in Fuller's view the predecessor law of conceding immunity would be invalid and there is no need for the enactment of a law retrospectively. With respect to the civil liability, Fuller has a few reservations as to such laws. What must be contemplated is the objective of the retrospective law. For example, the imposing of tax gains in which the object is to raise revenue and not control past conduct, thus issue of retroactivity cannot be used as ground to invalidate such