Categorical Imperative Analysis

Free-will is arguably the greater good; we would not be humans without it and we would not be a good creation without choice over our own actions. In protection of that greater good, God does not, and should not, get involved in dealing with moral evil and the suffering caused by it. Doing so would subvert our free-will, and ultimately take away our free-will. Since we have the choice whether to do good or evil, God should not be blamed for the actions that humans make. Following from this, God can still be omniscient (God knows that there is evil in the world), omnipotent (God has the ability to stop evil) and omnibenevolent (God does not want evil to exist, but ultimately allows it for our ability to have free-will).

If the person does stay quiet they are saying it is okay to do morally wrong acts which is wrong. It is easier to stay quiet, not create conflict, and accept the fact they are guilty but it is not the right choice to make. The people believe that they are powerless to the government but if all the people were to realize what was going on around them they could stop all the wrongs being done. Mildred, like everyone else, would rather stay cowardly and be guilty with society

Devlin would have thought the act of polyandry to be immoral and disintegrates the society however, being a moderate moralism he would not have wanted to intervene with the privacy of other unless the act has become very widely practiced and start causing harm to the society. However, if the was a law to be passed to make polyandry legal, Devlin would have disagree with this because once it has been made legal it will drive and encourage many to conduct this immoral act. Devlin did not say that every immoral act is to be prohibited. Devlin used the jury box morality of average right minded citizens where moral standards of behaviour are the standards of behaviour of a reasonable man. Will a reasonable man think the act of polyandry as something good and to be done?

Edmund Burke once stated, "the only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing." As long as society exists the concept of good and evil will always be a central conflict. However, it is dangerous to simply believe that some people are innately good or bad. When talking about good and evil, good is the idea that people have the ability to empathize with other people, to feel compassion for them, and to put other people 's needs before their owns. In contrast, evil takes over when a good person is no longer able to empathize or care about another human being.

Yes, their actions are guided by their own sense of justice, but doesn’t bypassing the law make them no better than the criminals they are going after? No. Not always. In the movie Shane, Shane himself said that, “…there’s no living with a killing,” meaning that he himself knew that his actions weren’t right. The key factor in determining righteousness is the motive behind it.

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.

Equality’s beliefs on happiness - “It is the end. It is its own goal. It is its own purpose” (95) - is correct. This is because the Council tries to eradicate human nature and replace it with a basic persona for everyone, which results in a limited mindset that does not allow them to see a logical point of view nor achieve happiness. The Council is constantly attempting to stop human nature.

We believe that everyone is innocent until proven guilty. Once proven guilty, a person should receive punishment. This is the purpose of the justice system. The whole rule of double jeopardy defies this, not bringing justice to those who deserve it as it forbids for the accused to be tried again. It will be more beneficial to society as a whole if we abolish double jeopardy, to correct the mistakes of the justice system and essential for progression.

The third argument King has in favour of nonviolent resistance is in how it creates a stage for oppressed groups to speak their truths. King views nonviolent resistance as the only morally sound method in addressing these issues. When reading this, I found it to be slightly unclear, however, I have concluded that it is because hate breeds hate, which is why a different approach is needed being nonviolent resistance. This would prove to be a powerful movement, but frustrating as one must expect to face various forms of violence but stay in a state of peace within oneself. In intentionally placing oneself in violent scenarios and not having to endure extreme mistreatment in attempt to address another.

As the leader of us, it was a great move to show authority by giving a punishment. This not only showed who was in charge but also told to never cross you, for it is wrong. Nevertheless, for a crime to have good intentions, I believe if you had just given him a small, but powerful judgment, Prometheus would’ve understood that he shouldn’t continue to abruptly make decisions. In conclusion, I hope you have realized the decisions we all made weren’t the wisest and we could’ve done a lot more for mankind. Even though, I know I, as a Goddess, should not be interfering with this kind of situation I believe it would better our living situation if you would take any one of these ideas into