I not only agree with the Japanese and Norwegian position that hunting non-endangered species of whales should be allowed for culture purposes, but I also think that hunting non-endangered species of whales should not even be considered illegal. The main reason hunting non-endangered species of whales was banned in the first place was because the dominant culture that made the decision valued the lives of whales and believed they should be protected from whaling. We allow hunting of deer and fishing of shrimp, but not hunting of whales and on the fact that we love whales so much. This whaling ban is a significant violation of the sovereignty of Japan and Norway as well as other cultures that practice whaling. We are essentially saying, “Since we love whales so much you are not allowed to hunt them in your own waters even though they are not even endangered because that is unethical.” I see whale hunting no more unethical than deer hunting or shrimping, so why are we still allowed to hunt deer and fish for shrimp?
(Source 1) Janine Bowechop, director of the Makah museum, says that when it comes to whaling, "There are lots of spiritual values that feed sharing and cooperation among our community” (Source 4). Although not the most popular form of whaling, Aboriginal whaling is not intended to make a profit, only to sustain native people. Banning all whaling will risk wiping out the livelihood of these
My uncle is stationed over seas, so I do not get to see him very often. If the troops were not sent to other countries that do not need our help, I would get to see him more. I do not think we should mess with ISIS unless the try to mess with us. I think we should be prepared in case they do, but we should not be in their territory attacking them. America’s role should be to help out our allies if it is needed, other than that we should stay out of foreign affairs.
His gist is that privacy should be respected which makes him moderate moralism, law should only intervene when society won’t tolerate certain behaviour, law should be a minimum standard not a maximum standard and act as general guideline. Is the act of polyandry tolerable by the society? In some society it is tolerable but in some they will not. However, to abolish the act of polyandry will also intervene with the privacy on the individuals. 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.
Whereas Hobbes states that based on his idea of human nature, which is humans are born evil, that one ruler should be given absolute power. While Hobbes makes various points he does conclude that people should surrender their freedom to this power because the ruler keeps them safe. This including the right to complain about the ruler’s policies. Locke’s ideal government is one that doesn’t give absolute power to one person but rather power to a group of power. This making it less likely for a ruler to abuse their power or corrupt the government.
They let citizens express themselves, worship whatever they choose, and vote for political positions. The Constitution also abolishes slavery so that no one is taken advantage of or forced to do involuntary labor. Equality is possible in the United States because everyone has rights that cannot be taken away from them. The rights are not based on race, skin color, or what one worships. However, some people do not agree with this and are convinced that the Amendments do not allow for equality.
However, freedom of speech does not include the right to incite actions that would harm others or the distribution of obscene material (Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, 2000). There are many reasons why various organizations and people are censoring different kinds of topics; some people say it’s the right thing to do and others think its controversial to the first amendment.
In his work, Locke puts a different perspective on the original, natural state of man. Unlike Hobbes with his thesis about the "war of all against all," Locke said that initially the absolute freedom of people has been a source of struggle, and expressed their willingness to follow the natural laws. This is the natural desire of people to lead them to the realization that it is necessary for the common good, to save the function free. Human life would be dangerous, brutish and short, without the presence of the authorities. Without political power all will live in a state of nature, where everyone has the freedom not limited to damages for all.
Locke shows that our natural state is freedom and happiness. How would one achieve their natural state if the government is corrupted? In section 121, Locke provides information on how to avoid the conduct and rules of the government. Although that the government does have power over rules and conducts, Locke says there is a self evident trust between the government and the people for them to achieve their natural state. If the people are not in their natural state the government has broken the trust and the people are justified to no longer obey the governments conduct or any of the rules.
In the Harm Principle Mill suggests that the actions of individuals should be limited to prevent the harm of others . An individual may do whatever he or she wants, as long as these actions do not harm others. Mill believes in an individual’s autonomy; being self governed. We can live as we wish, and therefor also die as and when we wish. As Mill says: “the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilised community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others.
Determinism and natural law, two worldviews that stand on opposite sides of the earth. People that value determinism see life as a one way track where any effort made still leave the final destination the same. An individual’s choices will lead to somewhere, but there is nothing they can do to influence whether or not they make that certain choice. In opposition, those who believe in natural law see that the actions of the individual have an influence on the outcome on the outcome of their life. These actions follow their morals, which come from introspection and experience.
This constitutional right was earned by people like the Marines people that had a belief of freedom for all individuals and a better way of life. Since it is a Constitutional right and no government organization or institution should forbid any individual from the freedom of expression, then it is safe to say without a doubt that the Marine Corps placement of such restrictions should be considered a violation of an individual’s rights. In addition, each individual in the world has a unique personality and the right to personal choices which are expressed in so many ways that is impossible to list all. The choice to place tattoos or not belongs solely to the individual and should not be restricted by anyone. The present restrictions on tattoos that the Marine Corps has placed to their service members limits their expression and most importantly it does not justify limiting the personal choices.
III. Though whaling has been generally globally banned, some countries such as Japan and Norway still whale for scientific purposes. Do you think this is necessary? Do you think nature advocates such as the International Whaling Commission should allow this? Why or why
The quote then said “The right to think is the beginning of freedom, and speech must be protected from the government because speech is the beginning of thought.” I don’t think we can have a right to think and not have speech. An example is like us speaking, and not being able to be heard. I can and can’t see eye to eye with this quote because i don’t believe the government should make community decisions without a say from the community. They made rights for a reason, so us as a community can speak as a group, together. This ties back to my Thesis because the quote states that we have a freedom
The question of agreement can be given by an appeal to natural rights. Are people’s rights being taken away by the hunting of non-endangered whales? Sitting alone in nature, it can be argued that one has a right to nature. By such logic, and the fact that overfishing is a serious issue, weather endangerment is or is not a factor, wale hunting should not be allowed. 2) Do you think the whaling ban constitutes a violation of these nations ' sovereignty?