I am firmly opposed to the manipulation of one’s subjects for the better of the ruler. Machiavelli’s concept for a prince’s soldiers is a malicious brainwash. A feared ruler will only induce despise from his people. I regard Machiavelli’s justification for a prince containing aspects of evil to be a unethical form of governing a society. His depiction of a feared ruler disregards the prosperity of his people and does not account for their pursuit of happiness.
King values civil disobedience, which is the refusal to obey certain laws or governmental demands by nonviolent techniques as boycotting, picketing, and nonpayment of taxes, but the violence created from that is not his fault. Logic is key in this situation because its obvious you shouldn't punish someone who isn't being violent. Another example is, "We can never forget that everything Hitler did in Germany was “legal” and everything the Hungarian freedom fighters did in Hungary was “illegal.” It was “illegal” to aid and comfort a Jew in Hitler’s Germany. But I am sure that if I had lived in Germany during that time I would have aided and comforted my Jewish brothers even though it was illegal. .
One his theories, stated in his book called Leviathan said that people are not able rule themselves because of how selfish mankind is and they need to be ruled by an iron fist. His political theory was that was also stated in Leviathan was that we should respect government authority under all circumstances to avoid violence. Hobbes was scared of the outcome of the social contract which meant people could get rid of the government if they were unhappy with what they were getting. In order to make well with the social contract he states in Leviathan that people should be completely obedient to the government. His reasoning was that if there was no government, there would be chaos.
To use this form of ethics one must ask, if everyone bribed the judge to win their case how would it affect our justice system? There would be no true value of justice just like if everyone cheated on their test their would be no value in a degree. Lastly, under the principle of rights Bucket would not bribe the judge because bribes are contrary to the natural desire for justice. It would impend on the judges decision to make an ethical decision and affect other attorneys who come into contact with this judge Under outcome-based ethics Mr. Bucket would bribe the judge, however. The bribe would essentially hold the corportation responsible for all the victims it negligently injuried.
If the aristocrats cannot trust the common people in a united nation than are we really in a united nation? Here is a quote as evidence from our papers to give you a better understanding of what the aristocrats are doing. The federalists “have strived to overawe or seduce printers to stifle and obstruct a free discussion, and have endeavored to hasten it to a decision before the people can duty reflect upon its properties. In order to deceive them, they incessantly declare that none can discover any defect in the system but bankrupts who wish no government, and officers of the present government who fear to lose a part of their power. These zealous partisans may injure their own cause, and endanger the public tranquility by impeding a proper inquiry; the people may suspect the WHOLE to be a dangerous plan, from such COVERED and DESIGNING schemes to enforce it upon them….
Machiavelli insists that living a life deprived of sin is unsustainable given the corrupt nature of our peers, which justified immoral and unethical actions: “Because they [men, author’s note] are bad and do not keep their promises to you, you likewise do not have to keep yours to them” (65). Machiavelli thus advises princes to favor cruelty over mercy when balancing the two is not possible, since mercy will be abused and lead to the demise of the prince: ”men have less hesitation in injuring one who makes himself loved than one who makes himself hated” (62). Indeed, Hannibal and Scipio both possessed remarkable qualities with regards to military strategy. Yet, while Hannibal is remembered as a great leader, Scipio is not for the former gained unwavering respect through fear while the former failed to successfully establish his
Wilson’s war message to Congress argued that non-democratic governments like those of Germany, endanger democracy. Wilson believed that warfare is likely to be produced by non-democratic countries where democratic governments never would produce it. The imperial government of Germany posed a threat for world peace and democracy by not taking action in what could endanger their country. No inspection on the leader of Germany is provided, thus allowing him to endanger peaceful countries. Wilson believes that peace between autocratic nations is very unlikely due to this dictatorial leader who is absorbed within their own rules.
If the civilians hate the prince, then they have control over him. With this control, they could stage a revolt and displace the prince. The prince, with no control, has no option other than to respond with detrimental actions in an attempt to subdue the hatred and his impending removal. Machiavelli argues that this sequence of events can be avoided entirely by preventing hatred from starting in the first place. If the prince does this, then he controls how the civilians perceive him and he can act in ways to limit their desire to overthrow him.
Also “It is impossible for the new prince to avoid the imputation of cruelty, owing to new states being full of dangers” it states in The Prince, Chapter IV. Basically he has to be cruel in order to protect himself and his title as the Prince. If Macbeth was asked the question, is it better to be feared or loved, I think Macbeth
Oliver Wendell Holmes once wrote, “The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsly shouting in a theatre and causing panic.” Similarly, the Supreme Court’s ruling to arrest Schenck was wrong, and a U.S. citizen should be allowed to protest a war or draft in times of war. Specifically, the Espionage Act violated the first Amendment, Charles Schenck, whom was arrested after violating the Act, was indicting no violence, and the Act violated the 13th Amendment. First, citizens in the U.S. being allowed to protest wars or drafts specifically shines through since the Espionage Act violates the 13th Amendment. The first Amendment declares, “Congress shall make no law… abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press…” However, after the Espionage Act was passed, during World War 1, Schenck was arrested for violating this Act by printing 50,000 leaflets that contradicted the war and the draft. As illustrated, U.S. citizens should be granted the ability to protest wars and drafts since it violates the first Amendment’s right to free speech.