Dogmatist’s affirmations have within them absolute truth, but this truth cannot be proven. But if Dogmatism has not been successful thus far, a reason does not exist to eliminate the chance of it one day being successful . Is it not the Academics whom are those that perpetrate the fallacious act, deriving an impossible claim we cannot yet understand? Arguably it is commendable that the Dogmatist expends effort to find an unapologetic truth on the grounds of which mankind’s endeavor could possibly be based. Nevertheless, The Skeptic’s intuition is this target has not yet been achieved.
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.
This is the contrary in Mill’s eyes. Democracy nurtures the tyranny of the majority by allowing public opinion to stomp over the voice of the minority. This form of tyranny is the gravest and most enslaving. There is little or no guarantee that what the majority deems fit or best is really so. It is paramount, bearing in mind that the stance of the majority is also tainted with motives and biases that should not come in when making decisions for a society.
There are many challenges faced in Sexual Assault Law. The attitudes of the public towards sexual violence are inaccurate in many cases. Sexual Assault Law is a legacy of legal process based on stereotypes and myths about women and sex. Many myths and stereotypes legally rejected continue to be invoked in trials today. The adversarial nature of the legal system can make people afraid of testifying.
Toleration allows for diversity to flourish and equality to thrive, so long as the government be restricted in using coercion to cause citizens to act “morally,” according to their standards. One may argue that the reason to protect rights in today’s society is to ensure that the government remain neutral to protect individuals from coercion
The other reason is, it has been arisen also due to fact that there is a doubt that the ruling bodies are failed to deliver the goods governance. Thirdly, it occurs because the entire system has been plagued by ineffectiveness and inactiveness. The violation of basic human rights has been also led to Judicial Activism. Finally, due to the misuse and abuse of some of the provisions of the constitution, Judicial Activism has gained significance. So sometimes judges has to act accordingly favoring that what is right to make the justice to the party vie using the power.
There are multiple opinions of what justice concludes of, but for now I will only focus on the two. I will be discussing the differences between Rawls’ “A Theory of Justice” and Nozick’s “Entitlement Theory.” Not only that, I will also support why Nozick’s “Entitlement Theory” is the superior theory of Justice. Rawls’ “A Theory of Justice” is based on the idea that society cooperates with one another for mutual advantage. If society is a matter of cooperation between equals, the conditions need to be defended and any inequalities among the social positions must be justified. However, in order for the agreement to be secured, we need to eliminate any bias of the rich or the poor, or the religious and the atheist.
Rules set the standard and keep things in balance. Furthermore, having rules not only keeps things in balance, but also maintains order within a society. It keeps from rebellions happening and maintains peace. Another reason why government is necessary is because it states the rights that a citizen has. Obviously we have the Bill of Rights which state what our rights are, but due to the many changes in the 21st century and our ever evolving country, citizens have been given the right to same sex marriage and to oppose abortion and euthanasia.
looks at how it ultimately affects society and targeted groups. There are a myriad of arguments for and against the allowance of hate speech. Some citing Democracy and the first amendment others stem from the fear of eroded freedoms of expression and have valid points, but ultimately, it corrodes society’s human rights and freedoms. The two fold issue being intolerance of the freedom of self-determination and the fact that some are born a color or culture and have no choice. Therefore, hate speech is anti-social and damaging to society as a whole.
Throwing the word government out in a conversation can often cause anxiety among fellow peers, as with the word politician. Often a person’s response may be, “let’s not get into that right now.” Consequently, some would call that a knee jerk reaction. Fortunately, there’s no time like the present to dive right in and begin to unpack this thinking concerning the overall impact of government in our society, in addition to the level of importance bureaucracy has within it. Today’s political climate seems to be an all-out war. Resulting the casting of stones, one way or another and the media has more to share than their mouths can blurt out.
2- By removing its causes and controlling its effects are the two main ways, they could also by destroying the liberty and by giving every citizen the same opinion passions and interests. Obviously the last two would not work because liberty is essential to have in a government. Also all people do not have the same opinions and passions and interests, in a free nation we are entitled to have our own ideas and passions and such. The only effective way would be to control effects and to try and remove the causes. The main problem would be since people have opinions the causes would be almost impossible to
They believed that because people are instinctively selfish, that people would have a hard time coexisting in a land where all people were supposed to be treated equal. Though the government was created to aid the people, it was also established to teach the people how to “live properly”. The fact that the constitution was written in the mindset that people needed to be, in a sense, controlled is was and remains a controversial topic. Many view the constitution’s favor for the rich, white, and male property owners was not so much of an “easier way to unify a nation” but more of a list of who it was going to be more desireable to govern. These facts aside, in order to instill equality to a newlywed nation, the people were given some basic human rights and the power to choose who was going to represent them in order to still make sure that the people were still the basis of the new government while still having control over them.
What could possibly be causing these subjects to picking the wrong answer, even when they knew it wasn’t the right answer? In order to learn more, Asch interviewed the subjects after the experiment, asking them why they conformed with the group. Majority of the subjects “stated that while they knew the rest of the group was wrong, they did not want to risk facing ridicule”, while a few of the subjects “suggested that they actually believed the other members of the group were correct in their answers” (Cherry 1). This makes sense, doesn’t it? At some point in our lives, we’ve conformed to fit in with our peers.