In Nicholas Carr’s article, “How Smartphones Hijack Our Minds” (November 10, 2017) Carr discusses the implications of allowing our smartphones to have such a huge effect on our lives. Smartphones serve many purposes, and have created massive societal effects throughout the world despite being introduced roughly only two decades ago. One can converse with anyone in the world at any given moment, they can watch any television show they want, and they can receive alerts so they no longer have to put effort into remembering things themselves. However, with so much control over people’s own lives, one begins to wonder about the negative consequences of the smartphones themselves. Carr brings up the question of how our minds can be negatively affected by this when he asks, “So what happens to our minds when we allow a single tool such dominion over our own perception and cognition?” While Carr is aware that the smartphone serves a countless number of useful purposes and tasks, he believes we should think deeper about the lesser known effects of our smartphones which people so easily allow to take over their lives.
He explains that only when the legislature does not act in the best interest of its citizens or if they “endeavour to invade the property of the subject,” do the citizens have grounds for rebellion (). Following from the previous paragraph, when governments attempt to address inequality without the expressed consent of the governed, they may be dissolved. Focusing so singularly on the protection of property and therefore the protection of inequality will directly contrast with
The problem with the social contract lies in the opposing forces of individual freedom versus the sovereign that was formed when they united. How can we give up our individual rights without hurting them? Rousseau states, “The problem is to find a form of association which will defend and protect with the whole common force the person and goods of each associate, and in which each, while uniting himself with all, may still obey himself alone, and remain as free as before." This is the crux of
The Primary objective of all leaders should be to control citizens. A society that allows authority to be challenged will never succeed. This source depicts an authoritarian or totalitarian view of what a governing body should look like. The author suggests that the primary objective of government should be the “control of the citizens”, and therefore that the individuals should entirely obey said government. This ideology is counter to that of liberalism as it infringes on the natural rights of its citizens, and it is undemocratic as this society would not have the consent of the governed as a whole.
But while numerous parents may feel allayed about their teens’ seeming uninterested in drinking, driving and dating, they could perhaps be overlooking the effects that continuous internet access has on their teens’ mental well-being. In the article “Have Smartphones Destroyed a Generation?”, Jean M. Twenge compares iGen to previous generations. The smartphone and social media define “iGen”, the generation born between 1995 to 2012. Twenge accuses smartphones for sleep deprivation, anti-socialization, courtship, sexual activities, and poor mental health. The omnipresence of the smartphone affects adolescents in every section of the United States, regardless of social class and ethnic background.
If one breaks the laws, there are consequences that they face. If there were no laws, then freedom would exist. The general public does not have the right to define freedom because the ruling class owns and defines what freedom is. Freedom is neither tangible nor obtainable because according to B. F. Skinner he stated that “People identify the state of absolute freedom as one in which aversive control is absent: that is, if there is no apparent oppression, then people imagine themselves free”. I agree with Skinner because the general public is nothing more than “Happy Slaves”, we are molded by hidden controls (laws) and don’t even realize it.
The belief that every event has a cause and that we have free will is incompatible together base on the views of the philosophers. Philosophers who believe that we do not have free will and that belief one is false are known to be determinists. Determinists believe that every
Like Martin Luther King Jr once said “One has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws.” With these words in mind, I affirm the resolution resolved: Civil disobedience in a democracy is morally justified. I offer the following definitions to help clarify the round: Civil disobedience is nonviolent refusal to follow the laws or demands of government to prove a point and the person participating in civil disobedience has to accept the consequences. A democracy is a government by the people, where the people elect representatives or the leader. Not everyone has to vote in a democracy but, the leaders or representatives have to be decided by the majority of eligible voters. Morally is doing the right thing based on the morals of the people
Rawl describe the veil of ignorance as a tool that aims to allow people only to know how a general society works, and helps people choose rational principles of justice based on universal morals. Rawls theorized that the veil of ignorance allows people to erase their bias and come to unanimous agreements because no one is in a position to make any principles of justice tailored to the natural lottery of life, in other words the only way one can determine if a choice, or action is moral is if they don’t know how it affect them. Rawls theory of justice introduces two principles which his theory is dependent on. The first principle states: “each person is to have an equal right to the most extensive basic liberty compatible with a similar liberty for others” (Rawls 60). The main concept Rawls conveys is that behind the veil of ignorance the individual does not know there advantage so, that person will try to strive towards
Rawls believed that everyone in society should have had equal political rights, although social and economic inequalities existed, but only under the condition that they were to the maximum advantage of the least advantaged people in society. On the other hand, while philosopher Robert Nozick paid a generous tribute to the brilliance of Rawls’ philosophical construction, he provides a rejection to Rawls’ claims from a libertarian perspective. Libertarians have the desire to divide and limit power. That is, government will be limited generally through a written constitution limiting the powers that the people delegate to government (Boaz, 2015). Nozick stated that Rawls’ idea would have resulted in the restriction of free choice or forced distribution within the society.