An Overview of the Non-Violent Direct Action, Liberty or Harm Principle, and Civil Disobedience

An Overview of the Non-Violent Direct Action, Liberty or Harm Principle, and Civil Disobedience Non-Violent Direct Action (King) Non- violent direct action according to Martin Luther King is to create a tension using the four steps listed below in the community so people cannot ignore the injustice that is happening. King lists four steps to non-violent direct action: 1. Collect facts determine if injustice exists and to what extent does it exist, 2. Negotiation: give the people who are doing evil to solve the injustice without any violence, 3. Self purification: don’t stoop low enough and do things like they are doing by justifying your action as being needed for change, 4: Direct action. The importance of non- violent direct action is to break or fix the unjust law that is placed on the minority by the majority. Also another importance of this is to create a civil disobedience without violence. King believes that people should break the unjust law in public to protest the injustice, which is to break the law openly and break the law lovingly, and to accept the consequence willingly. He says that show them that you are out there to fix the unjust law and not just breaking laws, and are out there to prove that your ideas are better without the use of violence. Liberty/Harm Principle (Mill) Mills definition of Liberty or harm principle is that people should be able to do whatever they want as long as their action is not harming others. Mill’s harm principle states â€Å"The only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others† if the individual is not harming others then the government should not be able to stop him from doing what he wants (Dimock, P.376). The only time that a government or the majority has power an individual is if that individual is harming others, as long as that is not the case then the individuals knows what is good for him and should be able to do what he is beneficial to him. The importance of the harm principle or liberty is to limit the power of the government or majority over the individual. Mill believes that individuals should be autonomous and free of the governments opinion as long as their action is not harming others in the process. The purpose of the harm principle is to ensure that the government is not controlling the liberty of an individual by means of physical force by using legal penalties, or by moral coercion or the public’s opinion. Mill believes that people should be the one to decide what is good or bad for them even if the decision they are making is not the right one as long as it cause no harm to others. So the majority should not have a say on what is good for the individual because the individual knows what is best for him. Civil Disobedience (Rawls) According to Rawl civil disobedience is a public, nonviolent, conscientious yet political act contrary to law usually done with the aim of changing the law in a nearly just society. Civil disobedience is associated with conscientious refusal that is noncompliance with a more or less direct legal order. Rawl believes that civil disobedience is justified if the normal appeal to the majority have failed, and if it is believed to be that there has been made a serious violations of the first principle of justice of the second part of the second principle of justice and there can not be so many groups engaged in civil disobedience that society breaks down. Rawl address that civil disobedience is political act because it address the people who hold the power as well as by the principle of justice. The importance of civil obedience is that it is used to bring or strength just institutions and treat everyone equally and just. It is also important because it prevents just institutions from becoming unjust institutions as well as to let the majority know that the â€Å"condition of free cooperation are being violated. We are appealing to others to reconsider, to put themselves in our position, and recognize that they cannot expect us to acquiesce indefinitely in the terms they imposed upon us†. Just Punishment Punishment involves purposefully inflicting pain on a potential or actual offender for an offense like moral or legal wrongdoings. Punishment is morally and legally justified because of the pain that it inflicts on the perpetrator of a crime that is inflicted on his victim. Since punishment is justifiable, philosophers give different justification of punishment depending on what their philosophical belief is. Retributivists approach to punishment is justified by linking it to the moral wrongdoing, because retributivist believe that punishment is justified because it gives people who have committed an offense what they deserve. Retributivist’s focus on the moral duties on individual has. For a person to behave morally the individual must be following moral duties, and if not then the individual is behaving immorally. Utilitarian attempt to justify punishment by showing the good over evil that is produced. Utilitarian’s believe on the consequence of the action produced. S o if the action of doing something inflicts pain for the majority then punishment is justifiable. Both retributivist and utilitarian believe that punishment is evil so there must be a reasonable justification for it. These theories have different approach to justification. Utilitarian’s believe justification is punishment is acceptable if it maximizes the benefit for more people while decreasing pain inflicted. Retributivists believe justification of punishment is acceptable it is done out of duty and rule. Jeremy Bentham as the consequentialist utilitarian theorist believes that the moral appropriateness of an action depends on the consequence; on the other hand Kant as deontological theorist believes the moral appropriateness of an action depends on the obedience to the rule or duty no matter of the consequences. Utilitarianism is a consequentialist theory. An action is wrong because the consequence that is produced by that action harms others, â€Å"Utilitarian’s believe that the morally right thing to do is whatever will produce the best consequences for all those affected by your action† (Dimock, 529). Jeremy Bentham as a consequentialist utilitarian theorist believes an action to be just if it accomplishes to generate the most happiness and least pain for most people that are being affected by that action. Utilitarianism use consequences of an action to judge if the action is right or wrong and the pain and happiness it produces to the majority. An example of this is demonstrated on page 529 about lying and telling the truth. Utilitarian’s believe if lying is the right thing to do for the good of the others then the lying is justified, even though it is morally wrong to lie. Then utilitarian approach to punishment is based on the benefit it produces to the community. The main point of the theory of punishment is to deter people from committing a crime and produce maximum pleasure for the community. The aim of punishment for utilitarian is to stop crime from happening again, convince offenders to choose a less costly offense, convince offenders to do a little harm as possible, and prevent offenses as cheap as possible because these actions produce the most benefit to the public as a whole. In order to prevent crime from happening again the value of punishment must not be less than what is sufficient to outweigh the profit of the offense. Punishment outweighs the profit of the offense then people will be less likely to commit crimes. Unlike Bentham and his belief in utilitarianism, Kant believes that our actions are ruled only by duty and not by consequence since we are not able to control the consequence of an action. His theory is that an action is just or unjust regardless of the consequence and is only determined by the obligation to one’s duty. â€Å"Good will is good quite independently of any consequences it does or is expected to have† people do good will because that is their duty and as citizens we should do our duty (Dimock, 541). Since we are individuals with brains and we know what is right and wrong and if we violate the rule or fail to do our duty then we deserve the punishment that is given to us. While utilitarianism believe that punishment should be used to deter future crime and rehabilitate the individual, Retributions believe that punishment should be used because the offender deserves to be punished for his action. Retributions have the idea of an eye for an eye. They believe t hat the purpose of punishment is to ensure the equality of citizens, and to publicly disapprove an act. From the perspective of morality or justice Bentham’s system of utilitarianism would be acceptable in some situations while not others and the same goes for Kant’s theory as well. For example: There is a situation where two people are in a fight and one person is very angry and wants to harm the other individual and he asks you if you know where the person is. In this situations Kant’s theory would say that we should tell where the person is hiding regardless of the harm because lying is morally wrong. Bentham in the other hand would say we should not tell where the person is because we are lying for the greater good. Another example is a situation killing one person could save ten or more people. Bentham would say that we should kill that one person in order to save the majority that is the benefit of the majority is more important than of that one individual. Kant would say no we should not because morally we do not have that power. If looking at it from the pe rspective of justice then it would be for the killing of one individual even though it is morally wrong. Both Utilitarian and retributivist believe that punishment is evil and that there should be a justification for it. And each use different methods of justification for punishment. Utilitarian’s believe that punishment is justified because it prevents future crimes. Since utilitarian’s believe that the consequences of an action is important in determining or justifying punishment, then punishment should be used to produced maximum happiness to majority. Retributivist believes punishment should be justified based on the rightness or wrongness of the act.

Obama Housing Refinance Proposal and Program Essay

Obama Housing Refinance Proposal and Program - Essay Example According to the research findings it can therefore be said that President Obama announced a new plan to help struggling homeowners who are current on their mortgages, but underwater by refinancing. Mortgage rates are currently at historical lows and Obama would like to make refinancing into these historic rates available to more homeowners across the country. Obama anticipates providing relief to about 3.5 million people with underwater mortgages. Obama expect the average homeowner to save roughly $300-$500 a month by refinancing into these new low rates. He explained that refinancing would help free up additional money for consumers, therefore helping to stimulate the economy. Obama faces stiff opposition from Republicans in Congress on his refinancing plan, which must first pass congress. United States is known as the ‘land of opportunities’ and people from all over the world come to the country in hope of a better future. But this land of opportunities is facing some serious crisis lately. The financial crisis of 2008 has hit the country badly and has affected the majority of the population. Approximately 11 million people are suffering from serious financial watershed and they cannot even afford a proper shelter to live in. The reason for these problems in the United States and the attempts that American President Barack Obama made to ease the issues of the citizens will be discussed in this paper. The residents of the United States were mortgaged in large numbers and therefore the collapse of the housing market forced many people out on the streets. The homeowners were to pay off the amount of money that was worth more than their houses which was due to the decrease in property rates all over the country. This is where the decision maker Obama stepped in. He decided to revise the Housing Refinance Proposal that would bring out the homeowners from their misery. Previous Financing Policies The United States government is well known for their ex tra ordinary Housing Finance Policies. The housing policies of the country are considered as standards for the less developed countries. Let’s discuss briefly about the previous Financing Policies that were implemented by the United States government. The United States Housing Policy allowed residents to have tax deductable interest payments. This practice is unique because a certain amount of tax is always applied on the interest payments for loans in different parts of the world (Barth, et. al.178). The deduction of tax meant a great assistance for the house owners of the country. Furthermore, the United States government also set up an organization that would be responsible for providing securities to the loan borrowers. The organization was named as the Federal Housing Administration and the FHA was there to handle the security issues. Therefore no one was denied a loan because of absence of security or collateral. Unfortunately the policies that were devised by the US go vernment did not work even though they contained some points that were exemplary for the rest of the world. The Housing Policy of the US failed dramatically because every other person was given loans that they couldn’t afford. The assumption behind the policies was that property prices will continue to increase in future. The reason behind the failure was also the benefits provided to the borrowers. Giving loans without proper collaterals was a big mistake of US administration. Issues of the existing policies and poverty of people The policies that were set up by the US government were for the prosperity of the homeowners. US being a democratic nation, prevailing policies were not appreciated by all. Many banks austerely protested against the deduction of tax. According to their point of view, excluding the tax would not be fruitful for the banks in the long run. Also the numbers of the customers getting loans certainly increased as a result of these policies. This resulted i n more

International Relation Theory Case Study Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1250 words

International Relation Theory - Case Study Example This school of thought argues that this was not normal intervention since it raised questions regarding the legitimacy of humanitarian intervention, the nature of sovereignty statehood and the role of international community to rescue individual and nations at risk. Using the English approach in studying the conflict in Kosovo makes it possible to understand the need of international intervention in relation to rule of sovereignty and general prohibition against use of force. According to social constructivist approach, argues the causes of the riots by the Kosovo students were motivated by political reasons whereby the Kosovar Albanians demanded for republican status within Yugoslavia. In this regard, the actions by the kosovars demonstrated their collective identity in that these demonstrations led to reforms that strengthened Albanian identity. Throughout the 1980’s, there was growth of Yugoslav identification and its implication for the stability of the Yugoslav, but through socialization, people began to view themselves differently. This perception made Yugoslav vulnerable because of lack of state support and the emergence of entrepreneurs using nationalist ideas to pursue a variety of agenda. The rise of nationalist entrepreneurs began to portray Kosovo issue as victimization of Serbs in Kosovo and larger problem with Yugoslavia as a whole. In addition, constructivist theory can be applied in federalism did not serve to answer all of national questions in Yugoslavia. In Kosovo, the Yugoslav idea was not accepted by those of Albanian ethnicity who were majority of the population in the area. The federal structure that confined Albanian population to the status of national minority and Kosovo to sub federal unit has won wider acceptance among Kosovo Albanians. The kosovar Albanians took into uprisings to protest against their incorporation in Yugoslav political structure. This idea manifested in 1980 when the kosovars Albanians rejected the Yugoslav ideas eventually plunging them into deadly conflict. The conflict in Kosovo led to systematic rape, which is identified by international law as war crime. Therefore, liberal feminist seeks to whose law is it because rape is interpreted from gendered viewpoint as attack on woman’s honor. Liberal feminist on the other hand recruited women in the military force. Women helped in provision of services in legal institutions in that they acted as prosecutors and attorneys this was done with the aim of promoting gender equality and preserve public image. In addition, gendered expectation and assumption in conflict resolution is vital in that it gives women a chance to move from victim part, and reclaim their agency and participate actively in recovery process. Critical feminist perspective seek s to understand how the contemporary world order developed and to identify who is hurt or benefit by current array of power relation. In addition, the war led to massive women trafficking and exclusion of women from decision-making based on gendered and ethnicized interpretation of woman’s place in Kosovo society. The question that many historians pose is that what led the United States of America to engage herself in the operation-allied forces in 1999? Unites states had little extrinsic or economic interest in the Balkans after the Soviet Union had collapsed. The republic of Yugoslavia was weak and poor situated on the periphery of Europe. The conflicts in Kosovo caused a security threat to US secondary interest in Europe given that the country was closer to NATO