Поиск

Полнотекстовый поиск:
Где искать:
везде
только в названии
только в тексте
Выводить:
описание
слова в тексте
только заголовок

Рекомендуем ознакомиться

Остальные работы->Реферат
let’s say some workers go on a by-the-book slowdown (passive-aggressive), where everything is done precisely by the rules: garbage cans are neatly pla...полностью>>
Остальные работы->Реферат
AIDS is probably the most known and most deadly disease in the nation and probably in the whole world. It is a disease that strikes anywhere, anytime,...полностью>>
Остальные работы->Реферат
Design, Setting, and Participants A total of 393 athletes from 4 university football programs across the United States received preseason baseline eva...полностью>>
Остальные работы->Реферат
In the essay “Shooting an Elephant” by George Orwell, the author uses metaphors to represent his feelings on imperialism, the internal conflict betwee...полностью>>

Главная > Реферат >Остальные работы

Сохрани ссылку в одной из сетей:

Reason Drives Us Not Law Essay, Research Paper

Law does not Drive us, reason does

English 111

February 21, 1997

Is an individual ever morally justified in breaking a man made law? I firmly believe the answer to this question is yes. If the question was stated as, is an individual ever legally justified in breaking a man made law I would have to say no. There are several reasons that have made me believe that it is morally justifiable in breaking the law; however the most convincing comes from Dr. Martin Luther King in his letter from a Birmingham Jail. ” We can never forget what that everything Hitler did in Germany was legal…” (Classic Arguments 668). King went on in his letter to say that it would be against man made law to help a jew in Nazi Germany. What King said in his letter has to make a person think that not all laws are good for the group in society and morality is a justifiable excuse in breaking the law.

Those who oppose my view on this question may be quick to ask me how come we go by law and not morality in society. Last year at St. Louis University I had a roommate with the complete opposite view on this question. He explained himself this way:

Human nature consists of three basic components. These are to live,

propagate, and to dominate. If humanity was left without any other parameters,

this natural state of existence would govern its behavior. Fortunately there are

Parameters, and they are laws. (Mosier)

What this basically says is that laws are made up to maintain order, monitor actions, and work for the best interest of society as a whole. If their were no laws chaos and anarchy would be widespread. This is why society has set up governments. To maintain order and to gives us safety.

All of the above sounds good to me; however I have written a term paper on international politics that points out where our own government has broken its own laws. The first is the Congressional order allowing Federal Investigators to take into custody fugitives of American laws no matter where they are apprehended on this planet. The second example is the raid on Panama during George Busch’s presidency that involved the invasion of a Nicaraguan ambassadors home. Both of these violate the laws of sovereignty, jurisdiction, and extraterritoriality (Huston). It is very easy to show that these two acts of the U.S. government are in complete contradiction to our very own constitution.

So now it easy to say that laws sometimes need to be broken for the good of the masses. When Dr. King wrote that he would aid the Jews even though he would be braking the law and be open about, he was making the point that yes it was morally justifiable to break the law. This is where it becomes really tricky and philosophical. How does a person say what is morally right or morally wrong. Morals can be best described as choosing right from wrong or easier said a morals is simple yet complicated reason. The Universe as a whole must follow reason, but the catch is that each individual is slightly different in that each individual perceives his or hers own universe and reason differently (Sandesara 2). That is the tricky part of morals, we just can not say that this is wrong or that is right because everyone will see it differently.

When Dr. King said that he would aid a Jew in Nazi Germany, he said knowing that he would be breaking German law. He would be doing it because it is right and in the best interests of the masses and not the man made laws. Some would call Dr. King’s actions as civil disobedience. What actually Dr. King would be doing is helping and giving comfort to victims of an unjust and wrongful law. Can there be any wrongdoing in that; especially since it is in the publics best interest?

In conclusion I must say that what Dr. King said he would have done is honorable. To put this simply Dr. King would have done what is right for society. Helping a Jew in Nazi Germany or aiding a Christian in communist Russia is reasonable and in the best interest of society as a whole. The only group that would find objection are those who look to maintain power through the laws that they themselves make up and expect everyone else to follow.

Plato felt that we have a debt to society and its laws, which impart we do but do we have a debt to owe to immoral or unjust laws that harm other people or groups of peoples. So to restate myself it is completely justifiable to break a law if it can be seen as unjust or destructive to many peoples. Dr. King would have been more than right by helping a Jew in Nazi Germany even though it was to be considered illegal.

Huston, Tim. “International Politics.” Essay, International Business,

St. Louis University 1996.

Mosier, Mike. “The self as I See It.” Essay, Philosophy 115, St. Louis University 1995.

Rottenburg, Anette. “Dr. Martin Luther King, Letter From a Birmingham Jail.”

Elements of Argument.. Boston: St. Martin’s Press, 1991.

Sandisara, Samir. “Principals of Morals.” (1996): Online. Internet. Available Yahoo:

http://www.schoolemp.com/papers/science/philosophy/mor.txt.

Law does not Drive us, reason does

English 111

February 21, 1997

Is an individual ever morally justified in breaking a man made law? I firmly believe the answer to this question is yes. If the question was stated as, is an individual ever legally justified in breaking a man made law I would have to say no. There are several reasons that have made me believe that it is morally justifiable in breaking the law; however the most convincing comes from Dr. Martin Luther King in his letter from a Birmingham Jail. ” We can never forget what that everything Hitler did in Germany was legal…” (Classic Arguments 668). King went on in his letter to say that it would be against man made law to help a jew in Nazi Germany. What King said in his letter has to make a person think that not all laws are good for the group in society and morality is a justifiable excuse in breaking the law.

Those who oppose my view on this question may be quick to ask me how come we go by law and not morality in society. Last year at St. Louis University I had a roommate with the complete opposite view on this question. He explained himself this way:

Human nature consists of three basic components. These are to live,

propagate, and to dominate. If humanity was left without any other parameters,

this natural state of existence would govern its behavior. Fortunately there are

Parameters, and they are laws. (Mosier)

What this basically says is that laws are made up to maintain order, monitor actions, and work for the best interest of society as a whole. If their were no laws chaos and anarchy would be widespread. This is why society has set up governments. To maintain order and to gives us safety.

All of the above sounds good to me; however I have written a term paper on international politics that points out where our own government has broken its own laws. The first is the Congressional order allowing Federal Investigators to take into custody fugitives of American laws no matter where they are apprehended on this planet. The second example is the raid on Panama during George Busch’s presidency that involved the invasion of a Nicaraguan ambassadors home. Both of these violate the laws of sovereignty, jurisdiction, and extraterritoriality (Huston). It is very easy to show that these two acts of the U.S. government are in complete contradiction to our very own constitution.

So now it easy to say that laws sometimes need to be broken for the good of the masses. When Dr. King wrote that he would aid the Jews even though he would be braking the law and be open about, he was making the point that yes it was morally justifiable to break the law. This is where it becomes really tricky and philosophical. How does a person say what is morally right or morally wrong. Morals can be best described as choosing right from wrong or easier said a morals is simple yet complicated reason. The Universe as a whole must follow reason, but the catch is that each individual is slightly different in that each individual perceives his or hers own universe and reason differently (Sandesara 2). That is the tricky part of morals, we just can not say that this is wrong or that is right because everyone will see it differently.

When Dr. King said that he would aid a Jew in Nazi Germany, he said knowing that he would be breaking German law. He would be doing it because it is right and in the best interests of the masses and not the man made laws. Some would call Dr. King’s actions as civil disobedience. What actually Dr. King would be doing is helping and giving comfort to victims of an unjust and wrongful law. Can there be any wrongdoing in that; especially since it is in the publics best interest?

In conclusion I must say that what Dr. King said he would have done is honorable. To put this simply Dr. King would have done what is right for society. Helping a Jew in Nazi Germany or aiding a Christian in communist Russia is reasonable and in the best interest of society as a whole. The only group that would find objection are those who look to maintain power through the laws that they themselves make up and expect everyone else to follow.

Plato felt that we have a debt to society and its laws, which impart we do but do we have a debt to owe to immoral or unjust laws that harm other people or groups of peoples. So to restate myself it is completely justifiable to break a law if it can be seen as unjust or destructive to many peoples. Dr. King would have been more than right by helping a Jew in Nazi Germany even though it was to be considered illegal.

Works Cited

Huston, Tim. “International Politics.” Essay, International Business,

St. Louis University 1996.

Mosier, Mike. “The self as I See It.” Essay, Philosophy 115, St. Louis University 1995.

Rottenburg, Anette. “Dr. Martin Luther King, Letter From a Birmingham Jail.”

Elements of Argument.. Boston: St. Martin’s Press, 1991.

Sandisara, Samir. “Principals of Morals.” (1996): Online. Internet. Available Yahoo:

http://www.schoolemp.com/papers/science/philosophy/mor.txt.

Law does not Drive us, reason does

English 111

February 21, 1997

Is an individual ever morally justified in breaking a man made law? I firmly believe the answer to this question is yes. If the question was stated as, is an individual ever legally justified in breaking a man made law I would have to say no. There are several reasons that have made me believe that it is morally justifiable in breaking the law; however the most convincing comes from Dr. Martin Luther King in his letter from a Birmingham Jail. ” We can never forget what that everything Hitler did in Germany was legal…” (Classic Arguments 668). King went on in his letter to say that it would be against man made law to help a jew in Nazi Germany. What King said in his letter has to make a person think that not all laws are good for the group in society and morality is a justifiable excuse in breaking the law.

Those who oppose my view on this question may be quick to ask me how come we go by law and not morality in society. Last year at St. Louis University I had a roommate with the complete opposite view on this question. He explained himself this way:

Human nature consists of three basic components. These are to live,

propagate, and to dominate. If humanity was left without any other parameters,

this natural state of existence would govern its behavior. Fortunately there are

Parameters, and they are laws. (Mosier)

What this basically says is that laws are made up to maintain order, monitor actions, and work for the best interest of society as a whole. If their were no laws chaos and anarchy would be widespread. This is why society has set up governments. To maintain order and to gives us safety.

All of the above sounds good to me; however I have written a term paper on international politics that points out where our own government has broken its own laws. The first is the Congressional order allowing Federal Investigators to take into custody fugitives of American laws no matter where they are apprehended on this planet. The second example is the raid on Panama during George Busch’s presidency that involved the invasion of a Nicaraguan ambassadors home. Both of these violate the laws of sovereignty, jurisdiction, and extraterritoriality (Huston). It is very easy to show that these two acts of the U.S. government are in complete contradiction to our very own constitution.

So now it easy to say that laws sometimes need to be broken for the good of the masses. When Dr. King wrote that he would aid the Jews even though he would be braking the law and be open about, he was making the point that yes it was morally justifiable to break the law. This is where it becomes really tricky and philosophical. How does a person say what is morally right or morally wrong. Morals can be best described as choosing right from wrong or easier said a morals is simple yet complicated reason. The Universe as a whole must follow reason, but the catch is that each individual is slightly different in that each individual perceives his or hers own universe and reason differently (Sandesara 2). That is the tricky part of morals, we just can not say that this is wrong or that is right because everyone will see it differently.

When Dr. King said that he would aid a Jew in Nazi Germany, he said knowing that he would be breaking German law. He would be doing it because it is right and in the best interests of the masses and not the man made laws. Some would call Dr. King’s actions as civil disobedience. What actually Dr. King would be doing is helping and giving comfort to victims of an unjust and wrongful law. Can there be any wrongdoing in that; especially since it is in the publics best interest?

In conclusion I must say that what Dr. King said he would have done is honorable. To put this simply Dr. King would have done what is right for society. Helping a Jew in Nazi Germany or aiding a Christian in communist Russia is reasonable and in the best interest of society as a whole. The only group that would find objection are those who look to maintain power through the laws that they themselves make up and expect everyone else to follow.

Plato felt that we have a debt to society and its laws, which impart we do but do we have a debt to owe to immoral or unjust laws that harm other people or groups of peoples. So to restate myself it is completely justifiable to break a law if it can be seen as unjust or destructive to many peoples. Dr. King would have been more than right by helping a Jew in Nazi Germany even though it was to be considered illegal.

Works Cited

Huston, Tim. “International Politics.” Essay, International Business,

St. Louis University 1996.

Mosier, Mike. “The self as I See It.” Essay, Philosophy 115, St. Louis University 1995.

Rottenburg, Anette. “Dr. Martin Luther King, Letter From a Birmingham Jail.”

Elements of Argument.. Boston: St. Martin’s Press, 1991.

Sandisara, Samir. “Principals of Morals.” (1996): Online. Internet. Available Yahoo:

http://www.schoolemp.com/papers/science/philosophy/mor.txt.

Law does not Drive us, reason does

English 111

February 21, 1997

Is an individual ever morally justified in breaking a man made law? I firmly believe the answer to this question is yes. If the question was stated as, is an individual ever legally justified in breaking a man made law I would have to say no. There are several reasons that have made me believe that it is morally justifiable in breaking the law; however the most convincing comes from Dr. Martin Luther King in his letter from a Birmingham Jail. ” We can never forget what that everything Hitler did in Germany was legal…” (Classic Arguments 668). King went on in his letter to say that it would be against man made law to help a jew in Nazi Germany. What King said in his letter has to make a person think that not all laws are good for the group in society and morality is a justifiable excuse in breaking the law.

Those who oppose my view on this question may be quick to ask me how come we go by law and not morality in society. Last year at St. Louis University I had a roommate with the complete opposite view on this question. He explained himself this way:

Human nature consists of three basic components. These are to live,

propagate, and to dominate. If humanity was left without any other parameters,

this natural state of existence would govern its behavior. Fortunately there are

Parameters, and they are laws. (Mosier)

What this basically says is that laws are made up to maintain order, monitor actions, and work for the best interest of society as a whole. If their were no laws chaos and anarchy would be widespread. This is why society has set up governments. To maintain order and to gives us safety.

All of the above sounds good to me; however I have written a term paper on international politics that points out where our own government has broken its own laws. The first is the Congressional order allowing Federal Investigators to take into custody fugitives of American laws no matter where they are apprehended on this planet. The second example is the raid on Panama during George Busch’s presidency that involved the invasion of a Nicaraguan ambassadors home. Both of these violate the laws of sovereignty, jurisdiction, and extraterritoriality (Huston). It is very easy to show that these two acts of the U.S. government are in complete contradiction to our very own constitution.

So now it easy to say that laws sometimes need to be broken for the good of the masses. When Dr. King wrote that he would aid the Jews even though he would be braking the law and be open about, he was making the point that yes it was morally justifiable to break the law. This is where it becomes really tricky and philosophical. How does a person say what is morally right or morally wrong. Morals can be best described as choosing right from wrong or easier said a morals is simple yet complicated reason. The Universe as a whole must follow reason, but the catch is that each individual is slightly different in that each individual perceives his or hers own universe and reason differently (Sandesara 2). That is the tricky part of morals, we just can not say that this is wrong or that is right because everyone will see it differently.

When Dr. King said that he would aid a Jew in Nazi Germany, he said knowing that he would be breaking German law. He would be doing it because it is right and in the best interests of the masses and not the man made laws. Some would call Dr. King’s actions as civil disobedience. What actually Dr. King would be doing is helping and giving comfort to victims of an unjust and wrongful law. Can there be any wrongdoing in that; especially since it is in the publics best interest?

In conclusion I must say that what Dr. King said he would have done is honorable. To put this simply Dr. King would have done what is right for society. Helping a Jew in Nazi Germany or aiding a Christian in communist Russia is reasonable and in the best interest of society as a whole. The only group that would find objection are those who look to maintain power through the laws that they themselves make up and expect everyone else to follow.

Plato felt that we have a debt to society and its laws, which impart we do but do we have a debt to owe to immoral or unjust laws that harm other people or groups of peoples. So to restate myself it is completely justifiable to break a law if it can be seen as unjust or destructive to many peoples. Dr. King would have been more than right by helping a Jew in Nazi Germany even though it was to be considered illegal.

Works Cited

Huston, Tim. “International Politics.” Essay, International Business,

St. Louis University 1996.

Mosier, Mike. “The self as I See It.” Essay, Philosophy 115, St. Louis University 1995.

Rottenburg, Anette. “Dr. Martin Luther King, Letter From a Birmingham Jail.”

Elements of Argument.. Boston: St. Martin’s Press, 1991.

Sandisara, Samir. “Principals of Morals.” (1996): Online. Internet. Available Yahoo:

http://www.schoolemp.com/papers/science/philosophy/mor.txt.

Law does not Drive us, reason does

English 111

February 21, 1997

Is an individual ever morally justified in breaking a man made law? I firmly believe the answer to this question is yes. If the question was stated as, is an individual ever legally justified in breaking a man made law I would have to say no. There are several reasons that have made me believe that it is morally justifiable in breaking the law; however the most convincing comes from Dr. Martin Luther King in his letter from a Birmingham Jail. ” We can never forget what that everything Hitler did in Germany was legal…” (Classic Arguments 668). King went on in his letter to say that it would be against man made law to help a jew in Nazi Germany. What King said in his letter has to make a person think that not all laws are good for the group in society and morality is a justifiable excuse in breaking the law.

Those who oppose my view on this question may be quick to ask me how come we go by law and not morality in society. Last year at St. Louis University I had a roommate with the complete opposite view on this question. He explained himself this way:

Human nature consists of three basic components. These are to live,

propagate, and to dominate. If humanity was left without any other parameters,

this natural state of existence would govern its behavior. Fortunately there are

Parameters, and they are laws. (Mosier)

What this basically says is that laws are made up to maintain order, monitor actions, and work for the best interest of society as a whole. If their were no laws chaos and anarchy would be widespread. This is why society has set up governments. To maintain order and to gives us safety.

All of the above sounds good to me; however I have written a term paper on international politics that points out where our own government has broken its own laws. The first is the Congressional order allowing Federal Investigators to take into custody fugitives of American laws no matter where they are apprehended on this planet. The second example is the raid on Panama during George Busch’s presidency that involved the invasion of a Nicaraguan ambassadors home. Both of these violate the laws of sovereignty, jurisdiction, and extraterritoriality (Huston). It is very easy to show that these two acts of the U.S. government are in complete contradiction to our very own constitution.

So now it easy to say that laws sometimes need to be broken for the good of the masses. When Dr. King wrote that he would aid the Jews even though he would be braking the law and be open about, he was making the point that yes it was morally justifiable to break the law. This is where it becomes really tricky and philosophical. How does a person say what is morally right or morally wrong. Morals can be best described as choosing right from wrong or easier said a morals is simple yet complicated reason. The Universe as a whole must follow reason, but the catch is that each individual is slightly different in that each individual perceives his or hers own universe and reason differently (Sandesara 2). That is the tricky part of morals, we just can not say that this is wrong or that is right because everyone will see it differently.

When Dr. King said that he would aid a Jew in Nazi Germany, he said knowing that he would be breaking German law. He would be doing it because it is right and in the best interests of the masses and not the man made laws. Some would call Dr. King’s actions as civil disobedience. What actually Dr. King would be doing is helping and giving comfort to victims of an unjust and wrongful law. Can there be any wrongdoing in that; especially since it is in the publics best interest?

In conclusion I must say that what Dr. King said he would have done is honorable. To put this simply Dr. King would have done what is right for society. Helping a Jew in Nazi Germany or aiding a Christian in communist Russia is reasonable and in the best interest of society as a whole. The only group that would find objection are those who look to maintain power through the laws that they themselves make up and expect everyone else to follow.

Plato felt that we have a debt to society and its laws, which impart we do but do we have a debt to owe to immoral or unjust laws that harm other people or groups of peoples. So to restate myself it is completely justifiable to break a law if it can be seen as unjust or destructive to many peoples. Dr. King would have been more than right by helping a Jew in Nazi Germany even though it was to be considered illegal.

Works Cited

Huston, Tim. “International Politics.” Essay, International Business,

St. Louis University 1996.

Mosier, Mike. “The self as I See It.” Essay, Philosophy 115, St. Louis University 1995.

Rottenburg, Anette. “Dr. Martin Luther King, Letter From a Birmingham Jail.”

Elements of Argument.. Boston: St. Martin’s Press, 1991.

Sandisara, Samir. “Principals of Morals.” (1996): Online. Internet. Available Yahoo:

http://www.schoolemp.com/papers/science/philosophy/mor.txt.

Law does not Drive us, reason does

English 111

February 21, 1997

Is an individual ever morally justified in breaking a man made law? I firmly believe the answer to this question is yes. If the question was stated as, is an individual ever legally justified in breaking a man made law I would have to say no. There are several reasons that have made me believe that it is morally justifiable in breaking the law; however the most convincing comes from Dr. Martin Luther King in his letter from a Birmingham Jail. ” We can never forget what that everything Hitler did in Germany was legal…” (Classic Arguments 668). King went on in his letter to say that it would be against man made law to help a jew in Nazi Germany. What King said in his letter has to make a person think that not all laws are good for the group in society and morality is a justifiable excuse in breaking the law.

Those who oppose my view on this question may be quick to ask me how come we go by law and not morality in society. Last year at St. Louis University I had a roommate with the complete opposite view on this question. He explained himself this way:

Human nature consists of three basic components. These are to live,

propagate, and to dominate. If humanity was left without any other parameters,

this natural state of existence would govern its behavior. Fortunately there are

Parameters, and they are laws. (Mosier)

What this basically says is that laws are made up to maintain order, monitor actions, and work for the best interest of society as a whole. If their were no laws chaos and anarchy would be widespread. This is why society has set up governments. To maintain order and to gives us safety.

All of the above sounds good to me; however I have written a term paper on international politics that points out where our own government has broken its own laws. The first is the Congressional order allowing Federal Investigators to take into custody fugitives of American laws no m


Загрузить файл

Похожие страницы:

  1. Index Of memberspapersLaw Essay Research Paper Index

    Реферат >> Остальные работы
    ... Criminal Law.txt Curfew- Worth it or not .txt Dangerous driving and ... txt Falsely Accused.txt Fraud Essay.txt GUN CONTROL 2.txt ... txt power_between_the_legislative_an.htm prison_problems.htm reason drives us not law.txt religion and discrimination.txt ...
  2. King Lear Is Not Insane Essay Research

    Реферат >> Остальные работы
    King Lear Is Not Insane Essay, Research Paper The ... simply loves his daughters, Regan, Goneril, and Cordelia, ... of one’s actions.” Blacks Law Dictionary defines insane as ... this usage,/Coming from us.” One can see ... must not be angered, for it is driving him ...
  3. Private Enforcement Of Law Essay Research Paper

    Реферат >> Остальные работы
    Private Enforcement Of Law Essay, Research Paper 4. Private Enforcement of ... off their debt. For this reason, restitution has been called ... superior, disagreement should not lead us to dismiss restitution altogether ... people to give up driving, why should we think ...
  4. Little White Lie Essay Research Paper Orwell

    Реферат >> Остальные работы
    Little White Lie Essay, Research Paper Orwell & Marx Animalism ... our labour is stolen from us by human beings. There ... based on the Russian Revolution, did not keep nationalism from disappearing ... Farm, as each animal’s heart driven motivations drives them to ...
  5. Racism Issue In Institutional Racism Essay Research

    Реферат >> Остальные работы
    Racism: Issue In Institutional Racism Essay, Research Paper Racism: Issue In Institutional Racism ... In capitalism, a driving force is to ... need for a low cost labor supply. ... Chinese immigration but not naturalization. Anti- ... reply, the US government jailed those ...

Хочу больше похожих работ...

Generated in 0.0028738975524902