Examples Of Willful Blindness

Philosophical thought provides the infrastructure that allows society to author moral laws. While morality may be the aim, other variables can cause these laws to become corrupt. The urge for power is one of many, recurring, variables that infect morality. During these times of ‘infection,’ society must contest those who oppose just laws. In order to shine a light on unjust laws, laws are bound to be broken. It is not only lawful to break unjust laws, but the duty of the people to speak up and be a voice for change. It is critical, during these times, to work towards equilibrium with the goal to change the law. Regardless of the circumstances, it is lawful to break unjust laws with the goal to make them just again.

Ignorance , when voluntary, is criminal. A human who acts in this manner is just as guilty as the criminal doing the crime. Ignorance can be the will to not learn about certain subjects or choosing not to obtain the good in certain situations. Samuel Johnson is correct in ways, but not in the sense that it is morally wrong. Being close minded is to one’s personal decision and also being prejudice is also one. Choosing these behaviors might be beneficial to one, but also can be cruel to another. Judging before learning is a common mistake most people do. These types of ignorance causes not only dispute, but also leads to the height of the war. Ignorance is a part of human nature, but one is meant to learn from his or her own mistakes. Although

"Ignorance, when voluntary, is criminal.” Yes, I agree to this quote by Samuel Johnson. One knows when the action they are performing or is about to perform, is either legal or illegal. For example, if someone has in their mind that they are about to go to a convenience store to be childish or try to fit in with their crew and steal something so simple, such as a fifty cent bag of chips and a quarter drink, they know that that is a criminal act and consequences are going to follow after. If raised well, one knows right from wrong and their conscience will bother them, due to the wrong they have done. Depending on one’s situation dealing with stealing, if one is trying to fend for their selves or family, it may be acceptable in one’s eye, but

A study done in Source E shows that there are only eight percent of students that would turn in a fellow student for cheating. If that sort of dishonesty becomes rampant in a school, the honor codes can no longer be upheld properly. The honesty of students is key to the success of honor codes. If a student is dishonest about the misbehavior of another student, then the honor code goes to waste, because now the cheating has not been taken care of by the justice of the honor system. There is no foreseeable remedy for such behavior, and there will always be a “bad apple to ruin the bunch.”

Many people believe there is not a dividing line between ignorance and indifference, but they are more similar/connected to each other than people think and are the opposite of moral responsibility. In both the story “Night” and Elie Wiesel’s “The Perils of Indifference” the Americans(President) and the Germans both showed indifference toward the Jew during the Holocaust and World War II, which proves people are willing to sacrifice others to keep themselves safe and not get involved with anything that has nothing to do with them. Everyone on the Earth has a moral obligation to right the wrongs in our world to the extent where indifference can be justified.

One is released from these obligations if fulfilling them is sufficiently dangerous or costly. Even in those cases where it is dangerous or costly, Shelby argues, one is still obliged to avoid worsening the injustice of societal institutions and to avoid making a just society harder to achieve (Dark Ghetto, page 154). As such, the ghetto poor, who would often have to sacrifice greatly in order to bring about just institutions, can still be rightly criticized for any action or attitude that is contrary to these two duties of avoidance. Some instances of crime do, in fact, exacerbate the injustices of the system by worsening society’s view of the ghetto poor, inciting resentment from those outside the ghettos,

”Unjust law is no law at all.” In face of unjust laws, merely tolerance and obeying could be detrimental not only to personal rights but also to the well-being of the society. Therefore, it is indeed every people’s responsibility to disobey or even resist them. As we know during the sixties of America a number of citizens decided not to obey the law which itself is unjust and wrong any longer. Without their resistance, there wouldn’t have been the civil rights movement, anti-war

makes the doer of injustice happiest and the sufferers of it, who are unwilling to

When I myself am witness to acts of injustice my first reaction is usually anger, frustration which is then followed by a very vocal complaint. The same reactions come about when I myself am put under circumstances of injustice and I can only hope, but am not certain, that this is something regularly occurs with humans in general. I would have to say that some of the factors that contribute to the ways that I respond to injustice would be feelings that had occurred as a child when put into unjust situations as well as knowledge that I was given while growing up in both educational institutions as well as living in general. While I watched the movie Shawshank Redemption I witness an idea developed mainly by Stephen King that basically gave me hope by helping me see that due to what I call karma, the people that are exaggerating unjust behavior will eventually get what is coming to them. This is displayed well by the showing of all the ignorant behavior put on by the warden and what happened to him in the end.

If a college campus harbors an environent where cheating is seen as acceptable and an activity many people participate in, even students with correct morals and no desire to cheat themselves are less likely to report fellow students for unsavory behavior. This can also go a step further and that same student who failed to confront a peer for cheating, may give in to the school’s atmosphere and start cheating themselves. This makes them all the less likely to report other students for fear of appearing hypocritical and/or being reported themselves. A study on honor code effectiveness was completed by Sally Sledge and Pam Pringle at a small public university (Source E). Their results showed that only 8% of students would report a fellow student for cheating. Even more surprisingly, 40% of students anonymously stated that they had “violated the honor code and not been caught”. This points to a very cheater-friendly attitude at this particular school and shows that the honor system is not very effective in this

4. “Law never made men a whit more just; and, by means of their respect for it, even the well-disposed are daily made the subjects of injustice,” (43-45). This is a paradox and antithesis (justice (just) & injustice). This is to show that the over-whelming justice of the government can be unjust and will be. Government suggests justice that may be unjust. “Doing the wrong.” The purpose is to show their great power and to have us Stand Up! (Both.)

In this essay, I will argue that utilitarianism cannot be defended against the injustice objection. Utilitarians may be able to reply to the injustice objection in some cases by invoking one of two replies, the ‘Long term consequences’ reply, in which utilitarians will avoid unjust actions that increase short-term utility because in the long-term they will not lead to the greatest good. The other reply that may help utilitarianism avoid injustice in some cases is the ‘Secondary principles’ reply, where some rule-based principles such as not murdering (because it generally decreases happiness) may avoid injustice. However, I will focus on the ‘bite the bullet’ objection,

Classical utilitarianism is a normative ethical theory which holds that an action can only be considered as morally right where its consequences bring about the greatest amount of good to the greatest number (where 'good' is equal to pleasure minus pain). Likewise, an action is morally wrong where it fails to maximise good. Since it was first articulated in the late 19th Century by the likes of Jeremy Bentham and later John Stewart Mill, the classical approach to utilitarianism has since become the basis for many other consequentialist theories such as rule-utilitarianism and act-utilitarianism upon which this essay will focus (Driver, 2009). Though birthed from the same

Opponents of Act Utilitarianism attempt to argue that Act Utilitarianism (henceforth AU) does not account for justice when applied to ethical dilemmas. It is the authors opinion that these claims are factually incorrect and this essay shall attempt to prove this through analysis of common arguments against AU, and modifying AU to allow for justice to be more readily accounted for.

For example, an unjust ruler would use his influence to give his friends a privileged status while a just ruler would abstain from doing that. In this case, the unjust ruler would receive praise while the just ruler would lose his friends. Without a doubt, skillfully implemented injustice can result in a lot of praise, power, and wealth. According to utilitarian ethics, injustice appears to be more profitable than justice because it leads to a better result for the individual. However, this is a misconception which needs to be corrected.