Is It Morally Acceptable?

As United States citizens, we have the right of freedom of expression; the First Amendment of the United States constitution states, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or the press…" (First Amendment Oct. 20, 2013). As this concerns books, people should have the freedom to choose what they want to read and what they don't want to read. By banning books, our basic rights as US citizens are abused. Book banning affects many different people, from the people who read books to the people who write them. Why do

In contrast with deontology, there is utilitarianism, which is a consequentialist theory. Utilitarianists consider consequences to be an important indicator of the moral value of one’s actions (Rich, 2008). In consequentialist analyses, conclusions about what is right or wrong are based on the consequences (Tanner et al., 2008). Utilitarianism is to promote the greatest good for the greatest amount of people that is possible in situations.

The burning of books is limiting free speech by removing a medium to express ideas and opinions. The government’s main vision is that by burning books, people will become happy. This theory is debatable, but it clearly defies the freedom of speech. Censorship of this degree violates free speech by suppressing ideas, as shown when Beatty claims “‘Colored people don’t like Little Black Sambo. Burn it.”(59). By removing books with conflicting ideas like this, the government is systematically destroying the idea of free speech. When people cannot express their ideas freely, free speech is being vehemently defied.Equally consequential is the effect that burning books has on people’s political knowledge. Considering that the government’s goal is to keep people content with their political views, Beatty explains that “‘If you don’t want a man unhappy politically, don’t give him two sides to a question to worry him. . . . give him none.’”(61). The government’s method of censoring political information is burning books, and therefore, free speech is

In November of 1973 the school board of Drake North Dakota decided to not only ban the book but burn it and use the books as fuel. Students protested, one even saying, "We think it's respectable and interesting, and better than what we've been reading.” Then when some students wouldn't give up the books, parents were ordered to search all their children’s possessions without their permission and search their lockers. Now that has me baffled, if the school boards and the parents say they are expressing their first amendments right by banning the book, then why in order to express that right are they taking away their children’s first amendment right and their fourth amendment right by searching their stuff without permission or legal cause. The case of banned book always seem to boil down to the same point, instead of actually trying to dissect the books and understand what lessons the author is trying to convey to us. The book is “judged by its cover” and banned for being violent and crude. Most books I have read at least have one underlying point put in place to teach a lesson or a point of view about life, but if we don't enjoy that then what is the point in

Ban books or burn them? Ray Bradbury wrote his famous novel Fahrenheit 451 in 1953 fantasizing about a world in which books were banned, and when a book was found it was burnt and destroyed. Little did he know that his thought of books being banned could actually happen and that it would be one of his own. Today Fahrenheit 451 is being banned and challenged in schools all across America. How ironic that a book about books being banned is now being banned around the country. A prize winning book by a prize winning author is now being questioned as to whether it is a good book to teach in an English class. Though Fahrenheit 451 may contain controversial elements such as language, discussion of

Even though we have the right to the First Amendment, many books have been banned or challenged in the U.S. Books have been banned for many reasons including profanity, sex, violence, religion, etc. The First Amendment states “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a

In conclusion, being able to burn the American flag sends a loud message that should never be ignored but contemplated. If America truly stands for its people, it will never take away the peoples’ power to protest; whether it’s by burning the flag or by other

The flag is a symbol of “national unity” and burning it is destruction of that symbol. Even if the flag that is being destroyed is owned privately, the government should be able to regulate the protection due to what the flag stands for. The First Amendment recognizes symbolic speech but an exception should be made for the flag. Not only does it stand for what the United States believes, it honors those who have died defending this country. Flag burning is extremely offensive. It ignites strong feelings and in some cases violence. There must be a line drawn that prohibits the burning of the flag and does not consider it symbolic

Paul, cross burning and freedom of speech were again found in the limelight in the case of Virginia v. Black. In this case, three men were convicted of violating a Virginia state statute that made it a felony to “for any person...with the intent of intimidating any person or group...to burn...a cross on the property of another, a highway or other public place," and specifies that "any such burning...shall be prima facie evidence of an intent to intimidate a person or group”(Oyez VB). After the men stood trial and were convicted, they appealed to the state of Virginia’s Supreme Court stating that the statutes prima facie clause of intent to intimidate was unconstitutional. The state supreme court overturned their convictions because it found the statute to be unconstitutional. The State of Virginia appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. The question facing the Supreme Court was, did Virginia’s statute against cross burning violate the First Amendment, when cross burning was viewed to be a form of expression? While the Supreme Court found that the statute’s prima facie clause to be unconstitutional, it did find that Virginia’s ban on cross burning, as a means of intimidation was constitutional. Speaking on behalf of a 6-3 majority, Justice O’Connor stated “…the First Amendment also permits a state to ban a 'true threat’... a prohibition on ‘true threats' protects individuals from the fear of violence.

Author of The Perks of a Wallflower, Stephen Chbosky, mentions an important point when he says, “Banning books gives us silence when we need speech. It closes our ears when we need to listen. It makes us blind when we need sight.” Banning books has been a practice since 443 BC in Rome when Socrates was to drink poison because of “his corruption of youth and his acknowledgement of unorthodox divinities,” says Beacon for Freedom of Expression. Before a book can get to the point of being banned, it undergoes a process of being challenged. This is when a group of people or a person tries to restrict certain materials. When a challenge ends up being victorious, the book gets banned and removed. Some people believe that certain books are not ethically

A famous educator and historian by the name Alfred Whitney Griswold once said, “Books won’t stay banned. They won’t burn. Ideas won’t go to jail… the only weapon against bad ideas is better ideas” (Webster’s). This can be seen in Ray Bradbury’s novel Fahrenheit 451, by showing us that even though a whole community does not question the ethics of banning books, if one person begins to understand the idea of the communities ignorance the whole situation could change drastically.

If this trend continues, American society could very well end up just like the fictional one in Fahrenheit 451. There is a certain amount of intelligence that is required in order to be able to differ in opinion. If we lose this ability, I believe that there is just a short amount of time before the reality of burning books that contain differing opinions could start. I think that if we, as a culture, begin to truly embrace the idea of respectful disagreement, we would be better off for

Banning books infringes on the first amendment rights. One portion of the first amendment states, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” By banning books, we infringe on the right of free speech and the right of free press. By banning a book, you are silencing an opinion. You are restricting a right that is given to us by the Constitution, the law of the land.

Before explaining why deontology is the best option for the accounting profession, the definitions of each ethics systems must be explained in detail. First, deontology only takes into consideration the issues of fairness, rights, and commitments (Duska, 2011). This system focuses solely on what is right and wrong no matter what the consequences are for self or others. In other words, a deontologist focuses not on the results of the action, but the action itself (Uyar, et.al., 2015). Deontologists believe that moral decisions are based on their obligations and duties. They believe that right is always right and wrong is always wrong, regardless of the outcome.

Those practicing deontological based ethics are apt to base their decisions off of loyalty and what they believe their duty to be; therefore the choice a deontologist makes is more so based independently with only one option versus the actual consequences of the decision. Taking the aforementioned into consideration, it is quite