Political Ideals And Ideology : Take Home Test 1

Laws are in place for a reason. They are there to protect humans from self-inflicting harm or harming others. Sometimes these laws can be too strict, corrupted, evil, pointless, etc. Of course one should follow these laws, but if they conflict with who one is as a person, restrict freedom, or if one is breaking the law for justice, these laws should be broken. Breaking the law for a cause is justifiable in many ways.

”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

Signed the Military Peace Establishment Act Aligned more with the Federalist party because it established a military presence in the United States, which is what their party believed in.

A population’s views on political issues may change as different circumstances occur each day. The environment around us has a powerful influence on the decisions that we produce and the views that we as American citizens choose to hold. After a semester in political science class my views and my political ideology have altered. Today I will explain how political science class has influenced my political ideology.

Our society is built off of the concept of a social contract by which the individuals who comprise the society give up certain freedoms in exchange for protection by the government. The government then has a duty to properly balance the conflicting freedoms of its various constituents and ensure that they can enjoy the maximum amount of freedom without interference from the government or from other individuals. Along with the social contract comes the concept of rule of law, an essential tenet of any structured society, whether free or not. In a perfect society, all laws would be constructed off of the social contract, and thus there would be no legitimate reason to oppose them as they would promote maximal freedom and justice. However,

       Are we morally obliged to obey even unjust laws? Think about what this means. This means that laws, regardless of how unfair, unjust, or immoral they may be, must be followed with no better reason that they are the law. To the thesis that we are obliged to obey even unjust laws, I will argue that the standard objections to Civil Disobedience, given by Singer, are incorrect

It is generally agreed that laws are necessary for the safety and functioning of a community. A good citizen is often defined as one who shows obedience to the laws cast on him by a governing body that is constructed to benefit those residing in that inhabitance. For most people, laws are followed because they perceive them as legitimate and just, and, even if they don’t agree with them morally, they accept the laws as necessary for the good of the community as a whole. Additionally, they consider themselves active participants in democracy and the lawmaking process. Therefore, laws are legitimized by the approval of the people that the laws were implemented to protect them, through their direct and indirect participation in the lawmaking process.

“We all want…the same things in life. We want freedom; we want the chance for prosperity; we want to be the best we can be; we want as few people suffering as possible economically; we want healthy children; we want to have crime-free streets; all these things, they’re pretty common…The argument is how to achieve them” (Limbaugh, 2004). A major topic being discussed amongst politics right now is the ideologies of America. Which side holds the better policies for America: conservatives or liberals? Both conservatives and liberals have different beliefs on how the government should partake in interacting with the people, which also involves different viewpoints on certain ideologies. Basically, liberals believe in government having full control,

There are times when all of us feel that a certain law is not right and should be changed or demolished. Thomas Jefferson once said that “if a law is unjust, a man is not only right to disobey it. He is obligated to do so.” This is true because one, if we followed every law our government gives us the United States would not become one of the most powerful country in the world and still belong to the UK. My second reason this is true is because some laws are utterly ridiculous such as if you cut down a cactus in Arizona, you could be sentenced to 25 years in prison. My final reason this is true is because of events in the past such as segregation between the blacks and whites.

The word ideology is a set of beliefs or ideas that can be shared with others. Most of the time it is the basis for political and economic, however it can still be used for any other system. An example of this can be Political parties such as Democrat and Republican. Both parties have different beliefs, systems and idea which make them different. For an example Republicans believe that abortion is not right and for the women to be punished while democrat has its own idea of it being the women's choice.For the test I am almost definite I will get democrat for many reasons. I believe in a lot of what democrats try saying such as Equality, Freedom of Speech, Education and much more. After taking the test I got exactly what I thought I was and what I wanted to be. To me this was no surprise. I said before I believe in nearly everything a democrat does. I just couldn't think of myself being a republican so I knew I was going to be democrat.

An argument Rawls gives in favour of a moral obligation to support the law is that there is a moral duty to ‘support and further just institutions'. What is meant is that if a government is generally just and democratic, its laws should be obeyed in order to support and further them. The origin of the moral obligation is thus that just institutions should be helped and supported.

Consent plays a central role in Locke’s political theory, as described in his Second Treatise of Government. It is an integral part to how a legitimate political society can be formed, and how political obligation can arise. There is a key distinction between two types of consent, namely: express consent (that which is explicitly stated), and tacit consent (by enjoying a governments benefits, you are tacitly consenting). In this essay I will demonstrate how within Locke’s conception, consent allows the formation of government as a single body. The problems arising from this will be discussed, particularly in regards to tacit consent.

1. The government’s purpose is to help and protect their citizens, as well as ensure that they have their own freedoms. Although, it may see like the government is always trying to trick us out of our money, in which some cases they do, overall they’re trying to help our nation grow as a whole. I will say that some decisions weren’t the best ones, and they have caused a lot of problems too. However, as seen in the past, the government learns from their past mistakes, making sure they never happen again. The government may seem one sided and look like they’re not trying to help us and trying to help themselves, but in most cases there has been a positive outcome for the people. Thus, showing that their role is to help and protect us not to use

Another argument for moral justification in breaking immoral laws can be extrapolated from J. Rawls' "Theory of Civil Disobedience". Rawls outlines circumstances in which we may be considered to be constitutionally justified in breaking laws, which we consider to be unjust and ergo immoral. In fact Rawls goes as far as to suggest that we can even be justified

The truth behind political thought is founded primarily based on the rules of the law.Western European image of justice and order demonstrates the importance of natural equality that the rule of law adheres to. Thus creates this inconsistency ,that civil disobedience is not justified because of society 's accentuation on law and order. The understanding of law and civil disobedience illustrates itself in both readings of Sophocles ' Antigone and Plato 's Apology which suggests that they give both similar views with the existing idea of different higher authority in mind. Because of the unresolved feud between the law and civil disobedience it is prevailed effectively in Sophocles ' tragic drama Antigone and Plato 's Apology . Antigone personifies that the will to obey the law is not just for her country but that of her immense amount of love to her family and the Gods.While in contrast , Socrates personifies a synopsis of the two important notions, based on the idea of a higher authority, which is demonstrated in his defense before the Athenian court in Plato 's Apology. They both prevail the idea of adhering to higher authority but there standpoints on the issue differs. Despite Antigone and Socrates both revere willingness to obey law , even if it results in death, Antigone feels that divine law supersedes state law while Socrates believes that both must be obeyed, for whatever it is they stand for.