The Opinion : Post Truth And Its Effect On Our Political Society

As discussed in Chapter 10, public opinion is vital to the progress of any democracy. Noted by Thomas Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence, “a just government must get its power fro, the consent of the governed.” This quote highlights the reality that without understanding the publics opinion, a democratic government will fail. This same theme is echoed in the beginning of America’s constitution. Starting with the phrase “we the people,” the importance of the opinions of the common man is made a priority. In this Chapter 10 summary, I will discuss both the importance and of public opinion and analyze whether public opinion is skewed based on certain factors.

The article “The Indispensable Opposition,” by Walter Lippmann discusses freedom in America, and more specifically freedom of opinion. He went in depth on the topic by mentioning that Americans must acknowledge all opinions and use other’s wisdom to improve your own understanding. Through the use of paradox, analogy, and Juxtaposition Lippman cements his point that freedom of speech and opinion is a crucial aspect of American culture.

In American tradition, the value of the individual, and individual opinion, is held in high esteem. Free expression is the means by which consensus is reached and central authority is balanced. In this democracy,

Many people cherish their reputation, what other people think and believe about someone is crucial in today’s society. Arthur Miller’s The Crucible is centered around the theme of reputation. One’s name is tremendously important in Salem, where someone’s social standing reflects their ability to follow religious rules and obligations. In Salem, reputation far surpasses the truth. Majority of the characters in The Crucible would rather die than risk damaging their “good” name. When witchcraft accusations start spreading through the town, one’s fate is determined by their reputation. John Proctor and Abigail Williams are both perfect examples of this, both risking everything in attempt to protect their tarnishing reputations.

Opinion: “Opinions are intensely personal, so it is understandable that people have strong feelings about theirs. (Ruggiero, 2010, p.34). Your opinion may not be the truth but for an individual it is a personal view and not any one else’s.

In their essays, both authors Sidney Callahan and Deborah Tannen discuss strategies for a possible improvement in society’s ways of arguing. In “Fight Fierce but Fair: Practice at Home,” (1994), Callahan claims “if you learn to fight well and fairly at home, you can contribute to the civic struggle necessary to keep a pluralistic society moving.” With a set of guidelines and rules composed through personal experience, Callahan successfully uses this technique to give readers an immediate call to action and a solid, convincing essay. In “The Triumph of the Yell,” (1994), Tannen claims that “more and more these days, journalists, politicians, and academics treat public discourse as an argument – not in the sense of

I intend to discuss these issues while also discussing why it is important for these issues to be highlighted in this document. Firstly, the issues of personal rights are acknowledged at the beginning of the document. “Men are born and remain free and equal in rights. Social distinctions may be founded only upon the general good” . At this time, to be equal meant the end of legal differences.

The shared passion of visionaries, thinkers, and writers profoundly influence society in the modern world and hold in their hands the ability to craft a better future. They inspire new ,, and sometimes even revolution. Two documents of the 18th century, The Declaration of Independence and the Declaration of Rights of man established and angle for which we view human rights, liberties, and human freedoms. While the underlying motivations of the declarations each have a distinct purpose, the intent to establish universal human rights parallel and often mimic one another in language and meaning. Both documents however have interesting contradictions and inconsistences with regards to whom the liberties should apply, from whom the authority is derived and the motivations behind the drafting of each respective declaration.

seen its fair share of the courtroom, this often controversial issue is best displayed in

Today, it is safe to say that many of United Sates citizens are unsure about the future of our country. In Our Declaration, Danielle Allen claims that the future of our country is secured by citizens who play their part in the system. She writes, “Politics is an activity where people, thanks to their wakefulness, can organize themselves and set up institutions so that they can all collectively protect themselves without having to fight with each other” (Allen 176). She has confidence that citizens can diagnose the current state of our country and the political world through interaction with other each other to build unified intelligence through democratic conversation. Democratic conversation occurs when citizens cooperatively and intelligently discuss and provide their views on certain matters which determine the present and future state of our country. “For the Declaration we are all equal in having the capacity to judge relations among facts, principles, and courses of action” (Allen 91). But is Allen’s claim realistic? Allen is partially justified because our country is more tolerant today than it ever has been when it comes to sexuality and marriage, and gender. However, Allen’s optimism is not entirely realistic because of the common stubborn citizens, and the uneducated citizens not willing to take part in democratic conversations.

In a world in which people have fundamental disagreements regarding the substance and purpose of human existence and what constitute ‘the good life’, it is a question how should human rights be installed within a nation’s legal system. This essay argues that because we cannot ascertain without doubt what human’s nature is, and in order to prevent atrocities as those in the Second World War: all humans should enjoy, as members of the human species, fundamental rights to secure their existence. Hence, within a nation’s legal system, those are known to be civil rights. Further, political rights should be ensured firstly to the citizens of that nation, but, due to the rapid globalization and the growing fluidity of boarders (for example in Europe)

In today’s America, it is a constant debate: Do we have true equal rights? The obvious answer to most people is no, and we probably never will. Though some people seem to live in ignorant bliss, thinking that everything is going well and everyone is being treated fairly, they are wrong. The theme of not having adequate human rights is commonly shown through the unjustness in documents one, three, and five.

The doctrine of human rights were created to protect every single human regardless of race, gender, sex, nationality, sexual orientation and other differences. It is based on human dignity and the belief that no one has the right to take this away from another human being. The doctrine states that every ‘man’ has inalienable rights of equality, but is this true? Are human rights universal? Whether human rights are universal has been debated for decades. There have been individuals and even countries that oppose the idea that human rights are for everybody. This argument shall be investigated in this essay, by: exploring definitions and history on human rights, debating on whether it is universal while providing examples and background

Yet, it still serves the effect like John Stuart Mill’s concept of Freedom of Speech, preventing the truth loses its power and meaning (Mill, 1869). As such, the new idea generated from an argumentative discussion might be true, even it is not, perhaps it is partially true that helps to get closer to the real truth of the discussed issue. In addition, even the new idea generated from the dialogues of two individuals is not true at all, it still gives meaning to the truth and prevent the truth from becoming an unchallenged dogma. As a result, it is important for us remain practising the Socratic method to facilitate ourselves to understand more about the world, especially it helps to keep the truth

The freedom to be able to express your own opinion is an ideology that is supported by many, however the act of promoting harm or hate is where freedom should be restricted. Freedom of speech is a right for citizens of many countries, but these citizens may agree or disagree on what is allowed to be expressed. Many people share the belief that they can say anything they want because their freedom entitles them to express any opinion they would like. In contrast, many people believe that you shouldn’t be able to say anything you want and that there should be restrictions on the type of things that you can say. In the novel On Liberty by John Stuart Mill, Mill argues that freedom of speech should be limited if and when it is harming other people in the process. Mill explains this argument by stating that silencing an unpopular opinion is unjustifiable because in order to successfully express your opinion, you must listen to the criticism. I agree with Mill’s position regarding freedom of speech based on the fact that he doesn’t support hate speech, and that there should be reasonable limits on freedom of speech in order to have an ideal democratic society. This essay will outline the justifications for Mill’s argument surrounding freedom of speech, the limitations that Mill believes should be set on freedom of speech as well as the assumptions that his argument depends on, and finally my personal viewpoint on Mill’s argument. Freedom of speech is a right that should be guaranteed to every citizen around the world, however when this speech negatively affects or harms other humans in the process, it is thereby considered hate speech which must be condemned.