Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Female role in society and family
Female role in society and family
Oppinions on civil disobedience
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Female role in society and family
A just society is a society where everyone has equal opportunity and the same basic human rights. In this kind of society, no inequalities exist. Even though everyone may have the same rights, they do not necessarily hold the same positions. Each person in a just society plays a different substantial role. Some of these roles may be a mother, brother, teacher, student, doctor, and many more. Each of these roles hold different values and characteristics. For example, a mother may hold the value of nurturing her children. Even though each person plays a different role, there are aspects that all people interested in a just society have in common. Although majority do, some people however do not agree with these aspects and therefore display uninterest …show more content…
However, I find my argument compelling. A philosopher who might particularly challenge my argument is Iris Marion Young. Iris Marion Young’s writing, “Political Responsibility and Structural Injustice”, may be specifically used as a counter argument. In her writing, Young discusses how citizens of a society should understand their responsibilities to approach injustices. In her counter argument, Young may argue that political responsibility is more than just abiding by moral expectations, following just laws, and maintaining a strong relationship with others. In her writing she says that political responsibility is “phenomena and movements of collective action, where people work together to form public works and institutions” (Young 11). Young may claim that even if someone followed all of the aspects I introduced, we may still end up with societal problems and a contribution to injustices. This is an interesting point to make. I agree that to eliminate structural injustices we must work together. However, I do not see how injustices may be created if we live in a society where we specifically follow just laws. Just laws firmly lay moral laws that citizens must abide by, and therefore, prevent injustices from arising in society. If someone were to find a way to construct injustices in a just society, they should be permanently removed. After all, they clearly were not abiding by the just laws of a just
The play, ‘Twelve Angry men’, written by Reginald Rose, explores the thrilling story of how twelve different orientated jurors express their perceptions towards a delinquent crime, allegedly committed by a black, sixteen-year-old. Throughout the duration of the play, we witness how the juror’s background ordeals and presumptuous assumptions influence the way they conceptualise the whole testimony itself.
Economic inequality and injustice come in the same hand. Poor people are more likely to experience inequality and injustice. The negative assumptions of poor people are created by the media and politicians. Promoting economic justice by offering people living in poverty some form of social support. Barbara Ehrenreich found in her experiment the workforce for low-wage was difficult. Conley talks about the different types of social inequalities and how they have been unsuccessful.
In the article “Individual Autonomy and Social Structure”, Dorothy Lee talks about individual autonomy. She goes through the topic by examining different groups such as; the Wintu Indians of California, the Sikh family, the Navaho Indians of Arizona and New Mexico, and the Chinese culture. All of these different groups and societies give personal freedom to the individuals regardless of age groups. The example of Navaho Indians is used by Lee to demonstrate how “personal autonomy is supported by the cultural framework” (Lee, 1959, p.5). She points out the individual autonomy of non-western societies to the individuality of western society. One group gives full independence to an individual while the other does not and puts restrictions in place through some form. She states “...in a heterogeneous society such as ours, and in an era of induced change and speeded temp of living, it has been difficult to implement this tenet in the everyday details of living” (Lee, 1959, p.5). She points out the fast living pace of western society, where the personal autonomy given from the other cultures is lacking.
Throughout the world, in history and in present day, injustice has affected all of us. Whether it is racial, sexist, discriminatory, being left disadvantaged or worse, injustice surrounds us. Australia is a country that has been plagued by injustice since the day our British ancestors first set foot on Australian soil and claimed the land as theirs. We’ve killed off many of the Indigenous Aboriginal people, and also took Aboriginal children away from their families; this is known as the stolen generation. On the day Australia became a federation in 1901, the first Prime Minister of Australia, Edmund Barton, created the White Australia Policy. This only let people of white skin colour migrate to the country. Even though Australia was the first country to let women vote, women didn’t stand in Parliament until 1943 as many of us didn’t support female candidates, this was 40 years after they passed the law in Australian Parliament for women to stand in elections. After the events of World War Two, we have made an effort to make a stop to these issues here in Australia.
Back in the day David Cameron blamed the human rights movement for perverting people’s morale and trumping the security of the public order. Shami Chakrabarti, a human rights activist, argued that the state suppresses human rights who are in the core of the civil society. Another scholar, Naomi Klein, argued that the real issue is that human rights and other moral concepts are wrongly distanced from politics, while in reality they are closely intervened.
Throughout history arguments and debate have been used to decide the fate of kingdoms, challenge a ruler’s authority or even decided where homes would be built. Without arguments our world would be bland and nothing like it is today. Being able to form a well built argument and use it properly is known as rhetoric. Ancient Romans and Greeks considered rhetoric to be one of the most important skills for students. Even today rhetoric is considered a great feat for all scholars. Two great men who were able to use rhetoric and excel at using it were Cicero and Machiavelli. They both argued in some of their most famous works that at times injustice was defendable. Cicero did this in his piece called The Defense of Injustice. Machiavelli did this in his work called The Prince. Each of these men was from completely different times in history, yet both were able to use rhetoric to help make people support their argument. Although rhetoric has many rules and many different formats one of the most well know and organized format is known as the Toulmin method. With the two pieces of work and using Toulmin’s method of rhetoric we can evaluate and discover who makes the best argument and why.
In a democracy, people choose representatives to lead and govern. However, these representatives might take unpopular steps. In such instances, the people may show their disapproval of a policy and vent their grievances through acts of civil disobedience. Henry Thoreau said, “It is not desirable to cultivate a respect for the law, so much as for the right.” It is both the right and responsibility of a person to fight an unjust law, and civil disobedience allows one to convey his thoughts and ideas in a passive, nonviolent way.
In Georg Büchner’s Woyzeck, the protagonist is caught in his class position, which brings hopelessness and despair. We see a similar class struggle in Waiting for Lefty. How do both playwrights portray the lower class and their struggle with their daily life?
The task of identifying my social identity was easier said than done. I acknowledged the somewhat privilege I encounter along with the oppression I endure. In retrospect, my social identity unambiguously resembles a coin where on one side oppression lies with dirt rusting but on the flip side privilege stares right back at me, shining bright. I initially could not see the benefits since I’m a low income college student. I became too encompassed with one side of the coin. After we learned what the word, privilege, indeed meant, I realized the various facets of my life in which that word could apply. Self pity can greedily advance on you from out of nowhere thus averting you from flipping the coin. I familiarized with counting my struggles instead of my blessings. In accordance with my social identity I would say I’m privileged with the
When deciphering someone’s role in society, it can be difficult and really different regarding the individual.
There are several different characteristics that are necessary in order to maintain a just society. The very first characteristic that is necessary in a just society is to accord an individual the ability to have peace and security. The philosopher Thomas Hobbes describes a version of this just society as one that maintains order and peace which in many ways is mutually beneficial to the members of that society. Hobbes also goes on to explain that it is pivotal for a society to have its members maintain peace and order. Although Hobbes does explain that in is necessary for a society to have peace and order, he also points out that it would be justified for members of a society to stop the peace when they feel that they are being harmed in some way. This is clear
In Responsibility for Justice, Young describes a story about “Sandy” to illustrate her theory of a specific kind of moral wrong, structural injustice. Iris Marion Young, Responsibility for Justice, Oxford University Press, 43, 43 (2011). Young defines structural injustice as a kind of moral wrong distinct from the wrongful action of an individual agent or the repressive policies of a state. Id. at 52. Structural injustice occurs as a consequence of many individual and institutional actions to pursue their particular goals and interests, for the most part within the limits of accepted rules and norms.
There has been a long-established controversy over the duty of a citizen in a democracy, on which the Athenian philosopher, Socrates, and the American writer, Henry David Thoreau, had their own thoughts. Both philosophers had varying views on numerous subjects relating to government and conscience. Should the citizen obey all laws, even unjust ones? Or, should they rebel for the sake of doing what is right? Democracy is ruled by the people, for the people. In both Socrates’ time, and Thoreau’s, the question remains on whether this was, in practice, true. The two iconic philosophers’ opinions regarding the duty of the citizen in a democracy, the role of conscience, and the importance of nonviolent resistance, still influence people to this day. Their views augment the understanding people have of the current democracy, how consciences deal with right and wrong, and roles as citizens questioning every issue. Philosophy is often ingrained in the history, politics, and the environment
Social justice advocacy has served as organized efforts with the intended purpose to encourage public attitudes, form strategies, laws to create a more socially just society, led by the vision of human rights. The main purpose for these efforts is to provide awareness of socio-economic inequalities, protection of social rights, as well as racial identity, experiences of oppression and spiritualty. Social justice advocacy and social justice counseling play a very important role in today’s society and are mutually being utilized in the counseling world. Activism will always be needed and has been perceived to be one of the most powerful tools for initiating social change.
POSC 100 Paper #1 Joshua Han j0shh4nxd@gmail.com. Over the past few years, a number of occurrences have displayed the growing economic and political inequality of the United States. The currently dissipated Occupy Movement did draw the general public’s attention to the ridiculous strides made by the rich, whose incomes have skyrocketed within the past four decades. Those pertaining to the middle-income and poor have sadly had their incomes stagnate.