warranted civil disobedience

An immoral or unjust law is any regulation which is ethically questionable that is set by a government which seeks to demean an individual or group of citizens. So, I am forced to agree with St. Augustine that an unjust law is no law as it does not uplift or support the growth or development of a people. In situations such as slavery, apartheid in South Africa where unjust laws ruled supreme and the lack of government consideration were warranted occasions for civil disobedience. As all other avenues failed and civil disobedience which stresses non-violence and seeks not to overthrow the government but specific issues of concerns was the next best option. Others might say if the end justifies as if everyone broke a law that they thought to be unjust then there would be civil unrest and lawlessness but what would be the situation if there was no civil disobedience by Rosa Parks, women not able to vote, factory workers being paid unfair wages and in unsafe environments, or the Indians campaign for independence against the British these are all events that are engraved in history that has brought about necessary changes for the progress of our civilized society. So yes the ends does justifies the means as all our lives have been affected in great ways as if it wasn’t for civil disobedience I would not be doing an online course and learning about phenomenal ideas and preparing to positively impact society.

Mills or Marx

I have always been fascinated by Marx’s work and this is no different as he does have a point that if society is going to be controlled by the elite group of individuals because of their financial advantage then we are going to need government intervention to deter unfair practices. As we are no strangers to huge companies e.g. oil or healthcare that corner the market and forces us to pay unheard of prices for a necessary commodity. One might say you have a choice by not buying the merchandise but when it is a necessity and not a luxury item it is hard to be free. This is when government intervention is desperately needed
However, Mills does have a point that as long as you are able to be you and not harm others and there is no governing force of any kind saying that you have to live this way then you are truly free. For this to happen we would have to live in a perfect world which we don’t as there is always some form of coercion happening in society e.g. we have no control when the government raises taxes in order to fix a deficit caused by another situation that we had no vote say in. So this is where Mills falls short as we are never truly free to be without some type of legislation being passed that affects our daily life directly.

Anarchist

People are just humans who struggle with the inner natural instincts; some do a better job of obtaining a balance between selfishness and goodness. Therefore I would have to agree with Locke who argues that government is legitimate as long as it restricts itself to protecting our natural rights. These natural rights are what differentiate us from other animals and they should be protected regardless of the authority given to government. It would be unfair to group everyone as selfish as Hobbes does and that we are all in need of strict rules to keep us in line. Not all rules that we live by are fair to human development such is the case in most communist societies where individuals are limited to do certain things just to satisfy the governments selfish needs of power and greed. So why should people live under rulers who need help restricting their own selfish needs.

Desires & Illusions

To live totally detached from our desires would be a struggle for many of us because that is not who we are and what drives us as individuals and what society has instilled in us. We have certain inborn needs to achieve goals and dreams of some sort. Whether it is to be a multi-billionaire or to volunteer to solve world hunger we are individuals who will and will always have certain needs of self-achievement. We are a nation that believes in self-reliance which stimulates the need for achievement to distinguish ourselves as individuals. I agree that there are cases of extreme cravings and selfish wishes of some individuals to achieve regardless of what they have to do gain their dreams. This is when it becomes a problem. Society also teaches us to find fulfillment in family whether by providing or by sharing rewarding moments with the ones you love and that is something that doesn’t perish and what truly matters most in life. Fulfillment should not solely be found outside the physical world if it was given to us for a reason such as satisfaction in nature and not just for competitive behavior.

Religion

I was often told not to take philosphy by friends of mine who were shaken in belief of the existence of the grand Designer after taking a philosophy course. I however believe in having an open mind regardless of what you were taught for years as a child. Philosopphy has only opened my eyes to views and opinions of thinkers. Just because these thinkers are highly respected does nto make whatever they write true as they too say about Holy Books of religion. It will all depend on the individual if they will allow the opinons of others affect their beliefs because it has not affected mine. Philosophy rules out fundamental structures of most religion such as faith , miracles without these then a religion is just another vague opinion just as regular theory brought about by an hypothesis. It is through faith that most believe there is a Creator and that we didnot just happen randomly and without purpose. Faith is like to believers as philosophy is to Socrates - life is worthless without it.

A.I.

Humans have a choice in societal programming and we all don’t think or act the same even if we were programmed to perform an accounting task. Each accountant is still seen as an individual as our personalities will always take preferences to societal programming. There will always be certain functions such as brushing our teeth that is done with unconscious thought due to our inner capability of memory. There is the fact that even though humans may be programmed to perform a task if a variant should occur we are able to adjust. However, this is not the same for computer knowledge as not all possible outcomes are programmed into the computer, so in this circumstance it would not know what to think of a solution.

DUALISM OR PHYSICALISM

I do agree that the mind (not the brain) is a non-physical event as we are not able to touch the event as it occurs. However, if non-physical things cannot interact with physical things then Descartes would be implying that it is not possible for the mind and body to interact this is where he lost me. Then I sought to see if I could apply myself to everything being one physical substance including our consciousness which makes us aware of the non-physical events that occur. But it is seen as physical even though we are not able to touch our consciousness. In the end I am left with a feeling of incompleteness regarding the nature of reality. Nevertheless, I choose the thoughts of Dualism as explained by Descartes even though it has its shortcomings. Mental events will always seem connected with the brain because most of it begins or occurs in the brain. How it interacts is just another mystery added to the list of wonders.