The Tension between Liberty and Morality - Essay Example

Is there a tension between liberty and morality? The value of people to have agency is liberty and be able to control their actions. It basically articulate the way people relate in the society with mutual respect and comprehension including how they relate to way of living in a social contract and the existence nature while patriotism is the love of one’s country and voluntarily to sacrifice for the sake of the country (Viroli 26). The pro-gay liberty movement protested claiming that their rights were violated evidenced with pictures of frustrated homosexual couples. One major reason was that traditional marriage regulation is illegitimate since it is based on large population morals. There is need to have zoning regulations based on major morals population. Seldom, ethnics use zoning provision to blockade bars, pornography, strip clubs, distilleries, and dislikes of other things for moral grounds. The laws of United States basis on morals should not be persuasive. The sentiments contravening laws based on uprightness are misleading because moral judgments stand for legitimate laws (Viroli 31). Recognizing that regulations in general are based on moral judgments has vital consequences. Hence, the meaning those objections to a law for reason of being inclined on morality do not make any sense on the mind of non-anarchist. The same have different meaning on experts in public policy, law, and economics that they are not necessarily experts based on legitimacy of regulations; professionals on the legitimacy of regulations are those with an evident, deep comprehension of moral fact (Viroli 40). Perhaps most momentous, recognizing that regulations are finally inclined to moral judgments put upright and immoral people on an equal ground when explaining politics. Patriotism is the love of someone’s birthplace, country and childhood’s place of recollections and dreams, aspirations and, hopes, it is a place where, a childlike timidity, we would view the fleeting. Indeed, egotism, arrogance, and conceit are the fundamentals of patriotism. Patriotism assumes that our planet is divided into small spots, each one enclosed with Iron Gate. Those fortune ate to be born certain spot, consider themselves grander, nobler, better, more intelligent than others inhabiting the other spot. Therefore, it is the responsibility of everyone residing on that chosen part to kill, die, and fight in trying to impose his sovereignty upon others (Viroli 39). Patriotism is though a costly institution considering the statistics, no one ever doubts it. The progressive enhanced expenditures on the defense forces in the world during quadrant of the last century are a truth of huge that every economic study gets startled (Viroli 44). The awful extravagance that patriotism ignites ought to be enough to heal the humanity of even average knowledge from this ailment. People are requested to be patriotic but they pay for that luxury heavily in supporting those who defend and even sacrificing their own generation, since it requires oath to defense the flag and one is ready o kill, mother, sister, brother and father. The evil outcome that patriotism is fond is average person burden; it is like an injury and insult that patriotism resides on the soldier himself-a deluded affected person of ignorance and superstition. He is nation‘s protector and savior of her country. Upright men and women of world over are starting to notice that patriotism is quiet narrow conception to arrive at the requirement of our time. The devolution of governorship has let into being a worldwide instinct of solidarity to enslaved nations of the world; a unity which its ratio is greater peace of interests among the active American and his brothers and sisters worldwide than an affair between the exploring compatriot and his American brother miner. The American able bodied has been afflicted so much in the State, Federal, and military (Viroli 35). When we have to assume the essence of the patriotic lie, then we shall have force ahead the avenue for that better structure wherein all citizens of the world shall be one and bonded into a united and universal brotherhood in virtually free society where all its inhabitants enjoys all the fundamental freedom and rights. Arguments against Bill of Rights Because the U.S Constitution was in written form, this was enough to cater for the rights of the citizens. The entire constitution already protected several specific rights, such as rules against ex post facto, habeas corpus, trial by jury in cases of crime, and bills of attainder. A Bill of Rights was an unnecessary addition to a documentation aimed at running the Government as opposed to coddling its citizens. In fact, the government was not interested and was not much concerned about individual citizens. America was sufficiently diverse and too complex to cater for the rights of persons (McNeese, 2001). Listing of the rights makes the Bill of Rights more ineffective and dangerous for the reason that most Governments often abuse rights that are not documented. In addition, the congress is given certain powers by the Constitution, yet the Bill of Rights lists the same rights that the Congress cannot violate; it has no power to do so. Originally, anyone who violated the rights of citizens could be simply thrown out of office. In this sense therefore, a Bill of Rights was needless in a nation where citizens have the right to do away with officials from office (McNeese, 2001). The original constitution listed the powers of the Federal Government. It had no right to interfere with anything that was drafted and listed. Via listing rights in the initial amendments, it granted rights to citizens even those who were for the Bill of Rights put it there to state what was not within the control of the Federal Government. However, by doing this, it was perceived that rights that were given to the Americans by the constitution were essential rights that citizens thought were natural or God-given. The idea of separation of power entails the distribution of powers among three branches of government. Article I, II, and III of the U.S constitution provides for the separation among the executive, judicial, and legislative branches. It was not meant to take away power from the government but rather to spread it evenly in all divisions of the government and to prevent one arm from possessing too much of it. The system of sharing power or checks and balances is what limits the power of each branch. For instance, Article II has all the provisions of powers of the Executive Branch vested in the president of the U.S. In Section II of this article, the President is the Chief Commander in Chief of the Militia, and the navy. He has power to appoint office and to sign treaties, but only with the permission of the Senate. To ensure checks and balances, the actions by the Legislative and Executive branches are checked by the courts through a judicial review. Only the decisions made by the Supreme Court are obligatory nationally. The congress limits the judicial review process of the constitutionality of the laws made and can influence the courts. The congress is assigned with the role of legislating the nation. The House of Representatives chooses their speaker as well as other offices, and has the role of impeachment. On the other hand, the Senate has powers of trying all impeachments. Works Cited McNeese, T. (2001). U.S Constitution. New York, NY: Lorenz Educational Press. Viroli, Maurizio. For Love of Country: An Essay on Patriotism and Nationalism. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1995. Print. Read More