Want this question answered?
Because even if there is not an individual complainant, there is ALWAYS a 'victim," even if that 'victim' happens to be society and the fabric of the social network.
Yong Le believed society only had itself to blame when it came to its troubles and issues. He also believed that even one individual had the power to change society and better the world.
Rawls argues that the welfare of society is important but that the protection of individual rights and liberties should take precedence. He believes that society should be structured in a way that ensures everyone has equal basic rights and opportunities, even if this comes at the expense of overall social welfare.
It depends on the mentality of the user or consumer. On the right hands, science is good and a boon to society. But on the false hands, it is bad and a curse to society. But even if on the right hands, science can be bad, like a coin has two sides.
Society does place a tremendous amount of value on the outward appearance of an individual in their outward beauty, how well they dress, how much money they have, and sometimes even their race, though that is not as much of an issue today as it once was, but it is up to an individual how they handle that. A very large percentage of how big an obstacle is for an individual is the individual's own attitude. If you think people are against you for whatever reason, the obstacles will be amplified. If you get resentful or bitter, the obstacles will be even more amplified.
Yes
A free society Of the People, For the people, and BY the people. A FREE country, that was not controlled by Tyrants, that allowed the protection of the liberty of even one single individual.
that is exactly correct. societal views and other norms held by societies are dependent on the social relationship of the people within the society. whether it be as large as a country or even a small fraternity individual interaction is the fundamental base of a society. If there is no interaction between a large group, there is no society
No such process assumes this to be a true statement. In the US all citizens are considered to be equal under the law. -Supposedly-
The way to support an individual to challenge decisions that concern them that are made by others is to tell them it is okay to do what they feel is right for them. Even if the decision is something they don't want to do, they can decide not to do it.
Well, just think about it for a moment. Is it more valuable to have free speech, even if it means that extreme religious preachers can incite people to violence, or is it more valuable to suppress free speech in the interests of a stable and fairly crime-free society? People have been wrestling with similar dilemas for thousands of years.
For me personally, I try to live in a socially acceptable way of getting along with people, while maintaining my own individuality. Our society in America lends to this individuality even though there are significant societal influences beyond individual control.