Unjust Law

Any law that goes beyond protecting our individual rights is an unjust law and should not be obeyed.In other words, laws should never violate people's rights to life, liberty and property. Laws should exist for the sole purpose of protecting life, liberty and property.We are born with these rights whether government exists or not. In fact, we form government so we can, as a collective force, protect these rights.
I would agree with St.Augustine, “an unjust law is no law at all.” An unjust law is a code that is out of harmony with the moral law. To put it in the terms of St. Thomas Aquinas: "an unjust law is a human law that is not rooted in eternal law and natural law. Any law that uplifts human personality is just. Any law that degrades human personality is unjust.” There is no doubt that laws are made for a reason and the laws of a society reflect the values of that society because of tradition, necessity, and expectation. But occasionally there will be a law, which is unjust and wrong though not for everyone,but for a group of people. If the law contradicts with their high morals or religion, i believe it is right for them to protest against it in a reasonable way.
For example, it is a fact , that in some countries government is and has been very corrupt. Just few people are very rich, majority of the public is very poor. Lets take Pakistan as an example: "Government has imposed high taxes on people, which actually is a burden on middle class and poor people.Instead of using the tax money for public welfare bureaucrats are wasting that money on their personal luxuries. To make matters worse, government has imposed a new law of additional sales tax recently to meet the deadline of (International Monetary Fund) IMF’s debt payment. Majority of the money that was given by IMF was used by the government officials to fill up their own pockets. Now they have burdened the common people of Pakistan for paying the debt. The public is protesting against the new sales tax and the businesses in the country are shut down. Majority of the rich and influential community have bribed their way out of this mess and the middle class and the poor community is now fighting to keep their hard earned money from the government’s hand. Because of these unjust laws the corruption is getting worse day by day. People have no choice other then commit robberies and use unjust means to survive to make their both ends meet.. Therefore, in this situation, I think it is right to protest against that type of unjust law.
But it is not right to disobey an unjust law for just personal convenience. People should look at the alternatives, weigh them against what their personal beliefs are, and then make a judgment based on their individual moral values.

Individual and the state

Classical liberals like Mill usually argue that so long as you aren't being coerced or forced to do something by the state, then you are free. I, personally, think that there is a truth in his argument. I absolutely convinced that if people are not forced by the government, they are free. The rights of individual is the sphere which is free from the state intervention. In my opinion, the primary principle of the state is it shouldn't block the freedom of individual's activities, but it should help them in their activities and do everything to develop spirit of enterprise in society.

Justification of government

Anarchists argue that government is never justified in its exercise of authority. Locke argues that government is legitimate so long as it restricts itself to protecting our natural rights. Hobbes argues that government has a much broader authority to secure peace, and keep people's natural selfish instincts in check. Which of the perspectives above do you agree with the most? Do you think your answer depends on what you think human nature is like (i..e. whether people are basically selfish or essentially good? Explain your answer on your blog. I will agree with Hobbes' argument. It ssems to me he is right that government has a much broader authority to secure peace, and keep people's natural selfish instincts in check. Lets just imagine what would happen with our society if there was no government. This would simply lead to anarchy. It would be pure choas, full inequality, an elite ruling calls, murder, human rights violations and greed. Who would make all of the major decisions around there? We need someone has to be in charge to have order, otherwise everybody would be doing whatever they wanted. We need government to protect us from criminals by having a police force, protect us from domestic terrorism and foreign invasions by having an army and establishes law courts to settle disputes swiftly. We face many big problems in our society – global warming, the swine-flu threat, persistent poverty, an ongoing healthcare crisis, vastly unequal educational opportunities, a looming pension crisis. The government is the only institution capable of dealing with these pressing issues. On balance, government programs have a very positive impact on our lives – that government has been a powerful force for good in our society. The good life as we know it literally could not exist without the constant assistance and protection we all get from an extensive network of government laws and programs.

Buddhism

According to Buddhism, the main source of our suffering is our preoccupation with our own desires. Suffering is said to be caused by selfish cravings and desires. The way to enlightenment, for Buddhism, therefore involves detaching from our narrow concern with ourselves, escaping the prison of our own desires and illusions.

Do you think it is possible to live according to this teaching in the contemporary United States? Is there a conflict between what Buddhism teaches, and how we are encouraged to think and act in our society? What are your thoughts on this?

From my point of view, I believe it is possible to live nowadays in the USA according to this Buddhism teaching. We used to live thinking about tomorrow, our future, desires. Desires are part of our lives. We can survive because of them. It is almost impossible to detach it. It is hard to give up.There is always something that we are bared from. We try to reach our goals because of our concerns and desires. Nowadays is everything all about money. Everybody thinks how to make more money, feed the family, pay bills, tuition fees and etc. Everybody desires to gain wealth, fame, power, stature, acceptance, cars, houses, contentment,
Without desire nothing can't be accomplished.

Religious and Philosophy

People have struggled for very many years to understand what religious ideas and experiences mean or do not mean. People believe many different things about God, with some saying they do not believe at all. How can we know God? If He is ineffable or indescribable, then how is it that people have sought to give accounts of Him within religious texts throughout the years? To some, God is even too holy to be named; and perhaps He is beyond human language and its limits? Others suggest that God could be known from His effects, hence talk of His being all-powerful, just, all knowing, as well as the converse of these. I believe that philosophy can help to answer these questions, and i will say that some of philosophical arguments, such as Cosmological argument and the Design argument may change someone's religious convictions.

People and Computers

Some philosophers, including John Searle, say that computers are not really intelligent. Rather, they just simulate intelligence. However, it could be argued that, just as computers are programmed to respond in different ways to different commands, so human beings are 'programmed' by society, and education, to perform certain tasks. For example, we are programmed to do complicated things like speak a language, as well as more simply things like brush our teeth.
What are your thoughts on this comparison? Is there any difference between the programming of computers, and the 'programming' of humans by society?

May be computers are programmed to respond to different commands as people are "programmed" by society. But it is not the same. There are huge differences between them.
Yes, computers can think and interpret universe as well as human beings. They are its reflection and at the same time, speaking about computers' capabilities, they in thousand times surpass human beings. Computer is quicker, more capable to teaching, and it is less vulnerable than a human being.
We, people, all the time refresh our memory. Every day we collect a huge amount of new information and use it unknowlingly. We constantly turn to this compilcated storage device that is hidden in our heads. We are not like computers!
Computers are bereaved emotions. For example, they can easily find the shortest route from New York to Los Angeles, but the question like "Is this gace is beautiful" blanks them. There is no creativity in the computers. Computers have simulated intelligence.

Dualism and Physicalism

Should we, as human beings, think of ourselves as made out of two different substances, like Decartes argued? Or are you persuaded by the arguments of physicalism that we are purely physical beings?
If you agree with Descartes, how would you explain the fact that our mental life seems to be very closely connected to a physical organ, namely the brain. If you agree with physicalism, how do you explain the fact that our mental life seems to be like nothing else in the physical world (think of how unique something like consciousness is, for example).

I'm agree with Descartes that our mind and body can interact with each other. Movement or action of the body ran parallel with thought and emotion. You scratched your head while thinking, calculated with your fingers as a kind of bodily abacus, followed your thoughts on foot, expressed your feelings through facial and bodily gestures and vocal intonation, and communicated your thoughts through your voice. Activity or motion always accompanied thought and emotion. Is this just a happy coincidence? Or do we really think with the body? Ordinarily we consider the thinking process a purely mental activity.

Consider some ways we think with the body in everyday experience: athletes and dancers think through their bodies in returning a tennis serve; the act of drawing or the execution of a painting captures more than just visual qualities of people, objects, and scenes. It is also an expression of the body - hand, limb, and whole body movements....
What if the brain systems for movement and the brain systems for thought and emotion are intimately connected to each other so that we are literally a "thinking (and feeling) body?"

As it turns out, there are indeed extensive neural connections in the brain from those parts that oversee movement, equilibrium, and balance of the body to those parts that direct - thought and emotion. Our brain doesn't simply manage or regulate the body in the way that a chief executive manages a corporation. The brain doesn't direct the body and the body follows slavishly. What the brain communicates to the body depends on what information the body has imparted to the brain and vice-versa.