美国ps代写-Kant and the “Declaration” s Freedom and Modern Practice

美国ps代写-Kant and the “Declaration” s Freedom and Modern Practice

When given to express to the world American people’s preservation of fundamental rights regarding the country’s involvement in wars, Franklin D. Roosevelt, in his speech delivered in January 1941, introduced a theme addressed as “The Four Freedoms”. It was claimed that a world was built upon four most essential human freedoms: freedom of speech and expression, freedom of every person to worship God, freedom from want, which refers to economic consumptions, and freedom from fear translated into a decrease of usage of arms. (Franklin D. Roosevelt 6 January 1941). Undoubtedly, the vision championed as the long-term basis for maximizing national security that should be attained out of domestic and individual efforts dwells similarities in many aspects of theories in a philosophical system profoundly developed by Immanuel Kant, a German philosopher. Throughout Kant’s scope of devoting research on behaving patterns in social and political spheres, the subject of freedom was one particular priority solidly residing within conventions of society and procedures of natural evolution. His theoretical emphasis argues that freedom innately possessed by rational beings is exclusively qualified and infinitely powerful for being the root of social governance shaped by scientifically legislated and executed laws. The firmly held conception stressing reasonable and compatible human actions are vividly reflected from various perspectives in proclaims in the Declaration of the Rights of Man, the widely seen efforts of one group of French citizens from a National Assembly. The broadly overlapped senses underscored by the “Declaration,” Roosevelt, and Kant’s theoretical aspects, which are non-coincidental, prompts us to develop serious thoughts on the overall business of today’s world in delivering political stability, legal respects and protections of human rights. A focus on security-privacy disputes generated from multiple sides, and robust conflicts over different interests could provide a penetrating examination of the relevance of these philosophical dots. Besides, through going beyond the surface and digging into causes of dilemmas, fundamental political stands and reliable guidance of theories could be drawn in order to advance more progressive methods for peaceful relations within and among entities and states.

As Kant points out, freedom, defined as independence from forces of constraints projected by another being’s choice, is the human race’s only innate right coexisting with that of each other member during compliances with “universal law.” The wise philosopher consciously and aggressively situates one objection against another theory, widely received but inherently faulty in his eyes, trying to classify citizen’s welfare business as the unmatched foundation of state operations. To establish his edge of standpoints in the long-stretching political discussion, in the Critique of Pure Reason, Kant articulately contends that no legitimation should be acknowledged to impose any conceptual notion of happiness onto citizens (Immanuel Kant, Translated by Kemp Smith 1965). As explained, doing so would mean an equivalence of any nation’s assumptions that citizens have insufficient abilities in understanding what is genuinely beneficial and harmful to their life. To hammer home his points, Kant proceeds to clarify that happiness, while pursued by generations of citizens in widespread and persistent manners, is not specific enough to include all types of human desires. Compared with the overwhelming fitness and adaptability of freedom, limitations that these desires are solely contingent, which means heavy dependence on situations, lead to the result of happiness’ untrustworthiness in serving as the basis of the state. Freedom, on the other hand, when put in the area of political philosophy and concerned with the independence of actions of individuals, is capable of functioning as a firm basis due to its unparalleled universality. Evaluated both from the content and form, namely, actual choices of individual practitioners and freedom’s inherent nature of being unconstrained to possibilities of conditions, freedom contains a total allowance for any specifications. This easily understood fact of being able to stand tests of universality and particularity helps free choices settle as the groundwork of state controls.

Kant’s emphatically stressed principle explains that autonomy should be formed as individuals conceive of and strive for happiness in their ways. Interference with other people’s undertakings of freedom would cause coercions of wills. The real connotation of independence, however, is ultimately developed and illustrated by him at two levels: participations of a majority of citizens, excluding women and children, in determining the effectiveness of particular laws, as well as the public will in setting basic laws within social contracts. It is clear that a substantial amount of Kant’s thoughtful suggestions are extensively manifested in the concrete details of “Declaration” that was initially advanced with purposes of continuous reminders of duties, powers of legislation, and rules of executions. Similarly, French representatives responsible for defining the articles put high values on the irreplaceable role of man’s fundamental rights in affecting political administrations and “happiness of all”. Specific rights, which are predicted as likely to cause “public calamities” and governmental collapse when abused or ignored, are straightforwardly listed. Justifications include equal rights humans are born with, goals of preserving the “natural and imprescriptible” rights of man, and freedom of doing things without injuring others. Besides, the manuscript gives an indirect affirmation of Kant’s ideals in admitting coercive functions of laws in punishing hurtful conducts, law’s democratic expressions of the general will, and strictness featured by equal treatment in following rules and terms of laws. Without question, the underlined concentration placed on free communications of views and opinions, with pre-conditions of not disturbing or infringing on other people’s interests, explicitly states out meanings that were implied by Kant. Additionally, a consensus could be seen reached where citizens, whether representatives, ordinary ones or governmental offices can execute free rights in mutually compatible and reciprocal ways.

It turns out previous centuries have undergone drastic revolutions where a rich array of territories’ enormous changes are complicated and radical enough to completely astonish Kant and the “Declaration” devotees. Remarkable progress are compelling regarding improvements of individuals’ consciousness in facilitating non-interfering free lifestyles, enforcements of law functions and applications, and increasingly efficient governmental maintenance. Meantime, constant emergences of conflicts of interests, generated by people adhering to divergent opinions and causing disturbance to different corners of the world, are catching unprecedented attentions and accelerating multiple parties to return to fundamental questions about human rights and available means of protections. Of all recent examples arousing international disputes and concerns over the status of citizenship, the individual privacy versus national security issue urged by the prevalence of technological inventions and governmental actions is undeniably most agonizing. Resulted from the presence of digital devices capable of abundant storage of information, enormous flows of messages are produced and circulated upon networking platforms, hence, providing opportunities for violence and vicious crimes committed by terror missioners who maintain contacts through these tools. Intelligence professionals in the United States take chances to fetch, select, and disseminate varieties of forms of messages, which are considered as useful steps of obtaining intelligence to counter hostile powers, by retaining ordinary people’s information saved in phone companies or third party agencies. In the process, a primary source of allegations is from Journalism and ordinary people, who use complaining terms, like “Invasions without permissions” and “wiretaps”, to denounce these actions as crossing the line of fundamental human rights and eroding privacy. In response, Robert S. Litt, the general council of Office of the Director of National Intelligence, after giving assertion on the projects’ full legality and approvals from three working branches, attempted to reiterate the position of American government. According to him, national security and privacy of the public “are not zero-sum (Robert S. Litt 2013)”. Though privacy protection and the nation’s safeguard business are supposed to be treated with equal weights, adaptations, as claimed, should be made to react to “changing societal expectations and norms.” While full protections of privacy indicate certain degrees of limitations hindering the Intelligence Community from locating critical information, complete access to data, much of what is observed as “useless,” guarantees more appropriate exertions of controls. One summary was made that cooperation and higher efforts are needed from both sides to ensure the highest levels of life safeties and mutual satisfactions.

One of the greatest triumphs and enduring legacy shared by theoretical knowledge of Kant and the “Declaration” consists in the truth that no satisfactions should be reached  in terms of mere compliances with law prescriptions. Rather, what is forcefully implied and advocated is governments’ lasting fulfillment of strengthening and giving the maximum of expressions to individuals’ wills and independence in accordance with social structures. In recent years, similar cases overshadowing privacy advocators and security spokespersons have been recurring in Germany and China, both of which are charged by some for their “whistleblowing” activities. Combined with other types of troubles of the same nature, rising sizes of departments and excessive use of powers and privileges are trends turning governments into suspicions of monstrous existences injuring free rights of humans. One Journalist, Paul Dowling’s comment that “The US government was created by the sovereign states, not the other way around (Dowling Paul August 2015)” vigorously reminds us again of one eternally meaningful formula: only when every citizen proclaims and fiercely defends their freedom, can a state achieve stable unity and more willing cooperations. Therefore, regardless of races and peoples, or scales of issues, sustaining and honoring our inherently possessed free rights is not only the enterprise of our whole life, but a solid foothold and invariably effective solution to a plenty of problematic political situations constraining human actions.