In my arguments, I noticed how McLean’s dissent in aspect to racism basically pointed out the Justice Taney’s historical errors once again, how irrational the decision was towards another fellow human being who was labelled as only a property of another, and how disgusted Justice Taney was towards Scott and classified him a non-citizen of the United States. Disgust relies on moral obtuseness. It is possible to view another human being as a slimy slug or a piece of revolting trash only if one has never made a serious good-faith attempt to see the world through that person’s eyes or to experience that person’s feelings. Disgust imputes to the other a subhuman nature. How, by contrast, do we ever become able to see one another as human? Only through the exercise of imagination.
The disgust statement above in aspect of the Scott case explains how Justice McLean tend to emphasize that the other justices did not show much compassion before making the harsh decision they made against Dred Scott as per they saw him as just a slave, minority; a piece of property and not human just like they are. But in fact, Justice Mclean was a visionary for his time because he understood that justice couldn’t be in scarcity for an ethnic group in society. He firmly believed the Dred Scott decision was a miscarriage of justice and that decision could have farther consequences in the black community.
In the “disgust” perspective, the system did not accord any compassion for Scott, an attribute that is essential to fairly try a case and emphasize with fellow humans. However, Mclean did show emotions in his dissent although that did not stop the decision from taking effect. I welcomed emotions in my discourses and encouraged it to be part of court decisions. I also argue that, hiding behind the robes, judges and justices are making gigantic mistakes because their humanity is hidden which was the case for Dred Scott and his family. I argue the relevance of emotion for the law to be undeniable. It would be impossible to completely remove emotions from the law and transform it into a tool of pure logical analyses.
The second part I am discussing disgust on will is the same sex marriage/homosexuality scenarios. Today, disgust is not much defended as a ground for sodomy laws, but it does play a prominent role in debates over gay rights. Same-sex relationships have been disgusted by so many in the society even states enacted laws upholding sodomy acts to be illegal practice and a crime. In Bowers v Hardwick (1986), the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of a Georgia sodomy law criminalizing oral and anal sex in private between consenting adults when applied to homosexual after Hardwick was observed by a Georgia police officer while he was engaged in the act of consensual homosexual sodomy with another adult in the bedroom of his home. He was thereby been charged with violation of the Georgia statute that criminalized sodomy. Hardwick challenged the statute but to no avail (although this case was later overturned in 2003). Another example, campaign literature on behalf of Colorado’s Amendment Two (the law that denied local communities the right to make non-discrimination laws for sexual orientation, overturned in Romer v. Evans – a case which Supreme Court ruled that a state constitutional amendment in Colorado preventing protected status based upon homosexuality or bisexuality did not satisfy the Equal Protection Clause) said that gay men drink raw blood and eat feces.
There have been quite a few cases in which people who kill a gay man have been able to win a reduction from classified degree murder to manslaughter on the grounds that they were disgusted by the person’s sexual appearance. For some people, the disgust towards homosexuality is traditional to them, and some, based on culture. When one never grew up to see such happen in the society before and it starts to happen, they immediately project this unexplainable disgust towards suchpeople and activities. Because it was not the norm of the societyduring their time or has never really been seen or done. This will then bring about disgust in such society and then the separationof the disgusted from those groups as emphasized earlier and there comes hatred; separations and can sometimes in rare occasions can lead to killing of such person(s). For example, there have been couples of scenarios where gay students get bullied or frustrated by their fellow classmates and due to too much pressure, they either become depressed, sad, or suicidal and kill themselves. But nowadays, even though some certain people still do not and will not accept this to be a part of the society norm, it sure has improved drastically over the years and we also do have important people in the society coming out of their “shells” and announcing that they are gay and such. It is much acceptable in the society than it was about ten years ago and most states in the U.S are accepting this to be a part of our lives and society today.
No comments:
Post a Comment