The U.S. Government Ought Not Sell the UnaBomber's Possessions

Con, then Pro. < > -Again, regardless of the principles the U. S. was founded upon, Kant's philosophies can apply to it. It doesn't matter what moral system someone or something uses; any moral system can be used to judge actions. Some moral systems are more applicable in some cases. In this case, we can't look to Utilitarianism/Social Contract, as they don't consider the rights of the individual. When you look at actions that are being taken on an individual, you need a moral system that gives his or her rights consideration. < > -Again, regardless of founding principles, the Imperative can be used to evaluate actions. < > -Just because the Categorical Imperative and equality have different names does not mean that they aren't similar. What Kant did when writing the Imperative was combining many moral values, creating a system that encompassed them all. The Categorical Imperative is a conglomerate of many basic values (treat others how you would like to be treated, treat people as people, not tools, strive to better humanity, etc. ). < > -Amendment 13 (abolished slavery): prevented U. S. citizens from using each other as means. -The principles of liberty and equality are applications of the Second Formulation -Legal protections make people the 'end', or the goal, so to speak. By giving people protections, we are bettering humanity. -For the Second Formulation to have an effect on our principles, congressmen don't have to say 'the Second Formulation bids us to pass this law'. People unconsciously use the Second Formulation in their day-to-day life, when they protect and stand up for one another. The Second Formulation isn't a foreign principle to humans, but a basic moral instinct put into words. < > -His actions do not justify violation his First Amendment rights. < > -We are talking about morality, not justice. Again, we are not talking about what is just, but what is moral. There is a difference. < > -The Unabomber obviously does not want to express the speech in his diaries. He is objecting to their sale, and therefore doesn't want these ideas to be expressed. By selling them, the government is preventing him from doing so, from expressing his ideas the way he wants. This is no different from preventing him from speaking. Selling his writings without his permission is forcing his ideas into the public against his will. < > -We are abridging freedom of speech, however. The Unabomber's freedom of speech is "lessened in scope" (see the definition above) when his writings (speech) are confiscated and sold without his permission. Voting Issues: 1) Selling the bomber's possessions, especially his diaries, without his permission abridges his right to free speech. By making his writings available to the public, the government is forcing him to express certain ideas, removing his choice to express his ideas as he wishes. 2) The Categorical Imperative can be used to evaluate the U. S. ' government's actions. Although the Constitution may have been written based on the Social Contract, we can still evaluate actions through the Imperative. Here's an analogy: a person decides how he acts based on Utilitarianism. Someone else decides to evaluate his actions. They can use whatever moral system they want to draw their conclusions. 3) Using Utilitarianism to judge the Unabomber's actions leads to undesirable results. He could be forced to do any number of undesirable tasks, as long as two or more people would benefit. Because Utilitarianism compromises the rights of the individual, we cannot use it in this case.