People would want their interests to be protected by law, through various sets of rules. In this case interests can be referred to as a person’s rights. Therefore the law is there to protect a person’s rights by imposing a corresponding duty on the other party so that they are bound in law not to interfere with those rights. Interests and rights are not always easy to define so inevitably, the interests of an individual and those of the majority may sometimes become conflicted. Rudolf von Jhering, a German jurist recognised law as a means of ordering society in a situation where there are many competing interests, not all economic.
What Acme Fireworks should first be concerned about is where negligence falls into the picture. In conducting ordinary business through the sell and services of these goods, what is noticeable is the mix or hybrid contract which requires deciphering if it falls under the common law or the UCC law. Law is a sense of morality that is shaped by society; it’s not ethics, where one is suppose to follow. With the common law, it’s something where it continues to change or adjust through our federal and state courts to govern all laws. For example, the ever-changing law on how discrimination went from sanctioning segregation to dissolving segregation illustrates how adaptable common law is.
He argued that capital society and social order are all link to a capital system to human beings. Durkheim on the other hand, argued that sociology should be look at social facts as objects. Roles and institutions act like bodily organs, each depending on other. The world should be divided into subjective and objective, regarding society as a reality in itself. Durkheim sees anomie as responsible for the world’s disorder of economics- the lack of morality and regulation resulted in overpowering the weak; thus, he feels that only norms can prevent the abuse of power and calls for regulation and equal opportunity from birth- the greater the equal opportunity the less need for restraint.
The Supreme Court is made up of many justices that have beliefs in two different judicial philosophies. These two philosophies are that of judicial activism and strict constructionism. These philosophies differ quite a bit from one another, but they both work toward the same main goal. Both philosophies play a part in court cases, mainly when it comes to deciding on a final ruling or holding. Judicial activism is a judicial philosophy that states that a court has the right to, and should go beyond what is stated in the Constitution about an issue that is being brought up and look towards “broader” suggestions of the impending decision on said issue.
This difference of opinion flows through to their views on social contract and this essay will discuss this difference in theory as Locke is of the belief that government is necessary in order to preserve natural law, and on the contrary, Hobbes sees government as necessary in order to control natural law. Both Hobbes and Locke theorise that as the laws of nature do not afford sufficient security everyone has to rely on their own mental and physical strength to defend themselves so they enter into a social contract whereby an agreement by individuals results in the formation of the state or of organized society. The prime motive for the social contract is the desire for protection, but it does entail the surrendering of some or all personal liberties. Whilst Hobbes and Locke differ on different aspects of natural law and social contract, both agree that mutual consent through social contract
TO WHAT EXTENT IS THE STATE A FORM OF OPPRESSION? The idea that the state is a form of oppression is one that is held my marxists and anarchists, who argue that the state is unnatural, and goes against the potential of having freedom and equality. Marxists view the state as a form of oppression, based on the idea that it’s sole purpose is to uphold the bourgeoise ideology of gaining profit through the capitalist society. Anarchists however see the state as a body which undermines the human rationality to live together in society as harmonious beings. The state assumes that it has power over individuals, which a view blights human freedom as was expressed by Proudhon ‘to be governed is to be inspected by creatures who neither have the right nor virtue to do so’.
Criticisms of functionalism focus on its acceptance and rationalization of social inequality and societal evils. Since functionalism holds that all aspects of society are necessary, human rights issues like poverty, hunger, slavery, and genocide must be accounted for. Critics suggest that functionalism can be used as a rationalization of such issues. The perspective is also criticized for its lack of testability, which is critical for the upholding of any social science theory. Several questions stand against its reliability.
Durkheim's Sociology: On Social Solidarity Social Philosophers like Durkheim and Karl Max has some work on social solidarity. It was common ground between the two philosopher that society compromised of two different interest that needed to be regulated. While Marxist believed that these different interest are constantly in conflicts, Durkheimist however disagreed contending that these two interest essentially were in harmony by employing various agents. Which one of these two conflicting theories rae right is not what I am seeking to resolve, but I am minded to support Durkhemist approach. This is because Durkheim is primarily concerned with solidarity: what holds individuals together in social institutions?
Lastly, Cultural Relativists often argue that it is mere arrogance for us to judge the conduct of other societies, and that we should adopt an attitude of tolerance toward the practices of other cultures. Although it may be a display of arrogance to judge the conduct of other societies, it is sometimes necessary to do so and convey disagreement when the situation arises. Given these revised interpretations of the 5 claims commonly made by Cultural Relativists, individuals and cultures ought to be guided by a revised philosophy known as Centralized Cultural Relativism, where societies may have different moral codes, but they all inherit certain properties from a parent code, which is influenced by factors including human biology, physiology, and what is necessary for a society to
Assess the strengths and weaknesses of the functionalist approach to society...(33 marks) Functionalism is a macro, consensus theory. They see human behaviour as being influenced by social forces, because it is a macro-scale approach is therefore seen as a strength as it allows functionalist sociologists to observe society, and its institutions, as a whole. Functionalists argue that, individuals are socialised into a shared value which is also known as a value consensus to ensure conformity and social order. However, this functionalists approach is criticised by action theorists, as they argue that individuals create society through their interactions. Marxists may argue that these norms and beliefs are all in interest of the Bourgeoisie and they can prevent or make change by ideological manipulation or force.