‘Natural Law has no serious weaknesses.’ Discuss. The natural law theory is approach from an absolutist point of view which expresses that morality is set from birth. What is right and wrong, good or evil can be perceived almost instantly by everyone because morality is universal it is not a relativist thing that can change with situation. Also, natural law does not adjust to public opinion; it is an invisible measure which never changes. It can be seen as a good approach to morality as it does not allow people from different denominations such as cultures or where you are born or in different situation they may find themselves to build their own moral rules and framework to life, it is personal but is guided by these innate rules.
Explain Moral Relativism Moral Relativism argues the claim that there are no universally valid rules for all people at all times, thus implying there are no intrinsic rights and wrongs. This results in Morality being relative to the individual, to their culture and their age group. In contrary Moral Absolutism is the antonym to the theory that morality is relative. Kant for example was not a moral relativist; he held the belief that we had ‘categorical imperatives’ which were always right. He believed as Absolutists believe today , we should be able to apply moral rules to everyone without making allowances for different people or circumstance , thus suggesting laws should be ‘universalisable’ .
From the beginning, both said that race and ethnic beliefs would not come in the way of decision making. Sotomayer made it apparent that she followed the Judicial Restraint philosophy and ultimately believe “what the constitution/laws stated is exactly how they are supposed to be interpreted”, not personal thoughts included. Thomas was the complete opposite, concluding that he followed the Judicial Activism philosophy. But, after reading research, it can be determined that no matter what philosophy that they followed, the judges background and ethnicity influenced their rulings and public
He insisted that when government violates individual rights, people may legitimately rebel. Locke believed that human nature is characterized by reason and tolerance. That everyone had natural rights from the moment that they were born. Natural rights were life, liberty, and property. He believed that the government had an obligation to protect the citizens natural rights.
The first kind of utilitarianism, developed by Bentham was designed to be secular (non-religious). It doesn’t rely on specific beliefs about God. As he wanted a secular way of deciding whether an action was morally good or bad. Also Mill’s rule utilitarianism has no reference to religion either. Both types of utilitarianism wanted a secular theory to which everyone could use.
Hence why, natural laws such as gravity and motion assist in forming the basis for the cause and effect that fills the discussion of hard determinism. However, James Lovelock argued that according to GAIA theory the world changes, adapts and amends itself in order to survive and the human race is of little significance. Humans do not control nature, nature is in control. Philosophical determinism, like all forms of hard determinism, is based on the theory of Universal Causation. This is the belief that everything in the universe including all human actions and choices has a cause.
* Locke believed that political power was not given by to the monarch by god, but was derived from social compacts that people made to preserve their natural rights. 1. Natal rights (to life, liberty, and property) * He believed that government should in effect, be instituted to make sure that the people were able to secure their rights to property. That
He begins with stating that the case must determine if the petitioners “were free as adults to engage in the private conduct in the exercise of their liberty under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution.". He felt that personal choices such as homosexuality might not be formally recognized by the law, but liberty granted by the constitution gives those persons that choice and they should not be charged as criminals in doing so. He communicated that Sodomy Laws, along with others like it in other states, were rooted within Judeo-Christian beliefs. Furthermore, the Texas Sodomy Law was more of a moral law instead of one that protected citizens. He did not specifically say that the Texas Sodomy Law was wrong but that the petitioners had “constitutionally-protected liberty” which the Texas Sodomy Law violates.
in order to be valid it has to be deductive in order to be sound it has to be valid. premises must be true in our world with no changes for the argument. if the premises can be made true and the conclusion is true it's valid soundness is a further feature of validity. jackson reading- the mind is above the physical.it has to be experienced 1. Darwins dangerous idea was that he asked the question who created life, and his response was that no one did which in it's nature denies the supernatural explanation of the universe.
The idea of legal paternalism in ethical reasoning is somewhat of a kind gesture from the Government to try to help individuals from themselves in the assumption that those individuals do not know what is best for them. But, forcing individuals to paternalistic laws in order to protect them is limiting their natural born rights and is unconstitutional. The Government must respect people's choices because respecting individuals choices manifest a respect for them as liberated individuals protected by the constitution of the United States. Government should not interfere with people's personal lives; because