Law should be interpreted through the contextual analyses of what people do in law versus focusing on finding the essence of Law as it criticizes Legal Positivists for doing. It is also critical of how it disregards other social factors such as race, class and gender. From Legal Realism, Artifactualism adopts the belief that there should be a focus on what people in positions of law actually do instead of what they are supposed to do. Law is a platform for social interactions to occur and how civil servants carry out their duty is based on many influential powers and relations within society. It is also a means to find equality among the different members of society.
Discuss the meaning of the term balancing conflicting interests. Critically analyse the extent to which the law does balance conflicting interests and discuss any difficulties it faces in doing so? First we must discuss the theorists and what they thought the law did about conflicting interests and whether the law is able to balance these or not. Firstly Karl Marx said that the law was made for the benefit of those who own the capital to ensure the continued oppression of the workers. Therefore the law did not resolve conflicting interests but imposed the interests of one group over another.
Source D, written by a leading sociologist, agreed that state intervention was needed, but differentiated in the way that he believed that it linked to individual liberties too, and that the individual owes the state duties as well. The author found that the State and workers should work together, and that State intervention should provide jobs and wages, but not necessarily benefits. Hobhouse’s views are supported
(2) Explain and assess Locke’s account of personal identity. Personal identity within philosophy directly looks at the moral questions that concern us by the virtue of being a human being. The moral questions which often arise directly from personal identity ultimately question the role we play as human beings within our society. Personal identity concerns our own existence and it is unique in the retrospect that we as individuals have our own personal identity which provides a direct moral grounding for us to follow and justify. Locke’s own writing within his account of personal identity begins with the quote; “This being premised to find where in personal identity consists we must consider what persons stand for”[1].
Part 1: Whether the prosecution is allowed to adduce the statements made by Toh or Suresh at the trial? A. Application 1: Toh’s statement * Toh’s statement was made under a threat/inducement by Sgt Ahmad and should be excluded at the trial * Applying Chien chien wei kelvin - * [Objective test] Whether there was an inducement sufficient in the court’s opinion to lead the accused reasonably to suppose that he would gain an advantage/ avoid an evil to himself * Identify the threat/inducement: “Understand your mother is ill…imagine how she would feel if we were to tell her that…” * Accessed objectively, this statement amounts to a threat because by making such a remark, Sgt Ahmad had forced Toh to consider the consequence of his mother hearing about his arrest and alleged offence * A reasonable person in Toh’s position would feel that he would gain an advantage of not having his mother’s condition deteriorate by reason of Sgt Ahmad informing his mother about his involvement in the robbery * [Subjective test] Whether the inducement operated on Toh’s mind so as to cause him to confess * There are no facts to suggest that Toh did not trust the police, therefore the threat operated on his mind ( * The threat to tell Toh’s mother of Toh’s plight does not have “reference to his charge” * Therefore, a strict application of s.258(3) of the CPC would mean that Toh’s statement was made voluntary * However, applying the purposive interpretation in Poh Kay Keong, the purpose of Sgt Ahmad’s threat was to induce Toh to make the statement * Also, the CA in Poh was of the view that threat relating to a “collateral” matter may be ‘far the more power’ and more effective in inducing the accused to make such statements * The question of whether a “person in authority” delivered the inducement, threat or
Despite this my immediate feeling in response to this situation is that at this point I do not report the crime. 2. Ordinary Moral Sense – my beliefs related to the situation are simply that adolescents need to learn to make responsible decisions. I feel that by coming to me and revealing that he was a part of this criminal activity, he may indeed have feelings of guilt and is basically reaching out in dealing with these feelings of remorse he has. Since he was not the one who actually stole the car and it was not his idea, I would use the opportunity to guide him in the process of making better choices.
In the original position, there is ‘The Veil of ignorance’ where individual factors about who someone is within society are not known. This is a hypothetical thought experiment which distances people from biasing effects (John Rawls, Part XII A Liberal Theory of Justice, excerpted by Cambridge, MA: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 1971 p.578). I will be discussing the principles of justice, what Rawl’s reasons are for supporting these principles and my own, along with possible other views and opinions on these principles. The fair equality of opportunity principle gives everyone equal rights. Everyone would have the guaranteed rights of fundamental liberties.
If all my actions, my beliefs and my desires are determined by preceding conditions, how can I ever be free? This is the conflict presented by traditional theories of determinism and freewill. But analysis of such a concept of freewill shows it be incoherent. In this case, we must either reject the thesis that we have freewill, or reformulate our concept of freewill so that it is coherent. I will argue that such a reformulation is not only compatible with determinism but also necessary, if we are to maintain that we have any kind of freewill.
Erich Fromm Critique Essay In discussing obedience, people usually will think that obedience is the right thing to do, and disobedience is in the wrong. In Erich Fromm’s essay, “Disobedience as a Psychological and Moral Problem”, he states that around different places, people all believe that the world we live in came about as an act of disobedience. In his argument, he states multiple examples taken from the Greek myth of Prometheus, and of Adam and Eve, with the Original Sin. Erich even assumes that the beginning of our race starts through disobedience: “[our] intellectual development was dependent on the capacity for being disobedient..”(Fromm 684) With this statement, Erich Fromm strongly argues his view that “human history began with an act of disobedience, and it is not unlikely that it will be terminated by an act of obedience.”(Fromm 683) In his article, Fromm discusses his reasoning for believing that history began with disobedience, and will end in obedience. Erich Fromm talks about the different kinds of obedience, and how they can help one’s society, or even destroy it.
Both King and Thoreau discuss civil disobedience and when it is just to break unfair laws. Another topic they discussed is the merit of authority, and how they were disappointed by the action the majority takes towards certain issues. Henry Thoreau mostly emphasizes on how civil disobedience is important because he believes that governments should consider everybody's opinions. Both have the same common logic, but they express their views in a completely different manner. King uses better emotional appeals so that his audience feels compelled to his cause, King also uses figurative language to create a powerful tone that provides his essay with a meaningful effect; while Thoreau uses more ethos and common logic.