I would be the first to advocate obeying just laws. One has not only a legal but a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws. I would agree with St. Augustine that “an unjust law is no law at all.” Now, what is the difference between the two? How does one determine whether a law is just or unjust?
Martin’s argument on how the Charter is antidemocratic has six main premises. Firstly, Martin supports his claim by making a point that judges, as they hold no accountability for what their judgments, can “overturn deliberate policy decisions made by the elected representatives of the people where those decisions do not accord with the way the judges interpret the Charter.” Thus, the Charter, according to Martin, is antidemocratic. Secondly, Martin discerns the differences between liberalism and democracy, creating operational definitions for each. He explains that liberalism “is about individual rights,” and is “about the ability of individuals to do as they please without interference from the state.” Therefore, according to Martin, Liberalism “makes protection of the autonomy of the individual more important than the promotion of the welfare of the
This is essential for our government to maintain a balance between the three branches without overreach by one over another. Montesquieu said, “To prevent the abuse of power, ’tis necessary that by the very disposition of things power should be a check to power,”(200) he also went on to say, “These three powers should naturally form a state of repose or inaction”(211). Each branch has a certain limited power over the other whether it be the president vetoing legislation, legislators impeaching the president or supreme court justices, or the Supreme Court finding legislation or executive action unconstitutional and/or not in the public’s best interest. It is argued that the judicial branch has no real power, seeing that it has no real enforcement or any legislative capabilities, but its sway is held through recognition and respect. In order to limit the power of congress it is divided into an upper and lower house.
Hard determinism is the theory that human behaviour and actions are wholly determined by external factors, and therefore humans do not have genuine free will or ethical accountability. There are several different supporting views for this belief. Hard determinism is underpinned by the work of Isaac Newton’s theory of scientific laws which is that we are completely governed by these laws. According to these laws one does not have moral responsibility for their actions as they were predetermined by a ‘higher power’. 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.
“Compare and Contrast intuitionism and Emotivism” Both Intuitionism and Emotivism are meta-ethical concepts to explain the terms “good” and “bad” without being caught in the naturalistic fallacy described by GE Moore. Moore’s theory states that good cannot be categorised in any physical manner as theories – but instead “good” can not be defined in terms of anything but itself, and following this through to a moral theory we can conclude “that neither science nor religion can establish the basic principles of morality.” Intuitionism holds that there are objective moral truths, but rather than reasoning or deducing these truths, they are self evident to the “mature” mind. Moore contends that just as we know there is a world out there, we know objective moral truths – they are just common sense or intuition. These truths are universal and beyond human experience and reasoning, and from them we gain our sense of what is “good” and what is “bad”. Moore would say we can see these self evident truths when, in an argument, we are reduced to “it’s just wrong,” they require no further explanation, proof or justification.
The act was created to protect children and Templeman regarded the arguments on the words ‘is suffering’ as a distraction from the aim. ‘This is an example of judicial practicality and desire to see justice down’ . This case illustrates that the ‘rules’ of statutory interpretation do not have to be followed exactly and are merely guidelines. Lord Templeman states that the rules of interpretation have ‘an aura of scientific authenticity about them when the reality is that interpreting any document is more of an art than a science’ . In other words, the rules can only be guidelines because judges will clearly have different interpretations.
Describe three major philosophical theories of law. The principal objective of analytic jurisprudence has traditionally been to provide an account of what distinguishes law as a system of norms from other systems of norms, such as ethical norms. All forms of natural law theory subscribe to the Overlap Thesis, which is that there is a necessary relation between the concepts of law and morality. According to this view, then, the concept of law cannot be fully articulated without some reference to moral notions.The Conventionality Thesis emphasizes law’s conventional nature, claiming that the social facts giving rise to legal validity are authoritative in virtue of some kind of social convention. The Separability Thesis, at the most general level, simply denies naturalism’s Overlap Thesis; according to the Separability Thesis, there is no conceptual overlap between the notions of law and morality.
For example, should judges embrace “mind reading” and issue orders based on mere fMRIs? Intentionally crude and tendentious, this sentence was meant to demonstrate that focusing too narrowly on such cases can impoverish our understanding of how science can interact with law. To avoid this fate, we should systematically investigate four separate quadrants, produced by intersecting two conceptual axes based on “specificity” and “time.” Axis of Specificity. Making new law or applying existing law both require some understanding of the “facts”—either the factual contours of a problem to be solved or the factual particularities necessary to apply general legal principles to a specific case. But as legal scholars have noted, facts can be specific or general (e.g., Faigman, 2008).
He impugns us to do what is morally right, and to not be afraid to take a stand against injustice. Henry David Thoreau’s position on civil disobedience is neither morally irresponsible nor politically reprehensible. Civil disobedience is technically illegal, and is punishable, but who is ultimately responsible for determining what is right or wrong? Van Dusen strongly believes that defiance of laws go against the democratic nature of our government: “Bit civil disobedience, whatever the ethical rationalization, is still an assault on our
As Supreme Court justices, they only accept a case that directly has to deal with someone's right from the constitution being violated. Because it has to deal with interpreting the Constitution, the scope of their powers are limited and clearly defined as law interpreters, not law makers. b. One factor