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?
It also thought there should be representation of the people at the parliament. Furthermore it stated that The Rule of Law was vital to impose order in the lives of citizens and no one can abuse human rights. Historians believe there were many legal systems and forms of punishment in ancient history. The first one of all being Adam and Eve’s punishment from God that banished them from Heaven to Earth. Undoubtedly the first codified one was
2010 HSC Question Analyse how the central values portrayed in King Richard III are creatively reshaped in Looking for Richard The work of Pacino is able to creatively place Shakespeare’s core ideals of humanist philosophy and the corrupting influence of power within a modern context, to reveal the perennial nature of the playwright’s central values. Shakespeare’s King Richard III (1592) identifies hereditary power as a potent force when the natural order is usurped. Al Pacino’s Looking for Richard (1996) sees power within a democratic time and thus presents it as privilege, not a God-given gift, yet the two maintain a similar view of the dangers of authority without balance. Shakespeare’s time demanded a negative portrayal of Richard’s humanist ideals, where blame is placed upon the King’s lack of Christianity for his abhorrent acts. Pacino, however, contends with a time where it is increasingly becoming the norm, but still contends with a society that can be considered moral devoid in some manners, and thus the importance of spirituality and thought is evident in both.
It is a defense of studying each historical period on its own terms, and not imposing one's own moral and social standards on figures and situations that existed with, perhaps, a different set of ethical and cultural concerns. Butterfield’s text described historians who project modern attitudes on to the past, pass moral judgments on historical figures, and regard history as significant only to the extent that it labored to create the modern world. Such judgments are viewed as problematic because they tempt historians not to understand the past on its own terms. Butterfield argues that historians should write aesthetically rather than polemically, exercising "imaginative sympathy" in appreciating the lost worlds of the dead rather than seeking, or expecting, the vindication of their own current positions (92). The "Whig interpretation," as Butterfield calls it, sees history as a struggle between a progression of good libertarian parties and evil reactionary forces, failing to do justice to history's true complexity.
Soft determinism argues that while determinism is broadly true, we still have free will nonetheless. This theory is also referred to as compatiblism because it presents the idea that the existence of both determinism and free will are compatible, and that this is not at all logically inconsistent. Compatibilists define free will as freedom to act according to one's determined motives without arbitrary hindrance from other individuals or institutions. This can be supported in today’s society as Courts of Law make judgments about whether individuals are acting under their own free will under certain
“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.
Explain what is meant by balancing conflicting interests. Discuss the extent to which English law balances conflicting interests and briefly consider whether it is important to do so. Many argue that the law should act as a natural arbiter against the competing interests of those who seek to use the law and demand justice. Ultimately differing legal actors will have differing and competing interests. This is an age old legal dilemma and is what is effectively meant by ‘balancing conflicting interests.’ In the nineteenth century, von Jhering recognised law as a means of ordering society in a situation where there were many competing interests, not all being economic; as he believed utilitarianism views he was concerned with social aims and results over individuals.
‘Burke is a conservative thinker and therefore opposed to change.’ DISCUSS ‘We must not attempt to fly, when we can scarcely pretend to creep.’ The words of Burke himself seem almost apt for describing the caution with which one must to approach this essay title. At first glance Burkes championing of the prejudices of his forefathers combined with he’s fierce criticism of the French Revolution, seem damming evidence to support the view that he was a strong opponent of change. However, this conclusion seems to be unjust. Robert Peel suggests conservatism can be described as ‘changing what you have to in order to preserve what you can’. If we accept this premise we can disregard the conclusion that Burke was of not of the opinion that change must be avoided altogether.
This essay will explain and analyze two essays by individuals who express entirely different opinions of civil disobedience. In his essay, “Civil Disobedience: Destroyer of Democracy”, Lewis H. Van Dusen strongly discourages the use of civil disobedience as a means for change. He feels that this act of disobedience directly contradicts our democratic system. The other individual being compared in this essay is Henry David Thoreau; who in his essay, “Civil Disobedience”, supports the act of peacefully challenging or protesting unjust laws. He impugns us to do what is morally right, and to not be afraid to take a stand against injustice.
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