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.
(words: 956) In his essay The Underclass Myth, Adolph Reed Jr. suggests that the notion of an Underclass allows for and is shaped by the notion of ‘culture’ as having destructively innate qualities within the Underclass. This “naturalization of ‘culture,’” as he terms it, defies traditional contentions of what ‘culture’ means in that it is infused with the idea of ‘nature’ of the nature/culture dichotomy, and in that it works counterproductively for the group it describes. When it is used to describe or explain the disposition, attitudes, values and behavior of the Underclass, the word ‘culture’ serves to aggregate supposed members of the Underclass as a degenerate ‘people.’ It projects a set and quality of values, attitudes and behavior onto the Underclass collective in such a way that not only defines it, but also predicts its course. Citing the conventional Victorian ideas of race and class as interchangeable terms, Reed claims the innateness that the Victorians associated with both terms resonates in the modern discussion of the Underclass. In this way, applying a ‘cultural’ cause and nature to the idea of the Underclass necessarily takes away its ability to help itself (because innateness cannot be reversed), while it absolves those outside the Underclass of responsibility for it, in that it suggests a causal relationship between the plight of the Underclass and its own deficiency.
“the realist while rejecting the positivist approach of testing theory against data, acknowledges that there are underlying and unobservable cause to explain social phenomena and that testing theories against each other is the way to proceed with methodology” Outline the main principles of positivism and anti-positivism and explain with reference to the quote how realism adds to and challenges the traditional methodological discussion in sociology The merits of positivism and anti-positivism in defining social phenomena have been debated over many years. Positivists such as August Comte (1978 - 1857) believed that the accumulation of scientific knowledge and statistics could reveal sociological laws which would help to explain various functions of society. Anti-positivists counter this and instead claim, that because human beings individually act on a variety of influences, a scientific approach is insufficient in defining sociological theory. Realism challenges both theories by conceding that, although there are underlying causes that affect society, these causes cannot be understood by scientific methods alone. Instead they try to understand social phenomena by testing existing theory against new theory.
RAWLS’ ORIGINAL POSITION AS THE CENTRAL FEATURE OF HIS THEORY OF JUSTICE David Hume pointed out that problems of justice typically arise when in situations of scarcity we seek to adjudicate between competing claims for limited goods (Feinberg 1980: 141). Different philosophers have proposed different theories of justice. One such philosopher is John Rawls whose theory of justice he called “justice as fairness”. His theory begins with one of the most general of all choices which persons might make together, namely, with the choice of the first principles of a conception of justice which is to regulate all subsequent criticism and reform of institutions (Pojman 1995: 630). In yielding the name “justice as fairness”, Rawls proposes the concept of “the original position” as the appropriate initial status quo which ensures that fundamental agreements reached in it are fair.
Social constructivism is analyzed for its offerings in the study of anarchy, regimes, world polity, and as systemic level theory of international relations. Among the interesting findings is the problematic nature of this approach to understanding anarchy, the difficulty of defining constructivism as positivist social science, and the optimistic outlook for the future of international relations studies offered by the constructivist approach. Introduction It is often asked why any theory of international relations should be taken seriously. On the surface this appears to be a valid question. Theory is academically based and not part of the real world.
Normative moral cultural relativism (referred to in this essay as ‘moral relativism’ or ‘cultural relativism’) raises many questions in terms of both definition and logic to anyone who studies it, and herein I will try to demonstrate just one problem with the claims of relativists, namely that their premises create a contradiction when it comes to the claim of non-universal moral rules. James Rachels correctly points out that moral relativists make an invalid logical jump, claiming that what is is what ought to be. He then goes on to talk about the effects of moral relativism even if we ignore this problem. My analysis will differ from his in that he focuses on consequences of moral relativism that go against our instinctual beliefs, or that simply don’t seem to sit well with people. I will try to show some logical contradictions that occur even if we ignore this is-ought problem.
Elizabeth Gakuu. Composition II 09/10/2013 Does Disobedience Truly Equal Freedom? Erich Fromm’s “Disobedience as a Psychological and Moral Problem” suggests humanity is intrinsically prone to “obedience” yet “disobedience” drives human advancement. I contend that Fromm’s position is weak due to three factors. This critique will explore the weakness of subjective evidence, logical fallacy and confusing structure.
Melissa Raboczkay Thursday 19:00-21:55 Is Equality Going Too Far? “Equality…is the result of human organization. We are not born equal.” (Quotation Details) This quote, stated by social philosopher Hannah Arendt, bares truth to the message that Vonnegut is portraying in “Harrison Bergeron”. We, as human beings, are not born equal or rather we do not all possess the same characteristics and qualities as others; some excel at different aspects and by making the outcome equal it hinders our own unique capabilities. Vonnegut not only satirizes the mistaken of equality in the American culture but rather he may also be satirizing the misunderstanding of what leveling and equality could ultimately entail.
Phil 103 Essay What two principles of justice does Rawls believe would be chosen in the original position (when deciding the issue of distributive justice within states)? Are these good choices? Critically discuss with reference to Rawls’ own reasoning for the two principles. Rawls believes that the two principles of justice that would be chosen in the original position are: The Fair Equality of Opportunity Principle and The Difference Principle. In the original position, there is ‘The Veil of ignorance’ where individual factors about who someone is within society are not known.
Taboo language is evolutionary, amorphous, versatile, and is often indicative of the personality of an individual speaker, or the social state of the region or time in which it is found. Prerequisite to understanding the social implications of taboo language is at least a basic understanding of the definition of taboo language and the ever changing nature of the subject. Taboo language is too broad and abstract a subject to form a universally concrete definition, however, Ashley Montagu, an American anthropologist distinguishes between two different basic types of taboo language. He makes the distinction that “[profanity] makes use of the sacred, while [obscenity] employs the indecent.” (p102) These two simple definitions encompass the majority if not entirety of what is considered to be taboo by most any societal group. For the purposes of this analysis and for understanding how taboo language is interpreted in the modern day, the word “bitch” along with its various connotations and interesting history will be expounded upon in light of Montagu’s definitions of taboo language seeing as, in at least one point in its recorded history, the word has fallen