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. His view was that legal developments were driven by the constant tussle between individuals and groups within society to have their interests portrayed and supported by the law. As a result the law acts to determine the true balance between different interests by examining the value of each. Roscoe Pound identified 2 categories of interests in the law. Firstly is social interest, such as health and safety and public order, whilst individual interests include privacy and domestic relations.
The first is, Max Weber who was a German Conflict theorist who in part responsible for the development of the Symbolic Interactionist paradigm because he argued that meaning requires understanding. He is also recognized for the importance of economic conditions in producing inequality and conflict in society. Weber felt that sociologists should not let their own personal biases affect the research process. He stressed that researchers should stay neutral and objective, or “value-free.” He added power and prestige to inequality which I think also falls under Functionalism with power being evenly distributed among his own society. My second choice is Emile Durkheim, he was a French order theorist who argued that society is characterized by stability and strong integration based on mutual benefit.
Ethics gain from personal experience. Ethics are derived from values. Values help individuals to choose ethically. Therefore, ethics provides the structure for conduct. Ethical issues vary from legal issues because ethical issues are individualistic and legal issues are embodied in a system that governs society.
Morals concern what is right and wrong. Right and wrong usually vary depending on what is normal in a specific culture or society. Many people would agree that what is “right” is moral, but it is James Rachels that explores what makes something right. Rachels argues that it is the cultural normality’s of a society itself, that makes an action morally right, while others would disagree and claim that there is a set of “universal moral codes” that people should live by. In different societies and cultures what is morally right and wrong can be determined only within the individual mind of a person.
The values which one person feels are important in their life may not be so to another. To provide the best support to a person, their values must be taken into account and by doing so you will be empowering that person, increase their self determination and improve their independence. A person’s values will include their Individuality – as a carer you see each person as an individual and promote their interests, aspirations and needs in all you do. Your organisation should fit around these individualities not the person fit in with the organisation. Rights - the rights of people are protected by law, and in particular by the Human Rights Act 1998. protects people from harm and guarantees them basic entitlements such as the right to respect and equality Choice – Choice means having access to a wide range of options and information.
Examine the important concepts relating to justice and/or law and punishment Justice is about treating society fairly and equally. The government uses its authority to distribute a number of goods in society. The question of how these goods should be shared out comes under distributive justice. This is partially solved by the idea of a social contract which is described as “A minimalist theory of rights in which the individual is understood to be morally bound only by the ‘don’t harm me and I won’t harm you’ doctrine” Within justice there are two many lines of argument, individualist and communitarian theories. Ethicists use these two theories to argue whether the community or the individual is more important, question whether we should follow distributive justice should society just focus on protecting themselves without harming other people?
Hence a double security arises to the rights of the people. The different governments will control each other, at the same time that each will be controlled by itself. Second. It is of great importance in a republic not only to guard the society against the oppression of its rulers, but to guard one part of the society against the injustice of the other part. Different interests necessarily exist in different classes of citizens.
Expansion and Merger Managerial Economics and Globalization ECO550 Expansion and Merger Explain why government regulation is needed, citing the major reasons for government. Government regulation is needed to better improve the way the market economy operates. I believe some of the major reasons for the government’s involvement in a market economy are enforcing rules and regulations and for market failure. One reason for government involvement in a market economy is to maintain and enforce rules and regulations. According to Dr. Edward Younkins, By legally requiring that people behave in certain ways not in their best interests in carrying out their professional tasks, regulation can distort firms' behavior and choices.
Ethics are defined as an internal duty (Tunick, 1992). Because laws are defined by social reasoning through individualist ethics and ethics are influence through individualism, personal reason becomes a part of both the law and ethic and the duty becomes both internal and external. Counseling decision-making is determined by both personal and social reasoning of the law and ethics. Understanding both the legal system and the code of ethics in relationship to decision-making with the field of counseling
It would be absurd to think that there is a need to criminalize a conduct if an individual’s feelings are hurt or an individual is offended by another’s actions. The harm done must be towards protected interests and conduct that are not just offensive in nature. In response to the Report, Devlin argued that criminal law was not just for the protection of individuals but also for society as a whole. The society, Devlin felt, was a community of shared ideas about how people should live their lives. As such, the law is entitled to create laws that protect the society even if it means infringing on an individual freedom to make his or her own decisions.