People would want their interests to be protected by law, through various sets of rules. In this case interests can be referred to as a person’s rights. Therefore the law is there to protect a person’s rights by imposing a corresponding duty on the other party so that they are bound in law not to interfere with those rights. Interests and rights are not always easy to define so inevitably, the interests of an individual and those of the majority may sometimes become conflicted. Rudolf von Jhering, a German jurist recognised law as a means of ordering society in a situation where there are many competing interests, not all economic.
For the sake of time and space, the definition of two interpreting educators is referenced. “… ethics (we will define as) behavioral standards – a set of principles that defines what is judged appropriate or inappropriate, right or wrong” (Alcorn & Humphrey, 2007, p.301). Because this particular situation is not specifically mentioned in the interpreting Code of Ethics, it is necessary for the interpreter to use their own personal morals and ethical judgment in order to decide which course of action or inaction to take. In order to make this decision, critical thinking is needed. A variety of viewpoints need to be considered, and there are steps to consider.
We will then, with specific reference to three key cases, look at the compensatory approach of damages and look at the key principles brought about by these cases and the current standing of the law, with the aid of cases and academic writing. In order to tackle this question, we must first define what a contract is. The term contract does not have a solid and/or rigid definition in English law; however, the English legal system, like many other legal systems, is reliant on the Latin “Pacta sunt servanda” – promises are made to be kept; contracts are made to be performed, when looking at the law of contract and contractual obligations. Hence, contract law is a branch of private law based on promises which are made by one party to another and the enforceability of these promises and it is by this assertion that the separation of contract law from that of the law of tort and the law of restitution rests to a large extent. In keeping a contract, it is said that the parties are executing a contract.
Habermas critiques Gadamer’s thought by questioning the overall concept and the central role of tradition, arguing the possibilities of certain sub-conscious interests and specific authorial forces that distort tradition. In order to accurately explore the thoughts and beliefs of Gadamer and Habermas surrounding that of the concept of “tradition”, one must first establish the basic foundation of hermeneutics upon which these ideas are to be centred. Heidegger offers an effective ground on which to base the majority of these philosophical positions for that of classical hermeneutics by initially revealing hidden meanings in hermeneutical texts, exploring authoritative objectives and developing a clearer overall understanding of them. A later shift in focus in hermeneutics during the 20th century brought about an apparent lean toward specifically “epistemological foundations… or the methodological principles which lead to objective knowledge in the human sciences” (Ormiston, G & Schrift, A, 1990), thus encouraging the questioning of knowledge to be centred upon that of “truth” and “Being”. To Heidegger, it is the former understanding which leads to a solid basis of
Is an explanation based on a conception of justice feasible? How are concerns of distributive and corrective justice related? What amounts to an adequate explanation of tort law? This collection will be of interest to professionals and advanced students working in philosophy of law, social theory, political theory, and law, as well as anyone seeking a better understanding of tort law. Gerald J. Postema is Cary C. Boshamer Professor of Philosophy and Professor of Law at The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.
II. Literature in Law – Victim Impact Statements Literature and law scholarship has been an entrenched interdisciplinary venture; in particular, literary texts often illuminate the operation of law. [3] Despite criticisms by several legal academics alleging that this interdisciplinary endeavor breaches the “inherent insularity” of disciplinary discourse and challenges the “disciplinary identity” of
ABSTRACT: Are rights universal? This intriguing yet controversial question is discussed in terms of how rights is perceived through the works of major philosopher’s of all time; all of which perceive rights in different political spectrums. Additionally, cultural relativism is hugely discussed in this essay, with it being arguably a crucial factor in determining how universal rights can be. This essay also highlights Jeremy Bentham’s work “Anarchical Fallacies” which criticized the Declaration of Rights and Karl Marx’s ‘On the Jewish Question’. This essay weighs on both sides of the scale, and it is generally concluded that rights are not universal even though they have been efforts to promote its universality.
------------------------------------------------- Moral Virtue Theory, Duty Theory, & Utilitarianism Latoya Gibson October 12, 2014 October 12, 2014 Virtue Ethics is a classification within what is called Normative Ethics. Normative ethics will attempt to classify and discover what might be deemed of moral character, and then to apply the moral character as a base for a person’s choices and actions. The basic concept behind Virtue Ethics is that it focuses on what an individual should choose for his/her own personal character behavior rather than the individual relying solely on the external laws and customs of the person's culture, and if a person's character is good then so should the person's choices and actions be good. There is value in the ideals of Virtue Ethics, namely the value of directing the individual's attention away from following popular opinion while placing the attention back upon the individual themselves. Duty theory is a moral theory, especially connected with Kant, according to what actions are right or wrong because of their inherent content, and the motive from which they are done.
Compare and contrast our approach to knowledge about the past with our approach to knowledge about the future To compare our approach to knowledge about the past with our approach to knowledge about the future, it first must be determined what ‘knowledge’ is. According to Plato knowledge is “a justified true belief”. So, knowledge must have a logical evidence and to be approved by society and facts. However, to define ‘knowledge’ is not as easy as it seems. The following quote from Bertrand Russell demonstrates it: "The question how knowledge should be defined is perhaps the most important and difficult one with which we shall deal.
In order to evaluate the claim that the possession of knowledge carries ethical responsibility, it is important to understand ethics and knowledge in the general sense To put it simply, ethics is moral philosophy, or rationalization of conduct as either right or wrong. Normative ethics is the study of determining a moral course of action. The two most prominent ethical guidelines are Kantianism and Utilitarianism. Immanuel Kant suggested that ethics revolve around duty, rather than emotions. All actions are related to an underlying principle.