One of the central and defining features of positivism is the focus on social facts and that the law is a ‘social construction’ having regard to the behaviours, attitudes and beliefs of people in their societal environment and interactions. Therefore, the normativity of the law is grounded in matters of social fact, which are non-normative, and which are not grounded in morals or morality. H L A Hart’s theory is the law as social practice which on the face of it, indicates that his theory is based on the societal practices which people participate in together as a systematic unit and this is why people obey laws. Consequently, people do not obey laws because it is morally right to do so, but because it is socially acceptable to obey such as a social rule. Thus, Hart considered the practice of law from an internal
The extent of fairness in this method is however, rather questionable and the same can be said for Rawls’s overall understanding of fairness, especially when looking at practicalities, because Rawls’s theory is highly idealistic and his methodology allegedly universal. In this essay I will therefore take a political realist approach and critically assess the question whether Rawls’s connection between justice and fairness is applicable in practice and whether making this connection can be justified. I will argue that justice is a practical concept for which it is important that current societal factors are considered and in doing so I will first look at the practical aspects in applying Rawls’s theory and conclude that his association of justice cannot be justified when looking at the concept of fairness applied in a practical
For instance, in the time of the aristocracy, virtues such as honor and loyalty were made universal; whereas, the bourgeoisie focused on freedom and equality. (Marx 68) Therefore, this morality becomes the basis for the morals of all the lower classes. One may say that according to Marx, one’s socioeconomic status has the greatest influence on their morality. While this may be the greatest influence on their general consciousness, their personal morals will be based off the omnipresent morals that the ruling class created to best benefit
Immanuel Kant and John Stuart Mill are two of the most notable philosophers in normative ethics. This branch of ethics is based on moral standards that determine what is considered morally right and wrong. This paper will focus on Immanuel Kant’s theory of deontology and J.S. Mill’s theory of utilitarianism. While Mill takes a consequentialist approach, focused on the belief that actions are right if they are for the benefit of a majority, Kant is solely concerned with the nature of duty and obligation, regardless of the outcome.
What kind of Justice is Superior? Justice is the most important political value and applies to the institution of society. Institutions regulate the market, property, family, freedom etc. It defines the just behavior or treatment of the people. There are multiple opinions of what justice concludes of, but for now I will only focus on the two.
His theory conceives human rights as rights of citizens rather than of human beings. The theory is construed for a body of people who form a political society rather than the human race forming a moral community . Reality however shows that human nature is not an immutable essence but a mixture of elements and values such as possibilities, interest, power and immunities, dignity, rationality and liberty. The conflict of theories can be solved by balancing prima facie rights which are not absolute but are dealt with case by case, the balancing is to be against each other not wishing merits in terms of some different ultimate standard of value such as
He comprehended that all the theories proposed by Thrasymachus, Socrates and other has one common component. The common component was that all these considered justice as an external force that was kind of an achievement that needs to be carried out for the survival in the habitat. According to him, it is not a relationship of a superior and inferior, whereby an inferior follows or complies by the laws set by the superior, not does justice is born out of fear. Rather the person performs such duty as the nature has casted over him for a specific purpose. He states that justice is done when a human being wishes to do a duty, without under any fear.
The theory of justice can act as a guide in a society that pursues equality, whereby, inequality is only acceptable if it is to the benefit of the disadvantaged. Principles of the Theory of Justice Rawls’s Theory of Justice is guided by two primary guiding principles that are derived from the works of the theory included (Sen, 2006). The First Principle of Justice According to Rawls (2009), “Each person is to have an equal right to the most extensive basic liberty compatible with a similar liberty for others”. This principle protects some fundamental rights like the right to run for office and vote, liberty of conscience, freedom of speech, freedom from arbitrary arrest, and freedom of personal property. However, there is still some debate if freedom of contract makes this list.
When we compare democracy to socialism, the main difference between the two systems is their ideals, specially the fact that socialism is an economic system while democracy is a political ideology. But there is a more significant difference between these, as Alexis de Tocqueville once implied, “Democracy and socialism have nothing in common but one word, equality. But notice the difference: while democracy seeks equality in liberty, socialism seeks equality in restraint and servitude.” This surely is stating that even though both systems have some things in common, equality, there is a great difference between them because the method they use to obtain that equality is dissimilar from each other. Both systems have pros and cons, but democracy is the best for the way that it controls society in a good and secure
Below some of Marx criticism of this idea by different scholars in discussed. “Both Marx and Hegel agree that the separation of the state from civil society is a paradox that needs to be resolved. However, Marx rejects Hegel 's explanation that puts an institutional order between the state as ethical agency and civil society as the sphere of private interests. Marx 's views, then, are in contrast to Hegel 's in explicitly seeking to resolve the state-society separation on the level of society as the true reality of human beings. Marx sought to realise 'the essence of socialised man ' in what he called a 'true democracy”.