Case Study: Spanking And Disciplining Children

However, the law is the law, and when disobeyed whether unjust or just, consequences will be determined “by the code of the law”. However, human rights must be acknowledged when superiors make laws, and if they are not these laws must be revised, removed and/or

Legal positivism is thus distinguished by two central claims: that law is separable from its substantive morality and that there is no necessary link between law and morality. Thus, both Hart and Austin propound that the existence of a law and our duty to obey such law, even if we dislike it are two different queries. It is often argued that legal positivism assisted in legitimizing the Nazi rule. According to Hart’s Rule of Recognition, the master test of legal validity, there must not only exist both a convergent practice among officials of applying certain criteria of legal validity in deciding which norms are laws, but also that the officials adopt an “internal point of view” towards this practice, that is, they believe they have an obligation to do

We as citizens, should have the ability to know our limits, and obey certain rules without being forced. To conclude, Thoreau agrees that breaking the law due to injustice is

In the modern society we take it too a lot less seriousness to not have integrated religion into our lives through choice but the blame factor of not giving a child the chance to integrate a religion into their lives is frowned upon. A restriction such as refraining from baptising your child can ring up guilt and sympathization for those found in this video game

The second condition is: the legal norm must be effective which means that people should obey the legal norm and if not obeyed at least applied to them. Obeyed means that any act contradicts with this norm is a “condition of sanction,” while applied means that whenever that condition of sanction is fulfilled it should be ordered and executed by the court or by executive authority. Kelsen afterwards describes the norm of any legal system as a paramedical structure, in this structure, Kelsen arranges

His reasonings support his overall idea that an unjust law or act, does not defend retaliating through unjustly means. Additionally, both King and Socrates are on a disaccord concerning the determining factor of just and unjust behavior. While Socrates relies on rational argument to be the expert on justice and the morality law, King sees the determining factor as grounded from God. As shown above, both Socrates and King have differing views on the obligations of a citizen in respects to the laws of the

In Cicero’s piece Laws, Marcus states that, “... law is prudence, the effect of which is to order person to act correctly and to forbid them to transgress.” The sources for these laws include: “what nature has granted to a human being, how many of the best things the human mind encompasses, what service we have been born for and brought into light to perform and accomplish, what is the connection among human beings, and what natural fellowship there is among them.” However, even if laws were to be implemented to enforce the ideal actions and behaviors of the members of society, humans will still deviate, regardless if there are laws to promote good and demote evil. Additionally, even though it is argued in Cicero’s piece that, “the primary fellowship of human being with god involves reason; and among those who have reason in common, correct reason is also in common. Since that is law, we should also consider human beings to be united with gods by law,” things will get in the way such as lust, money, or anything in between, unfortunately leading people away from what is considered “right” and towards what is considered “wrong”. The ideas that are considered “right” are naturally and mutually supported within a society, bringing people together and against what is considered deviant. Knowledge of intellect and philosophical intuition, not necessarily just laws, is necessary for a society to govern efficiently

He even claims that "rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add 'within the limits of the law' because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual” (Wills 268). This supports his claim to promote natural rights in the sense that it is what the people are born with and will have what should be given under any circumstances. While Jefferson seems to be the leader in all of this, he is heavily influenced by the ideas and believes that already exist from John Locke, who is also an advocate for the belief in natural rights. He believes that society benefits most when it is in control of their freedom.

TRUE SENSE OF INTERNATIONAL LAW: The controversy whether international law is a law or not resolves on the divergent definitions of the word “law” given by the jurist. If we subscribe to the view of Hobbes, Austin and Pufendorf, that law is a command of sovereign enforced by a superior political authority then international law cannot be included in the category of law. On the other hand if, we subscribe to the view that the term“law”cannot be limited to rules enacted by superior political authority, then international law can be included in the category of law. Lawrence aptly remarked that everything depends upon the definition of law which we choose to adopt. International law is not law in the true sense of the term- Hobbes and Austin

Unless of course, this expression is inciting violent or illegal behaviour, or threatening others, in which case it is directly harmful and should therefore be prohibited. I think J.S. Mill would agree with me on these points as he states “the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others.” (Mill, J.S.,1978). Joel Feinberg, who also had very influential views on the Freedom of Speech debate, may respond to Mills view and propose that the Harm Principle is not enough: “In some instances, Feinberg suggests, we also need an offense principle that can act as a guide to public censure. The basic idea is that the harm principle sets the bar too high