Federal law is above the law of the Federation, that determined by the constitution. The executive branch implements laws and there is an independence of the federal legislative institutions. Secondly, this is advantages of federalism, which include protection against external enemies, resolution of conflicts. Federalism simplifies management on the background of the language, religious and cultural differences and flexibility of power - the ability to find new, creative solutions to national issues. Finally, I would like to add disadvantages of federalism: Competitions between subjects for resources and instability because Federation can collapse or will be needed to require armed intervention to save the Union.
This is because the consequences of the utilitarian mentality can’t be applied in all situations due to the dangerous outcomes it can lead to. Kantian ethics is concerned about practical reason and motives rather than the consequences of the action. In most cases, the utilitarian will base their actions on what the best result is for the greatest number of people, while Kant argues that a goodwill “is good only through its willing” (Kant, 2008, p. 106). In fact, Kant argues that even “with the greatest effort it should yet achieve nothing, and only the good will should remain…yet would it, like a jewel, still shine by its own light as something which has its full value in itself. Its usefulness or fruitlessness can neither augment nor diminish this value” (Kant, 2008, p. 106).
Hamlet wishes to get revenge for his father's death, but is mentally unable to kill his uncle Claudius. This causes him to have an internal conflict with himself, he feels as if it's his duty to complete the task and get revenge for his father. On the other hand, Hamlet’s moral compass will not allow him to kill another human being. Later in the play these feelings resolve themselves a little, but this is one of Hamlet’s major challenges to overcome throughout the
Although I do understand that it is very difficult to know the true motives of an individual making a decision, I think it is less subjective than it is deemed to be. I peculiarly favor Immanuel Kant’s School of thought in the Deontological wing of Ethics. Kant’s moral philosophy is “Do the right thing, Do it because it is the right thing to do”. Kant believed that we should act from a sense of moral duty and act with the correct motives, without any regard to the consequences of our action. He emphasized that the motives would be morally correct if they adhered to two rules.
But Hamlet give up the good opportunity of killing Claudius because he hopes that his revenge for his father for a moral sake, not committing an impulsive revenge. Due to himself being too idealistic and restrained, he does not take decisive actions even after using the planned play to test the Claudius's conscience that could possibly expose himself and left himself in unfavorable circumstances. Hamlet’s inability to act is caused by his overanalysis of the situations that further render him from not carrying out actions in response. If Hamlet is not indecisive, he would not be uncertain about the evidence regarding to his uncle’s crime, he would not be delaying his revenge, he would not be having emotional breakdowns and become a tragic figure. Hamlet’s personality ‘borns’ and develops under his royal position and the growing
His resolve to obstinately stick to his decision is his ultimate downfall. As such, when determining culpability, Creon is responsible for the deaths of Antigone, Haemon, and his wife. Despite the fact that Creon made a decision that was in accordance with the law and the legitimacy of the throne, he failed to realize that he had a responsibility towards his family, namely his son and his wife, in addition to the people who he governed. Sophocles also depicts that Creon had a responsibility to bend to the will of God, which trumped his responsibility towards the law. In the play, Antigone informs Creon that the laws of God “ were, and shall be, Operative for ever, beyond man utterly” (Sophocles).
Surely, not only the enforcement of laws, but also the more general set of interventions - focused to guarantee the ordered development of societal intercourses - requires the presence of the public hand it demands, in other words, those kinds of intervention that Foucault designates through the notion of discipline. What Foucault deeply counterclaims, however, is the idea that the state action can be always and mainly recognized and represented as a bundle of forces coming from ‘above’ and floating ‘down’ to the social structure taken as a whole. Actually, Foucault complains the idea that it is possible to identify and isolate a clear line dividing the public sphere and society itself, whereas the latter is meant as the sphere within which individuals negotiate their own position in front of the pervasiveness of public interference in order to preserve their freedom of action. Foucault, against the concept of state action that reduces the latter to disciplinary power, suggests considering the state since its inception at the beginning of the modern era as the central node of a broader network with a vast array of agencies whose aim is the government of individual life. According to Foucault, politics is nothing but the art of governing people.
Morgenthau agreed with Hobbes that feelings of insecurity in man are prevalent and the moral history of mankind tells the story of inner insecurity. According to Hobbes, men 's lives are full of "cruelty, brutish egotism and unconstrained passion that is directed by insecurity and fear in the state of nature.”(3)Morgenthau presented two things that characterize mankind. First is arising from the inner insecurity of man and his will to achieve power to overcome the insecurity and conflict and evil desires can arise from the will to gain power or the desire to maintain power. On the other hand war can occur from the second drive which is more of a primary selfishness .It arises from the competition to get maximum of scarce resources that keeps man alive. Morgenthau viewed that the thirst for power is an essential assumption to understand what the nature of politics is because man’s desire to gain power is evident from every society.
How can we understand power in politics? As a central concept within Western social theory, the study of power has been tackled in many ways, providing diverse and valuable insights. When seeking to comprehend the presence of power in politics, it is important to look at the relations of power that are present within a political structure. To consider the concept of power in a political domain, questions such as, “how is power distributed within the state and its citizens?” and “What is the power structure and what kind of power is being exercised?” must be kept in mind. There are three kinds of Authority that Weber defines, which he calls ideal forms of legitimate rule.
When it comes to powerful states, it seems rather difficult to constrain them to international law without the elements of community interests or the balance of power. It is therefore believed that international law itself is instrumental to, and shaped by, power. International law often reflects as a tool used by the most powerful states to exert their influence and dominance onto the less powerful states. For example, powerful states can, in some areas, use international law as a means to regulate or stabilize their dominance while in other areas, they can withdraw from it by pursuing other means such as replacing it with domestic laws, making it easier for the dominating states to establish hierarchies and to directly govern other states. When a stronger state decides not to comply