Examples Of Substantive Justice

Let us assume that there is a broad range of values in most of the world 's religions that express a commitment to peace and elimination of violence. That happy circumstance does not begin to address the problem of countervailing religious beliefs that will at times override the call for peace. This struggle of conflicting values or, in some traditions, conflicting laws is, to be sure, often manipulated by powerful interests that do not want peace. Still, the conflict of values remains a formidable reality for the average believer or cleric who struggles with his/her conscience. Acknowledging and dealing with countervailing beliefs is crucial for conflict resolution in a religious

Although the practice may sound morally wrong for another culture, denying one’s culture only perceives that the other culture is morally right. Also if one does not abide by their value, then one will feel as if they feel they are committing a wrong act. Values are changing, not only through cultures, but also in time. For example, divorce was a morally wrong value.

In a simpler matter, you do what you do because of the way you are. To be truly morally responsible for what you do, you must be responsible for the way you are. But, you cannot be truly responsible for the way you are; therefore, you cannot truly be morally responsible for what you do. Strawson follows this explanation of the argument by stating that we are what we are, and no punishment or reward is "fitting" for us.

3) Kill everyone before the storm arrives. 4) Kill some to save some before the storm arrives. IS IT BETTER TO DIE OR LIVE THE CONSEQUENCES OF YOUR DECISION?? Most people go for option 4. Here, we shall discuss all the four options and then conclude that the fourth option is the most ethically correct option.

According to the story, the human understanding of justice is that it revolves around the actions assumed by the law rather than the actual outcomes. The idea of justice constructed upon the process accepted is based on the simple fact that it ensures that all the pertinent issues are addressed. Additionally, if the process is not followed correctly, it’ll become too complex to explain to the accuser how an action done good to them will now make up for an action done wrong to them before. This idea should be applied in today’s culture because the public is accountable for serving justice and it is obligated to follow the correct process in doing so appropriately.

I’m sure my father would understand and would actually encourage me to eat the extra ration, but by eating that extra ration I would think I was killing him by not feeding him the food. Even though it wasn’t my fault, I would always blame

Procedural law requires notice and a hearing while substantive due process is governmental objective. Basically, substantive due process has to do with very specific fundamental rights of citizens’ while procedural due process is when a citizen is not awarded the proper procedures under law. Substantive due process is additional to procedural due process. Procedural law is the analysis of how law is administrated while substantive is an individual analysis of the law. Procedural law has to do with both criminal and civil law.

Is it ever appropriate to go against the government? It is appropriate to go against the government if their actions are not morally right. There are many cases where it would not be appropriate. One of the reasons when it would be appropriate is when the government chooses what is best for them than the people. The second reason is when there is something that people do not think is right, people can speak out for themselves.

Kelsen defines law as a type of norm. Therefore, it is subject to a normative order, which makes the “the specific meaning of an act of will directed at a definite human behavior”. Afterwards, Kelsen prescribes two conditions, which if fulfilled by any legal norm, it “is” a proper positive norm. The first condition is that: this norm should be “posited” to be created by an act of a human being, subsequently, any norm created by a god, by nature or by a superhuman being is not “positive” law. 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.

In an article, Warren stated that “We tend to judge ourselves by our intentions and others by their actions” (Warren 1). This is because no one can truly know what a person 's motives are, but they can know their own intentions. It is easier to conclude an idea of a person based on what one can see and know for sure. A person can have good intentions, but the outcome may turn out unfavorable, knowing the final action is simpler to judge because it can be known for sure. Warren also stated that “If we judged ourselves by how our actions are perceived by others, we may become more sensitive and understanding of any hurtful responses by them” (Warren 1).

However, the broad parameters accorded the term have been specifically limited in the context of employment situations. Under the general rule, the relation of employer and employee is not one of those regarded as

History has shown that, when humans are placed in locations that lack order while having a lack of food can result in either cannibalism or death. Because of the effects powerful effects starvation has on the human body, it is no wonder that the humans in The Road will result in the act of

I agree with Trudeau’s ideals of how national relationships should operate. In my view, it’s because some don’t prioritize interaction and being open with each other that our current society is plagued by a discriminative feature: stereotypes. The problem affects both our government and social society. Because of stereotypes, there are certain aspects expected from a person because of their race, beliefs, and/or culture. Stereotypes are widely known and are hard to get rid of since, some choose to be ignorant in learning the various types of people we will come to communicate with; their lack of knowledge would force them to use the information available to them, which are stereotypes.

(Thoreau). The decisions of the major part of society can sometimes exacerbate the morals of the nation as a whole. In times like this, there is an obligation to go against the government. As a matter of fact, civil disobedience is especially needed when the majority of decisions and choices are morally wrong and

Therefore, people may see going against an unjust law as something to avoid because of the aftereffect they will be having to face. Furthermore, It is right to oppose something that is unjust. Individuals should do what they best believe is right in their opinions but laws shouldn’t be fully subjected by the people only or else it may lead to future conflicts and misleading mistakes. Overall, by desired changes, it causes destructive tension for