His theory on natural law consists of seven basic goods, which consist of life, play, religion, aesthetic experience, sociability, practical reasonableness, and recreation. According to Finnis these seven basic goods give an answer to the question of why we do things. As people, all of our activities assist us in achieving one of the seven basic goods and it is the responsibility of the government to allow the people to achieve these goods through the legislator and through the judiciary . It is the duty of the judge to apply the law in such a way that it regulates society, yet it allows them to achieve the seven basic goods. This can pose an issue since striking a balance between the regulation of society and still allowing people to achieve the seven basic goods can be extremely difficult; as can be seen when one considers the fact that Finnis's goods on the surface are objective.
One being from an account of utility or what is intrinsically good. The second part is the actual principle of utility. The principle of utility is used to help make moral decisions. Mill’s account of utility is based on the overall happiness of the majority. Mill states that, “it is by no means an indispensable condition to the acceptance of the utilitarian standard; for that standard is not the agent’s own greatest happiness, but the greatest happiness of altogether” (Mill Chapter 2,7).
Thus the law “you will not stand on the blood of your neighbor” is valid because it protects the natural right that an individual has to life. On the other hand Aquinas believes that the validity of a law is rooted in the divine principles that underlie the law. Natural law consist of an ethical aspect, which are the moral principles only known to God as well as a legal component which is the expression of these moral principles within the human legal system . According to Aristotle these moral principles, which exist on the eternal level of law, are the basis of the laws that are created on the human level. In the adoption case Justice Dornor asked whether a person enjoys the fruit of a forbidden act in order to illustrate the moral principles underlying our laws .
It is a concept of a body of moral principal that is same for all the man and it can only be find through human reasoning alone. There are many philosophers who followed this theory like Plato, Aristotle and john Locke. Plato’s theory: Plato states that nature is inherently good so all laws should belong to the natural laws. Most basic law is doing well and avoid evil. Purpose of law is to live a good life.
Inspector Javert is a character whose personal philosophies may easily be related to ideas of other philosophers. As an inspector, he is working on the government’s side. While it is quite clear in the film that the government is not moral or ethical (to a certain extent), Javert feels that his job is extremely important and anyone who breaks the law is immoral and, in a sense, evil. Javert would agree with Jeremy Bentham’s philosophy that human behavior is controlled by imposing sanctions. Javert even tried controlling his own behavior by strictly following the law his entire life.
For Kant, it is essentially social. There is also the influence of Rousseau on Kant. According to Rousseau, in a republic governs itself, its members are also both the source of the law and subject to the law. Kant uses the word “realm” to mean a “systematic union of different rational beings under common laws.” (4:434) And, those common laws are established by the categorical imperative. It is a requirement that we ought to act only according to principles that could be universal laws in a “realm of ends.” The third formulation also establishes why we ought to be moral.
The principle of security must be guaranteed by the sovereign and it is enshrined in the contract. In the state of nature a man does what he wants to archive his desires and protect his own life while in a civil society man follows laws which were established for all men. In the civil society man transfers his power to the sovereign to which he is « obliged, bound not to hinder those to whom such right is granted, abandoned from the benefit of it ». If man doesn’t follow the rules set by the covenant and enforced by the sovereign, he is to be punished. Punishment is decided by the sovereign.
The rule of law is a concept mostly used by lawyers and politicians without giving definite meanings to the concept as it has many interpretations. It is viewed in many different ways. It has been seen as a key concept in legal and political philosophy. Also, the rule of law has a practical application in that it can offer guidance on the requirements that a good legal system must adhere to.The rule of law, in as much as it influences legislations by regulating the conduct of government officials and those in authority, there is no judicial legislation contrary to the rule of law. This in essence means that the rule of law is meant to keep individuals ‘in check’ under the law to guide against abuse of power.
First and foremost, rule of law is one of the branch of Constitutionalism. Rule of law encompasses the basic principles of equal treatment of all people before the law which guarantees basic human rights. ("The rule of law explained", 2018) The rule of law implies that the supremacy of law which includes all the laws must conform with a certain minimum of standards for an instance, protection of civil liberties. Professor A.V Dicey developed concept of rule of law that comprises three concepts of principles. Firstly, no one should be punished except for a conduct which represents a clear breach of law.
They are relying strictly on the laws set forth by the government to rule. They observe behavior and depending on what the law says is right or wrong, enforce the consequences of wrong behavior. Reasoning is involved in this process, and the piece of behavior is observed and determined to be good or evil, based on subjectivity, and not objective moral values. Civil society has a lot of input into determining what is good and evil based on the significance of behavior and what
1. The difference between law and regulation is that law provides guidelines and setup rules in order to govern the behavior. Laws are created as ideas that go through a long process such as balances and checks in order to be voted and become a law. All laws must be obeyed and followed. Breaking law results severe consequences.
His interpretation of the Constitution was this, “To say that the intention of the instrument must prevail, that this intention must be collected from its words, that its words are to be understood in the sense in which that are generally used by those for whom the instrument was intended. That its provisions are neither to be restricted into insignificance nor extend into objects not contemplated by its framers; - is to repeat what is already said more at large, and is all that can be necessary.” (Ogden v. Saunders,
The founders of our country believed these rights so important, that they wrote them into the Constitution to prevent the government from becoming too strong. The Judiciary has the responsibility (Supreme Court) to ensure laws do not violate the Constitution, Each court must take into account the Bill of Rights when determining if a law is unconstitutional. While each amendment is very important we will only focus on the three aforementioned amendments, the First Amendment guarantees the freedom of religion, speech, press, the right to assemble and the right to petitioning the government for redress of grievances (Legal Information Institute 2015). The Fourth Amendment provides individuals with the right to be secure in their persons against unreasonable search and seizure (Legal Information Institute 2015). The Fifth Amendment stipulates that no person can be held for a crime unless indicted by a Grand Jury or be required to self-incriminate, and lastly cannot be deprived of life, liberty or property (Legal Information Institute 2015).
Qualified immunity is a legal issue based on the factual occurrences of each individual case and should be judged on such facts. The police officers involved are to present the relevant facts of the case for determination of a qualified immunity. It is important that we are able to give our law enforcement community the tools to act when needed, and if an officer is acting in good faith without negligence, then the courts must have a system in place to back that work. It is also important that policing is not an exact science, and like a Physician, it will always be a best practice according to the law, the individual, and the circumstances surrounding each incident. There are never two accounts exactly alike, and the qualified immunity is a must when working in an imperfect