Yet, one must be causa sui to achieve true moral responsibility. Hence, nothing is able to truly be morally responsible. Strawson 's whole purpose of writing the article is to change anyone 's mind who says that we should be responsible for the way we are and what we do as a result of the way we are. He believes we are lacking freedom and control of doing so. He argues that if we do something for a reason, that is how we are, so we must be responsible.
If violence will impeded the man in fulfilling his purpose, then violence is contrary to natural law. Since peace assists this fulfillment, man should honour promises, since to dishonour a promise can lead to disharmony or even violence. This should be the constant value that is embodied within the principle of natural law. It is a characteristic of natural law that the truths it embodies are not made known to man by some Great Architect beyond the skies. We do not find the heavens open and a hand comes through clouds, passing down to mankind a tablet of stone on which the truths of natural law are inscribed: the truth of natural law are not revealed truths.
INTRODUCTION The term ‘Natural Law Theories’ can be defined as the rules, concepts, and principles which are said to be originated from some supreme source other than any political or worldly authority. This theory is based on moral ideals which has universal applicability, and often used to bring certain changes in the society or to maintain stability. Natural Law is supreme and unalterable, it is not made by man; Natural Law is not a codified law and hence no penalty is been sanctioned for disobeying it; still it is considered as a higher form of law. Natural Law is also known as the Law of Reason, as being established on the ground of reasonability by which the world is governed, and also as being addressed to and perceived by the rational
He suggested that a rule can only become ‘law’ only if it has has appropriate moral dimensions. Besides, laws which are opposed to the divine plan, such as the laws of tyrants inducing to ‘idolatry’, must not be observed. This is because our duty is to obey
Thus, as far as primary rules are concerned, Hart argues that there is a need for certainty, so that these rules can be applied by general public without any official guidance. There are a number of defenders of rule of law who have emphasized the need for the same kind of safety. He also discusses clarity as to which norms are to be declared as law. Hart had earlier argued that rule of recognition serves a very important purpose in peoples’ understanding of which rules can be secretively enforced by the society. However, in the Postscipt of his book, the Concept of Law, he says that the need for certainty is not a requisite condition.
This imperative denotes an absolute, unconditional requirement and that one should always treat others as ends in themselves and never as means to our ends. No one should not have their individual freedom compromised for some other end, in particular for the good of the society. Kantians moral deontological theory explicates the value of every person existing. He would believe the act of creating savior siblings is morally impermissible and that the act does not respect the child’s basic human rights. Kant believes that intentions do not promote goodwill or moral duty.
I will attempt to justify that John Stuart Mills approach to the argument of Freedom of Speech is the most valid, and the only instance where expression should be limited is where it causes an immediate harm or violation to the rights of others. I believe that expression should be limited when it causes harm to others or violates their rights. This view coincides with J.S Mill’s “Harm Principle”. I do not believe that hate speech should be prohibited as it merely offensive, not harmful to the rights of others. 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.
To the governing authorities, one would be acting out in disobedience, to oneself, they would be acting in discipline to themselves,prioritizing their own personal rights over governing authority’s set laws. Which decision is in the wrong? Although authority and disobedience complement each other, abused power in authority creates disobedience. Disobedience occurs when authority lacks social order. When one thinks of ideal authority, one may think of a personal figure.
It plainly suggests that egoism means that no person shall bend another to his or her will; that no one has the right to do so. We must discern the delicate contrast between an egoist and an egotist. The egotists would adopt Rand’s philosophy as a tool for their own shortcomings, to forgo the rule of communal synergy. "Politically, true individualism means recognizing that one has a right to his own life and happiness. But it also means uniting with other citizens to preserve and defend the institutions that protect that right" (Shawn E. Klein, Community and American Individualism.
It acknowledges also that life is a human right , and this makes the abuses committed by diplomats our most fundamental human rights violation owing to the fact that other abuses stem form the violation of a human life. This thesis argues that immunity granted a diplomat should be attached to conduct alone in other words, functional immunity. It contends that any harm done to anyone by a diplomat-who ought to be a responsible person of high intellect -in the ordinary course of his’ (diplomat’s) official activities should be able to fall under diplomatic immunity and thus should follow. This does not extend to acts of violence. As the most controversial and dissenting issue in recent times, the central objective of this study is to attempt to