That principle is referred to as the Practical Imperative. The fact that Nick and Marlee used the jurors to achieve their end-game is unacceptable as it violates that principle. Finally, Kant also spoke of obeying “...rules out of a sense of duty” (Thiroux and Krasemann 55). The Duty Ethics followed by Kantians that people must do something moral out of a sense of duty rather than an inclination. Judge Harkin represented this when he
These obstacles that can be life or work related should be overcome without depending on someone else and this dependence is only because of individuals’ fear which he explains as their “lack of resolve and courage” (Kant, 1784, p.1). This is how Kant portrays modernity. In the beginning of his essay called What is Enlightenment? (published in 1784), Kant talks about how human beings should not be afraid to speak up and provide their opinions about whatever subject it is. He encourages people to handle situations based on reason as Kant says “use your own understanding!” (Kant, 1784, p.1).
In 2003 the US military relied on the confession taken from Sheikh al-Libi in which it was claimed that Iraq supplied both chemical and biological weapons to Al Qaeda. This testimony was used in the month leading up to the invasion of Iraq. Later al-Libi retracted his statement saying that he did so in order to make the torture stop. This is a clear example of the ineffectiveness of torture and the bad consequences it can often produce. The CIA had forgotten its own conclusion, sent to congress in 1989, that ‘inhumane physical or psychological techniques are counterproductive because they do not produce intelligence and will probably result in false answers.’ (Helgerson,
Both the harm principle and legal paternalism are aimed at upholding an individual’s liberties within the law. However, they argue different view points and restrictions. The harm principle is chiefly concerned with upholding an individual’s right to somehow harm oneself, while legal paternalism says the law can interfere to prevent an individual from harming oneself. This is the most obvious distinction between the two philosophies. Dworkin’s argument for legal paternalism, however, uses Mill’s argument against him, and ultimately proves to be the stronger principle to justify law.
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.
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
Consequently, the sales person in the medical device company would not disclose the information because the employee signed the confidentiality contact, and the individual wants to maintain one 's position in the company. On the other hand, researchers demonstrate that patients want to know about any error that harm them. The patient 's bill of rights also mandates the medical company to disclose an error. Therefore, the sales person 's response at this stage is to breach the contract at the company because of a citizen 's duty to society. Studies report that patients demand disclosure of an error because it would enhance their trust in the healthcare system, and it would assure them that they are receiving comprehensive information about
In their respective stories, Alan and Jenko seemingly steer the story away from the resolution through their foolish action. However, their actions ultimately lead to the resolution. In the Hangover, Alan helps rescue Doug, who helps the characters find their missing friend. In 21 Jump Street, Jenko connects with the chemistry students, who help him discover the identity of the drug dealer. They both express foolish qualities throughout the stories, but underneath their foolishness is a hidden wisdom, which resolve the conflict of the story.
In the judicial and quasi judicial context, this concept is backed by the basic underlying rule of “Justice must not only be done but also seen to be done”. In this background, the Doctrine of necessity gives legitimacy to decision making by ignoring the possible bias. According to this doctrine, a decision maker subject to disqualification owing to bias or conflict of interest can nevertheless make the decision if: 1) no other decision maker who is competent is available 2) no other competent decision making body can be constituted 3) quorum can’t be achieved without including him In such scenarios, the doctrine of necessity overrules the rule against bias. The logic of the doctrine of necessity is that, if there is a choice between allowing a person with bias to make a decision or to stifle the
This causes Emillia to start to realize her husband’s plans. (3.) As Iago enters the scene of the murder, Emilia openly asks Iago if he told Othello that Desdemona was cheating on him; Iago responds thusly: “I told him what I thought, and told no more than what he found himself was apt and true” (V.II.212-213). (4.) Iago is stating that Iago just told Othello what he knew and what made sense (which is obviously not true).