Many would assume that the sole purpose of law is to establish justice, which seems like a wonderful philosophical theory but is slightly difficult to follow. The struggle between law, order and justice has led to conflict and terrorism all over the world. Some of those struggles have been represented in the books The Lottery by Shirley Jackson and A Hanging by George Orwell.
Ronald Dworkin: Taking Rights Seriously Ronald Dworkin, a philosopher, jurist, and a scholar of the United States Constitutional Law was most known for his theory of law and his input on how the law should deal with controversial issues. To many he is believed to be the most important legal philosopher of our time. His beliefs are that people that believe there are moral rights, in the strong sense, should believe that their government should bear with breaking in cases that clash with rights. A strong sense is claims and rights, while a weak sense is privileges and liberties. In the beginning of Taking Rights Seriously, Dworkin enforces that his main idea is to interpret and defend a liberal theory of law based on individual rights.
People have been raised from different cultures and value everything differently. The main perceptions of subjective relativism seems to follow this line of reasoning. We all live under constitutional government protected by a firm Bill of Rights and Wrongs. Everyone should have their own freedom to speak out their ethical points of views.The positive contributions of ethical relativism is based on people with similar thought of moral values. I think moral nihilism should be related based on moral relativism as there are no moral truth in the world and by living in peace we need to respect one another’s decisions and cultures and decide on morality based on what the majority think is the correct thing to
Arguing that goodness is the determined by God shows that what is rights is so because God wills it to be right. Theorists opposing this argument hold that morality is not dependent on the will of God. These theorists limit God’s omnipotence is stating clearly that he cannot make what is wrong, right. The theorists then suggest that God has to bend His will to conform to what is right. They hold that God wills what is morally right because it is right.
Although not all legal philosophers think alike, some of them will probably believe the jurors in Morris did the wrong thing. In addition, H.L.A Hart has a differing view on Positivism. Hart agrees with Austin on the how Constitutions shape the laws. In addition, Hart sees the law as a system of rules which he calls primary and secondary rules. Primary rules are the do’s and don’ts of society.
Lewis, 1952, p. 17). Lewis states that moral law exists and is independent. The moral law presses upon us to do the decent thing, even if it causes us discomfort. The natural law directs the objects that exists whereas the moral law controls on how we behave towards others, how we live our lives and so on (C.S. Lewis, 1952, p. 20).
Therefore, it is believed that only actions derived from duty have moral values, and those descended from inclination should not be considered worth morally in any case. This theory differs considerably from Aristotle’s beliefs in Nichomachean Ethics when he argues that taking the right action by inclination is a proof of a moral character. Moreover, duty is necessary to create universal rules. One of these rules states that we should act upon pure intentions because moral rules cannot be excused, hence lying is always wrong. Unfortunately, there is an issue with pure reasoning- every experience is different.
Reading this text, it is easy to differentiate between them. Martin Luther King says that a just law connects back to the moral law of the law of God. He said that an unjust law is one that is not at all in balance with the moral law. A just law in his words is one that lifts an individual up instead of degrading them. In other words, Martin Luther King Jr. strongly believes that the citizen has a legal and moral responsibility to obey laws that are just, as well as the moral responsibility to disobey laws that are unjust.
It is important to understand that virtue is using rationality in a positive way in order to flourish as a person. In order for a law to be considered just, it is essential the law is equal for everyone, which results in a balance. The importance of just laws lie in the fact that with equality promotes potential and everyone should obtain the chance to flourish and reach Eudaimonia. By establishing that justice itself is a balance, the lack of justice would be considered an injustice, and "too much justice" is impossible considering a person simply cannot be "too perfect". Human beings are instinctively social people, which causes escaping the city/state an impossible feat; in order to progress further to choices concerning laws, it is important to consider that people choose to perform virtuous acts; however you should understand why you are performing those acts for it to be considered virtuous.
The social contract in John Locke’s declaration is the State of Nature. The natural condition of mankind is a state of perfect and complete liberty to conduct one’s life as one best sees fit. Locke’s social contract is best described as freedom from the interference of others in one’s life. The State of Nature is pre-political, but it is not pre-moral by today’s standards. Another social contract from Locke is the Law of Nature.
The Constitution and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms are composed of broad values like equality and liberty, but judges who attempt to give concrete meaning to such general concepts without specific precedent and law from the text or history overstep their proper role. If Robert H. Bork were to review judicial process today, he will assume all judges decide constitutional cases in accordance with “neutral principles.” In his article “Neutral Principles and Some First Amendment Problems” (1971), Bork insists these principles must be strictly neutral in origin of the text and from such cases that derive from precedent. He continues his argument by stating if the Court strikes down legislation on any other basis, it abuses its power and invades