Is a unjust law one that doesn’t bind lawmakers to obey ?. Is one justified when disobeying an unjust law ? . I believe that there is a difference between laws like MLK. However, the law is the law, and when disobeyed whether unjust or just, consequences will be determined “by the code of the law”.
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.
Consequently, a limited government was created in response to these new thoughts. Furthermore, this new type of government was extremely revolutionary because it changed the way that the citizens had thought or viewed about the government. Two Enlightenment philosophers that influenced the creation of the government were John Locke and Montesquieu. John Locke had the belief that everyone had natural rights (life, liberty, property) and that if the government failed to protect these rights, they could be overthrown and replaced. Also, Montesquieu’s idea of the separation of powers helped shape the government.
The informed consent issue as discussed is very much driven not by the medical procedure or research being done or what could arise from it. Some might say, is it necessary at all? Is it really worth the paper it’s written on if the validity can only be resolved in a court of law? Does the “informed consent” arise from the issue of legality or ethics? If from legality that means that ethics plays no part.
“It transformed a royal society, in which the colonists were subjects of the Crown, into a republic, in which they were citizens and participants in the political process” ("Digital History"). In this quote from Digital History, it shows that no one expected the Americans to win, and when they did they transformed the old monarchial system into a new republic, one that the world had never seen before. The aforementioned quote also shows the effect that patriotism and nationalism has on people. They were able to come together against a common enemy, fight that enemy and rise up from the ashes and give birth to a new, strong nation. The signing of the Declaration of Independence and Constitution, as well as winning the war itself had shown other nations that it was possible to throw off old regimes, ones that no longer worked for the people.
TRUE SENSE OF INTERNATIONAL LAW: The controversy whether international law is a law or not resolves on the divergent definitions of the word “law” given by the jurist. If we subscribe to the view of Hobbes, Austin and Pufendorf, that law is a command of sovereign enforced by a superior political authority then international law cannot be included in the category of law. On the other hand if, we subscribe to the view that the term“law”cannot be limited to rules enacted by superior political authority, then international law can be included in the category of law. Lawrence aptly remarked that everything depends upon the definition of law which we choose to adopt. International law is not law in the true sense of the term- Hobbes and Austin
His reasonings support his overall idea that an unjust law or act, does not defend retaliating through unjustly means. Additionally, both King and Socrates are on a disaccord concerning the determining factor of just and unjust behavior. While Socrates relies on rational argument to be the expert on justice and the morality law, King sees the determining factor as grounded from God. As shown above, both Socrates and King have differing views on the obligations of a citizen in respects to the laws of the
Here we have the classic dilemma between the spirit and the letter of the law, or, as Vere frames it, the conflict between conscience and law. Because laws exist to support the integrity of a society and because laws receive their strength from those who enforce them, logic calls for the equal and firm application of those laws. Traditionally, people think of justice as being blind, and for good reason: once the adjudicator begins to base his judgments on mitigating, particular, or personal circumstances and considerations, he threatens the very fabric of the law and, by extension, the very fabric of society. However, the firm application of the law means little if that law itself is unjust. Despite the logic of Captain Vere’s arguments, especially
By nature, neither of these principles support the idea royal absolutism, in fact both of these statements support the opposite, a government which allows human feedback and for the ability to temper with one's government when they viewed it as acting unreasonably. Second Treatise posits the protection of the people's rights at the forefront of the government's duties, rather than the guidance of its people towards the light of god, or the promotion of the beliefs of the king4. The ability to elaborate on a precise purpose of government gives Second Treatise an ability to diagnose what makes a government good and functional and what kind of government is one which is not behaving according to its function, and by extension, the purpose of any government. The book introduces the concept of a tyranny, which would have been considered impossible prior to the 16th century and the subsequent rise in legitimacy which Parliament experienced due to Henry VIII. Under the prior understanding of the crown and the people's relationship to it there was no room for disagreement of the side of the people.
These things could include social institutions, rules, values, and norms. They have control over an individual’s life. Durkheim believed that society was made of individuals, but in order to study society we must look beyond the individual to the social facts. Social facts act external to the individual and impose themselves upon the individual, according to Emile Durkheim. If the rules of social facts are violated then there can be punishment or social ridicule.
However, by excluding subversive advocacy and substantive due process in any case creates a problem in legal reasoning. Bork fails to realize that it is important for an individual to claim their right is violated in any circumstance under the Constitution, since he renders that procedural due process plays a more practical role over substantive due process. Subsequently, the Charter of Rights is intended to operate as a limitation upon the powers of the State. Bork’s judicial review is referring to the way Courts should be principled. In his view, if the judiciary is inconsistent with their theory of ruling of the majority, he claims the supremacy of Court will become “illegitimate” (1971).
In my opinion, I believe that Nixon and Clinton forgot that they are liable for actions that are not related to the duties listed in Article II of the United States Constitutions. That each branch has their privileges but when their actions and decisions are questionable the other branches have the power to check. Therefore, when the Supreme Court formulate their opinions they did not violate the doctrine of separation of powers. When there is an issue raised that involves the Constitution, the Court has the right to hear the case because the judicial branch has the power to interpret the Constitution. Judicial review established in Marbury v. Madison, the court has the power to interpret what the statute means and if it is in accordance or contradiction with the Constitution.
The author feels the Supreme court is a bad idea because they think it will lead to abuse of power and the Supreme Court will take over the government because there wasn’t a system of checks to limit its power yet. The author shows this view when they say “In the exercise of this power they will not be subordinate to, but above the legislature . . . The supreme court then has a right, independent of the legislature, to give a construction to the constitution and every part of it, and there is no power provided in this system to correct their construction or do it away.” (Antifederalist 79) This shows he thinks the Supreme Court will have the power to bend the constitution to its whim.
Political authority refers to the power of the state or government to create laws that are expected to be abided by, and in turn be able to prosecute those who disobey them. These laws are moral obligations meant to ensure the good functioning of societies, and are presumably essential to minimise conflicts. In political philosophy, we are concerned with the legitimacy of political authority due to its apparent conflict with individual liberties and moral autonomy as brought up by Wolff. (quote Wolff- it is incompatible for a subject to comply with the commands of an authority merely because it is the command of the authority and for the subject to be acting morally autonomously) This essay seeks to explicate on Locke’s justification of political