The living constitution approach implies that consequences do guide decisions because rules are bent and the original meaning of the documents are reinterpreted and applied to modern situations. Originalists argue that one cannot look to judges to come up with different answers because one does not like what happens when you apply the original view. However, as strong as this argument against the living constitution approach is, they still uphold timeless principles through these actions but just not as strictly as the Originalists do. An example of this is the confrontation clause debate about whether an accused molester should or should not be required to confront the child accuser in court. The Originalist approach says that the molester should be required to confront the child accuser because consequences cannot be considered and we must stick to the original view of the documents.
In fact, natural and eternal law being a 'higher law' is the basis of King's philosophy of 'non-violent civil disobedience.' King views the segregation laws, a human law, to be in disagreement with natural and eternal law; therefore, he believes that these laws should not be followed. King writes, "Any law that degrades human personality is unjust. All segregation statutes are unjust because segregation distorts the soul and damages the personality" ("Letter"). The first sentence is an appeal to 'higher law'; King claims if a law devalues someone, it is contrary to natural and eternal law, so the law cannot be just.
Galen Strawson argues in his work, The Impossibility of Moral Responsibility, the theory that true moral responsibility is impossible. This theory is accurate whether determinism is true or false. Strawson describes this argument as the Basic Argument. He claims "nothing can be causa sui- nothing can be the cause of itself" (212). Yet, one must be causa sui to achieve true moral responsibility.
The statement that “We should never use a good person as a means to an end” is false. Kant states that the Principle of Humanity is to always treat a human being as an end, and never as a mere means. Kant also believes that you should always respect rational people and should never use anyone or break moral laws no matter what. It is true Kant’s Principle of Humanity is found under categorical imperative, but categorical imperative is a moral obligation that cannot be unkept no matter what the circumstances may be. However, the statement “Kant argues that we should never act based on hypothetical imperatives” is false.
Rule utilitarianism holds that people should keep their promises, but also that they should work to not harm anyone. This exposes the main dilemma to rule utilitarianism, and if the rule utilitarian were to say that depending on the situation some rules can be broken, then that just leads right back to act utilitarianism and how it depends on each situation. Neither act or rule utilitarianism is broad enough to fit every moral decision into their theory. Consequently, utilitarianism in general is
This exception should and should not be extended to warrantless searches when an officer has a good-faith belief that probable cause exists depending on the circumstances. A warrantless search is from a different perspective. It is a legally consented search due to exigent circumstances, emergency, and plain view. The warrantless search conducted by good faith should suppress the evidence only when the criteria of invalid consent are not meet. If an officer abuses their authority, harasses, prolong questioning, and intimidate a detaining this ruling should apply.
·Sometimes people excuse the damage they cause by saying this was a mistake or that they did not mean to cause the damage. Is this a valid excuse to avoid liability for damage caused? Explain your answer. With the above question about people that is liable to a damages due to their civil wrong and now finding an excuse to avoid damages. In law, there is no excuse and the defaulter would therefore be liable for their offence committed except if the judge in a court of law based of their reasonable doubt found that it was not proven true that such person would be liable for a damages.
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
Chisholm thinks that, for an agent to be held responsible for an event, the event must not be caused by mere chance & it must not be caused by another event but rather the agent must cause the event. In my essay I will explain, why I agree with Chisholm for thinking that for an agent to be morally responsible for an event, the agent must cause the event so that he is held responsible for hic action when he could have chosen to act differently. I will illustrate why determinism fails in holding an agent responsible, opening up way for the Chisholm’s incompatibalist
Combined, the three premises Wellman’s provides develop into his argument that any legitimate state can morally refuse to allow immigrants into its territory even if they are in serious need. Due to the shortcomings of his premises and therefore his argument, I argue that Wellman fails to properly establish the right by states to exclude potential members due to freedom of association. Wellman’s various analogies paired with his claim of freedom of association in fact supports the idea that individuals can migrate
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).
The 14th Amendment right to equal protection as recognized under Baker v Carr designed on the surface to ensure fair participation in the democratic process, however, it is more so a check on the majority. As Baker v Carr introduces, the 14th Amendment does not cover all types of discrimination. For example, discrimination by the means of improper districting of a state, intentional or not, is not covered by the Constitution. However, what the 14th Amendment does do effectively is put a check on the majority will through rights. The majority rules and the only way to prevent this is through rights, which dictate what people are and are not allowed to do.
Silver states that the determination that involuntary sterilization laws implicated the fundamental rights does not establish a constitutional violation. This would trigger the Supreme Court’s two-part strict scrutiny test. The first part is the state must justify the regulations on this fundamental right by presenting a state interest in doing so. Also, the government must be exhausted in achieving the statutory goals. Silver stated that a challenger to the statute could argue that the state asserted interests are pretexts for administrative costs effectiveness.
The court ruling disapproved with states banning interracial marriage because it was unconstitutional. In spite of the fact that a privilege to marry is not listed in the Constitution, the Court said that such a privilege is covered under the Fourteenth Amendment in light of the fact that such choices are vital to our survival and our values. Accordingly, they should essentially reside with the individual instead of with the state. This choice is a conflict with the popular argument that something cannot be an actual constitutional right unless it is spelled out straightforwardly in the U.S. Constitution. It additionally stands out amongst the most imperative models on the general thought of common uniformity, clarifying that essential social equality is basic to our reality and cannot really be restricted on the grounds that a few people trust that their god can 't help
These are refrain from utilizing the strong version as a part of support of using the weak version and use the strong version as a tool to fight other human biases and shortcomings. The argument for first one is basically to understand that the strong Precautionary Principle is sensibly impotent, and in this way ought to be abandoned for the convincing weak version of the Precautionary Principle. However, Sunstein argues that it might be conceivable to combat other inadequacies in human thinking by offering up the strong version as a way to get people to consider the situations seriously. He concludes by expressing that utilizing the Precautionary Principle practically is a rough method for achieving one 's objectives, and he reaffirms his position that, strictly and sensibly read, the Precautionary Principle will paralyze any plausibility of both activity and also inaction