Dworkin’s argument for legal paternalism, however, uses Mill’s argument against him, and ultimately proves to be the stronger principle to justify law. I believe legal paternalism is the only principle that may justify laws, and it will be explained why by showing how Mill’s own views allow for legal paternalism, how Dworkin perseveres freedom through interference, and how there are functions in place to minimize paternalistic interference. However, we must begin by defining what these two philosophies are. First, the harm principle will be explained. Mill himself writes it as being, “… the sole end for which mankind are warranted, individually or collectively, in interfering with the liberty of action of any of their number, is self-protection.
Justice is the resolution of a critical situation (Selzer), and is comprised of three crucial parts. One is that justice must be a rational thought, free of any influence from emotions (Selzer). This means, that in order for a just resolution to be found, it must be made only with concern for facts and information, and should not be concerned with the emotional repercussions of a resolution. In addition, justice, needs to be vindictive, and should be justified as such. Lastly, justice must be about restoring balance (Selzer), not about complete retaliation, as acts of retaliation result in a cycle that occurs for ad infinitum.
Augustine on peace and war. According to him, "in order for a war to be just three things are necessary. First, authority of the sovereign, for it is not the business of private individual to declare war, for he can seek redress of his rights from tribunal of his superior. Secondly, a just cause is required, namely that those who are attacked should be attacked because they deserve it on account of some default. Thirdly, it is necessary that the belligerents should have a rightful intention, so that they intend the advancement of good, or the avoidance of evil."
In this definition, Hobbes asserts that law is command, not counsel and that law are the rules of just and unjust. Hobbes insists that any law must be promulgated. In order for one to know how to obey it, a law must be "signified by sufficient signs". Laws must be made known for them to actually be law. Thomas Hobbes is legal positivists.
In the Groundwork, the notion of the good does not rely on feeling or sensation; rather than it derives from the rational directly. Kant points out that every motive has an intended effect on the world. When desire drives us, we first examine the possibilities that the world leaves open to us, selecting some effect at which we wish to aim. But, if we act in accord with practical moral law, we encounter a significant difference since the only possible object of the practical law is the Good, since the Good is always an appropriate object for the practical law. Viewing the Good as rational consolidates
authority, or state, is in the business of ensuring compliance with its dictates by means of the official use of coercive power. A state is morally legitimate only if it is justified in using coercion as a means of ensuring compliance with its laws. But, Dworkin insists, the use of such coercion is justified only if there is a general moral obligation to obey the law. Thus any argument for the legitimacy of the state must demonstrate the existence of a general obligation to obey the law. Dworkin argues that there are at least possible legitimate states, because there are attainable circumstances under which such an obligation would obtain.
QUESTION 1. This ruling was centered on admissibility, and the issue to be resolved is whether or not the Judge erred in refusing the second statement made by the accused? The general rule with regards to admissibility states that evidence which is relevant is admissible, if not relevant the court would reject it as inadmissible. According to S. 51(2) and (3) of the Evidence Decree, 1975(NRCD 323) its states that: “(2) All relevant evidence is admissible except as otherwise provided by any enactment (3) No evidence is admissible except relevant evidence”. However, by virtue of S. 120(1) of NRCD 323 which states that hearsay statement made by an accused in a criminal action which constitutes or forms an essential or part of or taken with other
Austin uses utilitarianism to form the basis of his theory which in turn lay down the foundation of modern positive law. He felt that the law should not be impacted by morals and we should therefore keep law and morality separate. He believed that when judging laws on a moral basis, it caused a subjective standpoint and could potentially lead to anarchy. To avoid the subjective approach that may be achieved by applying other theories – such as the neutral theory – positive law provides an objective standard and a legal norm which can be applied impartially to all individuals. The
• An advocate is prohibited from entertaining any case where any other advocate is already engaged without prior permission of court or with the consent of the concerned advocate. • An advocate must be fair to the court, his client and also to the opponent party. An advocate must communicate about the subject matter with the opposite party but only through their advocate. • The relationship of a client and an advocate is based on good faith and thus it is the duty of an advocate to uphold the best interest of his clients. The above mentioned code of conduct is the most important ones which must be observed by any legal professional.
INDEPENDENT OF JUDICIARY IN MALAYSIA Independence of the judiciary connoted independence from the political executive; it is based on the terms of traditional constitutional theory. Pressures from superiors within the judicial branch can threatened a judge’s freedom of action. However, the challenge to judicial independence from the religious establishment is not unknown. There is also the danger of pressure from private, political and commercial centers of power. Public confidence is vital in the impartiality, integrity and independence of the judiciary.