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.
An emerging interest in human reason posed a threat to the church, which by now favored order, conservatism, and stability. As one author puts it, "Movements suspected of enthusiasm, such as Puritanism, Quietism, and Janesism, fell into disrepute, and the authority exercised by the state in religious affairs became more pronounced. It was an age dominated by Reason, which, until it provoked a reaction in such movements as Pietism and Evangelism, posed a formidable challenge to Christianity. Out of the Age of Reason came renewed interests in art, architecture, and music. The church used these as tools for enhancing worship, affirming faith, teaching, and advancing aesthetics.
REVISITING THE WEDNESBURY PRINCIPAL Back in the sombre days of Nov. ember 1947 in the seminal Wednesbury case, master Master of the rollsRolls, Lord Greene expounded the following classic principle of public law principle: ‘… “… a person entrusted with a discretion must, asso to speak, direct him properly in law”. When an administrative body went tries to reach beyond the four corners of thethe powers given toconferred on it from by the legislative in applying the discretion, the courts can strike down the same. This was applied widely to administrative actions based on unrelevant irrelevant considerations, actions which did not take note of relevant considerations or which are plainly beyond the powers of the particular body. This was the
The principle on which the doctrine of necessity is based has its origin in the writings of Henry de Bracton, who is a medieval jurist. Doctrine of necessity is contrary to the concept of Nemo in propria causa judex, which means that any person should not become the judge in a conflict of interest scenario. Nemo in propria causa judex is also known as rule against bias and is the minimum necessity of the natural justice required to be followed by decision making authorities who must act impartially and fairly without bias and prejudice. The rule of Nemo in propria causa judex is based on the concept of ensuring public confidence in the administrative decision making process. 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”.
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.
This position is justified by dividing the Law into three parts: moral, civil, and ceremonial. The moral aspects of the Law, it is claimed, have been reaffirmed in the New Testament and, therefore, are still valid. Unfortunately, as Arnold and Beyer (2015) point out, “this division into moral, civil, and ceremonial law was unknown in Jesus’s day” (p. 98). Consequently, when the New Testament writers teach that Christians are no longer under the Law, they include the moral aspects of the Law, not only the civil and
However, after analyzing, applying and discussing both theories to this situation, the lawyer should find some common middle ground since both of these theories are difficult to agree with as being superior to one another. According to Kant 's categorical imperative theory, the lawyer must proceed with the later will and not the earlier one. This would
In BP case, the same law interpretation is applied, but this time objective necessity was found. Finally, in Microsoft case, case law hints when not supplying is abusive, sometimes obligation to supply may vest in undertaking. In short, following case law, AG Jacobs points out once legitimate reason is shown, there is an opportunity to justify practice of dominant undertaking in question, even abuse is obvious; though this is an artifact, because it is not written in
N. Amosova defeats the subjectiveness of the two previous mentioned aprroaches when she insists on the term being relevant just to what she names fixed context units, that is, units in which it is impossible to substitute any of the components without altering the meaning not only of the entire unit but also of the elements that remain in place. O. S. Ahmanova has over and over insisted on the semantic integrity of such phrases predominant over the structural separateness of their elements. A. V. Koonin stresses the structural separateness of the components in a phraseological unit, the change of meaning in the entire unit as compared with its components taken independently and on a certain minimum
The statement that said “the process is haphazard” has three main points to it. Firstly, the need for case to arise, Lord Diplock said, in Gouriet v Union of Post Office Workers  3 All ER70, “courts of justice do not act of their own motion. In our legal system it is their function to stand idly by until their aid is invoked…”. Law-making in precedent form does not only need a suitable set of facts to be arisen, but it also need the parties to be willing and be able to litigate to a adequate point in the hierarchy of the courts to make sure that any existing, and undesirable authorities can be overruled or left out. Secondly, “one party may ‘buy off’ another”