Lon Fuller is one of the prominent jurists who defended the notion that law has to take into consideration of morality in order to constitute its validity. He divided morality into two categories, which is to say, morality of aspiration and morality of duty. Morality of aspiration is the morality of excellence, of the good life, of the fullest realization of human powers. It has to do with our efforts to make the best use of our short
Mill’s theory is broken down into two aspects; act utilitarian’s that believe that each action should have its own review to see if it's moral or not based on the individual situation. While rule utilitarian’s believe that certain rules that dictate what's moral or immoral are universal and applies to everyone with no exceptions. In addition, the idea that act everyone can do it moral is a huge part of rule utilitarian’s. Therefore, Mill will argue that my act of lying was morally right if he views my case as an act utilitarian. The action of lying to protect my cousin may have made the outcome of the situation better.
As we saw above, Korsgaard's argument for the categorical imperative starts from our capacity of reflectivity. Allan Wood, Brian Leuck and Sergio Tenenbaum, interpret her as argueing that from here, the individual agent /constructs/ morality through an individual act. And furthermore, they believe that this perspective does not contain any restrictions upon what law he chooses to legislate. The problem they point to is different from the Prichardian challenge, but it is based in the same interpretation of the self as a source of normativity. Wood writes that in Korsgaard's argument the objective worth of humanity and of the moral law are created by human beings and are constituted by "an act or attitude of ours".
Therefore, Lord Devlin based on consensual morality has focused more on the enforcement of morality according to the general concept of society. To understand the relationship between law and morality, Lord Devlin has proposed a set of rules. Firstly, the requirement of general sense of right and wrong in a society which is known as common morality as it is a right-minded value that should be maintained by the law. Secondly, there may be bad laws, bad morals or bad societies due to the reason that the law might not serve the society but destroy it even though it is a valid law and provides profit to some people in the
Ethics is applied in decision making in criminal justice for effective and just decisions. Normative ethics is crucial in decision-making in the criminal justice system and it is based on the notion that one should act morally using reason to determine the suitable way of conduct of self. Ethical relativism is part of normative ethics and it argues that what is morally right or wrong varies in a great deal from one person to another. The standards of conduct and methods of doing things differ from one society to another and there can never be a single standard of conduct for all societies; we must make ethical decisions therefore based on each situation. Relativism requires that we judge an individual who acted immorally by the standards of his culture and not our own (Cook, 1999).
In Lesson two the author discusses ideas and theories of morality from a comprehensive perspective. This chapter addresses consequentialist, which is those who are concerned with consequences, and non-consequentialist which are those that have no regard to consequences which are major viewpoints when it comes to ethics. How a person views possible consequences helps them decide what actions to take. Keeping this in mind people regardless make moral decisions based off their own personal interests whether it be for benefit of oneself or benefit for all. The two ideas from this chapter that caught my interest are the relationship between Ethical egoism and utilitarianism.
Thus by clarifying the possible oversights in his own theory Rawls leaves space for explication (which is a characteristic of the criticism methodology) however in the end he assumes that due to the existence of the two principles in the concept of justice as fairness (the liberty principle and difference principle) rational citizens behind the veil of ignorance will neglect the principle of utility. Similar to the previously presented case, Rawls here again uses a combination of both the construction and criticism methodology to validate his concept of justice as fairness. The methodological process of addressing possible doubts or errors in one’s own theory ensures that through immediate clarification criticisms can be
The first death penalty laws were established in the eighteenth century making it so you could only be hanged for murder. The first recorded death penalty that took place was in 1608, it was Captain George Kendall. This execution took place in the new colonies, he was put to death because he was suspected of spying for Spain he was executed by a firing squad. Capital Punishment has not been proven to deter crime and opens the possibility of executing innocent people; finally, the Death Penalty/Capital Punishment can cause 2nd hand trauma to the victim and their family. Capital Punishment violates the 8th amendment, it is labeled as cruel and unusual punishment.
Dworkin believes that judges do not have discretion. However, Finnis believes that judges do have discretion. According to Finnis, when the sources yield no determinate solution, all concerned have the responsibility of supplementing the sources to fill the gap by a choice guided by standards of fairness and other morally true principles and norms. Where possible, this must be done
Morality is about standards where we can base what is the correct behavior. Morality also carries the concept of conscience. Morality describes the principles that govern our behavior. These principles guide us to be fair and be in harmony with everyone. As humans, we should not be selfish and do everything to make things in our favor.