The prosecutor or the police having separate law to deal with their conduct may misuse their power and is likely to exceed their authority, which they are not entitled to. Supremacy of law and equal treatment of the law for all segments of the society is not entertained. (C, 1996) After a close analysis of the inquisitorial and adversarial system of justice l came to the conclusion that the systems have provided an interesting comparative insights. Those attempts reveal important contemporary goals of criminal procedure.
In this particular case, utilitarianism seems to support a conclusion that goes against a fight humanity already fought during the civil rights movement. Williams transitions from this example into the discussion of something he calls “the precedent effect”. The fear of this effect is that certain horrendous utilitarian acts might encourage people to behave immorally because of the precedent that may be set by these actions. Even though Williams admits that the precedent effect would only occur if people where confused as to why utilitarian’s had to commit a horrendous act, Williams believes that this confusion is a very real possibility if utilitarianism is ever used in
Although he disagrees with traditional reasons for taking suicide to be immoral, he nevertheless agrees that suicide is in fact immoral. In his characterization of the “free man” at the end of part of the Ethics, Spinoza argues that a perfect rational being “always acts honestly, not deceptively”. Spinoza reasons that if a perfect rational being misleading, he would do so “from the dictate of reason” but then it would be rational to act in that way, and “men would be better advised to agree only in words, and be contrary to one another in fact”. One problem that this argument raises is conflict between Spinoza’s claim that a perfect rational being would always act honestly and his claim that such a being would never do anything that brought about its own
I. Descartes – Evil Genius Problem A CRITICAL ANALYSIS OF DESCARTES’ THEORY The Doubts about the Evil Genius Doubt 1. Existence of evil genius? Although it may seem trivial to question the hypothetical being, Descartes’ arguments are also phrased cunningly to avoid questions. While Descartes is clearly considering even the most remote possibilities in his method of doubt, all he offers is the claim that such a being could exist. However, this is hardly a solid basis upon which to build the degree of doubt required by Descartes.
Polus believes doing whatever is good for oneself is what matters. He does not understand or really accept this claim that it is better to suffer injustice than to commit injustice because he believes justice is relative. Polus claims that he believes justice depends on the individual person and what is beneficial for oneself. However, Socrates denounces this idea that only good matters this in his scene of brutal murder when Socrates says “and if it seems good to me that one of them must have his head smashed, it shall straightway be smashed” (469d5). Polus denounces this instance, saying it is different.
Surely the scale of punishment with proportionality would be overgrown if there were subsections for each type of individual. After clearly showing the problems with the arguments for the death penalty and the abstractness of the arguments against it, the author still gives no answers. Lex talionis could be the wrong way of doing things and the principle of proportionality simply says to punish proportionally to the
However, we cannot explain this charge of wrongness any further and are once again reliant on Kant’s Prize Essay explanation that we know the good as a result of a psychological feeling. Even though these two approaches may have appeal, they possess problems. The first approach leads to a harsh conclusion on whether certain acts are right or wrong based on aggregate results.
Copleston in one of his books, A History of Philosophy opines that, it is really difficult for one to totally reject all the old values or binding force of what is customarily called morality. This is because, one who attempts this, may degenerate himself as to destroy himself morally, since the traditional morality has put into cognizance, the values that enhance the dignity of the human person, morally and likewise. Then it becomes questionable, as to why Nietzsche calls the old morality the slave morality, even when he retains some of the values in his master morality. Nietzsche’s outright condemnation and rejection of conventional morality in favour of subjective morality, is for me not a true response to the reality of the human society. Owing to the fact that man lives in the society presupposes or demands
Those opposed to utilitarianism proposes restitution for crime victims and therapies for criminals. From the apparent inefficiency of the utilitarian approach to fighting crime, its critics assert that it is based on false beliefs (Hooker, 2011). They claim utilitarianism-based punishment is not only useless but also unjustifiable and cannot be
247) considers two solutions proposed for Hume’s argument. He writes, “One way that is frequently used is to maintain that what is commonly called evil is only an illusion, or at worst only the ‘privation’ or absence of good.” Nagel disassembles this proposition, noting in any case the suffering and misery are real; thus, this argument is insensitive to human suffering. The second proposal is, “the things called evil are evil only because they are view in isolation; they are not evil when viewed in proper perspective and in relation to the rest of creation.” Nagel concludes, if this is true, what specifically is the greater good? It is not sufficient to state some great may come about because of
Results: Are Walzer’s Arguments Effective? Whether or not Walzer’s arguments are effective is obviously a subjective question; realists would argue no, but Walzer would say yes. I feel they are effective, because they expose the unusual and faulty logic of the realists as a base and shameful way of justifying the wrongs they choose to engage in. While the realists try to make broad, sweeping statements that sound like they could be logical but that in fact are merely bandwagon-type statements designed to sound good without proving their point, Walzer pointedly identifies all of the faulty logic in their arguments, their attempts at covering up their own inhumanity with shallow excuses, and the real truth about their justifications that they