Mckown Week 1 Summary

In August 2015, the case Miller V Davis brought to light the complicated relationship between law and morality. Indeed, Mrs Davis a county clerk in Rowan county (Kentucky), is being sued for not delivering marriage licences to same sex couples as she believes that homosexuality is morally wrong. Thus, despite the fact that same-sex marriage has been made legal by the U.S Supreme Court since June 2015. Ought individuals to apply the law though it is in inadequacy with their moral beliefs? Do the law should be totally free from any moral influence? Many legal scholars have argued on these questions, as well as trying to define the terms “law” and “morality”. While no one has agreed to a universal definition, law can be defined as a “body of rules, whether proceeding from formal enactment or from custom, which a particular state or community recognizes as binding on its members or subjects”. On the other hand, morality is referred to as an “ethical wisdom” , the set of common values unifying a society. This essay will discuss the role of morality in the law, while analysing different legal school of thoughts arguing on the topic. First of all, positivists such as Bentham, Austin and Hart, argued that morality should not interfere with the law as it is created by a legitimate authority. On the other hand, naturalist theorists, such as Aristotle, Fuller and Dworkin, believed in the existence of a “higher law”, highly influenced by morals, has to be integrated in a legal system

At the point when a government(put your reference) neglects to ensure those rights it isn't just the right, yet additionally the obligation of the general population to

Cohen defines rights as “a claim that one party may exercise against another”(339). He explains that there are many different types of rights: some moral, some legal; some held by a single person, others held by groups; all differing in what the right entitles one to. Above all this, however, Cohen stresses that rights are a concept rooted in morality. They arise out of the necessity for self-governance among a community, providing standards of conduct that beget personal protection and safety. Therefore, the argument continues that the holders of rights must only be those who are capable of comprehending such concepts as morality and duty and right against wrong. After all, standards can only be held to subjects capable of understanding and achieving them. Because humans are the only

Citizens rights they change from country to country, and the opinions on these rights differ from person to person, as for me I know i have the right to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness. The type of government that best protects my rights is a democracy. “That they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness”(Jefferson, Doc E).

The ultimate ethical question for a Secular Humanist is Can morality be achieved without the foundation of absolute religious beliefs? Who makes the rules, God or men? Morris B. Storer outlined: Is personal advantage the measure of

In this paper, I will argue that a combination of Natural Law Theory and Utilitarianism best captures what should be required in terms of respecting natural rights.

Natural rights are inherent in human beings, not dependent on the government. Where civil liberties are regulations on the government to protect intrusion or dismissal of these rights.

Furthermore, there is a connection between the moral and legal rights, which as a result pinpoints a moral right from other fundamental moral concepts. The concept of men asserting his moral rights into a legal system falls under the branch of morality. The branch of morality determines when a person’s freedom may be limited by another’s to determine what actions are appropriate to be the subject of coercive legal rules (153). Based upon the idea of freedom of men being a natural right, emerge two principle concepts that make this right to liberty function. For example, Hart contends that firstly, there is a “right to restraint on the part of all others from the use of coercion against (the individual).”

Mark W Janis (1992) found that The Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen (1789) adhered to the principle that “natural law should protect the rights of the individual against abuses of the government”. In addition, the declaration placed a high degree of emphasis on the people and their rights as individuals (Kolm, 1993). Furthermore, this declaration emphasised on something known as the “general will”; the general will essentially being the will of the people (Kolm, 1993). The Declaration outlines that that the different constituents of the general will consisted of “[1: cooperation, 2: justice, 3: communication and persuasion, 4: morality, and 5: culture, social transcendence and the formation of the people]” (Kolm,

The article The Legality of Atheism published by Harvard Law Review, Vol. 31, No. 2, explores the legality behind Atheism. The article explains four possible reasons under which Atheism could be considered against the law and also explains how does arguments are rejected by modern laws, concluding that Atheism and its promotion does not constitute a crime. This article was published by Harvard Law Review, which is a journal published monthly, during the academic year, by Harvard law student. The argument of the author is based, not only on opinion, but in a strong academic research about the topic.

“Man, when perfected, is the best of animals, but when separated from law and justice, he is the worst of all,” quoted the renowned Greek philosopher Aristotle , giving birth to the notions of natural law; the theory that without law we would be reduced to an anarchical society. Because of this, some would argue that the purpose of law would be to instill in the members of society a set of moral codes, which further illustrates the belief laws save us from ourselves, or more appropriately our “true selves”. Yet this theoretical principle leads to many criticisms and further questions; for one, what would dictate a universal moral code? Furthermore, who gets to define what is right and what is not, since morality is a fairly subjective concept? With these questions in mind, the goal of this paper is to critique the theory of natural law using Holmes rhetoric, analyze the distinction between pragmatism and natural law, and give my personal take on what “is” the law and what “ought to be” the law.

Human rights are basic to humanity. They are supposed apply to all people everywhere. Though in our modern society, we acknowledge the importance of human rights, it took a long time for mankind to set down the human rights that we all deserve and to reach to where we are now. In this essay, the focus will be on how much Christian teachings and traditions influenced the creation of human rights. It’s possible to see the influence based on different written laws made toward creation of equal rights. Such as, the US’s “Declaration of Independence”, the French “Declaration of the Rights of Man” or the UN’s Declaration of the Human Rights. Christianity’s biblical notions support many of the articles found in those declarations. Christian teachings had an overall significant impact on the development of modern human right.

The question of the role of government versus individual rights is at least as old as the 17th century. The concept of individual rights came about from the view that American's, as individual's, have the power to control their own lives and establish their own laws. So many people today think that America is one of the wealthiest countries in the world, but is it? A fundamental question, therefore, is the legitimate role and authority of government when it comes to human rights. Most people believe that the government is the first to blame for the increasing numbers of people in poverty, but society plays an important role in poverty as

today we call them human rights" (McShea 34). The issue of whether or not to

“All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.” These opening words of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights express a concept of man which underpins the framework of human rights embodied in the Universal Declaration and the two international covenants of Human Rights. Western political traditions is a concept that it derives from, is in harmony with moral and social teachings to be found in many other traditions and patterns of belief.