The Cold Equation By Tom Godwin Summary

The characters selfish ways can be noted from the beginning and the end of the story. In the beginning, it is noted how selfish the grandmother is because she does not want to

In Montana 1948 the issue of a family is torn between loyalty to one another and obeying the law to follow justice. Frank had murdered Marie which was why Wesley had to arrest him. Frank will get justice served to him. Wesley believes that “[…]in this world people must pay for their crimes. It doesn't matter who you are or who your relations are; if you do wrong, you pay” (Watson 150). Although Frank was his brother, Frank deserved what came to him because of his actions. Additionally, in the article “Mom Turns In Son For Allegedly Robbing Restaurant” posted by Staff Writer the mother seems to be faced with the same problem. She had to turn in her son for what he had done. The mother “is at peace with her decision to turn in her [fifteen] year old for robbing a Church Chicken Restaurant”(Mom Turns In Son 1). Many more people should believe in justice and turning in someone when they know they have done something wrong. Furthermore, in Montana, Frank was guilty because he committed a crime and "sins—crimes—are not supposed to go unpunished"(Watson 76). Frank will be served justice because justice in this case has over come

PHL 612 Philosophy of Law [Calendar Description]: What is law? What makes something a legal norm? Should

Philosophical thought provides the infrastructure that allows society to author moral laws. While morality may be the aim, other variables can cause these laws to become corrupt. The urge for power is one of many, recurring, variables that infect morality. During these times of ‘infection,’ society must contest those who oppose just laws. In order to shine a light on unjust laws, laws are bound to be broken. It is not only lawful to break unjust laws, but the duty of the people to speak up and be a voice for change. It is critical, during these times, to work towards equilibrium with the goal to change the law. Regardless of the circumstances, it is lawful to break unjust laws with the goal to make them just again.

In this paper I will examine how duty, self-interest, and sympathy overlaps one another. To begin, In the book Huckleberry Finn Huck and Jim are having a conversation. Huck is helping Jim escape to freedom. Although Huck was doing a good deed. He could not help but to think about himself and the kind of situation he was getting into.

When it comes to moral and legal problems, what is right or wrong usually gets clouded by details. The gray matter comes to play in deciding who was right or wrong in the short stories “A Father’s Story” and “Uncle”. In “A Father’s Story’, Luke Ripley was in the right for covering up his daughter’s crimes. Who wouldn’t do anything to keep their child safe no matter their age? The length a person is willing to go to keep their child safe in unmeasurable. Whereas in “Uncle” the niece is completely in the wrong. Despite our brains not reaching full maturity until the age of twenty-five, this middle-school-aged should know it is wrong to attack someone who did nothing to her with large gardening tool, continue to torture him after initially

Are we naturally moral creatures? Do we always act towards the common good of others? I am positive that we do not, and in fact, as much as society wants to, we go against our morals and lead with our ‘feelings’. These feelings may feel right, but it doesn’t mean they will lead you in the right path to fulfil your ultimate end, true happiness. Hitler was a passionate man driven by feelings, but what he felt and did during the World War Two era was not for the sake of the common good, and was not morally right. In today’s society we often struggle between what is legally right and what is

Natural law theorists believe that all law must be morally justified if it can be legitimised as law at all. Legal positivism means the simple contention that it is in no sense a necessary truth that laws reproduce or satisfy certain demands of morality, though in fact they have otherwise done so. (Hart, DATE)

A law is said to be just when it is ordained for the common good, does not exceed the power of the lawgiver and any burdens put on the subjects are done proportionally and equally and aim for the common good (Aquinas in Dimock, ed., 2002, p.20). In comparison an unjust law can be contrary to the human good and additionally opposing to the divine good. A law can conflict with the human good in one of three ways; either through its end, author or its form. A lawmaker issues an unjust law according to its end when he “imposes on his subjects burdensome laws, conducive not to the common good, but rather to his own cupidity or vainglory” (Aquinas in Dimock, ed., 2002, p.20). If a lawmaker imposes a law that favors the leader but at the same time imposes unfair burdens on the whole of society, it can be assumed that he is working for his glory and selfish desires.

This may not be the most horrendous crime she could have committed but it portrays a disregard for the laws and an opinion that she is above such petty restrictions. As it was her husband who wrote these laws, it is deceitful for her to be in possession of items deemed unsuitable for society.

The Prisoners Dilemma; What is in My Best Interest? Cheri Condon Argosy University: PHI101 OLC 12/12/2016 The moral theory social contract is consistent with cooperating with the other prisoner and rejecting self-interest. In egoism, they are concerned with their own self-interest.

Natural law theory is based on human nature and its predisposition to do good. The determination of what’s good and evil, however, is often drawn

Her defense was that she acted according to the law of that time and had not committed any crime. Hart agrees with her defense, saying that we should now applaud ourselves for punishing her for her ‘immoral actions’ because she adhered to the laws of her time, and was at that time not doing anything wrong. Contradicting his view is Radbrunch’s, who argued that extreme injustice is no law, meaning that a particular social standard can lose its legal validity when it is extremely unjust.

Holmes speaks about the Prediction Theory of law, the Bad Man Account of the law,

Since we were kids and became conscious of our surrounding, our parents and grandparents instilled in us an awareness of what is right and wrong. In other words, it is a trait of all human beings and fosters from our desire to get along with each other to live a harmonious life. Laws are a set of rules and behaviors set by governments that society illustrate on what people can or cannot do. The purpose of this paper is three-fold: it will identify and define what distinguishes law from ethics and what similarities they share. The second is an analysis of examples of where law and ethics either meet or diverge. Third is the role where law and ethics either meet or diverge.