Why should I obey the law and the state more generally? The howls of outrage from the Prime Minster and some of his colleagues as well as The Australian about her claims, are part political theatre, but also hint at the challenges these questions raise for self-consciously liberal societies.
Indeed, the everyday work of the courts was never more completely shaped by abstract philosophical ideas than in the nineteenth century when lawyers affected to despise philosophy and jurists believed they had set up a self-sufficient science of law which stood in no need of any philosophical apparatus.
In all stages of what may be described fairly as legal development, philosophy has been a useful servant. But in some it has been a tyrannous servant, and in all but form a master. It has been used to break down the authority of outworn tradition, to bend authoritatively imposed rules that admitted of no change to new uses which changed profoundly their practical effect, to bring new elements into the law from without and make new bodies of law from these new materials, to organize and systematize existing Edition: Such have been its actual achievements.
Yet all the while its professed aim has been much more ambitious. It has sought to give us a complete and final picture of social control. It has sought to lay down a moral and legal and political chart for all time. It has had faith that it could find the everlasting, unchangeable legal reality in which we might rest, and could enable us to establish a perfect law by which human relations might be ordered forever without uncertainty and freed from need of change.
Nor may we scoff at this ambitious aim and this lofty faith. They have been not the least factors in the power of legal philosophy to do the less ambitious things which in their aggregate are the bone and sinew of legal achievement.
For the attempt at the larger program has led philosophy of law incidentally to do the things that were immediately and practically serviceable, and the doing of these latter, as it were sub Edition: Two needs have determined philosophical thinking about law.
On the one hand, the paramount social interest in the general security, which as an interest in peace and order dictated the very beginnings of law, has led men to seek some fixed basis of a certain ordering of human action which should restrain magisterial as well as individual wilfulness and assure a firm and stable social order.
On the other hand, the pressure of less immediate social interests, and the need of reconciling them with the exigencies of the general security, and of making continual new compromises because of continual changes in society, has called ever for readjustment at least of the details of the social order.
It has called continually for overhauling of legal precepts and for refitting of them to unexpected situations.
And this has led men to seek principles of legal development by which to escape from authoritative rules which they feared or did not know how Edition: These principles of change and growth, however, might easily prove inimical to the general security, and it was important to reconcile or unify them with the idea of a fixed basis of the legal order.
Thus the philosopher has sought to construct theories of law and theories of lawmaking and has sought to unify them by some ultimate solving idea equal to the task of yielding a perfect law which should stand fast forever.
Philosophy of law: Philosophy of law, branch of philosophy that investigates the nature of law, especially in its relation to human values, attitudes, practices, and political communities. Traditionally, philosophy of law proceeds by articulating and defending propositions about law that are general and. [This post was co-written by Chris Bertram, Corey Robin and Alex Gourevitch] “In the general course of human nature, a power over a man’s subsistence amounts to a power over his will.” —Alexander Hamilton, Federalist 79 Libertarianism is a philosophy of individual freedom. (22) In 1 Bla. Com, , it is contended, that, unless in cases where the natural law or conscience dictates the observance of municipal laws, it is optional, in a moral view, to observe the positive law, or to pay the penalty where detected in the breach: but that doctrine, as regards the moral duty to observe laws, has been justly refuted. See Sedgwick's Commentaries, 61; 2 Box.
From the time when lawgivers gave over the attempt to maintain the general security by belief that particular bodies of human law had been divinely dictated or divinely revealed or divinely sanctioned, they have had to wrestle with the problem of proving to mankind that the law was something fixed and settled, whose authority was beyond question, while at the same time enabling it to make constant readjustments and occasional radical changes under the pressure of infinite and variable human desires.
The philosopher has worked upon this problem with the materials of the actual legal systems of the time Edition: Hence in closer view philosophies of law have been attempts to give a rational account of the law of the time and place, or attempts to formulate a general theory of the legal order to meet the needs of some given period of legal development, or attempts to state the results of the two former attempts universally and to make them all-sufficient for law everywhere and for all time.
Historians of the philosophy of law have fixed their eyes chiefly on the third. But this is the least valuable part of legal philosophy. If we look at the philosophies of the past with our eyes upon the law of the time and place and the exigencies of the stage of legal development in which they were formulated, we shall be able to appreciate them more justly, and so far as the law of the time and place or the stage of legal development was similar to or different from the present to utilize them for the purposes of today.
We know Greek law from the beginnings of a Edition:To have a political obligation is to have a moral duty to obey the laws and support the institutions of one’s political community. In fact, I think .
Someone wrote in: I have a friend who has recently turned Agnostic, and in a debate with him about the existence of a loving God, a few questions were brought up that I could not answer. Aristotle: Politics. In his Nicomachean Ethics, Aristotle ( B.C.E.) describes the happy life intended for man by nature as one lived in accordance with virtue, and, in his Politics, he describes the role that politics and the political community must play in bringing about the virtuous life in the citizenry.
The Politics also provides analysis of the kinds of political community that. In other words, how does government come to enjoy a right to rule, and how do citizens come to incur a duty to obey? An example may help motivate the question. Suppose some of your neighbors start a “neighborhood watch” group.
The history of Western ethics Ancient civilizations to the end of the 19th century The ancient Middle East and Asia. The first ethical precepts must have been passed down by word of mouth from parents and elders, but as societies learned to use the written word, they began to set down their ethical beliefs.
These records constitute the first historical evidence of the origins of ethics.
Morality and Law Rick Garlikov. There are a number of issues about the relationship between morality and law in a (pluralistic, secular) democracy like the United urbanagricultureinitiative.com them are whether legislation should reflect moral principles, whether judges should interpret laws in light of moral values and principles, whether laws should enforce morality, whether laws are binding if they do not.