In chapter four of On Liberty by J.S. Mill, Mill argues that there needs to be a strong division between an individuals rights and the society’s ability to punish, he believes that the “harm principle” will hold the individuals accountable for their actions, preventing harm to others, however there are also flaws in Mill’s argument which will all be discussed in this essay. Mill makes a claim in his book, On Liberty saying, “ The inconveniences which are strictly inseparable from the unfavorable judgment of others, are the only ones to which a person should ever be subjected for that portion of his conduct which concerns his own good, but which does not affect the interests of others in their relation with him. Acts injurious to others require a totally different treatment.” (Page 72, Mill) This quote, sums up his harm principle, which is that in society each individual cannot violate others rights or harm them in anyway, however if it only affects him or herself, society cannot punish the individual. Mill is discussed how society will judge even if the person is only doing harm to him or herself and wi... ... middle of paper ... ...ered enough, which is a huge objection to Mill’s argument.
Locke disagrees with this in the respect that all men are Tabula Rasa, which begin life as blank slates and develop their views and ideas based on the experiences they are exposed to. According to Locke the men in the state of Aquinas would all have different experiences and place importance on different morals and ideals. Therefore, Locke argues that in order to have a legitimate set of laws, they must be based on very solid foundations which cannot be subject to argument. Such foundations would be the protection of property, as well as the ... ... middle of paper ... ...ant to be told that there is only one version of right and wrong, which is exactly what the opposing state proposes. Examples of the type of state that Aquinas and St. Augustine present can be seen in some of the failed regimes of the past century.
Thus for the punishment of criminals to be considered righteous, belief in human free will is a necessity. Whilst many philosophers hold that human free will is a reality, some maintain that our self - control is in fact an illusion, with our actions being controlled by device beyond our own deception. If the latter is reality, everything is pre-determined and the choices we make are pre-decided. There are several deterministic concepts. Firstly, hard determinism focuses on the theory of universal causation, which asserts that everything in the present is directly caused by events that preceded them.
Thus, the two most commons sources of theoretical justification for capital punishment are Immanuel Kant and John Stewart Mill. Defenders of capital punishment can be separated into two categories. Some are retributivists and follow Immanuel Kant’s theory of retribution. Other defenders are consequentialist and follow John Stewart Mill’s consequentialist approach. Both philosophers unambiguously address the dispute of capital punishment as a moral responsibility in their ethical theories... ... middle of paper ... ...ors to capital punishment may challenge that it is immoral because governments should never take human life, no matter the provocation.
Or is it merely based on facts, legal rules and precedent? The dominant model of judicial decision making is an outgrowth of rational choice theory sta... ... middle of paper ... ...in statutory law but as a development of socially acceptable actions in an evolving societal context. The verdict handed down reflects this in that it has no minimum sentence, this is in line with the principle that intentional crimes are to be punished more severely than unintentional crimes. The majority further dismissed the proposition that there must be symmetry between all external elements of the offence and the fault elements. This would require that there be a fault element for the consequences of the acts, namely, that the accused’s could foresee death.
“justified true belief,” as much as possible. Therefore, we have obligation to justify our beliefs epistemically in order to achieve such goal and form our beliefs based on evidence. And since Luke fails to justify the existence on the Force with any proof, he is guilty to track the Death Star by using the Force. Opposite to Clifford, Joseph Long points out that sometimes it is morally acceptable to form a belief even though we lack enough evidence. And Luke is exactly in one of those situations.
That is, your particular charact... ... middle of paper ... ...essed for those decisions. Nagel constructs a number of compelling arguments in attacking Kantian morality, but in the end he simply misses the point. While numerous influences and external factors may affect the decision of a person, it is still the duty of that person to find the information that is correct and lead himself to the correct moral decision. If Nagel were correct, we would be unable to apply moral evaluations to anyone. This dissolution of morality looms over us threateningly until we realize that its strength is renewed with our own deeper focus.
Thus for King to use this theory, two requirements are implicit. He must assert that an unjust law is not really a law, and he must provide a moral theory to distinguish just and unjust laws. King first quotes St. Augustine, "an unjust law is no law at all," to emphasize his agreement with the first claim. He then includes the "law of God" as his moral theory to provide the framework upon which to judge the law. His argument using classical natural law theory at first seems to be a valid and necessary defense for breaking the law, i.e.
Being Morally Justified in Disobeying Laws We Consider to be Immoral The answer to this question depends very much on our understanding and opinion on the status of the law. On this issue it is likely that everyone falls into one of two broad categories. People falling into the first of these categories would be those who consider that through social contract we are obliged to obey the law, whatever the law states and regardless of our opinion on the moral status of that law and that we are morally obliged to operate within the law. Furthermore by this way of thinking we can conclude that if the law binds us over to commit, what we consider to be an immoral act then we must be exempt from guilt as our morality dictates that we should obey the law regardless. Those who fall outside of this category would therefore believe that we are not bound over to obey the law and that in fact we should be morally obliged to disobey any law that we consider to be immoral.
Michael J. Sandel makes such an argument by suggesting that misleading truths meet the requirements of the CI and the perfect duty to tell the truth (133). He also notes that Kant himself employed such a strategy when giving a promise not to write anything more that criticized Christianity (134). This position leaves much to be desired. Although it does appear to conform to the letter of the CI and the duty to truth telling, it does so by effectively gutting the intended spirit of the CI. The apparent maxim this position generate is, “Perform a verbal end-run around moral laws you find inconvenient.” It seems doubtful that such a maxim could survive rigorous scrutiny under the CI’s universalization test.