Morality should be mandated by law for the purpose of upholding justice in Malaysia. I think in order to uphold the justice of Malaysia, a part of the morality should be mandated by law, but another part of morality cannot be mandated to the law. This is because as mentioned above, moral's right or wrong cannot be clearly measured, it is based on personal conscience. However, the law can be clearly measured whether a person makes mistakes and will be punished according to law. However, we cannot include all moral principles in the law.
In this essay I will be discussing how the formal theory of the rule of law is an erroneous means of establishing laws within a state. A central theme to addressing this is essay is the distinction between formal and substantive theories of the rule of law. In order to reach my conclusion of the formal theory being proven to be insufficient, one must first appreciate the significant advantages which the substantive theory obtains. However, before doing so, I will briefly mention the importance of the rule of law in society and the requirements it needs to fulfil. Most people would dispute that the significance of law in society is to obtain justice, however justice is simply a term which is determined subjectively, it relates to an individuals
Such a command theory is my... ... middle of paper ... ...ver, Holmes’s theory is not instructive on how to go about making these “prophecies” of law without any reference to explicit guidelines or guidelines, notwithstanding his proposition of referring to rather arbitrary factors such as the moral and political climate. As such, Holmes’s theory loses persuasiveness insofar as it does not provide certainty as to how valid law can be identified. In conclusion, the theories that have been examined in this paper have proffered various ways in determining what makes a law valid. These theories are persuasive on varying levels, and hence are not perfectly conclusive on this point. However, an analysis of these theories have allowed me the appreciate the nuances between each theory, as well as appreciate the fact that legal theory is a lot more tolerant of conflicting theories as compared to other areas of legal study.
MacCormick’s institutional theory advances from Kelsen’s pure theory of law which considers politics and morality to be impurities. Whilst politics involves the process of law-making, MacCormick dismisses it from the institutional theory as it concerns the exercise of power to act in a certain way rather than according to the normative order. It is argued that the law is not coercive but normative in power as legislation has the power to alter practice without the need to provide direct orders to agencies. Nevertheless, this argument has limitations as the law can also be deemed as coercive due to the sanctions that the judiciary can impose on individuals. Furthermore, legal positivists argue that moral norms are distinct from legal norms and therefore prefer to exclude it from the institutional law theory.
Since only actual agreements are binding, the argument goes, citizens are not bound to obey their governments on the ground that, under circumstances different from the ones in which they now find themselves, they would have agreed to submit to its authority. (1) The purpose of this paper is to rescue hypothetical consent from this objection. I begin by distinguishing political legitimacy from political obligation. (2) I argue that while hypothetical consent may not serve as an adequate ground for political obligation, it is capable of grounding political legitimacy. I understand a theory of political legitimacy to give an account of the justice of political arrangements.
And given that many laws are bound to be incorrect, or unjust, a proceduralist argument seems to be quite a bit more viable for the democratic decision making process. But the purely procedural method entirely ignores the epistemic side, and so the outcome of the decision does not matter as long as the procedures were followed correctly. Estlund then examines the epistemic side of things. He analyzes what he calls the Correctness Theory, which proposes that a decision is legitimate if it is correct. He has us consider a diverse society where a decision justified based on an independent standard, the example he used was justice.
He believes this to be the case because within this form of rationalizing what is good from what is wrong there are often cases that stray away from true virtue such as human behavior. Kant sees this as a unique quality in humankind; that they can act in accordance with acceptation to the law (412). He worries ... ... middle of paper ... ...annot help themselves. Experiencing the process that happens between the realization of someone needs help to the solution is vital to understanding how to carry out a moral law. Without this someone may know what is moral but not have the means to know how to help.
Like Rauch says, people must not try to eradicate hate speech, rather criticize and try to correct it. There is no wrong in standing up for yourself but there is an enormous wrong in limiting speech, hateful or not. V. Conclusion If it wasn’t already obvious, I believe that Altman is wrong. I believe that strengthening the proverbial skin of society is more important that pitting it’s individuals against each other on issues of what’s ok and not ok to say. Altman appeals to his own morals in which giving individuals the equality that is due to them and the right to not be treated as a lesser member of society are of ultimate importance.
Firstly, injustice is sometimes unavoidable, since it is difficult for legislator to take every situation and every possible result into account. Secondly, justice is a concept with relativity that different individual may view the sam... ... middle of paper ... ... whether it is just or unjust, it does not mean that we have no respect to laws. When disobeying laws, one must have higher purpose respecting the will of the mass. Gandhi and King both pointed out that they never advocated breaking laws on the sly for personal convenience, they attacked unjust laws at their own risk in order to improve the society. Accordingly, while admitting that it is reasonable and necessary to disobey unjust laws undermines the interests of the pubic, we should also recognize the value of laws, deeply respect it and behave strictly as the just laws.
The focus of this essay is to examine the extent to which Dworkin provides a convincing alternative to positivism. The central claim of legal positivism states that "in any legal system, whether a given norm is legally valid, and hence whether it forms part of the law of that system, depends on its sources, not its merits". Dworkin completely rejects the positivist approach because he believes that "no combination of source-based rules, no matter how broadly construed or how carefully crafted can ground a theory of law". Dworkin is evidently making a big move away from positivism. The first part of this essay will explore how Dworkin 's rejection of positivism has led him to formulate an alternative theory of law.