D. How Sunstein’s view relates to Posner • Sunstein 's view, in regards to Posner, would be in a general disagreement to the use of wealth maximization to cover all law, to the extent that not using the theory would go against what courts promote. To Posner, judges, in their application of rules and procedures to particular cases, ought to promote wealth maximization. The promotion of wealth maximization requires an ought. This means that to pursue wealth maximization is something that should be done and if not done it would be wrong. • However, to Sunstein, this view is exactly what he is argues against; wherein a high-level theory, a general theory of all law, has a domain over a large portion of law. So large, in fact, that the high-level theory is where all principles and outcomes should come from as absolutes. However, Posner must allow indeterminacy in particular cases; an ambiguity that is filled with low-level principles, that do not directly derive from the theory of wealth maximization. If this can be true, for particular cases, then it can be incompletely theorized and acceptable to Sunstein. But Posner, would hold that his economic approach, that uses wealth maximization, is necessary. An …show more content…
This is because Sunstein uses his theory to suggest that all overarching theories of law require something more. That something more are low-level principles. Low-level principles do exactly what high-level theories do, except the overarching structure. Posner suggests the development and application of rules and procedures to particular cases ought to need wealth maximization; therefore, anything that does not support wealth maximization would cause social waste under the law. But Sunstein states that low-level principles do not put social welfare at risk. So this alludes that Posner 's account of wealth maximization cannot, at the moment, accept Sunstein and his low-level
In this paper I will be discussing George P. Fletcher’s “paradigm of reciprocity”. I will discuss what two issues the paradigm specifies and how they are treated by the paradigm. I will assess how the treatment of the issue is different from that of the wealth maximization approach. I will also look at how the paradigm makes sense of both fault and strict liability. Lastly in this paper I will discuss why I agree with Fletcher’s stance and a criticism one might have for it.
In conclusion, "To strive for justice, one must be a person of principles. There is no single principle that one can use to achieve justice in the resolution of legal disputes." This is true because one must use a wide array of principles that come from moral and legal perspectives in order to gain a resolution. Unfortunately society has deemed it necessary to incorporate social stratification into some of these principles. The law tends to have more leniencies to those who have higher positions in society. With as many classes as our society today, it is impossible to find a jury of peers. Each person has their own idea of cultural norms, legal and moral principles, and a socio-class in which they belong to. Therefore, I contend that social stratification, whether it is between races, or economical levels, will always have some role in legal decisions.
...onstitute injustice. Nosick favors a state in which the dominant protection agency as the only form of "government" serves to protect those who chose to freely participate in the service. The individual is free to go about his life so long as he does not violate an individual or worsen the conditions of the land for others. Having the right to ownership does not mean the right to harm, but rather the right to exclude. Just as I would not steal property from another individual (without fear of the protection agency), how is it just for anyone, including the government, to take earnings from individuals in the form of distribution or taxation? If just acquisition arises from the just history (any form you see fit), than wealth and free spending are simply functions within society with discretion falling under the responsibility of the buyer and seller of the goods.
...themselves. By adding further conditions or exceptions we could address specific objections and create more narrowly defined obligations. Further modifications of PP’ would not generally eliminate obligations, but it would allow choices to be made. In particular, for the affluent, doing nothing remains off limits so they would still be required to do what they can to alleviate suffering in places where they are in agreement that help is warranted. This derivation from the original argument plausibly supports the basic argument made by Singer that we ought to do everything in our power to help those in need so long as we need not sacrifice anything significant.
...posit is made with the whole, with no individual. The contract is equal, for each gives all. No one reserves any rights by which he can claim to judge of his own conduct” (Strauss and Cropsey 1987, 568).
...ose misunderstandings and addresses why we have that moral right to do wrong. I agree with Waldron’s views since they connect to the enhancement of a diverse society. we know now that Waldron is looking at “wrongs” from a moral view not a legal view. An objection can be that his conception is limited because it only deals with morals and leaves the legal point of view aside. But does that really matter? Waldron is talking only about morality, and since legal positivism suggest that law and morality should be separated so they can be analyzed in greater details, shouldn't it not matter if he was not focusing on the legal matter but enhancing the idea of morality that will later on serve and enhance legality? an overall look at Waldron’s ideas can conclude that his ideas are logical and hard to rebut because he speaks the truth about having a moral right to do wrong.
At one point in time poverty was the general fact of the world. Man was always expected to live on the line of poverty, majority of the economic thinkers couldn’t see the world moving away from this standard but we did and have gained great affluence. As Society has grown from this poverty stricken state it once was in, into an affluent one the ideas used to run it have yet to change in some ways. In The Affluent Society John Kenneth Galbraith explains how with great economic growth there should be growth in economic ideas as well. The old idea that were for a country that barely could stay above the water are inappropriate for society today. He proves this by naming numerous issues like The conventional Common wisdom,
... own interest versus the interest as a whole will lead to the natural creation of the societies we live in today. It would be futile to deny someone their right to pursue wealth once it becomes the desire of the whole to do the same. These ideas eventually lead to natural competition that fuel global economies.
It is also believed that wealth should be non-existent. This is only possible if cl...
The views which are put forward in this treatise derive from the doctrines of Bertrand Russell and Wittgenstein.
A common objection to consequentialism, that agents are burdened with duties to help others at the expense of their own happiness, was not even addressed. This in itself seems to be one form of absolutism that riddles consequentialism in general. Nielsen made it clear that one should not be absolute about insisting on weighing consequences when they are barely known, but would he reject this notion as well? It is not clear that this absolutism, of always valuing the good of others over the agent’s own self, is separable from the concept of consequentialism; so it is not clear that consequentialism can escape absolutism as Nielsen concluded in the second argument recounted here.
Since this principle aims to benefit the people who are in the worst off position, this creates a sense of equality, wherein the person who has the least, gets the most compensation, and in turn, the person with the most, receives the least; thus it balances out the inequality of income and wealth. This constant shift in balance will provide society with a way of moving forward, as people are able to shift up and down in ranks, and allow the entire community to grow in some way. The economic standing will always fluctuate depending on conditions, but the distribution of principles will remain
As a result, I am convinced by both philosophers that Justice is needed to protect our properties and possession. Without justice, mankind would become uncontrollable, so working to attain possessions would be in vain for most people. People would steal from each other because they are aware that mankind had laws, no restriction, and no consequence for their action. Furthermore, everybody would try to become superior compared to another. Mankind would have no morality and instead of peace, one’s own self-interest would become
...terests of all who could be affected by the course our actions. Obviously, as human beings we can never consider all possible choices, calculate and compare consequences quantitatively, and be without bias. Your obligation is to do the best you can, while considering as many choices as possible. One could argue that, amidst the capitalist climate of our current world, utilitarianism calls upon us to look beyond the self for the greater good. Wouldn't it be admirable if all governments could follow this maxim? To conclude on the same point at Mills, “Whether it is so or not, must now be left to the consideration of the thoughtful reader”.
Rashid, S., 2007. The "Law" of One Price: Implausible, yet Consequential. The Quarterly Journal of Austrian Economics, 10(1), pp. 79-89.