Justification by Reflective Equilibrium Famously, John Rawls is regarded as using reflective equilibrium (RE) to justify his principles of justice. But the point of justification by RE in Rawls's more recent work is not easily established since he regards his own work as still contractarian. In order to clarify matters, I distinguish between wide and narrow RE, as well as show that wide RE consists of several kinds of narrow RE: RE as a plea for (re)consideration, RE as a constructive procedure of choice, and safe ground RE. The connection of these REs is shown in order to reach justification. The point of introducing RE for justification is seen in opening the range of possible revisions to allow for consensus.
Although the Law seems to adopt some positivist aspects such as parliamentary sovereignty and separation of powers, we should look up to the legal system in a optimistic way as justice is clearly an aspiration of the Law as evidenced by the symbol of the ‘weighing scales’. It is also evident that the Law is adhering to the natural law as the European Convention of Human Rights have been implemented so this shows that there is a shift from strands of positivism to principles of the natural law. This helps society to enforce their views as a whole and also helps elevate justice as one of the principle object of practical Law.
Box 43, Folder 30, Harvard Law School Library. Pound, Roscoe. “Interest of Personality.” Harvard Law Review 28 (1928). Rabban, David M. Free Speech in Its Forgotten Years. New York: The University of Cambridge P, 1997 Court Cases Cited Abrams v. United States, 250 U.S. 616 (1919) Debs v. United States, 249 U.S. 211 (1919) Frohwerk v. U.S., 249 U.S. 204 (1919) Gitlow v. New York, 268 U.S. 652 (1925) Masses Publishing Co. v. Patten, 244 F. 535 (S.D.N.Y.
: Harvard University Press, 2001), §§ 13.1-13.4, 14.3, 18.1-2, 36, and 41.4-42.3 • Michael Sandel, ‘Justice’, Episode 8 • Rawls, ‘The Idea of Public Reason Revisited’, in The Law of Peoples, Cambridge, Mass. : Harvard University Press, 1999, pp. 130-180, Introduction and §§ 1, 2.4, 3, and 4
It is the order of natural beings that are capable of rational, moral actions, knowledge and truth. Natural law is the voice of rationality and reason and by using our logic and reason we are obeying the eternal law or God and his creation of doing good and avoiding evil. Natural law doesn’t judge on the outcome of an action rather than the action itself and the reasoning behind it as whether it was good. It is a law dependent on human reason that Aristotle, Plato, and Cicero had their discovered and had their philosophies on the subject, yet Aquinas borrowed some of their ideas and developed this more into the theory of a moral code of conduct. Natural law was a law written in nature for humans to know how to act morally.
Each of the groups ideas of the nature of law contradict each others points. They agree with the law as a system of norms, but they disagree with the relation of law. But before he gets to discussing their points of view, he defines how the natural law theory is understood; which is based on positive law, that was founded by humans for humans; in which humans decide what conduct is right or wrong. They have an universal moral principles that have ethical and legal norms that each human should follow, because it’s a rule. He defines legal positivism, that emphasizes conventional nature of law, that has been socially constructed.
Therefore, international law must be adhered to in relations between countries with one another (1946; Charles Cheney hyde) I think that international law is the moral code of conduct as a source of international law in the code of ethics and morals based on the ethical principles on humanitarian values is actually a heritage of natural law. Value moral code of ethics is also a value that is fudamental because the values contained in the moral code of conduct is sublime and noble, so these properties become very abstract