In order to determine whether suspending habeas corpus is ethical or not in order to prevent a group of people from being killed, the follow questions must be answered: What is Habeas Corpus? In what ways was the right of Habeas Corpus suspended in the movie? What makes a course of action ethical or unethical? How is the ethical theory applied to the situations in the movie? One must use the movie, The Siege, to answer to these questions appropriately. Habeas Corpus began in England in 1215, when King John was compelled to sign the Magna Carta. It is the idea that a person should not be imprisoned without just cause. The government must either charge the individual of a crime or allow them to go free. Habeas Corpus does not decide if someone …show more content…
According to Kant "a right concerns the external actions of a person in so far as they have an influence upon one another." Kant's ethical principle states that the freedom of each must be compatible with the freedom of all when universalized. Humans have certain natural rights based off of their freedom. This is justified by three types of rights: unalienable, alienable, and inalienable. Unalienable rights are rights that can not be taken away by a person or the government. Among these are the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Alienable rights are a legitimate claim against others that can sold or transferred to another individual. Inalienable rights we give the government; the right to promote the welfare of the public and interests of trade. The method of of application consists of determining whether one would be able to achieve one’s purpose if everyone acted the same way that the person acting did. For example in The Siege, by trying to prevent a terrorist attack, authorities arrest individuals of a specific ethnicity/religion. If this was universal, the person doing the detaining would be detained as well, and therefore, he would not be able to find out who was behind the terrorist attacks. This is why arresting an individual without just cause is unethical because it does not apply to everyone and no one has the ability to take away your basic rights. The …show more content…
Kant's ethical principle not only supports the individual but society as a whole, especially by saying that each individual will get the same basic rights. This belief helps individuals flourish because he believes that something is only fair if everyone can do it; this idea ensures that everyone would be treated equal unlike Mill's ethical principle. According to Mill, an action is only fair if the action is for the advancement of society. This does not ensure the safety and equality for majority of the society, instead it means that those who are not in the majority will receive poor treatment; this was also shown in The Siege. Kant's ethical principle lessens human suffering by not allowing individuals to have their basic rights taken away. I believe that Habeas Corpus should not be suspended because it guarantees the safety of innocent. The law states that individuals are innocent until proven guilty but in The Siege, they were not given a chance to be proven guilty, instead they were just taken and it
Lincoln justified his action via the suspension clause, claiming that Congress was in recess and therefore could not fulfill its duty at the time. The Constitution itself specifically references habeas corpus and acknowledges that it can be suspended “in cases of rebellion,” however, as Chief Justice Roger Taney asserted in the ruling of Ex parte Merryman (1861), the writ of habeas corpus falls exclusively in the hands of Congress in Section 9 of Article 1“without the slightest reference to the executive branch.” Additionally, Article 6 provides all persons accused the “right to a speedy and public trial by impartial jury of the state.” Both provisions, Justice Taney stated, are in “language too clear to be misunderstood by anyone.” The ruling concluded by declaring that President Lincoln’s actions in suspending habeas corpus in Maryland were unconstitutional as he did so without proper congressional authorization. According to the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Maryland, Lincoln had overstepped his appropriate executive authority as
If the right to habeas corpus is not being extended to the detainee, the majority judges are of the opinion that the branches such as executive and etc. except judicial, would have a whole control over Guantanamo Bay causing the judicial branch to have no position in reviewing the legal processes. The majority judges had stated
...places a person’s dignity and honor before life, while Mill places society’s happiness before all else. For Kant, capital punishment serves to preserve the dignity of an individual, while for Mill, capital punishment is used to protect society’s overall happiness. If it were up to you, which side would you take on capital punishment? Kant and Mill raise good questions and points in their perspective arguments, but there are too many contradictions for me to defend on either one of their points of views. I stand against capital punishment.
The most blatant abuse of Lincoln's power was his suspension of habeas corpus. The suspension of this constitutional guarantee, by which a person could not be imprisoned indefinitely without being charges with some specific crime, around much opposition throughout the country. Although Lincoln himself made no concentrated efforts to suppress political oppositions, the repeal of habeas corpus enabled overzealous civil and military authorities to imprison thousands of people who were vocal in their opposition to the war against the South. During the war, in the case Ex parte Merryman, Chief Justice Taney ordered Lincoln to grant a writ of habeas corpus to a Southern agitator who had been arbitrarily jailed by military authorities in Maryland. Lincoln ignored the order. After the war, in the case Ex parte Milligan, the Supreme Court ruled that president could not suspend habeas corpus without the consent of Congress.
The question in this case was whether or not the president had the power to order a trial by military for a group of German Nazi saboteurs, and whether or not that violated their fifth and sixth amendment rights. The agents attempted to sabotage various US targets, but failed. They were arrested and ordered by President Franklin Roosevelt to stand trial by military commission. They were all found guilty and sentenced to death. Seven of the eight agents filed a writ of habeas corpus directly to the Supreme Court, who decided to hear the
If accurate, this is a debilitating criticism of Kant’s moral theory as he had intended it. Mill’s critique instead classifies Kant’s moral theory as a type of rule utilitarianism. Any action under Kant’s theory is tested as a general rule for the public, and if the consequences are undesirable, then the general rule is rejected. “Undesirable consequences” are, according to the more precise language of Mill’s utilitarianism, consequences which are not a result of producing the greatest happiness. Mill’s analysis hinges on the lack of logical contradiction found in Kant’s theory. Without a concrete incongruity, Kant may be no more than a rule utilitarian. However, Mill is mistaken; the Categorical Imperative does produce absolute contradictions, as will be demonstrated through examples.
For instance, if there were a terrorist in the United States planning to blow up a government building, but you could not suspend the writ of habeas corpus, it would take too long to make a case out of it, and there could have been a preventable tragedy. It could be easier to just have probable cause to keep them from harming anyone, but it defies everything our country was built on. President Lincoln had said, during his presidency, “the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended unless when, in cases of rebellion or invasion, the country may require it” (Source B). However, if a corrupted, but influential president in the legislative branch, decides to “go to war”, he could get away with many arrests that he could not have before they had “went to war”. Justice O’Connor believes in the suspension of the writ, as long as they are “given a meaningful opportunity to contest the factual basis for that detention” (Source E), meaning that they must have at least probable cause. Yet there could be many loophole opportunities in this, which is why the ability to suspend the writ Habeas Corpus should be
The book raises the importance of, and questions, the writ of habeas corpus. Carter used a writ of habeas corpus to get a federal trial. Many question the legality of Carter going into federal jurisdiction, when his case should have been heard before the Supreme Court of New Jersey. It was a gamble, but the federal judge gave fair justice to Carter and Artis. The State of New Jersey appealed the case all the way to the United States Supreme Court, which upheld the District Court’s ruling.
Kant’s moral philosophy is very direct in its justification of human rights, especially the ideals of moral autonomy and equality as applied to rational human beings. John Stuart Mills’ theory of utilitarianism also forms a solid basis for human rights, especially his belief that utility is the supreme criterion for judging morality, with justice being subordinate to it. The paper looks at how the two philosophers qualify their teachings as the origins of human rights, and comes to the conclusion that the moral philosophy of Kant is better than that of Mills. Emmanuel Kant Kant’s moral philosophy is built around the formal principles of ethics rather than substantive human goods. He begins by outlining the principles of reasoning that can be equally expected of all rational persons, regardless of their individual desires or partial interests.
These rights, from a philosophical standpoint, have certain characteristics that distinguish them from any other. According to Richard Wasserstrom, author of the article, "Rights, Human Rights, and Racial Discrimination," human rights embody several characteristics. Primarily, and perhaps obviously, human rights are those that belong solely to humans (Wasserstrom 631). Moreover, Wasserstrom... ... middle of paper ... ...
John Stewart Mill has a much different ethical view that Kant. Mill is a Utilitarian, which in the book is described that, “It claims that the morality of an action is determined by how well it promotes ‘utility’, which is defined as the greatest good for the greatest number” (417). This ethical view measures the morality of an act by what the outcome is. If it promotes the greatest good for the greatest number it is moral. This is also referred to as the greatest happiness principle. Happiness being pleasure and the absence of pa...
What makes actions right? For some philosophers it is their consequences, like the pleasure or happiness that they produce. However for a deontologist like Immanuel Kant, rightness is the action itself and the obligation to perform it. His ethics is a theory of how a person should act, the actual action and morality of the action. It entails that as long as a person acts in a moral way then the consequences of the actions do not matter. “For Kant, doing the right thing is not a matter of one’s character or disposition or circumstance – all of which are or might be beyond one’s control. Instead, it is the matter of duty, acting out of respect for the moral law.” (Stangroom, J. & Garvey, J. 2005, p.79) Moral Laws are a system of guidelines for controlling human behaviour; like society laws. The Ten Commandments set by Moses are moral laws with the commands of a divine being, moral laws can be a set of universal rules that everyone should abide by. Kant argues that: “The moral law cannot be hypothetical in nature, cannot be of the form, ‘if you want such and such, do so...
On the contrary, Kantian ethics value every individual rather than the majority. This theory holds that every human has rights and an action is wrong if it violates them. Kant’s second version of the categorical imperative states “Act in such a way that you always treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any other, never simply as a means, but always at the same time as an end.” (O’Neill 400) This states that you can not use people in a way that they would not consent to. Kantian ethics also state that
A general definition of human rights are that they are rights and freedoms to which all humans are entitled to, simply because there human. It is the idea that ‘all human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.’ The thought that human rights are universal emerges from the philosophical view that human rights are linked to the conservation of human dignity- that respect for individual dignity is needed regardless of the circumstance, leading to the notion that human rights are universal. The earliest form of human rights can be traced back to European history- the French Declaration on the Rights of Man and of Citizen which says that men are born free and equal in rights.
…rights which are inherent to the human being ... human rights acknowledges that every single human being is entitled to enjoy his or her human rights without distinction as to race, [color], sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. [To add on, human] rights are legally guaranteed by human rights law, protecting individuals and groups against actions that interfere with fundamental freedoms and human dignity (Human rights for