Leg Philo Exam | Law Reference | Morality

Please download to get full document.

View again

of 3
All materials on our website are shared by users. If you have any questions about copyright issues, please report us to resolve them. We are always happy to assist you.
Information Report



Views: 31 | Pages: 3

Extension: DOCX | Download: 0

  1)A.In Hans Kelsen’s Pure Theory of Law, Normativity is consiere !ction  That which relates heavily on ieals an on what man thin#s is $oo,normal, an the correct way of oin$ actions %ase heavily on whatsociety eems !t. It is !ction %ecause it is $roune on a$e %eliefs ano not totally a$ree with the &resent times an the &resent &ers&ective of a moern man. 'ou&le this with (ean oscoe Poun’s notion that law is%ase on *ocial +n$ineerin$ That there is a ierence %etween law in%oo#s an law in action that one is %oune on inter&retation an theother on realism. Accorin$ to Poun, there are social rules or conventionswhich etermine certain facts or events that &rovie for the moi!cation,annulment, or even revision of le$al stanars. That is, what a &ersonreas in %oo#s shoul not %e ta#en literally an inter&retation relatin$ to&resent times is imminent. -urthermore, the acts of man shoul %e ta#enfrom a more moern &ers&ective an inter&rete to a law which irectlyrelates to such acts. In the %er$efell vs. Ho$es case, the /nite *tates*u&reme 'ourt e0&oune on the fact that we may not see the truee0tent of inustice in our own times %ut it will %e %oun to furtherinter&retation an clari!cation in the future. 2hat is &rohi%ite anshunne in the &ast may now %e freely acce&te or &ractice an even %eintrouce to moern norms.As such, Normativity of Law is the nature of a Law which ur$e men too what they ou$ht to o is ri$ht %ut at the same time is %oune %yLaws acce&te in the &resent time. 3ohn -innis’ ta#e on Natural Lawrelates to this as Laws e0ten morality an norms to the realm of Le$ality. That there is somethin$ to %e sai a%out human $oo when tal#in$ a%outnorms where Laws are %ase. Normativity may %e aa&te from history%ut history alone cannot ma#e Laws relevant thus there e0ists the %asisof morality. 4elievin$ that Laws are normative, &eo&le ten to thin# asnaturalists with the %elief that Laws are irectly relate to morality anfollowin$ the Law means followin$ the moral stanars set %y natural law.Peo&le ten to %ecome 5natural lawyers6 where they %elieve that any Lawcannot %ecome le$ally vali unless it &asses a certain threshol of morality while also maintainin$ that morality an merits on sociallyacce&te norms forms a &art of a test where a Law shoul %e consiereas vali or not.4. In the case of Im%on$ vs. choa the *u&reme 'ourt ecie that thee&rouctive Health Law %e im&lemente in full unerminin$ the a$e ol$enerally acce&te norm in the Phili&&ines of reli$ious ori$in that arti!cial%irth control is a$ainst the will of 7o. 2ith the &assin$ of the es&onsi%leParenthoo an e&rouctive Health Act %ac# in 8918, a Law has thus%een e0tenin$ from its &ast normativity with the *u&reme 'ourtac#nowle$in$ the %uren of mothers who cannot anymore $ivesustenance to their chilren or to the other &ro%lems that may %e cure%y &ro&er family &lannin$ an arti!cial %irth control. Inee,over&o&ulation an &overty has o&ene our oors to further acce&t normsthat are alien to us %efore.  In the case of +straa vs. +scritor, the *u&reme court $ave istinctionto &u%lic an secular morality an reli$ious morality. The *u&reme 'ourtstate that it only has urisiction over &u%lic an secular morality an ayinterference to reli$ious morality may unermine the -ree +0ercise'lause. This fact alone su$$ests that the 'ourt is willin$ to unermine$enerally acce&te norms %y not usin$ reli$ious im&ortance %ut, instea,realistically e0&ouns on some freeoms that may %e consiere as lon$as it oes not &romote &u%lic inecency i$norin$, however, that the&ractice may %e inecent to the &ers&ective of 'atholics. The *u&reme'ourt remane the case to %e further e0amine if the reli$ious sinceritytherein is $enuine as such a factor is consiere im&ortant an not thefact that it may %e oensive to some other reli$ion.In the case of %er$efell vs. Ho$es, the /nite *tates *u&reme 'ourtrule in favor of same:se0 marria$e $ivin$ a ivisive o&inion amon$ theinternational community. 2hile others critici;e the u$ement asimmoral, others saw the same as a revolution from the &ast norm. In thePhili&&ines, the rece&tion of the $eneral &u%lic is overwhelmin$ly &ositivean may o&en the country to a%olish the norm of marria$e e0clusivity tothat of only a man or a woman. The &ositive rece&tion alone is aninication of the reainess of -ili&inos alone to ao&t the newlyesta%lishe law of the /nite *tates.8) The current aministration’s ta#e on su&&ressin$ further criminality inthe country is ivisive at %est. (ierent o&inions emer$e if Presientori$o (uterte’s ways are inee lawful or much less constitutional.'learly, there is no e&rivation of life from the &ers&ective of law as all&rotocols are followe in the way these ru$ &ushers or other criminalsare %ein$ ta#en own. 2hat is im&ortant here is the reco$nition of 3u$eliver 2enell Holmes’ conce&t of a 5%a man6. That followin$ the lawoes not ma#e one $oo. A 5%a man6 may e0&loit the law to achieve hisen notwithstanin$ the inustice that it may o unto others. The 5%aman6 will o no $oo even if he follows the Law as his thin#in$ is elve inhow to avoi the harsh conse<uences of the Law whilst still oin$ unlawfulacts. ur Presient is a Lawyer an it is not unusual for Lawyer to ao&tthe <ualities of a 5%a man6 to salva$e his client from the &rosecution. Assuch, as a Lawyer, (uterte #nows of the Law’s a%horrence to +0trauicialKillin$s. There is an o&inion that these #illin$s are %ein$ one yet it is notso. The harsh su&&ression of these criminals s&rea aroun the countryare one usin$ &ro&er &rotocols. Never min the fact that it may %esimulate as any #in of alle$ation woul %e hearsay until &roven %yevience. 2hich is why there is e0&loitation of the Law %ein$ one.Accorin$ to -innis, the increasin$ inierence %etween Law an =oralshave le the way to easy mani&ulation of the Law in favor of oin$immoral acts such as a%ortion an euthanasia. Laws may cause harm %utthis oes not mean that the &erson who utili;e the same will %e&unishe. As lon$ as a &erson may follow an utili;e these Laws as a 5%aman6 he may use it to $ain his en. ur Presient has a $oo cause to %e  a 5%a man6 an he is utili;in$ !re to !$ht !re. -or him this is the moste>cient way to ri this country’s everlon$ &ro%lem on criminalityes&ecially the multi:%illion earnin$ %usiness that is ille$al ru$ trae.?) In the case of +straa vs. +scritor the *u&reme 'ourt state theim&ortance of eli$ious -reeom as es&ouse %y the ri$hts enumerate inArticle ? of the 1@B 'onstitution a&tly name The 4ill of i$hts. ne of the ri$hts is the -reeom of eli$ion which is enumerate into two sets of %eliefs -reeom to %elieve which is an a%solute ri$ht an -reeom to acton one’s %elief which is a limite ri$ht. This fact alone $ives &eo&le#nowle$e that the Law reco$ni;es merely %elief that is on the min aninterferes only when such %elief is acte u&on an enan$er society. A&erson may %elieve in *atanism %ut he cannot &ractice human sacri!ceuner the scrutiny of our laws. As a 'atholic, my o&inion relates to howthe Law treats of the various reli$ion in the country. I see reli$ion as someform of thou$ht insti$atin$ various &eo&le to o what they thin# is ri$ht.However, this thou$ht an insti$ation is limite e&enin$ on how my will&ower to act on my %elief can ta#e. Carious outsie factors may stillinDuence me to o the wron$ thin$. 7oin$ %ac# to the issue of %eliefs, I oa$ree with the fact that reli$ion still has a $reat inDuence on the acts of man. +s&ecially in &romotin$ $oo will an &roviin$ %ene!t for the socialorer. 2ithout reli$ion, there woul nothin$ to su&&ress animalisticesires. 2ith reli$ion %e$ets stron$er conscience an a $reater &ush to othe ri$ht thin$ %ecause we %elieve that %y oin$ the ri$ht thin$ we will%ene!t from the same as we %elieve that $oo thin$s come to a $oo*amaritan. Hence, I %elieve that reli$ion ais in inDuencin$ us to ohuman conuct that will %ene!t to society %ut only to an e0tent. 2e canstill %e inDuence %y several factors from several circumstances. 2ecannot %e rule %y reli$ion alone that is why there is our constitute Lawthat se&arates itself from morality an natural law. This Law #ee&s us inchec# no matter how much reli$ion has an inDuence insie all of us.
We Need Your Support
Thank you for visiting our website and your interest in our free products and services. We are nonprofit website to share and download documents. To the running of this website, we need your help to support us.

Thanks to everyone for your continued support.

No, Thanks

We need your sign to support Project to invent "SMART AND CONTROLLABLE REFLECTIVE BALLOONS" to cover the Sun and Save Our Earth.

More details...

Sign Now!

We are very appreciated for your Prompt Action!