Custom Law Essay Examples
-
"In a just state, [the moral obligation to obey the law] is a mere shadow of other moral duties. It adds nothing to them. Since the [moral] obligation to obey exists only in a just state, it is at best redundant." (Joseph Raz) Explain the apparent paradox highlighted by Raz, and consider its possible solution
Raz claims that the view that there is no obligation to obey the law in a country with a good and just legal system has the "air of paradox, " since in short, the more just the laws the stronger the logically prior moral motivations of subjects of the system will be to conform to them, the stronger and more wholly independent of any general obligation to obey the law due to its status as law these motivations for conformity, not obedience, will be. That essentially in Raz's terms, whilst all legal systems must make a claim to legitimate authority, whether in fact they do in any given context represent a legitimate authority and thus entail an obligation to obey the law because it is law as enacted by such an authority depends on whether the normal justification thesis has in fact been satisfied, and thus cannot rest on any general moral obligation. The key then to the solution Raz presents to the apparent paradox is acceptance of the notion that any given rule's status as law makes no practical difference to a subject's decision to respect it. In order to decide both if the paradox as drawn by Raz and indeed his offered solution […]
Custom Essay Example 1
Adobe Acrobat Document (117KB .pdf)
-
What are legal principles? Can the legal positivist account for their status in law?
Professor Dworkin firstly describes legal principles in terms of a definite distinction between them and legal rule cast in the following terms, "rules are applicable in an all or nothing fashion, principles state a reason that argues in one direction, but does not necessitate a particular decision, they have a dimension of weight." As a result of such a definition, Dworkin claims secondly that positivists are unable to account for legal principles since they cannot be encompassed by a social fact-based master test for legal rules at the apex of a positivist account of a legal system. In rejecting the adequacy of the positivist means of identifying all binding legal norms, thirdly Dworkin offers his own account of the means by which principles may be understood as legally binding norms. Specifically, that a principle is a principle of law if it figures in a theory of law that best fits with the legal materials and intrinsic moral soundness of the legal system it seeks to justify, necessarily precluding any scope for indeterminacy and judicial discretion. Indeed, as a result of such an explanation, such a justification, of the status of principles in law, Dworkin claims fourthly that, "what is in general a good reason for a decision by a court of law is in every respect simply another way of asking what is law." By addressing first the question of "what are legal principles?" I will seek to refute Dworkin's first definitional claim. Further, via an analysis of the means by which the traditional positivist theory […]
Custom Essay Example 2
Adobe Acrobat Document(104KB .pdf)
- More Information
