Comparison Of John Finnis And AquinasNatural Law

These include freedom of opinion, thought, association and freedom from arbitrary detention and are all about treating others fairly and being fairly treated yourself, and making genuine choices in daily life. Wilson says ‘Respect for human rights underpins the democratic processes of our society and is the cornerstone of a society that respects individuals and voluntary community collaboration’ (Tim Wilson, 2014). Despite this, the control the Australian Government exercised over its people in WWII encroached on all of these universally recognized human rights, and it was in 1948 after the atrocity of WWII that the Universal Declaration of Human Rights was internationalised.

After looking at other example of Bills of Rights around the world, with America having theirs for 224 years, Canada having implemented theirs for 30 years and the UK for 17 years, Australia needs to consider each nation’s Bill of Rights’ respective strengths and weaknesses when considering our own Bill of Rights in order for it to best suit the current and future society. Canada adopts something of the middle ground between the strongly entrenched rights in the United State’s constitution and the United Kingdom where the British parliament remains supreme with a weak level of right entrenchment, making it perfect for the situation in Australia.

Good afternoon, my name is Stephanie Jones and I am a currently a human rights lawyer. Human rights are the basic freedoms and protections that everyone is entitled to purely for simply just being a human being. Today I would like to use this opportunity to discuss with you the greatly debated issue of an Australian Bill of Rights. Australia currently does not have a Bill of Rights, but is the current legal system coping without one? The answer to that question in my opinion is no. Australia currently is not adequately protecting individual human rights without having a Bill of Rights. While many people would argue that yes, Australia protects individual rights well enough as it is, just as many people passionately argue that Australia does indeed need a Bill of Rights for a variety of reasons which will be talked about in greater depth later on. In my talk with you today, I would like to discuss with you all what exactly a Bill of Rights is and what it aims to achieve, how a Bill of Rights has worked in other countries and some of the more popular arguments for and against having one.

In this essay I will examine the development of Australian society and subsequent rights given to Australian citizens, thus addressing the guiding question as quoted at the top of the paper.

Despite the international prominence of human rights laws, Australia remains the only Western democracy without either a constitutionally entrenched or legislative bill of rights. Human rights can be defined as inalienable rights and fundamental freedoms that all individuals are inherently entitled to. Although human rights are protected to an extent through domestic legislation, the common law, the doctrine of the separation of powers, the rule of law, the Australian

The case of Ruddock v Vadarlis is fundamental when it comes to understanding the rights of an individual or human rights more broadly and how they are protected by public law in Australia, however this is an extremely complex issue, and this case outlined many of the protections that ensure human rights but also was one of the defining moments for human rights and public policy in the contemporary era, this cases influence stretches far, but this essay will explain how this case enshrined how Australian public law protects people’s rights. This essay will focus on the individual rights of Australians, this in itself generates a great deal of discussion and viewpoints, different ideas on exactly what rights were protected, and which rights

The foundations of law have been set in the ideas of natural laws that are given to us. There are many different theories on how our laws of nature have brought us to develop the social contracts and government of today’s society. John Locke and Saint Thomas Aquinas’s views of how social contracts are developed from natural and eternal laws are both well seated in the belief of God given rights, but differ in the politics of the governments.

These rights are said to be inscribed in the hearts of all men (Seagrave 2011). Natural law is God’s law that every man can know.

Human rights are the right that any individual is entitled under their government, and it can be provided in divergent forms. Thus in Australia, there are no set of ‘Bill of Rights’, comparable to many other western countries that share similar legal values and standards. The American ‘Bill of Rights’ states that the government ensures the freedom of speech and religion, protection from torture and punishment, and the fair procedures of law . There has always been a great debate on whether Australian government should acquire a constitutional Bill of Rights. I believe that it is not necessary to obtain a Bill of Rights as it is not necessary for Australian legal system, and further, it can bring confusion, greater debate and litigations. There are other forms of human rights law introduced into Australian legal system which sets boundaries for the government to respect individual rights. Consequently, it proves the unnecessity for a Bill of Rights in Australia.

THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN NATURAL LAW AND LEGAL POSITIVISM This essay is going to discuss and analyse the differences between two basic principles- natural law and legal positivism. According to Hume, there are two realms of human enquiry , one in the field of facts which is concerned with what ‘ is ‘ actually the case and the other in the field of ‘ought’ that is, what ought to be the case1. Those who believe in the principle of natural law are known as naturalists while those who believe in the principle of legal positivism or ‘positive law’ are known as positivists. This is a brief overview of the two principles of

Throughout the course of this essay, I will first define what Aquinas means by incorporating the claim that “an unjust law is no law at all”. This will include defining important terms that will correspond with evaluating Aquinas’ claim.

Are we naturally moral creatures? Do we always act towards the common good of others? I am positive that we do not, and in fact, as much as society wants to, we go against our morals and lead with our ‘feelings’. These feelings may feel right, but it doesn’t mean they will lead you in the right path to fulfil your ultimate end, true happiness. Hitler was a passionate man driven by feelings, but what he felt and did during the World War Two era was not for the sake of the common good, and was not morally right. In today’s society we often struggle between what is legally right and what is

John Finnis, an Australian legal philosopher has tried to resurrect the natural law tradition in moral philosophy and law since the mid-1960s. He tries to offer a "neo-Aquinian" natural law philosophy which does not presuppose a divine being. By focusing attention on goods rather than a single Good, Finnis skilfully articulates what he calls a theory of moral action for our day. Or, in other words, he seeks a theory of how to live well. Finnis identifies a number of equally valuable basic goods or ends, given human nature, there are seven. Three are substantive, existing prior to action and four are reflexive which is depending on our choices.

The doctrine of human rights were created to protect every single human regardless of race, gender, sex, nationality, sexual orientation and other differences. It is based on human dignity and the belief that no one has the right to take this away from another human being. The doctrine states that every ‘man’ has inalienable rights of equality, but is this true? Are human rights universal? Whether human rights are universal has been debated for decades. There have been individuals and even countries that oppose the idea that human rights are for everybody. This argument shall be investigated in this essay, by: exploring definitions and history on human rights, debating on whether it is universal while providing examples and background

Law, in different aspects, has been governing civilizations for millennia. From divine law to the black letter law presented in our current legal system, obedience to a form of law has always been a contentious issue. Referencing Sophocles Antigone, the exercising of executive discretion from from a natural law theorist perspective shall be discussed. Antigone primarily presents an unfettered executive discretion possessed by Creon, presented by Antigone stating ‘since apparently the laws of the god mean nothing to you’. However, natural law as a deity is undoubtedly manifests itself in the conclusion of the tragedy, with Creon declaring ‘The laws of the gods are mighty, and a man must serve them. To the last day of his life!’. Is this detrition of Creon’s apparent executive discretion a representation of the consequences of repudiating Finnis’ seven forms of basic goods, and nine methodological requirements of practical reasonableness? Finnis’ himself stated himself the universality of those basic value judgments that are manifested not only in various moral requirements and restrictions but also in the many forms of human culture, institutions, and initiative. Furthermore, it may be apparent the themes apparent in Antigone, presented through Finnis’ theoretical approach to natural law, existent in the present Australian executive discretion. By the use of Sophocles ‘Antigone’, Finnis’ ‘Natural Law and Natural Rights’ and further natural law theorists,