St. Augustine and Aquinas reasoned that the just city would also be a moral city. The city would assist in the physical and spiritual salvation of men. Their ideas of a just city would necessarily require moral laws. Laws required punishment when broken. Their ideas of a just regime could easily bring about a religious tyranny. However, reasonable people recognize that modern tyrannies, which may use religious concepts for their basis of a just regime or a purely immoral, evil regime, which is only interested in power or wealth, are about coercion and oppression. St. Augustine recognized that because of the Fall of man freedom was lost and “coercion is apparent in the most typical institutions of civil society” and can be explained …show more content…
Both recognize the importance of reason in everyday life and in religion.
Augustine understood the dual citizenship of Christian in everyday life (Strauss and Cropsey 1987, 196). Christianity seeks to save the individual from transgression. Justice is a divine concept that, when applied in the temporal sphere, will guide man in forming a just city.
Justice is the “maintenance or administration of what is just by the impartial adjustment of conflicting claims or the assignment of merited rewards or punishments.” It is also “the administration of law” (Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary 2011). The Fall of man is the transgression of the law, in which a punishment was affixed. Therefore, man needs Jesus Christ-someone who, not having violated the law and having the ability to pay the punishment on behalf of the transgressor-to fulfill the demands of justice. The difference between God’s justice and man’s is that of mercy. The All-knowing God, who created the natural man, understood that man would transgress the law and needed mercy. How this applies to the temporal sphere is in the understanding of what justice is. Whereas, God can punish or reward man because of his internal acts, man cannot. “The temporal law only prescribes and forbids external acts. It does not extend to the hidden motives of these acts, and it is even less concerned with purely internal acts” (Strauss and Cropsey 1987, 186). Divine justice is the punishment or
“The Verdict” is a movie that deals with medical and legal ethics. Frank Gavin is an alcoholic who hasn’t won any of his cases in the past three years. Mickey, his former partner, gives him a medical malpractice case that is sure to settle for a large amount of money. The case of Deborah Ann Kay, a mother who was given anesthetic when she had just eaten inhaled her vomit and is now in a coma. The Donaheys, her sister and brother in law are hoping for a good settlement and Frank assures them that they have a strong case. While the case is going on he meets Laura, a woman at a bar who he falls in love with. Frank goes to visit Deborah Ann Kay in the hospital and is affected by her condition. He meets with the defendants who run the
One of the all-time greatest Christian theologians, Augustine of Hippo proclaimed that a Christian could be both a soldier and a man of God, being devoted to his country and to a higher power in equal rights. He justified this notion by referring to the book of Romans in the Christian Bible, which states that God himself has given power to the government, and those who follow that government in turn follow God. He believed that Christians, though being taught to shun violence, should not be ashamed to use any means necessary to serve their country, protect their peace, and punish those who do evil against them. However, Augustine knew that some governmental disputes would be immoral, to which he said his people, "by divine edict, have no choice but to subject themselves to their political masters and [should] seek to ensure that they execute their war-fighting duty as justly as possible
In Augustine’s On Free Choice of the Will he explains that the human soul is predisposed to have a good will and that “it is a will by which we desire to live upright and honorable lives and to attain the highest wisdom” (Augustine 19, 1993). Augustine believes that in order to be free we must live according to our good will. To follow our good will we must live according to the four main virtues in life: prudence, fortitude, temperance, and justice. He defines prudence as having “the knowledge of what is to be desired and what is to be avoided” (Augustine 20, 1993). Augustine establishes fortitude as “the disposition of the soul by which we have no fear of misfortune or of the loss of things that are not in our power” (Augustine 20,1993).
"One has not only a legal but a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws." Martin Luther King's words, which just correspond with the above assertion, perfectly tell us what to do in face of laws, either just or unjust.
The term justice is used in some of America's most treasured and valued documents, from the Pledge of Allegiance, to the Constitution, and the Declaration of Independence. Everyone wants to be treated justly whether it's in the courtroom or the local bar. Most people would feel confident giving a definition for justice, but would it be a definition we could universally agree to? Given that justice is a very common term, and something we all want, it's important to have a precise definition. For hundreds of years philosophers have argued, debated, and fought over this topic. Justice can clearly be defined as the intention to conform to truth and fairness. This is true justice.
At this point in his life, Augustine is recognized for doing many things for the Church as a priest, author, and defender of faith. As an author he wrote Confessions, his spiritual autobiography, and City of God, his great work describing the Christian philosophy throughout history. In this magnificent work,
Throughout the United States there are many different laws among the fifty states that make up this union. The laws are different throughout the states because of the need of the laws. Living in one state and not having the advantages or disadvantages of a law in another state would not be that unfair or unequal. This is true because if you don’t like a law in your state you could always fight it and try to change it or you could always move out of that state and go to one that has the laws that you like.
When it comes to large sums of money, it is not uncommon for the spender to feel they have been ripped off or become over protected. The practice of law is no exception to this phenomenon, and crocked lawyers and paralegals have negatively contributed to the notion. On several occasions law professionals have taken client money for personal use, acting against the law and rules of professional conduct. Although lawyers and paralegals have their own individual rules and guidelines to abide by, they follow the same professional structure of proper conduct. The rules of conduct for paralegals is governed by the Law Society of Upper Canada and is the governing body responsible for reports of misconduct. Further investigations will lay out the proper procedures and tasks that must be completed when a paralegal encounters an accusations of misconduct, specifically when a client accuses a paralegal of misappropriating money from the clients trust fund. When it comes to possible options it is important to remember that by proactively sending a report of the circumstance to the Law Society of Upper Canada with a detailed list of events, bookkeeping and accounts billed to the client will help your case prior to the client reporting you to the Law Society. Should a paralegal choose to ignore the threat of the client, in hopes that the client will not follow through with higher involvement, the paralegal will then face an audit by the Law Society. If the Law Society is apprised that the
Communitarian critics of Rawls have argued that his A Theory of Justice provides an inadequate account of individuals in the original position. Michael Sandel, in Liberalism and the Limits of Justice argues that Rawls' conception of the person divorces any constitutive attachments that persons might have to their ends. Hence, Sandel asserts that Rawls privileges the standpoint of self-interested individuals at the expense of communal interests. I do not find Sandel's specific criticisms to be an accurate critique of what Rawls is doing in A Theory of Justice. However, this does not mean the more general thrust of the communitarian analysis of Rawls' conception of the person must be abandoned. By picking up the pieces
Rule of law in simplest terms means law rules, that is, law is supreme. The term “Rule of law‟ is derived from the French phrase “la principle de legalite” (the principle of legality) which means a government on principle of law and not of men. Rule of Law is a viable and dynamic concept and, like many other concepts, is not capable of any exact definition. It is used in contradistinction to rule of man. Sir Edward Coke, the Chief Justice in King James I‟s reign is said to be the originator of this principle. However, concrete shape was given to it by Professor A.V. Dicey, for the first time in his book “Law of the Constitution” (1885) in the form of three principles.
The rule of law is a difficult concept to grasp and proves elusive to substantive definition. However, the following work considers the attempts of various social and legal theorists to define the concept and pertinent authorities are considered. Attitudes and emphasis as to the exact shape, form and content of the rule of law differ quite widely depending on the socio-political perspective and views of respective commentators (Slapper and Kelly, 2009, p16), although there are common themes that are almost universally adopted. The conclusions to this work endeavour to consolidate thinking on the rule of law in order to address the question posed in the title, which is at first sight a deceptively simple one.
Everyday we are tested as individuals to make the right choice. How we view ourselves as individuals and how others view us are directly correlated to our moral decision-making. But morals are somewhat misleading. What might be a wrong decision for one person might be a solution to another. So how do we define morals? Do we follow Gods’ moral rules because to do so would increase out likelihood of obtaining salvation in the afterlife? Or is it simpler than that. Is God going to deny our entrance into heaven because we have run a stop sign here and there? No. I believe our moral values are much simpler than that. I believe that our moral decision-making comes from our upbringing of what is right or wrong. Our parents and
I can imagine a perfect world. A world where morality is of upmost importance in our dealings with each other, where morals are critically examined, and debated with reason as well as passion. This world would be a pinnacle of human achievement. A pinnacle that we are nowhere near. Why is this? Well, in today's society, morals are often associated with obeying the law, and since laws are legislated by politicians, they are subject to politics. Laws are not right in and of themselves, and morals are not a matter of a majority's opinion. Some matters that are in the domain of charity are done through politics, often citing morality as a reason. Where exactly does charity fit in with morals? With politics? In this paper I will explore the
Augustine does argue this by stating that you can’t rule over something or someone that is equal to yourself because to truly rule means to have the ultimate superiority over you which is no other but the truth, who is God. The laws we should follow are the eternal laws that were set forth by our God. We as adults know what the eternal laws are from the upbringing from childhood and the desires and beliefs we’ve become accustomed to. The laws and the morals that we believe are the results of other people’s opinions. As teachers or higher officials in government, we take what they say as the solid truth and the way things have to be,
The legal Power is qualified for all natives Cases, in Law and Value, emerging under this Constitution, the Laws of the Unified States, and Arrangements made, or which should be made, under their Power; to all Cases influencing Represetatives, other open Pastors and Representatives; to all Instances of chief of naval operations' office and oceanic Purview; to Debates to which the Assembled States might be a Gathering; to Discussions between at least two States; between a State and Residents of another State; between Nationals of various States; between Nationals of a similar State guaranteeing Terrains under Gifts of various States, and between a State, or the Subjects thereof, and outside States, Natives or Subjects."The locale of the