Essay about Pluralism and the Universality of Rights

Jurisprudence explores what would be the simplest manifestation of law so as to create a civil society society where both individual liberty and normative goals are practiced. Should the the aim of law be primarily centered on the protection of individual liberty or, instead, the normative goals geared toward the benefit of of civil society? The laws in any society ought to not be centered on normative goals it ought to conjointly defend individual liberty.

In August 2015, the case Miller V Davis brought to light the complicated relationship between law and morality. Indeed, Mrs Davis a county clerk in Rowan county (Kentucky), is being sued for not delivering marriage licences to same sex couples as she believes that homosexuality is morally wrong. Thus, despite the fact that same-sex marriage has been made legal by the U.S Supreme Court since June 2015. Ought individuals to apply the law though it is in inadequacy with their moral beliefs? Do the law should be totally free from any moral influence? Many legal scholars have argued on these questions, as well as trying to define the terms “law” and “morality”. While no one has agreed to a universal definition, law can be defined as a “body of rules, whether proceeding from formal enactment or from custom, which a particular state or community recognizes as binding on its members or subjects”. On the other hand, morality is referred to as an “ethical wisdom” , the set of common values unifying a society. This essay will discuss the role of morality in the law, while analysing different legal school of thoughts arguing on the topic. First of all, positivists such as Bentham, Austin and Hart, argued that morality should not interfere with the law as it is created by a legitimate authority. On the other hand, naturalist theorists, such as Aristotle, Fuller and Dworkin, believed in the existence of a “higher law”, highly influenced by morals, has to be integrated in a legal system

I intend to discuss these issues while also discussing why it is important for these issues to be highlighted in this document. Firstly, the issues of personal rights are acknowledged at the beginning of the document. “Men are born and remain free and equal in rights. Social distinctions may be founded only upon the general good” . At this time, to be equal meant the end of legal differences.

The shared passion of visionaries, thinkers, and writers profoundly influence society in the modern world and hold in their hands the ability to craft a better future. They inspire new ,, and sometimes even revolution. Two documents of the 18th century, The Declaration of Independence and the Declaration of Rights of man established and angle for which we view human rights, liberties, and human freedoms. While the underlying motivations of the declarations each have a distinct purpose, the intent to establish universal human rights parallel and often mimic one another in language and meaning. Both documents however have interesting contradictions and inconsistences with regards to whom the liberties should apply, from whom the authority is derived and the motivations behind the drafting of each respective declaration.

THE DECLARATION OF THE RIGHTS OF MEN AND OF CITIZENS - AN ANALYSIS IN FIVE PARTS

In a world in which people have fundamental disagreements regarding the substance and purpose of human existence and what constitute ‘the good life’, it is a question how should human rights be installed within a nation’s legal system. This essay argues that because we cannot ascertain without doubt what human’s nature is, and in order to prevent atrocities as those in the Second World War: all humans should enjoy, as members of the human species, fundamental rights to secure their existence. Hence, within a nation’s legal system, those are known to be civil rights. Further, political rights should be ensured firstly to the citizens of that nation, but, due to the rapid globalization and the growing fluidity of boarders (for example in Europe)

He believed that in order to understand law, one must first realize what law’s purpose is. He, like Thomas, argued that law’s purpose it to benefit society by creating a morally sound order to human action and conduct. He detailed seven goods that he believed to be intrinsic and universal, and argued that laws should be enforced under the stipulation that they adhere to the enhancement of these goods, because they are what determines a fulfilling life. They are: life, knowledge, play, aesthetic experience, sociability, practical reasonableness, and religion. The goods that relate to the thesis of this paper the most are knowledge and sociability, as the result of the case has a direct benefit on them and is, therefore, moral and legitimate. Legal positivists, however, disagree that morality has any place in determining what legitimate law is.

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

The aim of this essay is to explore whether freedom and equality is founded on natural moral principle or whether it is to an extent an artificial creation created by the political institution. To an extent, I do agree that freedom and equality are based on natural moral principles because during the state of nature human beings are able to enjoy freedom and equality as these seem are the rights that humans are borned along with. Therefore, it is sufficient to say that they exist in respect of the nature and with the intention from the God. This idea is further supported by many different philosophers such as John Locke and Thomas Aquinas. However, to a certain extent, I believe that political intitution such as law is an artificial tool to help restore freedom and equality in a society so that people can still enjoy these rights. Through the theory of social contract, it clearly shows that law plays an important role in enforcing the instead of the artificial creator of these rights.

This article discusses the conceptions of legal normativity, both moral and “strictly legal” conceptions. According to Spaak, regarding the normative force of legal justification, legal positivists can still embrace the moral idea and not be in conflict with their generally held belief in the “strictly legal” concept of law. In Torben Spaak’s opinion, there is a reason to desire legal positivism; he explains this through introducing the concept of jurisprudence. When discussing the nature of law, Spaak states, “that while the moral conception is what is likely favored on a smaller scale, the strictly legal conception is more appealing because it is broader,” (478). Spaak is arguing, his belief that “validity-based explanations come nearer to the truth,”(483) rather than belief-based explanations. He concludes that we are to prefer legal positivism over natural law theory. “That is why in this article I have been concerned with the law itself rather than our views about it.”(483)

The origen and the content of human rights, as they are presented by the Declaration of 1948, belong to a concrete cultural and political tradition, that is, the Western,liberal, individualistic and democratic tradition. But such

In this paper, I will propose that it is better to look at whether a law is legally valid or not through the perspective of natural law theory as opposed to positivist theory. My argument consists mostly of the language of “improvement” which can only exist based on the theory of natural law which states that law is something which has an objective truth behind it. Only when there is an objective mark to hit can there be hits and misses and I believe that positivism disregards the possibility of hits and misses entirely. So, my argument is that it makes more sense to consider legal validity of a law from the perspective of natural law rather than positive law because it includes not only the previously set up legal system when considering validity, but it also considers the general idea of some kind of morality as well. A sub argument is that the starting legal system must have had some basis by which to have been created and accepted which must be some form or notion of morality.

His restatement of classical natural law and his own new theory of natural law not only remove doubts, raised and insinuations spread by positivists about natural law in a forceful and convincing manner but also challenge the so called objectivity in positivism and exposes its inadequacies in capturing all aspects of law. He neither rejects nor asks for the abolition of existing schools of jurisprudence but instead seeks to correct the historical imbalance that existed in conventional jurisprudence from the middle of the 19th century to the later part of the 20th century. According to Finnis taken together his nine ‘basic requirements of practical reasonableness’, and seven ‘basic goods’ constitute the universal and immutable ‘principles natural law’. Together, they are clear enough to prevent most forms of injustice. It is these basic goods and methodological requirements that give rise to several exceptions-less obligations with correlative exception-less natural (human) rights. For Finnis justice means common good. In his conception of justice both distributive and corrective justice are to be seen as two aspects of the same thing i.e. fostering of common good in a society. This in effect requires the participation of all individuals in the basic goods/basic values according to a coherent life plan and in conformity with other

The chapter on Fundamental Rights is sacrosanct and not liable to be abridged by any legislature or executive act or order except to the extent provided in the appropriate article in the part IV. The Directive Principles of state policy have to conform and run as subsidiary to the chapter on the Fundamental Rights”