Teaching Objectivism On The Courtroom

Philosophical thought provides the infrastructure that allows society to author moral laws. While morality may be the aim, other variables can cause these laws to become corrupt. The urge for power is one of many, recurring, variables that infect morality. During these times of ‘infection,’ society must contest those who oppose just laws. In order to shine a light on unjust laws, laws are bound to be broken. It is not only lawful to break unjust laws, but the duty of the people to speak up and be a voice for change. It is critical, during these times, to work towards equilibrium with the goal to change the law. Regardless of the circumstances, it is lawful to break unjust laws with the goal to make them just again.

One principal proclaimed by anti-paternalist writer J.S Mill, “is that the sole end for which mankind are warranted, individually or collectively, in interfering with the liberty of action of any of their number, is self-protection. The only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others.” In Mill’s proclamation, not one simple principle is being emphasized, but rather a few intricate opinions regarding an individual’s own good. He is asserting that self-protection or the prevention of harm to others is sometimes sufficient and that someone’s own good is never a sufficient authorization for the exercise of domination.

2008 1L Moot Court Tournament at the Liberty University School of Law, White V. Gibbs CA# -8776-CV285.

This preludes to his contents that one of the American citizens obligations is to follow their moral code and not follow the laws set by the dominant group. He also feels that the people should distant from the government in general when they become unjust. While offering a moral appeal to his audience, he as well provides a logical advance to support and justify his advocacy for civil

The courtroom work group consists of individuals who work together to successfully prosecute a case, such as criminal prosecutors, criminal defense attorneys, and probation officers. The courtroom work group, then, carries the case through the justice system to its logical conclusion dismissal, conviction, and failure to convict. Although the public is set to believe that the judge makes all the principal decisions in the court, he or she normally accepts bail recommendations from prosecutors, plea-bargains from defense attorneys, and sentence recommendations from probation officers. Defense attorneys, private or appointed, ensure that the defendant's rights are protected and they are to defend their client throughout all criminal proceedings.

The leading premise claimed by Singer is a simple thought that provides clear direction or suggestion of one’s moral implication: "if I am walking past a shallow pond and see a child drowning in it, I ought to wade in and pull the child out" (Taylor, 2009). We can assume that no matter one's ethical views, wading into the water is nothing in comparison to the death of a child. The impact of Singer's argument relies on a carefully worded, yet agreeable set of claims that has a range of reasonable objections. Singer emphasizes the use of common sense in making judgments about moral and ethical choices and does this by daring the reader to question their own views of morality.

Professional Courtroom work groups include the judges, prosecuting attorney , defense attorney and public defenders. The judge are elected or appointed public official who presides over a court of law. A prosecuting attorney is an attorney who is responsible for presenting the states against the defendant. The defense attorney represents the accused and ensure the defendant's civil rights. There are three types of defense attorneys private attorneys, court appointed counsels and public defenders.

Xander Barden and Katelyn Lippa are the defendant’s (O’Malley’s Tavern and Patrick Gibbs) representatives they are recommending the Court present an outline verdict to the bartender, John Daniels and O’Malley’s Tavern. There is definite

The second policy that is ‘takin care of our own’ proposes a preference that is grounded on emotional, social and geographical closeness. I earlier suggested that Singer’s opinions are reflexivity, tractability and approachability. He does so by attracting attention to matters and making claims such as "If, then, allowing someone to die is not intrinsically different from killing someone, it would seem that we are all murderers" (2011: 194). Despite his conclusion that failing to save a life is not the moral equivalent. The reader is provoked into reflecting on their own sense of morality, especially powerful against intuitive objections. On the other hand, his conclusions are backed by realistic assumptions of consequences, which exemplify

What is morally right? People throughout time have pondered this question and yet there is still no overall idea set in stone. The story “The ones who walk away from Omelas”, by Ursula K. Le Guin, deals with the morally grey subject of the needs of the many versus the needs of the few. The two philosophers who ideas will be used to help understand and reason with this subject are Kant and Mill. Immanuel Kant, the father of modern philosophy, argued for deontological ethics, in which mortality is based on duty and obligation. Conversely, John Stuart Mill, a famous 19th century philosopher, supported and revised the idea of Utilitarianism, a belief in which morality is based on which action yields the greatest quality and quantity of happiness. The story poses question like, “is allowing a child to suffer for the greater good morally right?”, and, “are people who walk away from this injustice morally right?”. Both of these philosophers would approach these questions from different angles and come to reflated conclusions. This paper will show that within the context of “The Ones Who Walk away from Omelas” , even though at first the choices being made would see cruel, Mill ideas are the ones that present itself to be more correct.

When Rearden declares: “The public good be damned, I will have no part of it!” he refuses the looters’ insistence of sacrificing his production and happiness for the sake of others. He is attacking Collectivist philosophy by accepting reality; one must produce for their own self- interest in order to pursue their own happiness. The Collectivist’s persistently try to deny reality and thereby break Aristotle’s law of existence: “A is A (1038)”. If one believes A is not A, logically they contend a person’s sole motive to live is not for himself, rather, to live for others. This premise of self-sacrifice prioritize faith, charity, and force above all else. His declaration condemns the entirety of this value system and coincides with the philosophy of Atlas Shrugged; Collectivism is evil because of its ability to drain the mind of its “volitional consciousness (1012)” and the assumption of rights based on need, as opposed to ability. The novel labels and exposes the methods Collectivists spread their evil: by debilitating the producers and general public. The producers, through their guilt and force; the public at large by draining their capacity to think. !

Although both of these cards-up perspectives — the libertarian and utilitarian — have initial plausibility, their difficulties prompt me to consider the second moral perspective that Green describes. This is the cards-down perspective and is identical with the veil of ignorance described by John Rawls, Ronald Green’s teacher. Both the tyranny of the minority and the tyranny of the majority can be avoided if people can choose a policy unanimously with the

In a specific adaptation of the debitor-creditor relation that was discussed earlier, we owe our ancestors a debt of gratitude for making our society prosperous, at least to the extent that we continue to exist. The more prosperous the society in which an individual find himself, the more debt he find himself owing. It is this situation man is forced to suppress his natural instincts, particularly his will to power, in order to be a social animal reaping the benefits of society. This ironically is done for the sake of survival. “I regard the bad conscience as the serious illness that man was bound to contract under the stress of the most fundamental change he ever experienced—that change which occurred when he found himself finally enclosed within the walls of society and of peace... in this new world

For my observation, I chose to observe a civil case that had to do with a divorce. I did some research on the cases, and chose one that was similar to an experience I went through. My parents are currently separated, and my father simply refused to pay child support. He lives outside of the state, so it was hard for my mother to have face to face confrontation with him. She got tired of raising three kids on her own, and finally decided to take him to court. I was required to serve as a witness. This took place in 2009, so I was thirteen years old and didn’t really understand much of what was going on. I timidly walked to the stand and was sworn in. I then answered the questions the attorney asked me.

Throughout life, individuals are often faced with a multitude of moral dilemmas which can be difficult to assess given the factors of the situation and consequences, based on what is right and wrong. In this paper I will be assessing the Trolley Problem in relation to Utilitarianism and Deontology and will conclude which theory is the best way to behave given the situation. In the first paragraph, I will begin by discussing the Trolley Problem followed by the next paragraph’s which will explaining how Utilitarianism and Deontology would approach the situation. Furthermore, I will be discussing which theory I believe is right in regards to the best way to behaving in society, given the possible outcomes of the problem. Since the moral issue of killing and letting die are close in hand, Deontology is the only explainable way to behave because this theory approaches all situations in regard to what is fair and acceptable for all, while Utilitarianism takes an approach that degrades humanity and differs from person to person.