The Limits Of A Pragmatic Justification Of Praise And Blame

A substantial debate over the law’s relationship with morality exists within the legal system. This debate gained new perspective when Oliver Wendell Holmes published The Path of Law in 1897, which outlined his view on the relationship between the law and morality. This paper will first consider whether or not Holmes believed that a writing must be moral in order to constitute a law. Next, we will explore my general agreement with Holmes’ view on this matter. Then, the paper will consider an objection to my agreement with Holmes, and then reply to that objection. Finally, we will end by analyzing the discussion of the relationship between morality and law. In this paper, I will argue that Holmes does not believe that a writing must be

From time to time there arises a school of legal thought which undermines the errors of the past and establish truth. In the 21st centaury, this movement has been ongoing under the name of American Legal Realism. Legal realism, is a school of legal thought that is opposed to the dominant mechanical conception of adjudication and conventional view. The realists insist that on considering how courts really decide cases, it can be revealed that the decisions are not primarily based on law, but on the judge’s sense of what is “fair”. Least to say, those who agree with this theory claim that the judge himself is who creates the law. This paper will discuss theories of American legal realism discussed by theorists: Oliver Wendell Holmes and Jerome Frank. Secondly, the paper will focus on a few significant objections that one might have against the theory. To conclude, a strong opinion disagreeing with the objections against legal realism is depicted.

The imperfection of human nature has no limit as to who it affects, and anyone can be affected as a result of one’s unkempt emotions. One’s actions may be driven

Sartorius contends that Hart surely is aware of the inadequacy of defining law and morals in formal terms. The two minimum conditions for the existence of a legal system, Sartorius struggles, are relevant neither to Hart’s concept of a legal system nor to his concept of law:

We have certain notions of what free-will is. But before we can discuss the notion of free-will, we need to establish the meaning of this term. Having free-will refers to one’s choices or desires (O’Connor, “Free Will”). A person who is able to act according to the determinations of their will (i.e., choices or desires) is free (Russell, “Hume on Free Will”). But is it always fair to blame people for performing morally wrong actions when they act on the basis of their own desires? In this paper I will defend that those who perform morally wrong actions on the basis of their own desires are exercising free-will, and are therefore responsible for their morally wrong actions. To further bolster this case, I will argue for the Principle of Alternative Possibilities by re-evaluating Frankfurt’s case of the Unwilling Addict. I will then refute the notion of determinism by referring to Wolf’s JoJo example by taking a compatibilist approach.

When we consider what could alter our reactive judgements on behalf of the agent we happen to be interacting with, examples are needed to emphasize when this is the case. So, for the moment we will consider how the judgements we make in our reactive attitudes are suspended in order to retain a more objective outlook on that person. Strawson presents some examples for how this might be the case, “He’s only a child… He’s a hopeless schizophrenic” Strawson argues that from these examples, “They invite us to view the agent himself in a different light from the light in which we would normally view one who has acted as he has acted.” This is one way in which we can justify, or rather base, our reactive attitudes on that we can consider as alternative factors on our moral considerations and inter-personal relationships. What we can see from these examples, as mentioned before, is that it does not concern our reactive attitudes how the person we are dealing with came to be as he is. Rather, our concern is with how he is, when we form our attitudes and judgements. However, perhaps it is possible to argue that if determinism is proved false, and that the agent concerned is a schizophrenic partly down to some bad choices that he was free to make, then, our attitudes may reflect this.

People tend to respond in an acceptable manner to situations based on trust and are often guided by norms of society and what is or is not acceptable to reasonable people. For instance, a person’s moral conscious may surface during an episode when, as a shopper, they leave the store and unwittingly neglect to pay for a product that may not have been scanned by the checkout counter. The shopper will generally return the item to the store (depending on when it was initially discovered). Time and distance may also serve as factor. An instance of one’s guilty conscious working is when someone accidentally leaves the store with an item. Another common event occurs when the attendant at the checkout counter gives the shopper too much change back. The shopper will generally remind the attendant that they handed too much change and make the appropriate correction. During these instances, a person is placed in a contemplative situation and feels compelled to return the item or monetary change because the internal conscious is cognizant that reminds the person that it is only right to rectify the situation. Most people do not enjoy the constant reminder of the undesirable outcome being guilty and

When we are emotionally attached to something, we tend to make extreme decisions towards or about them. One example of this is our emotional attachments to our body shape and looks. In “How salad makes you Fat,” Alex Hutchinson responds that people who want to lose weight tend to reward themselves after a workout as a way to “balance it out”(Hutchinson). Although, many do believe that if you put your mind to it, you can refrain from the “balancing.” This decision is unquestionably illogical from our point of view but people make that decision unconsciously. They believe that they have worked for the reward. We take this action immediately “when one decision swings too far from self-concept”(Hutchinson). Self-concept is what we are accumulated to in our daily lives. I corroborate with the author’s view in the stance that hard work does push for a reward. The reward although, isn’t usually a good choice. Instead of a fruit smoothie or a sandwich, they tend to choose food items in the genre of candy and sweets. Another way that emotional attachments affect snap decisions is in criminal murder cases. Usually, murder cases are deeply personal and paramount to the convict. This deeply personal relation causes snap decisions to be made that we can not control. Our emotions get the best of our sub conscious mind and make the decisions for us. This is exceptionally dangerous especially because it can not be consciously controlled. I have noticed this same experience throughout the news and various crime shows. When something or someone personally affects you, your decisions will also be drastically affected. Emotions are overly powerful and usually can not be changed. Although, some do believe that emotions can be changed if a drastic event occurs, our split decisions regarding our emotions will most likely be the same whether we

There are four different social styles that contribute to the interactive dynamics of a team (Griffith & Dunham, 2015). “Group members express themselves in a multitude of ways ranging from productive to destructive” (Griffith & Dunham, 2015, p. 47). The four classification of styles include: analytic, driver, expressive, or amiable (Griffith & Dunham, 2015). Being able to recognize the different social styles, including faults in our own, can assist in effective communicative efforts, as well as determining what makes a person more comfortable (Tracom, 2018). Communication competence is vital, not only our personal life, but our professional one as well (Waldherr & Muck, 2011).

As personal morals influence motivations and intentions, free will ceases to exist because of the relationship with one’s morality, whether that be impacted by religion, media, or the law. Similar to this, personal morals affect the definition of good and evil, making these terms different to each individual. Seven articles show how free will truly does not exist amongst society, how morality influences lives, and how good and evil is an intuitive choice within each person.

“Man, when perfected, is the best of animals, but when separated from law and justice, he is the worst of all,” quoted the renowned Greek philosopher Aristotle , giving birth to the notions of natural law; the theory that without law we would be reduced to an anarchical society. Because of this, some would argue that the purpose of law would be to instill in the members of society a set of moral codes, which further illustrates the belief laws save us from ourselves, or more appropriately our “true selves”. Yet this theoretical principle leads to many criticisms and further questions; for one, what would dictate a universal moral code? Furthermore, who gets to define what is right and what is not, since morality is a fairly subjective concept? With these questions in mind, the goal of this paper is to critique the theory of natural law using Holmes rhetoric, analyze the distinction between pragmatism and natural law, and give my personal take on what “is” the law and what “ought to be” the law.

In this paper, we will look at two philosophers discussing the existence, foundations and conditions of a legal system. The first philosopher we will look at is John Austin, who develops what is known as the command theory (Culver, 83). This theory argues that the law is a command that is given by a “sovereign,” with the threat of a penalty or consequence imposed if these laws are disobeyed (Culver, 83). He views the validity of a law by the source of the law and not the laws benefit to the citizens within a society. On the contrary, a philosopher we will look at who disagrees with John Austin on the foundations of a legal system is H.L.A Hart. Hart believes that acceptance plays a huge role when it comes to legal systems. He views a valid legal system as a union between primary and secondary rules (Culver 139).Hart believes the acceptance of officials is critical, and must include them adopting the internal point of view and citizens merely need to accept the law by obeying it.(Culver,

For me what seems to us to, cause us to act, our desire, does, on my view, do just that. If I am asked for the proximate cause of my action in picking up my coffee cup, for example, I will respond that it was my desire for the coffee. In identifying the cause of human action, striving, with conscious desire, then, (III p9s) vindicates common sense to a degree. Had I identified desire with something other than striving, then I would have committed himself to the view that my desire does not in fact cause me to pick up the cup. Desire for me, in its narrow definition at, is both psychological and physical, and in its broader definition at, Definitions of the Affects I, it may be either. So, this example, perhaps despite appearances, need not conflict with me, denial of mind-body interaction.) I am one of character someone who believes that the idea of oneself as an internal cause becomes an important part of my ethical theory, a species of which is even blessedness, the highest form of human happiness. I said “Human beings, as finite modes, cannot on my view avoid affecting and being affected by external objects.” Nevertheless, I emphasis on self-esteem and, in his ethical theory, on self-knowledge suggests that to the extent we can bring about effects, including our own emotions, as whole or adequate

Some legal positivists such as Hart argue that legal validity is dependent upon the sources it derives from, rather than its moral substance or legally valid norms. This viewpoint falls under the sources thesis, which focuses on the rule of recognition, which tells us where a law arises from, rather than the separation thesis, where content is essential to legal validity. Officialdom is crucial to Hart’s understanding of a legal system, as it is the officials’ responsibility to accept and apply the rule of recognition. Hart consequently reasons a rule of law will be legally valid, so long as it conforms to the requirements of the rule of recognition. However in accordance with legal validity, when legal sources are concerned, the dimension of legal validity is formal validity, this tends to concede with a ‘successful enactment’ using law-making procedures. Whereas legal norms fall under ‘material validity’ as they are a matter of interpretation, this plays a significantly limited role. Moreover Hart, rightly argues there is a tendency for judges to refer to law as what it ‘ought to be’, which reduces discrepancy between law and morality. The ‘model of interpretation’ on what the law ‘ought to be’ arises, yet Hart argues one should not implicate a judgement in morality, but instead one should suggest a reflection of criticism, which may or may not have moral connotations. Additionally the open texture of law, thanks to the rule of adjudication allows officials to

This theory is critiqued by many for assuming that people will always make logical decisions. They may also mention that this abstract theory fails to capture the ability that emotion plays in our day to day lives and in the interaction we make with other people (Emerson). This theory also weakens the power of social ladders and strength, which unconsciously forms our awareness of the world we live in and our understanding we have with it, and the strong role it plays with forming the interactions we have with people (Revolvy).