Class Notes (811,485)
Canada (494,756)
Philosophy (1,512)
PHL271H1 (102)

Law And Morality lectures .docx

15 Pages
Unlock Document

Deirdre Flynn

th PHL271: Law and Morality: Lecture #1: January 7 , 2010 The Queen v. Dudley and Stephens 14QBD 273 (1884) Legal Terms: Style: title of a legal document (the v. refers to and, not versus) Discussion: The Facts: - The cabin boy was killed, the boy was week, non threatening and did not consent - The men likely would not have survived without consuming the boy - They had no knowledge of the boat coming - The boy was about to die anyways - The judgement must be made on necessity: was killing the boy a necessity? 1. First step in reasoning: starts by defining necessity, does this through addressing textbook definitions of necessity. Notes that these only address repelling violence, which is a distinction from the current case Consider the questions: 1. Is new law mare or is existing law applied? Existing Law Supporting Claims: a. The convicted did not murder according the textbook definitions b. The judge says that he doesnt want to go beyond existing law i. Several examples in the judges address of this c. Its the role of the court to interpret the law however not to go outside the law to make a sentence, this is the responsibility of the crown d. There is no one book of law so there is a necessity for interpretation however this does not mean that new law is made New Law Supporting Claims: a. He canvasses the existing definition and it does not apply. Therefore, this type of necessity has never been contemplated resulting in a gap in the law that must be filled in order for judgment to be passed b. Since the law did not extend to this case, in addressing the case for the first time, the judge has authoritatively laid down the law perhaps appealing to the moral principles he posses c. This decision makes new positive law, contributing to the body of existing case records and sources 2. What does he think of the relationship between law and morality? In applying existing law, law and morality are necessarily linked because law appears to be all encompassing. However, if new law is made then it is made on a moral basis and thus law and morality are separate in some cases. The judge goes further to acknowledge instances where general human death outside of ordinary country or help innocent women and children. Furthermore, he eludes to the moral service ofir what is right. These acknowledgements pave the way for a decision making new law however founded upon the same moral grounding as all other laws regarding killing others. Legal Positivism: distinguishes law as it is from law as it ought to be. What makes something law is not the fact that it is morally right, rather that its been made law in the appropriate way. o when gaps in the law exist (such as for new issues like this), the judge can look to moral principles to guide them but they must be clear in acknowledging they are making new law o says there is a sharp line between law as it is and law as it ought to be. Therefore, the judge must be quite clear if under positivism they are making new law Natural Law/Law as Integrity: law already includes the moral principles that are justified. Therefore, new cases still fall under existing law. These can be appealed to and this is regarded as simply extending the law that already exists o both enacting by a legislature and support by sounds moral principles are required to be law o law always includes moral principle. Therefore, you are only ever applying existing law (refers primarily to political morality making the constitution the best that it can be) Lecture 2 Todays Lecture Includes: What does legal positivism claim? What does legal positivism not claim? Why be a positivist Harts response to 3 main criticisms of Positivism: Criticism based on the command theory of law Criticism based on formalism Criticism based on the awareness of wicked legal systems Must a legal system have some moral core? Harts aim in writing this paper is to convey the following: we can accept positivism without command theory of law. He also seeks to address the other criticisms of the positivism that is desperately in need of rehabilitation. In next weeks readings we will actually learn of Harts thoughts on what should replace the command theory of law. What makes something law? it creates obligations (has normative forces) to each other, government and other entities it is established by a legislature or government (an entity recognised as having the authority to make law) it must be possible for us to comply with sanctions are attached to disobedience provides us with guidance (how should I act in a certain situation) laws must be general (non-discriminatory...will be addressed later in the course) laws must be codified and public laws establish rights law is not absolutely governing (you have the potential choice to follow the law or not) law claims to be legitimate What does legal positivism claim?
More Less

Related notes for PHL271H1

Log In


Don't have an account?

Join OneClass

Access over 10 million pages of study
documents for 1.3 million courses.

Sign up

Join to view


By registering, I agree to the Terms and Privacy Policies
Already have an account?
Just a few more details

So we can recommend you notes for your school.

Reset Password

Please enter below the email address you registered with and we will send you a link to reset your password.

Add your courses

Get notes from the top students in your class.