Class Notes (834,408)
Canada (508,508)
York University (35,156)
Humanities (1,683)
HUMA 1825 (221)
Lecture

Law and Morality feb 10.docx

3 Pages
126 Views
Unlock Document

Department
Humanities
Course
HUMA 1825
Professor
Roger Fisher
Semester
Winter

Description
Law and Morality: Feb 10 • Whitely v. Chappell- Legal positivism. • Legal positivism does a good idea in explaining Dronenburg. • Hart- Focus on the core not on the penumbra. • two models of interpretation: Hart says we should be looking at this cases analysing it. • Dworkin: law works towards justice. sense of shared values that are good. • The problem: Whiteley- did not break any rules. • dronenburg: Judges followed a clear legal rule. navy policy said homosexual should be dismissed. • judges refused to follow the law* • stadtulft macht frei: From the middle ages when peasants where leaving the land. Flocking through the cities. Idea that you can make it on your own. It was a saying that the air of the city, living in the city air makes you free. Before the law is about a man who constantly comes to this town waiting to enter. kafkas story is a play on that medieval expression. • crowd control: Tension of the letter of the law and the spirit of the law. Billy budd and dronenburg posed a question, which was whether justice was even possible. A warship is a community organized around a mission. This was a community organized around that principle. How is it possible to find justice around that community, towards an outsider like billy or dronenburg. Whole point of military training is obedience. To obey. Boot camp- to break the will. They basically live like prisoners. Billy did not enter that world, he was forced into that world. Billy never said he would accept the navy, he was compelled to enter the British navy. • Admiral Nelson: he was is a very fair commander. He was still a disciplinary. Captain Vere has this nelson complex. Nelsons questions what would occur what happens when a person turns out to be gay. • Critical assessment of captain vere: he had conflict of interest: 2 competing interest. He is captain yet in the same role he starts to act like a father figure.-Giving Billy mixed signals. His fear was driving him prosecution. Fear of losing his command. He's both witness and prosecutor. He prosecutes and he judges. • Speech and the law: Maybe billy did not commit a crime. In Before the law- the whole issue with speech he took no for an answer. He kept quiet. Kafkas trial, he speaks but no one listens. He is silenced. When billy should have spoken he was not able too. dronenburg talks in a way that should have kept his mouth shut. • moral life is more compication: Doesnt matter what happens in the courtroom, need to pay attention to the word. Sometimes people do not need punishment however need therapy. • critical assessment of billy: An outsider- no council. His interrogation was improper. He was brought to a place of power in a non familiar place. Was of defending Billy budd- acted in self dense? answer is no. insanity defence- could he have pled insanity or even temp? He lost impulse control. Cognitive and volitional impulse. For an insane person to plead that they where not in there right state of mind. • article 22: same rule that the US
More Less

Related notes for HUMA 1825

Log In


OR

Join OneClass

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

Sign up

Join to view


OR

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.


Submit