what is the meaning of paternalism..it is akind of law?
152051
From the American Heritage Dictionary:\nA policy or practice of treating or governing people in a fatherly manner, especially by providing for their needs without giving them rights or responsibilities.
1168823
That it can force a person to go against their own oaths if the end result is the best possible outcome for the majority of those involved.\nIn short, there is no room in utilitarianism for personal integrity.
925392
A means of estimation made according to a rough and ready practical rule, not based on science or exact measurement. \n\nOrigin\n\nThis has been said to derive from the belief that English law allowed a man to beat his wife with a stick so long as it is was no thicker than his thumb. In 1782 Judge Sir Francis Buller is reported as having made this legal ruling. The following year James Gillray published a satirical cartoon attacking Buller and caricaturing him as 'Judge Thumb'. The cartoon shows Buller carrying two bundles of sticks and the caption reads "thumbsticks - for family correction: warranted lawful!"
957346
it is very important to me in the sense that I do not like being coerced, controlled or pressurised by other people. I hope that in exchange i respect other people's rights as individuals. However, I can see the need and sense in laws that restrict the rights of the individual to kill or hurt others for example. Indeed we need some laws that restrain us as by allowing us total autonomy such as allowing us to kill another for example, this could restrict individuals freedoms and autonomy itself. i.e our right not to be killed by another and to exist.\n\nIf i am told to do something by someone in a way that i feel i could do it better, it does annoy me mentally.\n\nPerhaps that is why i am opposed to religion, i do not even like the idea of an omnipotent being controlling me or dictating to me.
93588
Norms are basically the conduct and carriage that society expects from its citizens.  It is under norms that people can peaceably co-exists (i.e., as long as everyone follows the norms, everyone is at peace with everyone else).  Laws, on the other hand, are the official requirements of a society, the violation of which generally results in loss of liberty or property (or occasionally life).
48266
It is a partof a natural law.\n\nThe natural law or law of nature is a system of justice that exists independently of the positive law of a given political order. Its usage has varied through its history. It currently has a meaning in both moral theory and legal theory, despite the fact that the core claims of the two kinds of theory are logically independent. According to natural law ethical theory, the moral standards that govern human behavior are, in some sense, objectively derived from the nature of human beings or the cosmos in general. According to natural law legal theory, the authority of at least some legal standards necessarily derives, at least in part, from considerations having to do with the moral merit of those standards.
1022218
Unjust Laws\n\n\n\nBy Nick D’Aigle\n\n \n\n            Are we morally obliged to obey even unjust laws? Think about what this means. This means that laws, regardless of how unfair, unjust, or immoral they may be, must be followed with no better reason that they are the law. To the thesis that we are obliged to obey even unjust laws, I will argue that the standard objections to Civil Disobedience, given by Singer, are incorrect \n\n            To begin, however, I believe it is necessary to define an “unjust” law. According to St. Thomas Aquinas, “Any law that uplifts human personality is just. Any law that degrades human personality is unjust.” (King, 3) According to Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., “An unjust law is a code that a numerical or power majority compels a minority group to obey, but does not make binding on itself.” (King, 4)\n\n            The definition I will take is a combination of these two. I define an unjust law as one that degrades human personality through the unfair suffering of a minority group at the hands of a majority group. Keep in mind that a majority can be in either power or number. A majority in number can be oppressed by a majority in power. Any law that causes a person to suffer simply because they do not agree with this majority is an incorrect and unjust law. \n\n            Singer gives two typical arguments in favor of obeying these unjust laws. I will address these arguments one at a time. The first argument says that, “By disobeying [a law] I set an example for others that may lead them to disobey too. The effect may multiply and contribute to a decline in law and order. In an extreme case, it may lead to civil war.” (Singer, 297)\n\n            I believe that, while this argument has a little merit, it is an extremely exaggerated slippery slope. It is true that people may join in disobedience, but if the law is unjust and is disobeyed within the guidelines I put forth later, people joining the disobedience would be a good thing. It would show the support of a strong minority, and may even help the minority to become a majority.\n\n            The second standard objection says, “If the law is to be effective – outside the anarchist’s utopia – there must be some machinery for detecting and penalizing lawbreakers. This machinery will cost something to maintain and operate, and the cost will have to be met by the community. If I break the law, the community will be put to the expense of enforcement.” (Singer, 297)\n\n            I will concede this point. There is no argument against it. I would, however, pose that the moral cost of obeying a law that one thinks is deplorable is higher than the cost of enforcing the law. I would remind you that mass genocide of non-Aryan races under Hitler was legal. Would we chastise someone for disobeying that law? Also, realistically, the cost is not very high per taxpayer. It is especially small when compared to the cost of morally compromising the entire society. This argument can be put down by a simple Utilitarian argument. The cost of maintaining and using an active police force is less than the cost of maintaining a morally compromised society. We are morally obliged to fix the problem. To continue along this train of thought, maybe putting taxpayers to the added burden will help the cause. Taxpayers will get tired of paying for the higher cost of enforcement of the unjust law, and will also begin to fight it. \n            Socrates argued for disobeying unjust laws. His argument has special meaning, for he was set to die two or three days after this conversation with the student Crito. Socrates was put to death on a trumped up charge of impiety (meaning sin). Plato wrote of the conversation between Socrates and Crito in the dialogue The Crito. \n\nCrito had come to Socrates to try to convince him to escape. Socrates first said, “One must never do injustice. Nor return injustice for injustice, as the multitude think, sinc
1107845
"Law to put something into circulation, especially counterfeit money or a forgery, under the pretense that it is genuine."\nThis is the definition in the dictionary, but it doesn't make too much sense to me.
432663
Confucius taught that government should rule through rites and rules in tune with the commoner's natural morality. Therefore, one will refrain from breaking a law because it goes against his conscience to do so; the "punishment" preceeds the crime. Therefore, because these laws enforce themselves without effort, the government will not have to resort to force to keep the peace.\n\nChinese legalism is based upon the assumption that personal morality changes and that one can therefore control the commoners and enforce peace only with outside measures. A law, therefore, must be well-publicized and have a concrete reward or punishment coinciding with whether it is followed or not in fact; the punishment follows the crime. Laws would be supreme in this state, even over the ruler, thereby making all human interaction predicatable and hopefully harmonious.
940603
The first quote means that doing right isn't easy and will, in fact, be more difficult, given that people often will try to prevent you from doing right, because it (often) causes them to feel guilty about their own lack of effort.\n\nThe second means all the laws in the world won't keep bad people from behaving badly, while truly good people don't need to know right from the law; it is intrinsic in their nature.\n\nHope this helps...
905791
Sometimes local or State laws are put to "referendum".  That means the voters have a direct relationship as to whether the law gets passed or not.  Otherwise the only thing you can do is write to your representatives and tell them how you feel about a particular law or issue and they vote to their conscience, perhaps taking the citizen's opinions into account.
1031435
I think often times rationality is a way that people justify decisions that go against, rather than with, their emotions.  Like when people say, "I'm really happy with my house purchase - it's in a good neighbourhood, close to the mall, blah blah blah" I wonder if they're really saying inside, "man, this is a dump. it's not like the Jones's but it's the best I could do".
483348
LIBERTY AND JUSTICE FOR ALL WHO CAN AFFORD IT \n\n GUILTY UNTIL PROVEN INNOCENT \n unfortunately that is how the law really works
851356
Right Based Ethics\nContractarianism (right-based ethics) is "a family of moral and political theories that make use of the idea of a social contract" (Hampton 1995). The social contract notion rooted in Hobbes and Kant. In Hobbes opinion people are rational and want to live out their lives in peace and security. \n"Kant proposed that the 'idea' of the 'Original Contract' could be used to determine what policies for a society would be just" (Hampton 1995). Only the consent of 'real' people can be legitimating and their make-believe agreements have moral force for us. "The process by which these people reach agreement is morally revealing" (Hampton 1995).\n\nGoal based Ethics\nConsequentialism or Goal-Based ethics say that we ought to do whatever maximizes good consequences. It doesn't in itself matter what kind of thing we do. What matters is that we maximize good results.\nOne popular kind of consequentialism is classical (hedonistic) utilitarianism. This view says that we ought always to do whatever maximizes the balance of pleasure over pain for everyone affected by our action. This view could be based on the golden rule, which leads us to be concerned about the happiness and misery of others. Or it could be based on God's will, self-evident truths, or our own personal feelings.\nWe can apply utilitarianism directly (by first estimating the likely consequences of each option and then picking the option with the best consequences) or indirectly (by applying a "rule of thumb" about what kinds of action tend to have good or bad results). Many utilitarians reject exceptionless rules. They think that any rule should be broken when it has better consequences to do so. So they see moral rules only as loose "rules of thumb."\n\nHuman Based Ethics\nAccording to the human-based ethics, all, and only, humans count or are valuable in themselves. Human beings are both the actors and the proper subjects of morality. \n\nDuty Based Ethics\nIn ethics, deontological ethics or deontology (Greek: Deon meaning obligation or duty) is a theory holding that decisions should be made solely or primarily by considering one's duties and the rights of others.\nOne of the most important implications of deontology is that a person's behavior can be wrong even if it results in the best possible consequences. In contrast to consequentialism, a philosophy infamous for its claim that the ends justify the means, deontology insists that how people accomplish their goals is usually (or always) more important than what people accomplish
623449
A Rabbi once said something like:\nIt is possible to use the law to interpret the law.\n\nParaphrased from memory:\n • Thou shalt not kill.\n • Whosoever lays with another man's wife... they shall both be stoned to death.\n\nDepending on your interpretation, is it even possible to follow both laws?\nWhich one has primacy?\nIs it possible that the latter rule made more sense when mankind was on the edge of survival?\n\nAgain paraphrased (and probably poorly):\nIf a law in the Torah offends you morally, it is your duty to judge it with the law.\nIf you do not agree with the law but it does not offend you morally, then preference should be to obey.
673398
The law is a constitution which regulates the do's and don'ts in a society and the people who are to obey this rules and regulation are to be aware of such laws. Every society has its own laws like the church, States, Country, Tradition etc. These various groups set out laws to guide the conduct of the people to prevent them from going astray. It's some how related to Godly manner in as much as it guides the moral standards of the people.
1147962
Which law?\n\nWell, you have a layering of laws... local laws and ordinances then state laws and finally federal law. Outside of this, there is a whole grab bag of family laws, the Uniformed Code of Military Justice laws, business laws... etc.\n\nAs a whole, the answer would have to be that they are subjective unto their individual subjects to varying degrees.\n\nJust a single example though, I would say that certain traffic laws are very subjective because they weren't written with the public safety in mind... but at the behest of the insurance industry.