Ethical Theories is what is not legally prohibited morally permissible

1
Ethical Theoriesis what is not legally
prohibited morally permissible

• Utilitarianism
• an action is morally right iff it produces at
  least as much good (utility) for all people
  affected by it than any other action could
  otherwise do instead
• Virtue
• an excellence of character with the
  predisposition to chose those actions linked to
  human flourishing - chosen under the proper
  guidance of reason
• Deontology
• a moral action is done from a sense of duty
  rather than by following our natural inclinations
  to pursue our own desires
• Divine Command Theory
• moral principles are taken to be the laws issued
  by God to humanity - their authority derives from
  Gods supremacy
• Interpretive Model of Adjudication
• taken along with the positive law, the
  principles of political morality provide the best
  interpretation of the positive law the best
  justification for political decisions (Dworkin,
  2000) ? legal ? political obligation

2
Law Morality

• if laws reflect societys customs, beliefs and
  moral values
• then is what is legal moral, and, is what is
  not prohibited moral
• Thomas Hobbes
• The desires and passion of man are not in
  themselves Sin, no more then are the actions
  that proceed form them until men know of a law
  that forbids them
• Wolfenden Report (1957)
• Private prostitution should be permitted and
  public soliciting outlawed
• Male homosexual acts in private between
  consenting adults over the age of 21 should be
  legalized
• so private and individual activities that
  present no threat to other citizens or to the
  maintenance of public order and decency should
  remain beyond the reach of the law
• but Devlins objections
• There can be no distinction between
  public/private morality
• A serious offence against morality constitutes an
  attack on society

3
Legal Moralism

• if the law can legitimately be used to prohibit
  behaviors that conflict with society's
  collective moral judgments
• ie. those behaviors do not necessarily result
  in physical or psychological harm to others
• and a person's freedom can legitimately be
  restricted simply because it conflicts with
  society's collective morality
• then it is permissible for the state to use its
  coercive power to enforce society's collective
  morality - Devlins criticisms of the Wolfenden
  Report
• ie. society is entitled by means of its laws
  to protect itself from dangers, whether from
  within or from the outside
• but Hart argues it is wrong to think that
  deviation from accepted sexual morality, even by
  adults in private, is something which, like
  treason, threatens the existence of society
• ? no act of immorality should be made a
  criminal offense unless it is accompanied by
  some other feature such as indecency, corruption,
  exploitation

4
Legal Paternalism

• if it is permissible for the state to legislate
  against self-regarding actions when it is
  necessary to prevent individuals from inflicting
  physical or severe emotional harm on themselves
• then a paternalist interference is an
  interference with a person's liberty of action
  justified by reasons referring exclusively to
  the welfare, good, happiness, needs, interests
  or values of the person being coerced
• eg. law requiring use of a helmet when riding a
  motorcycle is a paternalistic interference
  insofar as it is justified by concerns for the
  safety of the rider
• Nevertheless, Dworkin argues that there are
  limits to legitimate paternalism
• 1. the state must show that the behavior
  governed by the proposed restriction involves
  the sort of harm that a rational person would
  want to avoid
• 2. the potential harm outweighs the benefits of
  the relevant behavior
• 3. the proposed restriction is the least
  restrictive alternative for protecting against
  the harm
• but JS Mill the only purpose for which power
  can rightly be used against anybody is to
  prevent harm to others their own good, either
  physical or moral, is sufficient warrant

5
Civil Disobedience

• John Rawls
• Q. At what point does the duty to obey cease to
  be binding in view of defending individual
  liberties and opposing injustice ?
• A. Civil disobedience is justified when it
  serves to remind citizens of injustices within
  a society that is largely just
• Civil Disobedience
• Passive, nonviolent resistance to state power or
  passive non cooperation with the authorities ?
  involves mass defiance of unjust laws
• Unlawful public conduct designed to appeal to the
  sense of justice of the majority ? to change the
  law without rejecting the rule of law
• Such methods can cause considerable difficulties
  for the state which may be reluctant to use
  force against nonviolent protestors ? fear of
  inflaming the situation or alienating world
  opinion
• Thus non-violence and non-revolutionary intent,
  as well as a willingness to accept lawful
  punishment, are often treated as defining
  conditions of civil disobedience
• eg. Henry David Thoreaus refusal to pay a
  state poll tax enacted to finance enforcement
  of the Fugitive Slave Law and thus perpetuate
  southern chattel slavery

6
AnarchyRobert Nozick The Minimal State

• Anarchy stems from the Greek word, anarkos,
  meaning without a chief
• Its political meaning is the achievement of a
  social and political system without a state, or
  more broadly stated, a society that is
  characterized by a lack of any hierarchical or
  authoritarian structures
• The general approach of the anarchist is to
  emphasize that the good life can only be realized
  without constraining or limiting structures
• Any institution that is inconsistent with the
  life freely chosen is to be attacked, criticized,
  and rejected
• - Utopian versions look to a universal
  egalitarianism in which each is to count for one
  and no more than one, and accordingly each
  persons values are of equal moral and political
  weighting
• - Historicist anarchists believe that anarchy
  is the ultimate state that humanity is
  (inevitably) ascending towards it
• - Radical anarchists claim that the future can
  only be fought for, and any imposition of
  authority on an individuals actions is to be
  defended against