Professor Ronald Dworkin's The Model Of Rules

L11 Assignment 1. Using the analytical tools of his economic realism, how would Richard Posner argue that the majority opinion in Penn Central v. New York City makes sense? Why would Morris Cohen agree or disagree? An interesting and stark contrast exists in the economic realm, pivoting mainly on what people believe to be the most important factor to consider when making societal decisions.

This book is a guide for applying psychological concepts, theories, findings and methods to its study. Laws are something that cannot be avoided. Laws matter from the minute you are born to you death. In the book it states that laws regulate our private lives and public actions. Laws dictate how long we must stay in school, how fast we can drive, when (and, to some extent, whom) we can marry, and whether we are allowed to play our car stereos at full blast or let our boisterous dog romp through the neighbors’ yards and gardens.

The arguments were based majorly on legal and moral considerations. The legal arguments, which opponents advanced, were stronger than those of proponents of the Act. Morally, the arguments seemed to be equally strong. However, upon consideration of the entire arguments, numerical strength favored those of opponents. Also, all the arguments by proponents, except one, were objectively controvertible while those of opponents were not.

Robert J. Hoshowsky wrote The Last to Die which summarizes the lives of Ronald Turpin and Arthur Lucas, who were the last two people to die due to capital punishment in Canada. Certain situations in Ronald Turpin’s life led him to commit a crime resulting in the use of capital punishment. Looking into his criminal lifestyle, the rational choice theory can explain some of the actions he felt he had to take and his role in society. Also, using the social learning theory can explain where he learned these behaviours from. Using these theory helps to explain Ronald’s criminal lifestyle and help people understand why he did what he did, although there are a few theories that can relate to Ronald’s lifestyle.

“Determinism is the philosophical idea that every event or state of affairs, including every human decision and action, is the inevitable and necessary consequence of antecedent states of affairs”(Information Philosopher, 2015). It refers to the claim that, at any moment or place in time, there is only one possible future for the whole universe. However, the concept of determinism often comes into question when looking into whether human beings possess free will. Free Will can be defined as “the power of acting without the constraint of necessity or fate; the ability to act at one's own discretion” (Defence of Reason, 2014). The very definition of the terms determinism and free will appear to be conflicting however, many philosophical thinkers

As the argument is inductive, Richard Swinburne argues that it is rational to presume that God is omnibenevolent and wants to be actively present in people's lives. ‘An Omnipotent and perfectly good creator will seek to interact with his creatures and, in particular, with human persons capable of knowing him'. Richard Swinburne believes that if countless people have had a so called ‘religious experience' then this is enough evidence to believe them. (Principle of credulity) Swinburne proposes that religious encounters are judged through our senses and clarified through ‘religious insight Hence, in the event that somebody has had a religious experience, then it is reliable to trust that their telling the

Within the Ted Talk, “For Argument’s Sake,” Daniel H. Cohen does an effective job at proving his claim that arguments are thought of as war-like situations with winner and losers instead of as an opportunity to gain knowledge. For example, Cohen states, “But the war metaphor, the war paradigm or model for thinking about arguments, has, I think, deforming effects on how we argue . . . It magnifies the us-versus them aspect of it” (TedTalk). In this assertion, he does a prominent job at explaining that the common thought of an argument is a battle in which one side wins which proves his point. The speaker continues to support his statement by expressing this idea: “Think about that one -- have you ever entered an argument thinking, ‘Let's see

The appeal was dismissed and it was held that s.17 was governed by the principles in Ghaidan v Godin-Mendoza [2004] UKHL 30. Also, there are other examples of cases where Godin-Mendoza’s case was applied.

While there are many more concepts of law that the book mentions I feel that these are the most important concepts of law that somehow are the foundations of the legal system in the United

Harry Browne says that all human beings are selfish in everything they do. He elaborates on this statement by saying; all humans selfishly pursue their own happiness. This way of thinking is an example of “X” thinking, in which you believe that humans are one thing and one thing only. Being an “A to Z” thinker, I believe that all humans can be whatever they choose.

Furthermore, from two scholarly perspectives, authors Richard Rothstein and Kitty Calavita, we can deepen our engagement with this relationship in their books, The Color of Law and Invitation to Law and Society, An Introduction

Nozick proposes a definition of justice surrounding liberty. An entitlement theory comprising of three principles which result in freedom to be absolutely entitled to property and the self. His argument maintains that patterned principles of just distribution depart from this historical scheme and, in doing so, involve unacceptable infringements of liberty. Nozick defends his entitlement theory with a Wilt Chamberlain illustration. Despite being a persuasive and strong argument, the difficult aspect of this is that Nozick does not clearly tell us how to properly satisfy what those three principles require under the perception that his argument could shut down his patterned theory competitors.

Is Kelsen’s Pure Theory of Law pure? In his famous article “On the Pure Theory of Law,” Hans Kelsen discusses his pure theory of law. He argues that the only pure form of law theory is the theory of positive law, which he calls “legal positivism”. Kelsen presents legal positivism to be the only consistent form of jurisprudence because this theory considers the law in its positive form and it separates law from any other social disciplines such as sociology, anthropology, politics and ethics.

The law is an intriguing concept, evolving from society’s originalities and moral perspectives. By participating in the legal system, we may endeavour to formulate a link between our own unique beliefs and the world in which we live. Evidently, a just sense of legality is a potent prerequisite for change, enabling society to continue its quest for universal equality and justice. Aristotle once stated that "even when laws have been written down, they ought not to remain unaltered".

According to the radical critique of law, how does law discriminate? Along with many other policies, the law also stresses on the discrimination which