uh-huh. because parent = mother and mother only

why is it increasingly antagonistic? isn't that the past? where christians would be murdered in ancient rome? jews, muslims. isn't it rather that people become skeptical, and thus THEMSELVES antagonistic? sure, it does project onto society, but i don't think it's oppressing

who says that? in what aspect? in estabilished laws or just geneally as a right? check

contractualism - a philosophical idea (moral philosophy) 1. BROAD SENSE: - morality comes from agreements between people - "what we owe to each other" - as people, we have duties towards others, since we're all rational beings 2. NARROW SENSE (T. M. Scanlon): - different from the broad sense, because (as Scanlon claims) they are PRACTICAL claims about what we have a reason to do, not just theoretical (furthermore, they're the most important, because when we decide that an action is wrong, gives as reasons why we DON'T do that action, especially comparing them with other reasons) - an action is morally bad if it cannot be explained as good to another human being

"because they didn't want the protest to be political - it was moral" - prof. Benson

sometimes the biggest harm is passiveness, indifference. because openly evil people exist, but it's the white moderate who makes the majority

definitions of just/unjust law

through discerning which laws are in harmony with "eternal/natural law" and you can do that, knowing that "any law that degrades human personality is unjust"

there are types of laws that recquire breaking them, they're unjust

purposes of nonviolent direct action

2 different kinds of liberalism 1. convergence/illiberalism - in the end liberalism will force their liberal/tolerance onto others 2. modus vivendi/tolerance - disagreeing but finding a way to live together

Mill said liberalism is freedom to do whatever you want, until you hurt someone else

you can never establish those things, those are the very cores of faith and religions; they're not proveable

anti-metaphysical claim - very significant in that time, because it influenced thinking about natural law

G. J. Holyoake (1851) defined secularism: modern dictionaries cite/rephrase his definitions, but in reality (Benson found) that in his works, he's not at all neutral, but rather anti-religion - basing off of Comte, Rousseau

definition in poland

definition in austria

definition in denmark

definition in france

components of religion

german criteria

portugese criteria

italian criteria

research????//

lack of definitions in state-level regulations

in the end, Moens (somewhat surprisingly, since he pointed out all the evidence and ways that the guards could be found guilty) concluded that the trials resulted in "injustices masquerading as justice", mainly because the court failed to consider that applying West Germany critical tradition (based more on natural law), to East Germany soldiers, which were only familiar with the German tradition (based on Lutheran idea of total obedience to the law) was UNJUST

all three courts found the guards guilty, but for different reasons

Radbruch's 5 minutes article

Radbruch's first minute

so, normally 315 of Reunification Treaty prevents acts commited on East German soil prior to reunification from being punished, if they were not punishable under East German Law (kinda like our warunek podwójnej karalaności)

BUT, here: - immunity does not apply where there was already West German Law (west german law applied to crimes on foreign soil if): 1. the acts are commited against German 2. the person that committed them becomes a resident of WG or comes to WG

prof. Samson argues that EG became part of WG, so their law is applicable 7(2) (similarly, the people who were shot, were Germans, so 7(1))

BUT it's a stretch, because EGs were considered foreigners by WG

the BGH was reluctant to invoke natural law, because it's hard to define what the "minimum content" should be. instead, the relied on the international human rights - but they found that border shooting on itself does not violate the Covenant, only its excessive nature or unnecessary use violates it

so basically, the critical tradition was imposed on the EG guards, which was unjust because this idea was foreign to them. they were still followin the German tradition, that requires total obedience to the law

critical tradition in East Germany = absent

critical tradition in West Germany

Aquinas on natural vs positive law

the german tradition (influenced by Luther)

different traditions of thinking; the critical post-war tradition was applied to the EG soldiers, who followed the German tradition to obey the law

internal morality = Fuller

different interpretations of justifications

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

2 possible justifications in EG law: 1. appealing to the fact that use of firearms is permittable if used against a serious crime (defined as carried out with dangerous means; court later found that ladders that were used to climb the Berlin Wall were considered 'dangerous means', thus use of firearms was necessary) 2. explicit statement that soldier who follow orders are not criminally responsible (unless a blatant violation)

APPLICABILITY OF WG LAW milder law is applicable UNLESS there was already WG law at the time of the act - territoriality principle = WG law applicable to act in EG, if the consequences occured in WG - act was committed against a German permanently resided in WG - act carried out by West German - perpetrator moved to WG before the reunification

like our article 4 paragraph 1 - lex mitior agit

PRINCIPLE IV, mainly - earlier called "superior orders" - now reffered to as the Nuremberg Defense

essence of erastianism

reasons for temporariness of theocracies 1. lack of secular skills and means to run modern economy - by religious leaders 2. unwillingness to entertain the compromises of political + international relations

for short lives of theocracies

essence of theocracy

applying economic models to religions

goal of the paper

ad FAIRNESS 2 things have to be provided, before you can call a law "based on the moral concept of fairness" (to dispute the previous two arguments):

1. laws have generally beneficial effects
2. most other people obey the law (so that if you don't you benefit unfairly)

COUNTER ARGUMENTS TO FORMER IDEAS:

ad. 3 - fairness - anarchist: denial of any benefit coming from the law - those who claim it's beneficial: fairness can't apply, where obeying the law does no one any good, is useless (eg. it's not unfair to speed over the limit on a deserted road)

ad 4. public good - act-utalitarianism: there are of course examples, where total obedience to law does more harm than good - eg. man who earns a small income from a service to a friend, he doesn't tax it - if he would, the public would benefit, but his family could starve to death

BUT generally law-breaking sets a bad example (for the kids, others etc); its consequences include imitation of further law-breaking - rule-utilitarianism = it's difficult to compare all different rules and their consequences

ALL FOUR CONCEPTS OF WHY YOU SHOULD FOLLOW THE LAW: 1. gratitude = your country & law was the source of great benefits for you, so you should at least obey the law but against, you could argue that you can be grateful to many people, but it doesn't mean you have to obey everything they say 2. promise-keeping: citizens promise to obey the law in exchange for protection & other benefits (kind of a "social contract" like in Rawls' theory) 3. fairness: different from promise-keeping, because it's extended to all citizens, as a moral ground to everyone, not just to those who choose to participate in the politics SO, you should obey the law, because it would be unfair not to; you owe your fellow citizens "if they all comply and you benefit, it is unfair if you benefit without complying" 4. public good = if people break the law, the welfare of society is diminished, thus we're all morally obliged to obey

different forms of the utalitarian concept: - act-utalitarianism = an act is morally wrong if it'll have worse consequences than other acts possible on this occasion - "rule-utilitarianism": you should obey the law, if it's required by a rule, that leads to best consequences when observed objectively

"rule-utilitarianism": you should obey the law, if it's required by a rule, that leads to best consequences when observed objectively

BUT it's difficult to compare all different rules and their consequences

most common justification of obeying the law: public good (there are of course examples, where total obedience to law does more harm than good - eg. man who earns a small income from a service to a friend, he doesn't tax it - if he would, the public would benefit, but his family could starve to death

counter argument to ^ = act-utalitarianism: not taxing the income, sets a bad example (for the kids, others etc); its consequences include imitation of further law-breaking

2 things have to be provided, before you can call a law "based on the moral concept of fairness" (to dispute the previous two arguments): 1. laws have generally beneficial effects 2. most other people obey the law (so that if you don't you benefit unfairly)

to the argument of fairness: 1. anarchist: denial of any benefit coming from the law 2. those who claim it's beneficial: fairness can't apply, where obeying the law does no one any good, is useless (eg. it's not unfair to speed over the limit on a deserted road)

duty to obey law comes from fairness: different from promise-keeping, because it's extended to all citizens, as a moral ground to everyone, not just to those who choose to participate in the politics SO, you should obey the law, because it would be unfair not to; you owe your fellow citizens "if they all comply and you benefit, it is unfair if you benefit without complying"

duty to obey the law comes from promise-keeping: citizens promise to obey the law in exchange for protection & other benefits (kind of a "social contract" like in Rawls' theory)

a good way of illustrating just how relative natural law (or the core principles) is. because at what point, to which extent and based on what, do we decide when to obey or disobey the law?