PHIL 325 Paper Two Assignment Adeel Khan 10146958 University of Calgary In this paper I intend to state arguments in support of the inclusion of principles in the law. I will explore the meaning of adequate resolution of legal cases and provide examples of principles explaining how these principles work in resolving a case. I will evaluate legal cases that set the precedence for the inclusion of principles in the law. From my standpoint, in development of a thesis I would argue that the inclusion of principles in the law is a convincing stance and through the evidence presented in this paper, this position is enforced. The argument being approached in this paper is in regards to legal positivism. legal positivists argue that there …show more content…
What sort of legal cases does the proponent of the argument have in mind? What are these sorts of legal cases called? What does it mean for a legal case to be adequately resolved? Give some examples of principles. Describe how principles work in resolving a case. Describe what happens when two principles conflict Describe how rules work in resolving a case. Describe what happens when two rules …show more content…
I would criticize such a claim and ask how an entire system of laws that is pursued with morally bad aims can provide reason for judges to apply such law or citizens to obey it. Legal positivists insist that laws do not need to aim at morally good goals; however, I would argue that this is terrible distortion of what distinguishes life under law from tyranny or a war against all. Furthermore, an opponent of the argument can also insist that judges are within bounds to legislate on the basis of rules of law. However, in these cases, judges work from a set of principles which are used to formulate judgements and these principles form the basis of present rules. Legal systems have a function. This function is to secure justice. The effective reply to opponents of the argument is to discuss the necessary overlap between legality and justice, as it is impossible to have a legal system without fidelity to the rule of law and formal justice. It is proper for the legal system to interpret the law in light of the correct principles of justice that countries tie to their honor. There are necessary moral constraints on the content of law. As human beings, it is simply impossible to ignore moral principles in any aspect of life and the law is not excluded from such precedence. In my evaluation I would argue that it is an essential feature of the law that it has moral