Saturday, February 16, 2019
David Kim (djk2)12/18/13Phil 316 Philosophy of LawFinal trial runA.) Legislator facing a religious challenge 1.)Your society in oecumenical tolerates acquit public expression of opinions. What are the possible justifications for making this elision? Which is the best or are none of them acceptable? (20 points)The most overt reason for which we whitethorn be justified in limiting the free expression of religious ideas in society is by utilizing Mills injure Principle. The principle states that the only reason for which a society may be justified in limiting the liberty of individuals is to prevent trauma to others. The question under these circumstances then becomes whether those proselytizing for the minority devotion rattling are causing harm in the relevant sense to others. It unclutter that the majority of people in this society would be outraged at the actions of those practicing the minority morality, however it is non clear that those in the majority religion real ly are being harmed. There does not seem to be any imminent threat of physical harm, and property is not being destroyed. We might want to make the argument that those in the majority religion are being psychologically/mentally harmed, however this is philosophically trying to prove, and the fact remains that intrinsic human rights to ones personify or property are not being violated. According to the Harm Principle, we are only justified in idealistic sanctions when a command harm is made against a person or their human rights, and since this is not the case we are not justified in banning the minority religion on a strict interpretation of this principle. An alternative chance is to claim that the harm principle sets the bar too high for imposing sanctions and that a more... ... It is less clear however, the degree to which this man ought to be punish given the fact that he had an underlying mental tick off, and also was enkindle by the other man. The existence of these two mitigating factors could be cited in pose to reduce this actors sentence. Contrasting this case with another typesetters case (taken from the movie A Beautiful Mind) of a schizophrenic father who unknowingly leaves his shaver in a bathtub with the water running to catch to a hallucination, in that locationby drowning the child makes it clear that in this scenario, a stir up of murder does not seem appropriate. The difference seems to be that in this case, there was no malicious intent to kill, and the blame for the death of a child can more fully be attributed to the schizophrenic mental condition than the actor himself. Intuitively, this does in fact seem to be a genuine excuse.