Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
An unjust law is no law at all (Latin: lex iniusta non est lex) is an expression in support of natural law, acknowledging that authority is not legitimate unless it is good and right. It has become a standard legal maxim around the world. This view is strongly associated with natural law theorists, including John Finnis and Lon Fuller. [1]
Moral equivalence is a term used in political debate, usually to deny that a moral comparison can be made of two sides in a conflict, or in the actions or tactics of two sides. The term had some currency in polemic debates about the Cold War .
To do so, "voting should not be viewed as a form of personal self-expression or moral judgement directed in retaliation towards major party candidates who fail to reflect our values, or of a corrupt system designed to limit choices to those acceptable to corporate elites" rather as an opportunity to reduce harm or loss. [3]
There cannot be this false moral equivalence in our discourse." Brian Thompson, the CEO of UnitedHealth's insurance arm, one of the largest health insurers in the U.S., was shot dead on the ...
Godwin's law has many corollaries, some considered more canonical (by being adopted by Godwin himself) [2] than others. For example, many newsgroups and other Internet discussion forums have a tradition that, when a Nazi or Hitler comparison is made, the thread is finished and whoever made the comparison loses whatever debate is in progress. [ 13 ]
In both wars, context made it tricky to deal with moral challenges. What is moral in combat can at once be immoral in peacetime society. Shooting a child-warrior, for instance. In combat, eliminating an armed threat carries a high moral value of protecting your men. Back home, killing a child is grotesquely wrong.
Legal moralism is the theory of jurisprudence and the philosophy of law which holds that laws may be used to prohibit or require behavior based on society's collective judgment of whether it is moral. It is often given as an alternative to legal liberalism, which holds that laws may only be used to the extent that they promote liberty. [1]
If Speaker B believes in the maxim "the law should be followed," then their unstated premise is that breaking the law (or the wrong) is justified, as long as the other party also does so. Yet, if Speaker B believes the maxim "it is acceptable to break the law to wrong those who also break the law", they are committing no logical fallacy .