Human Ideas by Dworkin, Nozick and Locke
J Landon
- Published Content: 165
- Total Views: 353,351
- Favorited By: 9 CPs
When asked to summarize philosophers in the syllabus, I of course find it hard but still attempt to do so. Hopefully, this argument by argument summary is helpful. These particular philosophers argue about the needs of human condition.
Ronald Dworkin considers the question of “how should t 
he government deal with those who disobey the draft laws out of conscience?” He asks us to consider whether locking up loyalists for being moral dissenters is really in the best interest of the nation. To prove his point he relates it to fighting against immoral court rulings.
He says that there are three ways people can react to court rulings they disagree with: (1) If it is in doubt, wait for it to be brought before the supreme court, (2) if it is in doubt, you can practice what you believe until its ruled against, (3) if you have a reasonable, moral objection to a legal question you should continue to practice what you believe is right. He refutes the first saying that if people did this there would never be any settled law on the subject. He refutes the second by saying that even the Supreme Court changes its mind sometimes and if people had followed the law in the meantime “they would have suffered the irreparable injury of having done what their conscience forbade them to do.” Therefore he comes to the conclusion that we should fight laws we disagree with no matter what.
He claims that draft objectors act according to model three without knowing it. He says that people should go against applicable law despite possible consequences and beseeches prosecutors to allow some leeway against the law. Dworkin ends the argument with his statement of policy which is Government should allow some draft objectors.
Ronald Dworkin considers the question of “how should t
He says that there are three ways people can react to court rulings they disagree with: (1) If it is in doubt, wait for it to be brought before the supreme court, (2) if it is in doubt, you can practice what you believe until its ruled against, (3) if you have a reasonable, moral objection to a legal question you should continue to practice what you believe is right. He refutes the first saying that if people did this there would never be any settled law on the subject. He refutes the second by saying that even the Supreme Court changes its mind sometimes and if people had followed the law in the meantime “they would have suffered the irreparable injury of having done what their conscience forbade them to do.” Therefore he comes to the conclusion that we should fight laws we disagree with no matter what.
He claims that draft objectors act according to model three without knowing it. He says that people should go against applicable law despite possible consequences and beseeches prosecutors to allow some leeway against the law. Dworkin ends the argument with his statement of policy which is Government should allow some draft objectors.