|
Differing Concepts of Justice and Freedom
Quote:
Originally posted by Spanky
Our whole countrys legal system is based on the idea that there is a universal moral code and there is no moral relativism. It was clearly illegal for the colonies to declare independence from England. To justify it Jefferson did not say, well it may be illegal but we are going to declare independence anyway because it is in our interest to do so. Jefferson said that there is a higher law, that the creator gives all men rights, and if a government violates those rights (violates gods law, or the universal moral code) then people have the legal right, under the Creators laws, to declare themselves independent of those laws.
The whole idea of Justice assumes there is no moral relativism. If you argue in equity you are saying that something may be illegal but it is still OK. Then you are saying that although something you are arguing is not in line with the law, but is in line with a higher law. The concept of Justice (where Justice is different from legal) implies a higher absolute law.
|
I disagree. If this were true, then why would we need a Bill of Rights to protect the right to dissent and to prevent the tyranny of the majority?
__________________
Send in the evil clowns.
|
