Assignment 8

Part I

1. M.L King explains the reality of segregation and what happens to those who get segregated. He states that the laws are unjust because allowing segregation to be legal makes those who aren't of dark skin feel as if they have the rights to treat "negros" unfairly. It allows the police to feel as If they can physically abuse of them. 

2.In M.L King's opinion, we should disobey unjust laws because he does not agree with mistreating people due to what they're race, culture, skin color or religion may be. He says that weather it is legal or not, he would never treat someone one poorly or mistreat anyone.

3. Aquinas determines that a law is just due to what the moral  outcome would be. If it comes off as immoral then the law is unjust. According to Aquinas "we ought to obey god rather than men." Therefore he believes that is a law does not provide happiness nor "human good" than that law shall be considered unjust.

 

4. .  Legal positivism is based on rules are rules. They do not focus in any way on what might be moral or true. A legal positivist would say that segregation is a law and with that being a law it must be obeyed

Part II

The point that King and Augustine were trying to make was that some laws are unfair and shouldn't have become laws to begin with. For examples the racial laws that make it okay to abuse others are unjust laws. King wound up in jail for breaking laws that he felt were not just. This does in fact prove that unjust laws are still laws and should be followed by all means. However I still believe Augustine was not incorrect in his statement. The fact do refute Augustine's statement because unfortunately the law is the law and if broken at any time the one who broke the law will be punished for it. The law must be followed if one wants to stay out of prison. My personal opinion is that unjust laws should not be broken but depending on the situation sometimes they shouldn't be followed off one feels it is immoral. I always wouldn't treat others harsh because its a law.

Assignment #7

Part I

What are Jackson’s arguments in support of the charter of London?

Jackson supports the charter because he thinks that this is the Germans "last hope".  They will be judged and at the same time have a chance to speak on their own behalf and defend them selves. Jackson believes that the charter will make international law stronger and make People grow to respect and follow the law. 

What are Wyzanki’s arguments against the legality of the charter?

Wyzanski believes that the defendants at Nuremburg trial should be punished. Although he may feel that way, he is against the charter because he does not think it is completely fair considering the fact that the soldiers were not wrong for taking orders from their superiors. Wyzanski says that there is no such thing as laws for war crimes. There was no law there was nothing to obey besides your superiors. He argues that what they did was wrong but they did not do it because they wanted, instead they did it because they were merely obeying orders, which was their job. 

Part II

I do agree with the sentence that was given to Graner. There is no excuse for sexually humiliating hundreds of people. Although he was told to do it, I do not believe him when he says that he believed it to be lawful. He still chose to do it. Just because he was told does not mean he had to do it. He could have refused and dealt with the consequences. Ultimately it was his decision to go along with the abuse.