Hart considers that a legal system is effective even though it is unjust or immoral. The Nazi regime is the best example in this point. Nazi Regime discriminates individual on racial grounds. According to Hart, Nazi regime was valid legal system. Hart give emphasize on the statement that the question of what is law must be separated from the question of whether it is just or moral.
On the other hand, natural law theorist Fuller believes that law and morality cannot be distinguished neatly and that the post-second world war courts were entitled to hold Nazi rules not to be law. According to Fuller, Nazi regime were an instrument of arbitrary and tyrannical regime. It is false description to call Nazi system ‘legal’ and its rules are law.
The
…show more content…
For if me adopt the courts course and asserts that “certain rules cannot be law because of their moral inquiry”, we, “confuse one of the most powerful because it is the simplest, forms of moral criticism”. Rather, we should “speak plainly” and say that “laws may be laws but too evil to be obeyed”. Radbruch criticized the positivist and stated that positivism allows Nazi regime and view that “extreme injustice is no law”. But Hart accuses Radbruch and stated that the people like Germans should believe that law might be law even if it failed to comply with the minimum requirements of …show more content…
According to him, question of the validity of laws does not depend on the content of the morality. Hart quotes Austin’s command theory and stated that the man who is convicted of a crime punishable by death even if it was beneficial or trivial when he did it.
In contrast to Hart, Fuller argued that attention to the “internal morality of law” would have helped German lawyers before the war maintain their fidelity to the ideal of law. After the war, German judges could have focused on the deterioration of legality.
Fuller rejects Hart’s theory and stated that the law is too evil to be obeyed is wrong headed. When a court refused to admit a particular law “moral confusion reaches its height”. Fuller said that the situation of ‘drastic emergency’ has not been taken by Hart. Fuller thought that Radbruch’s new position after the war is the clear vision of indifference to the internal morality of law in Germany. Fuller hold the notion that despite Hart is the critique of Radbruch, there is a deep similarity between Hart and Radbruch’s positions. Both emphasized on higher moral law as a last resort to deal with the problems created by past legal injustice. They believe that higher law is a law which has power to invalidate another law. Both prefer the legal solution to come in the form of a frankly retroactive ruling. Fuller seems
The Gestapo was an information gathering and law enforcing body of the Nazi regime, which began its operation in 1933. The organization has been examined though many lenses, some more popular than others. The article, “ The Gestapo and German Society” by Robert Gellately argues how ultimately it was society that fueled the Gestapo’s power beyond the limits of what they could have achieved without society’s help. Other perspectives into the analysis of the Gestapo have included the organizations legal history and insights into key leaders such as Henirich Himmler. What some of these other perspectives lack is a thorough assessment of the Gestapo’s operations. Gellately created a compelling argument by determining what led to a Gestapo case being initiated and the number of employees per branch compared to the population to conclude that the Gestapo lacked the physical resources to be the motor of the terror system within the Nazi regime. Yet, the author leaves room to argue that German society had adequate reason to fear the brutal behaviour of the Gestapo regardless of private citizen’s cooperation in cases.
instant postwar penal code of German, which remained first-degree murder could merely be 'for stand intentions' that did not incorporate 'unflustered' contribution in mass killing note. However, executor evidence as well as the Milgram note points that even at the time the wish to obey the group remains a most important ground for somebody performing a dissipated group act. They more or less constantly structure their conformity on “Just Following Orders,” (Estlund 221).
While maintaining a open look of this moral law, Lewis presents two objections one would present to the moral law: “The moral law is just herd instinct” and “Morality is just social convention. The moral law is not a herd instinct due to man’s choice to suppress stronger instincts in fa...
The main purpose of the book was to emphasize how far fear of Hitler’s power, motivation to create a powerful Germany, and loyalty to the cause took Germany during the Third Reich. During the Third Reich, Germany was able to successfully conquer all of Eastern Europe and many parts of Western Europe, mainly by incentive. Because of the peoples’ desires and aspirations to succeed, civilians and soldiers alike were equally willing to sacrifice luxuries and accept harsh realities for the fate of their country. Without that driving force, the Germans would have given up on Hitler and Nazism, believing their plan of a powerful Germany...
Law, ?a governmental social control? (Black 2), is a quantitative variable that changes in time and space and can be defined by style: penal, compensatory, therapeutic or conciliatory (Black 5). The brief description of law and its interrelation with social control and deviant behavior can be encapsulated in the following scheme. This concept of law put into the context of social life gives a framework of the behavior of law.
He emphasizes that such principle is prior to any calculations of the possible outcomes that may occur if the rule is broken.(136) In other words, it is morally wrong to break the rule no matter how good the consequences will be. He then presents the principle in the form of how countries should act in a war: aggression that are directed toward someone can only be justified by something about that person that merits not only the aggression itself but also the type of aggression being used. Without the justification of something about that person, the aggression then will lose the characteristic of personal interaction, which is one of the essential qualities that a war has, and, as Nagel mentioned, will become “purely bureaucratic
Historians are often divided into categories in regard to dealing with Nazi Germany foreign policy and its relation to Hitler: 'intentionalist', and 'structuralist'. The intentionalist interpretation focuses on Hitler's own steerage of Nazi foreign policy in accordance with a clear, concise 'programme' planned long in advance. The 'structuralist' approach puts forth the idea that Hitler seized opportunities as they came, radicalizing the foreign policies of the Nazi regime in response. Structuralists reject the idea of a specific Hitlerian ideological 'programme', and instead argue for an emphasis on expansion no clear aims or objectives, and radicalized with the dynamism of the Nazi movement. With Nazi ideology and circumstances in Germany after World War I influencing Nazi foreign policy, the general goals this foreign policy prescribed to included revision of Versailles, the attainment of Lebensraum, or 'living space', and German racial domination. These foreign policy goals are seen through an examination of the actions the Nazi government took in response to events as they happened while in power, and also through Hitler's own ideology expressed in his writings such as Mein Kempf. This synthesis of ideology and social structure in Germany as the determinants of foreign policy therefore can be most appropriately approached by attributing Nazi foreign policy to a combination as both 'intentionalist' and 'structuralist' aims. Nazi foreign policy radicalized with their successes and was affected by Hitler pragmatically seizing opportunities to increase Nazi power, but also was based on early a consistent ideological programme espoused by Hitler from early on.
- Too much respect for law/authority leads people to do unjust things, such as war
The thoughtlessness in which Eichmann embodied in the courtroom, along with the normalcy he possesses, aids in the development of the enigmatic structure of the trial. Arendt's battle to find middle-ground between the idea of Eichmann as a common man attempting to fulfill objectives and his connection to the Nazi regime is what defies original theories on evil. The guilt Eichmann carries is clearly much larger than the man himself, especially one so simplistic and thoughtless. Therefore, the evil presented in Eichma...
MODERN HISTORY – RESEARCH ESSAY “To what extent was Nazi Germany a Totalitarian state in the period from 1934 to 1939?” The extent to which Nazi Germany was a totalitarian state can be classed as a substantial amount. With Hitler as Fuhrer and his ministers in control of most aspects of German social, political, legal, economical, and cultural life during the years 1934 to 1939, they mastered complete control and dictation upon Germany. In modern history, there have been some governments, which have successfully, and others unsuccessfully carried out a totalitarian state. A totalitarian state is one in which a single ideology is existent and addresses all aspects of life and outlines means to attain the final goal, government is run by a single mass party through which the people are mobilized to muster energy and support.
Raz also states that “the principles of natural justice must be observed” and that “the courts should have review powers to ensure conformity of the law”, however, the formal theory shows no regard for “natural justice” as it is a theory concerned with the procedures followed and not the content of the law, so therefore there is weakness in Raz’s theory of the rule of law. Therefore, the formal theory of the rule of law engenders unjust situations which may be justified if good procedures are implemented when making the law. Nonetheless, Raz upholds the notion that the substantive theory is inadequate as the rule of law should not be reliant upon morality in order for the legal system to be prosperous, he therefore rejects Lord Bingham's statement that “A state which savagely repressed.its people could not in my view be regarded as observing the rule of law” as he postulates that the law should not be focused on the interests of those who are exposed to it. The UK courts have the power to decide whether the governmental authority has acted ‘Ultra Vires’.
The word “right” (recht or Recht in German), as it is used in Kant’s political writings, has at least three closely related meanings. First, “right” is an adjective denoting a property of a certain set of actions: “right actions.” Second, “right” is a noun used to refer to an individual entitlement to engage in some action without interference, for example, “a right to practice my religion.” Finally, “right” can refer to a system of justice as a whole. What follows is a brief description of these three senses of “right,” and of the relationships between them.
Law is the foundation of central structures of social life on which society’s integrity depends, which is why Petrazycki, Ehrlich and Habermas perceive it to be a key steering mechanism in society,