The Economics of Labor Markets free essay sample

That being said, any topic in the Ehrenberg and Smith book is acceptable. There are many sidebar issues that are highlighted, and very complete references and footnotes which would make an easy starting point for a paper. You could find a topic in current events. See the list at the end of this handout for examples. Submission Guidelines Your paper should be 10 to 12 pages in length, excluding exhibits, although if you come up short by a page I would prefer you NOT try to stretch it, so I will not automatically deduct points if your paper is only 9 pages. Your paper should include: 1. An â€Å"abstract†: A one paragraph summary of your topic and conclusions or key findings 2. Introduction and concise explanation of the topic. This must include some insight on why this topic is important, or who it is important to. 3. Main body of the paper: depending on the type of topic you have chosen, this would include different things such as a. We will write a custom essay sample on The Economics of Labor Markets or any similar topic specifically for you Do Not WasteYour Time HIRE WRITER Only 13.90 / page An explanation of the different constituencies affected by a policy or labor economics issue b. Discussion of the labor theory that applies to this topic (i. e. discrimination models, efficiency wage model, labor/leisure model, etc. ) c. Discussion of published papers in economics that have examined this topic d. Discussion of specific data used to reach conclusions in these published papers, and how this data might compare to the population you are interested in. e. Use of data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the US Census Bureau, or any other original data source f. A historical examination of similar issues in the present or past (for example, if your topic is the Post-Katrina labor market in New Orleans, look at other cities or regions hit by severe natural disasters) g. Your conclusions based on your research 4. The Conclusion or Summary 5. Reference List (You must use a minimum of six different sources for your paper, and three of these must be from academic journals. None of these can be web-only references. Use of original data counts as a source. ) 6. Your work must be properly documented in the APA system of documentation. Guidelines for this documentation style can be found in Diana Hacker’s A Writer’s Reference; online at ECN 3671 – The Economics of Labor Markets – Spring 2012 http://libguides. babson. edu/citing, and at the Babson Writing Center (Babson Hall 205) and Speech Resource Center (Horn 209). . Exhibits – feel free to embed the exhibits in the document or put them after the references. 8. Honor Code Statement – And please remember that as easy as the internet makes it to plagiarize, it also makes it very easy to catch plagiarism. There is a link to the Babson Academic Integrity Policy in the Term Paper Folder on Blackboard. Additiona l Instructions Use a 12-point font with a 1-inch margin all around. Double space lines and number all pages. All exhibits should be clearly referenced in the text, properly sequenced, and must support your analysis. Edit your document for grammar and readability. Sources ? Journal Articles found through EbscoHost or JStor or any other service Horn Library has access to. Examples of such journals are: o Journal of Labor Economics o Journal of Political Economy o Quarterly Journal of Economics o Journal of Economic Literature o Journal of Economic Perspectives o American Economic Review o Journal of International Economics o Demography o Economic Journal o Review of Economics and Statistics o Industrial and Labor Relations Review ? Books written by economists, sociologists, industrial relations experts ?

Overview of United States Government

Overview of United States Government The government of the United States is based on a written constitution. At 4,400 words, it is the shortest national constitution in the world. On June 21, 1788, New Hampshire ratified the Constitution giving it the necessary 9 out of 13 votes needed for the Constitution to pass. It officially went into effect on  March 4, 1789.  It was  consists of a Preamble, seven Articles, and 27 Amendments. From this document, the entire federal government was created. It is a living document whose interpretation has changed over time. The amendment process is such that while not easily amended, US citizens are able to make necessary changes over time. Three Branches of Government The Constitution created three separate branches of government. Each branch has its own powers and areas of influence. At the same time, the Constitution created a system of checks and balances that ensured no one branch would reign supreme. The three branches are: Legislative Branch- This branch consists of the Congress which is responsible for making the federal laws. Congress consists of two houses: the Senate and the House of Representatives.Executive Branch- The Executive power lies with the President of the United States who is given the job of executing, enforcing, and administering the laws and government. The Bureaucracy is part of the Executive Branch.Judicial Branch- The judicial power of the United States is vested in the Supreme Court and the federal courts. Their job is to interpret and apply US laws through cases brought before them. Another important power of the Supreme Court is that of Judicial Review whereby they can rule laws unconstitutional. Six Foundational Principles The Constitution is built on six basic principles. These are deeply ingrained in the mindset and landscape of the US Government. Popular Sovereignty- This principle states that the source of governmental power lies with the people. This belief stems from the concept of the social contract and the idea that government should be for the benefit of its citizens. If the government is not protecting the people, it should be dissolved.Limited Government- Since the people give the government its power, the government itself is limited to the power given to it by them. In other words, the US government does not derive its power from itself. It must follow its own laws and it can only act using powers given to it by the people.Separation of Powers- As stated previously, the US Government is divided into three branches so that no one branch has all the power. Each branch has its own purpose: to make the laws, execute the laws, and interpret the laws.Checks and Balances- In order to further protect the citizens, the constitution set up a system of checks and balances. Basically, each branch of government has a certain nu mber of checks it can use to ensure the other branches do not become too powerful. For example, the president can veto legislation, the Supreme Court can declare acts of Congress unconstitutional, and the Senate must approve treaties and presidential appointments. Judicial Review- This is a power that allows the Supreme Court to decide whether acts and laws are unconstitutional. This was established with Marbury v. Madison in 1803.Federalism- One of the most complicated foundations of the US is the principle of federalism. This is the idea that the central government does not control all the power in the nation. States also have powers reserved to them. This division of powers does overlap and sometimes leads to problems such as what happened with the response to Hurricane Katrina between the state and federal governments. Political Process While the Constitution sets up the system of government, the actual way in which the offices of Congress and the Presidency are filled are based upon the American political system. Many countries have numerous political parties- groups of people who join together to try and win political office and thereby control the government- but the US exists under a two-party system. The two major parties in America are the Democratic and Republican parties. They act as coalitions and attempt to win elections. We currently have a two-party system because of not only historical precedent and tradition but also the  electoral system itself. The fact that America has a two-party system does not mean that there is no role for third parties in the American landscape. In fact, they have often swayed elections even if their candidates have in most cases not won. There are four major types of third parties: Ideological Parties, e.g. Socialist PartySingle-Issue parties, e.g. Right to Life PartyEconomic Protest Parties, e.g. Greenback PartySplinter Parties, e.g. Bull Moose Party Elections Elections occur in the United States at all levels including local, state, and federal. There are numerous differences from locality to locality and state to state. Even when determining the presidency, there is some variation with how the electoral college is determined from state to state. While voter turnout is barely over 50% during Presidential election years and much lower than that during midterm elections, elections can be hugely important as seen by the top ten significant presidential elections.

The pros and cons of Globalization Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 3500 words

The pros and cons of Globalization - Essay Example addition a crucial debate is continuously rising on weighing the positive and negative impacts of globalization and exploring the people who are directly or indirectly influenced by the changes brought in by this concept. Globalization is a comprehensive and broad topic and covers a huge list of important issues including economic, social, political, cultural, religious and moral etc. The definition of globalization is also defined in the light of all these perspectives. As it is defined by James Rosenau, a political scientist, as as "a label that is presently in vogue to account for peoples, activities, norms, ideas, goods, services, and currencies that are decreasingly confined to a particular geographic space and its local and established practices" (1997, p.360). Most of the researchers bordered their research on the economic impacts of globalization. It is undoubtedly clear that globalization has impacted the overall economic situation of the current world. However, the social, political and other areas also require attention as globalization has affected the policies, education, culture and overall social structure of the states. The economic aspects of globalization are not limited to its effects on microenvironment but it has affected markets on a macro level. The microeconomic effects refer to the technological advancements and the impact at individual firm levels, whereas, the macroeconomic effects involve the collaborative analysis of markets for business purposes (Oman, 1994). The list of positive aspects of globalization includes the excess availability of external finance. This excess amount of finance is helpful especially for the developing countries. The excess availability of excess finance from external sources is evidenced by the IMF, Direction of Trade Statistics Yearbook and World Bank, Global Development Finance, 1999. For instance the increase in capital flows is observed in the East Asia Pacific from 15.8 in 1980 to 36.3 1997.

Titus Andronicus Questions, 'Spectacle' Assignment

Titus Andronicus Questions, 'Spectacle' - Assignment Example 2) What is the spectacle in this scene? The spectacle therefore is the creation of Lavinia’s torture through cutting of both her hands and her tongue and aptly placing her in a podium amidst a desolate swamp. 3) The mockery of Chiron and Demetrius should be comic relief, but does it feel like that to you? Initially it did; however, as one realized the gravity of their actions and the words that were said to the poor Lavinia, then, their mockery did not feel funny at all. How has Taymor (director) dealt with this aspect and what has she chosen to highlight? The director used effectively selected words and the manner by which these were delivered by Chiron and Demetrius in the scene. She therefore chose to highlight giving torture to Lavinia, not only through physical means, but through verbal mockery of her situation. 4) We see Lavinia before Marcus. Why do we get this long monologue from him? What are the essential components of it? And what does his monolgue teach us about the spectacle of Lavinia? The monologue from Marcus effectively sought the reason for Lavinia’s silence and its components including using figurative language that invoked images such as envisioning Lavinia in that dismal condition and he would want to either sleep and wake up to maybe find out that the sight was just a nightmare of some sort. The monologue therefore effectively assisted in enhancing the spectacle of Lavinia’s torture by establishing her unworthiness of such pain – being evidently professed to be a gentle soul. 5) What overall effect does this scene have on the audience (this means you)? This particular scene was therefore effective in moving the audience into empathizing with Lavinia and apparently sharing similar emotions that her character was depicting. These were made possible through the visual scenery, special effects, delivery

Patagonia Research Paper Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 250 words

Patagonia - Research Paper Example The close relation between the two is underscored by the fact that it is by closely monitoring performance that the attainment of performance target or the incurring of performance gap can be realized. From then on, it is in order that formal education should be applied. Patagonia also factors job experience as a strategy to the attainment of organizational goals. This is because; Patagonia believes that job experience is commensurate to the realization of skills necessary to the improvement of organization. Patagonia also considers interpersonal skills and relations as being indispensible to the attainment of organizational goals. This is because, good interpersonal relations foster intra-organizational communication. To this effect, Patagonia arranges for meetings, parties, recreations and get-togethers to closely knit itself. With the harnessing of interpersonal relations, employees forge team spirit better and foster cooperation at the intra-organizational level. Likewise, a sense of accountability is inculcated upon employees as they are subjected to performance/job assessment on regular basis. Likewise, Patagonia’s employees acquire more and newer skills from formal education and as they continue to gain longer job experience, and thereby helping them build and strengthen intellectual capital. With the heightened and newly-acquired intellectual capital, Patagonia is able to enjoy efficiency in production. Efficiency ensures that resources and organizational synergies are minimally used, for optimal results. This eventually ushers in surplus capital. In this surplus capital, Patagonia has a source of plough-back profit to further stimulate and propound business

Dworkin Theory of Law as Integrity

Dworkin Theory of Law as Integrity In Laws Empire, Dworkin has distinguished three legal conceptions: conventionalism, pragmatism and law as integrity  [1]  , by criticizing conventionalism and pragmatism, Dworkin concludes that law as integrity is the most plausible and defensible. However, criticism to Dworkins argument-law as Integritycan be seen in various academic works. In this essay, first and foremost, we will briefly discuss the basic arguments of Dworkins theory of law as integrity then we will go on to criticize Dworkins theory in light of relevant legal theories. Introduction of the Theory of Law as integrity Conventionalism Pragmatism In the theory of conventionalism, legal rights can only emerge from existing law, including precedents and legislation. Conventionalism also holds the view that judges must follow the law and should make decisions only based on existing statutes and more importantly, judges must respect what convention deems binding law.  [2]   According to the theory of pragmatism, assignments of legal rights and responsibilities must be consistent with past decisions. Moreover, the pragmatist theory holds the view that adjudication is not really constrained by the law. Hence, pragmatism argues that judges should decide what decision will, according to them, be best for the community as a whole.  [3]  This means that for reasons of strategy judges must sometimes act as if they are applying pre-existing legal rights.  [4]  In the meanwhile, in accordance with pragmatist theory, to some extent, the behaviour of a court in making decision of certain case is not constrained by the existing law. These two legal theories are highly criticized by Dworkin. As Dworkin points out that assumes that judges sometimes invent law, which means that they act in an unconstrained manner. Pragmatism also assumes that judges are hardly constrained when adjudicating cases. It thus cannot account for why judges are so concerned with precedents and statutes when they decide hard cases.  [5]   Dworkin then provides a third theory of law, which he believes not only better represents what actually happens when judges decide cases but is also a morally better theory of law. Law as Integrity The concept of Law as Integrity is a key to Dworkins Constructive Interpretation of legal practice.  [6]  According to Dworkin, judges should identify legal rights and obligations on the basis that all the rights and obligations are crated by the community as integrity, and all those rights and obligations express the communitys conception of justice and fairness. In accordance with Dworkin, the only way to understand legal practice seems to be thattaking the interpretative perspectives of the participant into consider in the practice. Dworkin claims that when judges (as well as lawyers) consider which way is the best to solve a legal issue, they should not simply identify exactly what positive law is applicable in a certain case, but taking an interpretative approach to law as social practice. Dworkin emphasizes that a solution to a certain case is always sought out through a matter of interpretative practice. Dworkins perspective here is quite against that of conventionalists, the conventionalists insist that in dealing with a certain case, the judge only should identify exactly what law is applicable. Furthermore, Dworkin points out that in the debate of a certain case, different opinions and arguments are raised by lawyers, and under this circumstance, the decision of what law is applicable in the case is usually based on what opinion the law amounts to in a particular matter rather than what conventions apply. Participants in such a debate thus do not attempt to link the facts of a case with the supposedly posited law applicable but rather interpret the law in light of a general normative justification or moral point expressed in it. A participant interpreting a social practice [i.e. the law], according to that view, proposes value for the practice by describing some scheme of interest or goals or principles the practice can be taken to serve or express or exemplify.  [7]   Dworkin argues that network of political structures and decisions of his community  [8]  must always be called on by a judge when the judge goes about adjudicating. For instance, legislation and case law which must be identified in a pre-interpretative stage Then in the following stages, the judge must always question himself whether his interpretation of this network could form part of a coherent theory justifying the network as a whole. No actual judge could compose of anything approaching a full interpretation of all of his communitys law at once. But an actual judge can () allow the scope of his interpretation to fan out from the cases immediately in point to cases in the same general area or department of law, and then still farther, so far as this seems promising.  [9]  In accordance with Dworkins arguments, the interpretation of law should not only fit into the legal system but also be the best normative justification of law as such, this means that not only must the i nterpretation of the judges be consistent with the law identified at the pre-interpretative stage, but also the law must be interpreted in a way which is the best in the participants mind. Moreover, according to Dworkins theory, both the judge and any other participant should adjust his own sense of of what the practice really requires so as better to serve the justification he accepts at the interpretative stage.  [10]   We notice that, in accordance with Dworkin, morality affects the whole process of adjudication of cases. By contrast, he dose not express the view that a certain case should be adjudicated and resolved on the basis of sole considerations of justice. Dworkin claims that the moral standards should be derived form the explicit and existing legal practice and contrary to positivists, Dworkin believes that moral principles that cohere with past legal practice are valid propositions of law as well-so much so that these principles can and should go beyond what legal conventions teach us the law is.  [11]   In Dworkins theory, there are two basic elements of law, one is a retrospective element, which he calls fit, and the other is a prospective element, which he calls justification.  [12]  Furthermore, Dworkin points out that in exercising the function of these two elements, judges are required to construct a theory of law which can both fit past legal decisions and makes the law as good as possible. In doing this, the judges are required to search out legal principles which have been previously mentioned in the historical and social characteristics of the legal system and then improve the law for the future by making it more coherent  [13]  . Hence, we can say that according to Dwokins theory, in dealing with a certain case, the judge should try to interpret the law in a way which promotes the coherence of the legal system as well as possible. In other words, it is to say that an interpretationwhich is the most coherent to legal systemis much better than an interpretation-which makes the legal system less coherent. This implies that when interpretation is concerned, there exists a certain tension between what is presented by the existing positivist material and what is the best way to interpret such material from a moral point of view.  [14]   From the view of Dworkin, a judge is like an author in writing a novel, in that case a new author is bound by what another author has written in a previous chapter, but the new author will subsequently attempt to continue the novel in the best possible way.  [15]  A judge should view his or her role in a chain in law, he or she is not purely independent, but is indeed independent to some extent,He knows that other judges have decided cases that, although not exactly like his case, deal with related problems; he must think of their decisions as part of a long story he must interpret and then continue, according to his own judgement of how to make the developing story as good as it can be.  [16]  In other words, Dworkin holds the view that law is not arbitrary but rather the expression of an underlying attempt at forming and clarifying a coherent legal consciousness of society.  [17]  Hence, in interpreting certain legal text, a judge is not completely free. The judge is no t allowed to inject any personal morality into the interpretation of the legal document. More essentially, a judge is required to interpret with the purpose of establishing coherence based on the integrity of existing law. Furthermore, decision making by the judge will depend, that is, not only on his beliefs about which of these principles is superior as a matter of abstract justice but also about which should be followed, as a matter of political fairness, in a community whose members have the moral convictions his fellow citizens have.  [18]  Dworkin also explains this in more general terms: There are two possibilities. Someone might say that interpretation of a social practice means discovering the purposes or intentions of the other social participants in the practice (). Or that it means discovering the purposes of the community that houses the practice, conceived as itself having some form of mental life or group consciousness. The first of these suggestions seems more attractive because less mysterious. But it is ruled out by the internal structure of an argumentative social practice, because it is a feature of such practices that an interpretive claim is not just a claim about what other i nterpreters think. () [A] social practice creates and assumes a crucial distinction between interpreting the acts and thoughts of participants one by one, in that way, and interpreting that practice itself, that is, interpreting what they do collectively. It assumes that distinction because the claims and arguments participants make, licensed and encouraged by the practice, are about what it means, not what they mean. () [An interpreter must therefore] join the practice he proposes to understand ().  [19]   Criticism of Dworkins Legal Theory Moral to full extent According to Michael Sandel  [20]  , Dwokins legal theory begins with the principles of freedom and equality that justify the institutions of democracy and law. However, as Stephen Guise points out that the claim that democracy is just and that law is part of democracy is a claim about a moral ideal.  [21]  If we go further, that is to say, in a moral level, the world without democracy is better than a democratic world. Since in a democratic world, laws are enacted and enforced but laws may be substantively unjust. Stephen Guest criticizes that The theory of Dworkins is moral to the full extent. Interpretation is therefore is not constrained by facts even though it makes use of facts. It does not follow that his theory is subjective, because his moral views like all moral views are subject to revision, correction and, in short, reason.  [22]  Stephen Breyer says that constitutional standards keep subjective judicial decision-making in check.  [23]  In my mind, it is right, but not purely right, that is because, this statement implies that there exists some external checking fact on these judicial subjective judgments, more importantly, this statement demonstrates that judges should not formulate applicable constitutional standards. In the theory of Dworkins, interpretation is something close to the end-product of moralizing with others who are largely in agreement and who endorse true propositions of modality.  [24]  This means that the origin of Dworkins legal theory is moral pro posals concerning equality and freedom. Dworkin cannot explain the extraordinary rigidity of the U.S. Constitution, in particular the way that entrenched provisions of the Constitution conservatively constrain judges by imposing the dead hand of the past  [25]  . In Dworkins perspective, there is no categorical distinction between distinction history and substance, although there is an argument of fit, as we mentioned before, this is merely another form of argument of substance. So in Dworkins theory, there is no way of identifying historical facts about the Constitution distinct from its moral substance. The only arguments are moral arguments and as we mentioned in the first part, Dworkin expresses the idea that entrenched positions can be interpreted morally, in terms, for example, of the protection of democratic decision-making. So law is a form of moralizing that is also an integral part of democracy. If we genuinely believe in equality of respect, we naturally end up with endorsing representative democracy, which means legislative activity through delegated agency. It is not just that the legislature represents my view through legislation but, merely in its existence, it expresses my conviction that I respect others equally. Since I do, I must allow that their convictions count, too, and so I must abide by whatever the procedural outcome is of this respect I owe to others. Moral convictions and objectivity. There is a conflict in Dworkins theory, on one hand, Dworkin emphasizes objectivity in decision making, on the other hand, Dworkin put decision onto a moral basis. As Duncan Kennedy  [26]  claims that à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ ¦the judges should not choose the interpretation that applies their own moral and political convictions. I personally dont see what else they could applyà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ ¦ Furthermore, as Waldron points out that à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ ¦These are convictions, not whims, and even where there is nothing else but ones own convictions to follow, no-one thinks that it means those convictions are rightà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ ¦Ã‚  [27]  So it is rare or even impossible that a judge will not take personal moral convictions into the process of adjudication or interpretation. Unclear about Justice By holding the same view with Waldron, Smith  [28]  supposes that Dworkins idea or justice is not clear since Dworkin has argued that justice depends on recognizable principles. Furthermore, Smith questions that why should a principle of justice have to be recognizable?  [29]  For principles of justice will surely gain moral recognition if they do because they have force independent of recognition. Someone has to do the recognizing first. How to achieve ideal integrity? Susan Hurley  [30]  defends Dworkins perspective against a claim by Kenneth Kress  [31]  that Dworkin cannot provide a coherent consideration of law in circumstances where there is an intervening judicial decision between a set of facts that ground litigation and the litigation itself. Does the judge decide on the basis of the previous law, or the intervening law? Hurley concludes that if the intervening decision is right, then there is coherence, therefore, there is no problem; if it is wrong, it is a mistake, and need not count. A question may be raised here thatalthough it may have created further rights, say, to reasonable expectations being met, which will cohere with integrity? Moreover, Hurley  [32]  sees the problem in terms of overall moral coherence untrammeled by worries about descriptive facts'. So Hurley usefully broadens the picture by pointing out that coherence is determined as much by hypothetical facts, those that test the limits of principle (and which judges often use), as they are by judicial decisions. Furthermore, as we mentioned before, in Dworkins legal theory, when dealing with a particular case, a judge should interpret and apply law in light of the whole legal system, and make interpretation which is consistent with the integrity of the legal system. However, is this really applicable in practice? In accordance with Waldron  [33]  , it is a challenge to Dworkins descriptive optimism that the facts of the American legal system could make it impossible to give an overall account of American law that would remain true to integrity. But as Stephen argues that there is no such tension between facts and moral optimism as he appears to envisage. The facts are either incorporated into the argument that makes for integrity or they are discounted. There is the possibility that the American legal system has become so dysfunctional that no moral case for integrity can be made for it, but that seemingly remote possibility would not be an embarrassment for Dworkins theory.  [34]  Waldrons comments seem to imply that there are facts that determine law independently of interpretation. And so it has the general form of: Imagine a legal system where integrity might not apply; what then? Dworkins reply can only be and it is his reply that We cannot be sure, before we look, because noth ing in his legal theory requires that all legal systems display integrity  [35]  . Finally, Dworkin must allow that, by making best sense of an existing legal practice, we may still conclude that the practice failed the ideal. Take the fugitive slave Acts for instance.  [36]  What should the judges do when they are legally required to send captured slaves back to the South? In order to maintain the integrity of legal system, the judges should send those slaves back but to achieve the goal of justice, judges should set the slaves free. Hence, the outcome of the judgment represents a serious conflict between integrity and jusitice. A positivist will deal this case by distinguishing legal justice and real justice, but in Dworkins theory, this is criticized. According to Dworkins theory, the relevant ideal here is the ideal of integrity; it is through bad legal argument that one fails to meet that ideal, and it is bad because it hasnt made maximal use, in the circumstances of actual practice, what that actual ideal of integrity requires. So interpretivism produces an ideal, but it is not the outcome that would be the best in all possible worlds, which is how we ordinarily think of ideals. But maybe this doesnt particularly matter. We have the ideal solution in integrity and this differs from the ideal solution in justice. At times both fairness and efficiency require following precedents, but integrity is different, although it will serve both those values as well. Nevertheless, the ideal of integrity appears to be constrained by existing practices in a way that the ideal of justice is not. Or, by its nature, it seems, interpretation is only possible within the existing world, which suggests it is not an ideal at all. A cruder way of putting this point is that making the best sense of existing legal practices is no more than adequately characterizing equity deficits, that is to say characterizing how far these practices fall short of the ideal. If the Legal System is Wicked Obviously, a consequence of Dworkins views is that the legal system itself may not contain too many mistakes. That is because in Dworkins theory, the normative dimension feeds on the law itself, and more importantly, Dworkin emphasizes the relationship between local politics and law. As a matter of fact, Dworkins theory is constructed on the presupposition that the integrity of the legal community is in a large measure reflected in its law. So if the justification of law is to flow from societys political decisions (in the form of law), it follows that these decisions must also be justifiable as such; but this is obviously not always the case, as the examples of Apartheid South Africa and Nazi Germany show. Why would we make racism the best it can be? Dworkins argument here is circular in that it presupposes, in his case, the existence of a liberal democracy  [37]   We also note that Dworkins theory does not require abandoning the history or anthropology of wicked legal systems. As we mentioned before, Dworkin holds the view that law should be treated as conventional, because that is a theory that clearly has a moral point  [38]  . There is no need to talk in terms of the Hart-Dworkin debate'  [39]  Stephen claims, especially as they barely debated these questions. The debate should instead concern the theoretical question of the identification of the conditions according to which propositions of law are true. That debate is important because it concerns, amongst other matters, our moral obligation to conform to law. And so while it is right that we move away from the Hart- Dworkin debate, it would be wrong to move from questions concerning the identification of law, because these are at the core of our moral obligations to the community.  [40]  It is true that there will be occasions when the law requires something the moral force o f which grates with a judges personal convictions. There will therefore be occasions when it may be morally right for the judge to lie where justice trumps integrity. But I dont see how any of this affects Dworkins theory unless, yet again, one supposes that some descriptive fact defeats the moral judgment. Both the systems of apartheid and Nazism contained elements of good that could be put to use through integrity. Since these systems regularly enforced equality in some spheres, and morality says that the racial classifications are wrong, then the laws promoting the immoral policies can be made out as dysfunctional, perverted, or even mistaken and, so, not creative of moral obligations. However, if there is no articulated and public structure that, as Dyzenhaus says, citizens have been encouraged to obey and treat as a source of rights and duties,  [41]  it is difficult to see what is left. Where there is such a semblance of law, of an articulate public structure of rights an d duties, citizens acquiescence forms something of a legitimizing base, which, incidentally, Fuller called the external morality of law.  [42]   What will be interpreted cannot be distinguished from the interpretation itself It is not very clear in what respect an analogy can be drawn between law and literature in that legal texts constrain judges in their interpretative activities. Some argue that legal texts themselves are texts as well and thus also must be interpreted. In other words, what is to be interpreted cannot be distinguished from the interpretation itself. There is no such thing as a text out there  [43]  , and meaning is derived from interpretation. From that point of view, a previous legal text as such does not put any constraints on its interpretation but rather on the shared understandings that live within the interpreting community. Conclusion As we have discussed throughout this essay, although Dworkin tried to provide a theory of law, which, at least in his opinion, not only better represents what actually happens when judges decide cases but is also a morally better theory of law. It seems that his work is unsuccessful. Dworkin tried to avoid the shortcomings of both conventionalist theory and pragmatist theory. In the theory of law as integrity, when comes to interpretation of law, on one hand, Dworkin expects to make the judge constrained by law by arguing that the interpretation of law should follow the step of former decisions and be coherent with the existing legal system, on the other hand, Dworkin tries to make the judge creative, and emphasizes on the moral issues in the process of interpretation. Moreover, Dworkin connects law with other social elements, such as politics and local community, and enlarged the conception of integrity. In conclusion, we see Dworkins theory of law as integrity is good in a moral level but bad in a legal level. As we have discussed in this essay, Dworkins theory of law as integrity lacks applicability, if a theory only sounds good but could not be applied in practice, this theory is not a good one. In addition, as a legal theory, Dworkins theory of law as integrity fails in the following essential aspects. Firstly, this theory made its sole concept integrity conflicted with the concept of justice under certain circumstances. Secondly, when Dworkin makes law closely related to politics, actually, more problems have been raised rather than solved.

Classical Philosophers Essay -- essays research papers

Classical Philosophy The golden age of Greece was an age of thinking, of knowledge, and of the arts. Some of the greatest minds of any time projected their ideas upon the masses. They were called philosophers. These were men whose minds developed some of the most abstract and revolutionary ideas of the time. Some of them were put to death for their ideas and their beliefs and became martyrs for their cause. During this age, three philosophers in particular stood out from the rest. Socrates Socrates was the first of the three great philosophers. Before devoting his life to his teachings and philosophies, he was a stonemason and also served as a soldier of some distinction during the Peloponnesian war. He never wrote any of his teachings down, and he preferred to speak about his beliefs and philosophies. He also involved himself with the political workings of Athens. He spent most of his life in discussion with young aristocratic men, unrelentingly questioning their blind confidence in popular opinion, but he never offered them any outlined abstract teaching. He merely conversed and questioned their beliefs. Also, unlike other Sophists of the time, he refused to accept pay for his teachings. Because he had no texts written by himself on his beliefs, we turn to his followers for information on his beliefs. Plato documents many of Socrates’ conversations with the youth of Athens in his book, Plato’s Republic. In 405 BC Socrates was convicted (wrongly I might add) of corrupting the youth of Athens, interfering with the religion of the city, and for his intervention into politics. There is a text called `Apology’, which documents his unsuccessful defense speech before the Athenian jury. In 399 BC, surrounded by friends and disciples, he drank hemlock (a poison made from the plant with the same name) and died gracefully. Socrates’ beliefs were not only revolutionary, but also controversial. He spoke with disdain about the gods, and refuted the notion that ‘good’ is doing whatever pleases them. Many texts document his beliefs and morals. Most informative of these are in Plato’s Republic. The best known out of all of his ideas were ideas about virtue, and doing what is right and good. Plato Plato was the next great philosopher, chronologically. It should be noted that Plato’s real name was Aristocles, and that Plato was a nickname, roughly translated to mean... ...e city. Here he started his own academy, known as the Lyceum, and here he began to teach Alexander. (Note: This is where the chain ended. Alexander did not become a philosopher, and did not teach anyone else) Not long after Aristotle returned to Athens, the Athenian people revolted against Macedonian rule. Due to his political position (some would describe it as betrayal) and to avoid being executed, he fled to the island of Euboea, where he died soon afterwards.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Aristotle’s works were modern for the time. He had distinguished dolphins and whales from fish, created a classification system quite similar to the one in place today, and formed many astronomical ideas, which were not far from the truth. It should also be noted that in medieval times, he gained a great many followers after some of his preserved works were found, and the disciples of the late philosopher generally believed his works as absolute truth.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  These philosophers made a great impact, even thousands of years after their lives. We still look to their works for answers, and there are systems they themselves created that are still being put into use today. Classical Philosophers Essay -- essays research papers Classical Philosophy The golden age of Greece was an age of thinking, of knowledge, and of the arts. Some of the greatest minds of any time projected their ideas upon the masses. They were called philosophers. These were men whose minds developed some of the most abstract and revolutionary ideas of the time. Some of them were put to death for their ideas and their beliefs and became martyrs for their cause. During this age, three philosophers in particular stood out from the rest. Socrates Socrates was the first of the three great philosophers. Before devoting his life to his teachings and philosophies, he was a stonemason and also served as a soldier of some distinction during the Peloponnesian war. He never wrote any of his teachings down, and he preferred to speak about his beliefs and philosophies. He also involved himself with the political workings of Athens. He spent most of his life in discussion with young aristocratic men, unrelentingly questioning their blind confidence in popular opinion, but he never offered them any outlined abstract teaching. He merely conversed and questioned their beliefs. Also, unlike other Sophists of the time, he refused to accept pay for his teachings. Because he had no texts written by himself on his beliefs, we turn to his followers for information on his beliefs. Plato documents many of Socrates’ conversations with the youth of Athens in his book, Plato’s Republic. In 405 BC Socrates was convicted (wrongly I might add) of corrupting the youth of Athens, interfering with the religion of the city, and for his intervention into politics. There is a text called `Apology’, which documents his unsuccessful defense speech before the Athenian jury. In 399 BC, surrounded by friends and disciples, he drank hemlock (a poison made from the plant with the same name) and died gracefully. Socrates’ beliefs were not only revolutionary, but also controversial. He spoke with disdain about the gods, and refuted the notion that ‘good’ is doing whatever pleases them. Many texts document his beliefs and morals. Most informative of these are in Plato’s Republic. The best known out of all of his ideas were ideas about virtue, and doing what is right and good. Plato Plato was the next great philosopher, chronologically. It should be noted that Plato’s real name was Aristocles, and that Plato was a nickname, roughly translated to mean... ...e city. Here he started his own academy, known as the Lyceum, and here he began to teach Alexander. (Note: This is where the chain ended. Alexander did not become a philosopher, and did not teach anyone else) Not long after Aristotle returned to Athens, the Athenian people revolted against Macedonian rule. Due to his political position (some would describe it as betrayal) and to avoid being executed, he fled to the island of Euboea, where he died soon afterwards.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Aristotle’s works were modern for the time. He had distinguished dolphins and whales from fish, created a classification system quite similar to the one in place today, and formed many astronomical ideas, which were not far from the truth. It should also be noted that in medieval times, he gained a great many followers after some of his preserved works were found, and the disciples of the late philosopher generally believed his works as absolute truth.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  These philosophers made a great impact, even thousands of years after their lives. We still look to their works for answers, and there are systems they themselves created that are still being put into use today.