Legal positivism recognises laws as legitimate no matter how implausible it may be and consequences for breaking the law in the eyes of a legal positivism would be justified.

I need 5 responses to my classmates posts and each post needs to be 150 words min with references. Please keep in order and i need plagiarism free as well. This is discussion post-After having read Chapter 1 recall the idea that law is the moral minimum in a democratic society. Why is the law considered a moral minimum? Is this definition dependent on whether we are looking at the law from the perspective of legal positivism or from that of natural law? Explain in a way that demonstrates your understanding of the difference between these different perspectives. If you had to pick one perspective or the other which do you prefer? Why?1. Thomas Litzinger RE: DB1 Collapse Hi Marcus I enjoyed reading your post. My interpretation of the moral minimum is that as citizens of a country and a community we have a certain level of behavior that is is required of us. We must maintain or exceed that level of behavior if we expect to enjoy the benefits that are afforded to us by our community. Any behavior less than that standard contradicts with the law and we deserve to be punished for our bad deeds. Most of us understand the difference between right and wrong and understand this level of behavior. We are fortunate to live in a country where all men are created equal a country that has granted its citizens the unalienable rights that have given to every one of us by God or an higher authority. Our rights are life liberty and the pursuit of happiness. As a supporter of natural law I fully acknowledge that there is a higher power that I must answer to in this life and the next. As citizens we are required to live in a way that is consistent with keeping the peace maintaining the status quo preserves individuals rights protects the rights of minorities from majorities promotes social justice and provides for orderly social change (Mayer n. d.). Thank you for a great post. Thomas Mayer n. d. Business Law and the Legal Environment Irvington Flat World Knowledge Inc. 2. This is a good post Marcus. Because I have to be contrarian I’ll need to pick at you (otherwise this would be boring if all I did was say Yah! Right-o! ) Who will determine what the moral minimums are in your view? I think we can all agree on the biggies don’t steal don’t commit murder etc but what about the harder cases that lay between the cracks. Heck we cannot even agree on anything in this country so surely we cannot leave it up to the voters. I saw Thomas mentioned a higher power but there are great debates among religious leaders of ALL forms of religion interpreting their respective religion’s tenents. 3. Kristina McWilliams Discussion Board Week Uno- McWilliams Collapse The law aims to curb the worst kind of wrongs the kinds of wrongs that violate what might be called the ?moral minimums? that a community demands of its members (Mayer Business and the Legal Environment). The moral minimum is set to help guide us to make the right (moral) decisions and to face our consequences when we don’t. There is a fine line between what is morally ethical and what is actually against the law. For example; it is morally wrong to cheat on a significant other but it is against the law to cheat on your spouse. If you cheat on a boyfriend or girlfriend chances are the relationship is going to end; but if you cheat on a husband or wife it could end in a legal divorce with possible alimony owed to one party. When looking at the law through the perspective of positivism right and wrong are not defined by morals but by the law. Whereas the natural law theory is based on what we believe to be morally right or morally wrong. For example; if you are pulled over for speeding because your wife is in labor and about to deliver your baby if the officer that pulled you over is displaying the positive law approach he would write you a ticket because you broke the law. Now if that same officer decided to display a natural law approach he might let you off with a warning because he could justify why you were speeding (by using his own morals and beliefs to determine what is right). If I had to pick one perspective I would choose the natural law approach. It is much more important to me to be morally right than to follow guidelines (laws) that are expected of me. However depending on the situation if going with the natural law decision would land me in jail or prison then I would use the positive law perspective because I have other people who depend on me like my children and spouse. 4. Rachel Schmidt DB 1 Collapse After having read Chapter 1 recall the idea that law is the moral minimum in a democratic society. Why is the law considered a moral minimum? The law in considered a moral minimum because At a minimum it aims to curb the worst kind of wrongs the kids of wrong that violate what might be called the moral Minimums that a community demands of its members. (Don Warner Siedel & Lieberman 2014 p. 12) To elaborate on the books example in a different view; giving a person a ride in my car. If I do not wish to give someone a ride that really needs one (for whatever reason) the argument could be made that it is wrong. But there is nothing legally that will happen to me if I decide not to. However if I take this person for a ride against their will well that is called kidnapping and is wrong in all 50 states and in many countries. Specifically in our 50 states kidnapping violates our rights and I would be held accountable (as the law states) and face a punishment enforced by a judge. Is this definition dependent on whether we are looking at the law from the perspective of legal positivism or from that of natural law? Explain in a way that demonstrates your understanding of the difference between these different perspectives. I believe the definition of moral minimums does change dramatically by perspective. The word moral can mean different things to different people and cultures. When you think about positivism it is usually interrupting the law for literally what it says Just because it is the law and it is enforced with vengeance. (Don Warner Siedel & Lieberman 2014 p. 9) An extreme and sad example of this would be under Hitler and the Nazi Regime through genocide Hitler wanted to have the perfect race. Under his dictatorship/leadership the law was enforced with absolute vengeance. There many Nazis who did not agree with the law however if they did not follow it they themselves were endanger of being executed. Although Hitler was a good leader (meaning he got many people to follow him) he used is power for evil. The Allies united because the law that was being enforced was pure evil. It violated human rights. In 1948 the international community formally condemned the crime of genocide (Don Warner Siedel & Lieberman 2014 p. 7) Natural law uses reason to choose between good and evil it is understood as an objective norm. It is the expected behavior that we as humans should bestow upon each others. Failure to do so is punishable when the harm caused by the behavior impacts another person or business in a way that brings physical or financial harm to them. To circle back about perspective if you went back and time and were brave enough to sit in a room with Hitler and ask him Is genocide wrong? I am sure he would tell you that was a justified law and not wrong. However as a class we have the culture that embraces Natural Law and we know how wrong genocide is. That is the power of perspective. If you had to pick one perspective or the other which do you prefer? Why? If I had to pick one it would be Natural Law. I live in contracts with my line of work. Each contract has very specific language which enforces a policy. However there are times when you need to have a realistic point of view. With an ability to stop and challenge what you feel is not right. I can recall one specific claim where a tornado caused a number of trees to fall on a clients septic field cause major damage. With any type of down tree coverage is very limited if it falls on the ground and does not touch a structure. The weight of the trees crushed the septic tank and it needed to be pumped twice a week to avoid raw sewage backing up on the yard. The client paid to have a pipe installed to make draining the tank easier. Without the pipe the septic company had to dig up and rebury every time. The client has exhausted the limit for removing trees from the ground. Also putting a drainage pipe on the tank did not make the client whole it made him better than before the loss happened. Therefore in the companies eyes the cost of the drainage pipe was denied and the additional cost to remove the trees from the ground above the septic tank was also denied. By the policy language the company was right. I did not agree with this point of view and decided to dig into the legal aspect of the policy and underwriting guidelines. Long story short in reality the septic tank made the house livable (which was required in the guidelines) therefore in theory the septic field is a part of the structure and not subjected to the limited coverage for tree removal. Digging into the drainage cap I agree it was not there prior to the loss. However when I looked at insured responsibility in the event of the loss and mitigation procedures what the insured did in the long run saved the company money. The insured did not install the drainage cap to be made better but to aid the cost of the dollars being paid out for this loss. After applying logic to the claim and the client being upset about the initial denial of these two part of the claim. I was overjoyed to hand him a check after my points were heard and reviewed at the head of claims. Yes as an independent agency I work for both the client and the company. However it is important to use logic and reasoning to determine a solution. If I would have only read just the policy for what it was I would not have found in guidelines where it supported the policy paying out the loss. Bibliography Don M. Warner D. M. Siedel G. J. & Lieberman J. K. (2014). Business Law and the Legal Environment Executive MBA Edition Version 1.0. Washington DC : Flat World Knowledge Inc. 5. Kayla Rouser Week 1 From this weeks readings the law is considered a moral minimum because it is put in place to command/control a sovereign. With that the law as a moral minimum acts as an attempt to curb any wrongs or wrongdoings from members of its community. The definition of law as a moral minimum is dependent from the perspective of that of natural law because it bases what is seen as right or wrong from the people of the community. When looking at law from the perspective of legal positivism the definition of law as a moral minimum would be obsolete because the law wouldn’t correct every wrong that is committed or be based on a moral order. Legal positivism recognises laws as legitimate no matter how implausible it may be and consequences for breaking the law in the eyes of a legal positivism would be justified. Natural law is just the opposite and my preferred perspective because it gives more autonomy to the people who follow the law and also to those who constitute and legislate the law. Under natural law laws are based on a universal moral order.

 

"Is this question part of your assignment? We Can Help!"