Obeying Laws Definition
Imagine what a law-abiding country would look like. Everyone will abide by laws prohibiting racial discrimination. All employers would offer contraceptive insurance. All employers and businesses would respect LGBTQI rights. No law would protect child abuse or child molesters. Everyone would be vaccinated to protect their own health and the health of others. Conscience clauses would give no reason for medical providers to deny a patient sterilization, contraception, abortion, the right to die, or other medical procedures. 35. Fed. R.
Civ., p. 12(b)(6). The rule is an interesting case because it contains a description of the plot (in this case, an omission) that the law orders the plaintiff, the defendant (to file a motion) and the judge (to dismiss a case) to refer to the plaintiff`s conduct in bringing an action. 5. One might think that while respect for the law has received little attention from philosophers, another, closely related topic has produced a vast body of literature that is of obvious relevance here. Inspired by some of Wittgenstein`s remarks, many philosophers of the past thirty years have debated what it means to “follow a rule.” See, for example, Saul Kripke, Wittgenstein on Rules and Private Language (1982); Boghossian, P.A., The Rule-Following Considerations, 98 Mind 507 (1989)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Pettit, Philip, The Reality of Compliance, 99 Mind 1 (1990)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Wright, Crispin, Rule-follow without reasons: Wittgenstein`s quietism and the constitutive question, 20 ratio 481 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar. In fact, some of the views discussed here have an affinity with some found in this literature. However, the debate about the nature of rule keeping is largely unrelated to a discussion of obedience and disobedience to the law, since the term “rule” in this debate has little in common with the concept of law as traditionally used by philosophers and jurists. For example, it is widely accepted that a “rule” can have “infinite content”, Boghossian, Paul, Blind Rule-Following, in Mind, Meaning, and Knowledge 32 (Coliva, Annalisa ed., 2012)Google Scholar, that is, it can be expressed in countless acceptable ways.
However, laws exist at least in part because they are intentionally established or established, and therefore often have canonical wording that delimits the range of reasonable interpretations they can give. There is also a broad consensus in this debate that some sort of “commitment” or “acceptance” of the rule is necessary to follow it. But, as we shall see, obeying the law does not require any such thing, but even requires that such an obligation is not necessary: it must be possible, for example, to obey an unjust law. The very idea of civil disobedience actually presupposes this. And there are other types of cases; For example, it must be possible for an alien to obey the laws of a State to which he owes no loyalty. For many years, religious sex offenders hid their abuse, arguing that the First Amendment protected them from the law. This claim allowed them to hide the files of their perpetrators and protect the perpetrators instead of the victims of abuse. Gradually, in many cases of abuse, the courts have learned that religious people must be prosecuted for any status and must be held accountable to laws protecting children.
Unfortunately, not all States allow these prosecutions to continue. There is still the misconception that illegal religions are protected from judicial review by the First Amendment. Due to numerous court rulings in state and federal courts, the First Amendment now leaves religious organizations free to discriminate against anyone they call minister. According to the Court, the right to discrimination on the grounds of age, disability, sex, sexual orientation, race and all other anti-discrimination laws belong to religions. This rule is called the ministerial exception, which is an affirmative defence. It generally protects employers rather than employees because the case never goes to court if the positive defence is satisfied. The answer to that question should be yes, but the IRS has yet to act to do it that way. The non-exemption rule should be applied to all organizations that violate anti-discrimination laws.
They should not have the constitutional right to break the law while being exempt from taxation. LGBTQI people are a particular object of discrimination. Dissenting judges in same-sex marriage case, Obergefell v. Hodges, urged the protection of anti-homosexual conscience. In the next term, the Supreme Court will hear a case, Fulton v. Philadelphia, in which Philadelphia refused to fund Catholic adoption agencies because they discriminated against same-sex couples in child placement. Philadelphia rightly wants the same anti-discrimination laws to apply to everyone. The religious freedom demanded in this case gives Catholics the opportunity to win a case in which Smith is overthrown, and they earn the right to determine the law in their own way, rather than obey the law as it is. It is hard to imagine a peaceful America that gives religions a constitutional or legal right to discriminate against all kinds of people. A system that gives them tax advantages at the same time. Church status with the IRS offers huge benefits to churches, allowing churches to keep a lot of information about them private.
A whistleblower recently complained that the confidentiality of tax laws allowed Latter-day Saints to earn $100 billion in a supposedly tax-exempt mutual fund that required the funds to be distributed. 1. The inattention started early. In the founding text of the literature on political obligations, Plato`s Krito, Socrates demands that the laws of Athens “convince or obey” the laws (51a-52e), but no characterization of either alternative is given. The issue is further complicated by the fact that the terms “persuade” and “obey” in Plato`s Greek have a common verbal root (peithein), so the active voice is used to express the first idea, and the passive voice the second. Socrates also speaks of doing what the law commands (poeteon ha an keleuei, at 51b), but relies on his audience`s intuitive understanding of what this phrase is supposed to mean. For a discussion, see Richard Kraut, Socrates and the State (1984), pp. 54-114. Modern contributions to literature do no better, even if an author`s stated goal is to identify the problem. See, for example, Wolff, Jonathan, What Is the Problem of Political Obligation?, 91 Proc.
Aristotelian Soc. 153 (1991)CrossRefGoogle Scholar, who takes obedience as a central concern but never pays attention to saying what it is.
