sanctioned financial obligation is both Benthams and Harts central concern. Yet, Dworkin does not really coerce an account on this topic, but sooner criticising positivist theses. Thus, I will first make a brief compendious of Benthams and Harts account of legal obligation, before I make a comparison of all the three jurists theories. Jeremy Benthams sound Obligation For Bentham, obligation is the setback of rights. Obligations and rights ar the two classes of things that the legislator distributes among the members of the community. A right cannot be created in favour of anyone, without noble-minded a corresponding obligation on an opposite. To commit an offence is, on the one hand, to violate an obligation---on the other hand, a right. Bentham regarded rights as a benefit, while obligations as in themselves an evil , because obligation set constraints on peoples soulal liberty. As a utilitarian, Bentham believed that the function of truth is the give the greatest comfor t to the people in the community. Since rights and obligations are opposite, when a right is conferred, at the same time an obligations is imposed. Thus, when a legislator legislates, he gives benefit and at the same time of imposing evil. He has to try his better to achieve what Bentham called the greatest gladness. In other words, he has to find a residue between benefits and evil.
Bentham believed that legal obligation was nothing more than an sensory faculty of the probability that punishment would be imposed in union with a legal scheme. Legal obligation arisen when a sovereign gives commands to its subject backed by rewards or punishments. Hart summarizes B! enthams head of command as: an boldness by one person of the dsire that another person should do or abstain from few action, accompanied by a threat of punishment which is in all likelihood to follow... If you want to get a full essay, order it on our website:
OrderCustomPaper.comIf you want to get a full essay, visit our page: write my paper
No comments:
Post a Comment