What is wrongfulness?

Who is j gay-williams?

James Gay Williams is a philosopher and ethicist known for his work on bioethics and medical ethics. He is the author of the book "The Wrongfulness of Euthanasia" where he argues against the practice of euthanasia.

What is law of delict?

law of delict, is the wrongfulness and culpable act of one person that cause harm (damages \loss) in another person \ certain interest protected by law.

Is wrongfully an abstract noun?

No, wrongfully is an adverb, a word that modifies a verb, an adjective, or another adverb. Example:He was wrongfully accused of the crime.The abstract noun form for wrongfully is wrongfulness.

What is tenets of principles?

Fundamental norms, rules, or values that represent what is desirable and positive for a person, group, organization, or community, and help it in determining the rightfulness or wrongfulness of its actions. Principles are more basic than policy and objectives, and are meant to govern both. See also principle

What is the meaning without legal capacity?

The word capacity is subject to different meanings, but in the legal sense, it refers to the ability to make a rational decision based upon all relevant facts and considerations. In criminal law, the defendant must have the capacity to understand the wrongfulness of his or her actions. In making a will, the maker of the will must have what is known as "testamentary capacity," meaning that they must understand the nature of making a will, have a general idea of what he/she possesses, and know who the members of their immediate family, or the intended recepients of their estate, are.. The legal capacity to make contracts may be lacking in the case of minors or mentally disadvantaged persons. A contract signed by a person lacking legal capacity may be void.

Should the insanity plea be abolished?

OpinionNo, it is not if it is used appropriately. Under federal law in the United States, at the time of the commission of the acts constituting the offense, the defendant must prove that as a result of a severe mental disease or defect, he/she was unable to appreciate the nature and quality or the wrongfulness of his/her acts. Mental disease or defect does not otherwise constitute a defense.Under state laws, four states, including Kansas, Montana, Idaho, Utah, do not allow the insanity defense. In other states the standard of proof varies. Generally, the defendant must prove they did not have the capacity to conform their actions to the law or understand the consequences. See related links.OpinionOf course not, in reality. It's a very rare defense and seldom successful. It's the nature of the accused's intent at the time that must be proven by the defendant's to be successful. Hence, it's called an affirmative defense, meaning it requires proof of claim rather than assumption of claim.

What is meaning of the term Legal Capacity?

It is the ability to legally enter into a contractual agreement (to make a contract.) Most able-minded adults have legal capacity. Children under the age of majority (between 15 and 18 depending on your state) or people with a mental impairment do not have legal capacity. When I say mental impairment I mean permanent (i.e.- retardation, or Alzheimer's) OR temporary (i.e.- alcohol or nacotic intoxication).

Example of ignorance ot the law excuses no one?

It has always been a fundamental principle of the law that "ignorance of law is no excuse". However in recognition of the enormous increase in the number of laws that have been created since this principle was first enunciated, an exception to this rule was enunciated by a minority concurring decision of a judge of the Supreme Court of Canada in the 1995 case of R. v. Jorgensen.1 In this case, Chief Justice Antonio Lamer proposed an exception to the rule called "officially induced error". In doing so, he reasoned that While knowledge of the law is to be encouraged, it is certainly reasonable for someone to have assumed he knows the law after consulting a representative of the state acting in a capacity which makes him [an] expert of that particular subject.2 After reviewing the commentary of legal scholars, American courtcases and some lower level Canadian court cases, the Chief Justice set out six elements to be established by an accused person in order to establish a defence or excuse of officially induced error.These elements are as follows:1. The accused made an error of law or an error of mixed law and fact3;2. The accused considered the legal consequences of his or her actions beforecommitting the prohibited act;3. The accused obtained advice from an appropriate official, such as a governmentofficial involved in the administration of the law in question;4. The advice received was on its face reasonable;5. The advice received was erroneous; and6. The accused relied upon the erroneous advice in committing the prohibited act.Under Justice Lamar's proposed test, if all six elements were clearly established, theaccused would be excused from committing the offence in spite of its wrongfulness and a judicial stay of proceedings would be entered.

What is the moral in The Jungle Book?

Not precisely a moral- but it essentially shows hunters in a negative light, as does much of modern media. with the exception of Western Pioneers such as Boone and Crockett ( safely in the past with their flintlock rifles) - hunters generally get an undeserved Bad Rap in the mass media such as movies and especially cartoons. One hastens to add, in real life, most hunters are responsible citizens, and indeed even ask to be taxed ( int he form of steeper taxes on ammunition, and higher license fees for hunting) one exception to anti-Nimrod role was old time (and not a serial cartoonist) Ding Darling, He designed the stamps used on hunting licenses and called Duck Stamps issued by the Federal government- in the early thirties.

What are the three determinants of morality by St. Thomas Aquinas?

DETERMINANTS OF MORALITY/SOURCES OF MORALITYMorality - consists in the conformity and non-conformity of an act with the normHOW DOES AN ACT RELATE TO THE NORM?HOW DO WE KNOW THAT A GIVEN ACT IS MORALLY OBJECTIONABLE OR NOT?Human Acts relate to the norm under the following aspects:a) In Itself = as a deedb) In its Motivec) In its circumstancesThe 2 principal elements of the act, the object and the intention of the agent must be ordained to the last end. The circumstances though accidental to the action, must also be ordained to the last end, since they could also be important.These 3 aspects are called Determinants of Morality|- determine how an act is rendered good or bad on the basis of its relation with the norm- the ordination of human acts to God depends on them, in accordance with the condition of created beings- If these 3 principles or aspects are good, the action is good, because it leads to God and makes the agent better.Ø "BONUM EX INTEGRA CAUSA, MALUM EX QUOCUMQUE DEFECTU"- It means that, a thing is good if it has the fullness of its parts and it is bad when it is deficient in any of its integral parts- In moral parlance: human act is good when it is good in itself, in its motive, or purpose and circumstances. Defect coming from any of those aspects renders an act morally objectionable. In other words, like human anatomy, an act must have the perfection of its parts- Thus, a thing to be good must be entirely good, vitiated by any defectI. ACT IN ITSELF/OBJECT- To consider an act in itself is to regard its nature- ACT = not simply a mental or bodily activity requiring an expenditure of energy= it is physical tendency towards a definite result- we are dealing here with the human act performed, the deed done- RESULT=a) end of the act (finis operis)b) end of the agent (finis operantis) = motive of the doer- In physical sense = some actions are bad because they produce such evils as pain, hunger, illness or death- In moral sense = actions are bad because they disturb the harmony within the acting person` = they are unfit to the natural and spiritual tendencies of the human soul= Moral evils also produce physical harm and damage of oneself and others = they are moral evils because what they destroy is the innate goodness, the Image of God in our human nature= Thus, moral evils are those that go against the natural lawØ INTRINSIC AND EXTRINSIC EVILINTRINSIC - implies a quality inherent in a thing- Thus, an intrinsic evil act is an act which is evil in itselfEXTRINSIC - implies a quality which is superficially added to a thing(Example, a coat of paint covering surface of the wall without modifying the essentiality of the wood constituting the wall)- extrinsic evil - an act which in itself is not evil but is made evil nonetheless on account of something else- extrinsic evil act - that which, although good or indifferent in itself, is however prohibited by the lawINTRINSIC EVIL ACT = certain actions are in themselves objectively good and certain others are objectively evil. Men have always regarded certain acts as good in themselves because as a matter of fact, they are good= by its nature, that is, by its functional purpose is wrongful= natural law = tendency of man to actualize his potentials as a rational creature, that is, to be a person|- an act which prevents man from realizing his true worth as a person is intrinsically evil- ex. Murder, robbery, rape, adultery, lies, slavery = they contradict the demands of reason for justice, truth an decency= these actions are evil, not only because they cause unjust harm and suffering to others but above all, they dehumanize their perpetrators, reducing them to the level of beasts/ animals/irrationalØ TO KNOW WHAT KIND OF PERSON WE OUGHT TO BE ON THE BASIS OF OUR NATURAL AND RATIONAL TENDENCIES = we can identify with relative accuracy those actions that are to be avoided as intrinsically harmful- The Decalogue of Moses and many human laws - identify some actions like blasphemy, stealing, untruthfulness, murder and adulteryØ In the tradition and culture of all people - there are those actions which are regarded with horror and great repugnance = this means that it the consciousness of men certain actions are to be avoided as extremely dangerous poisons; actions that cause misery and physical afflictions to manII. MOTIVE OF THE ACT/ INTENTION OF THE AGENT- it is the purpose which the doer wishes to achieve by such action- it gives direction and motivation to an act = without a motive, an act is meaningless, and accident- it comes FIRST in the mind as intention and occurs LAST in the action as its culmination or fulfillmentWHAT IS A GOOD MOTIVE?= one which is consistent with the dignity of the human person= one which is in accordance with the truth, justice, prudence andtemperanceBAD MOTIVE = one which grows from selfishness - such motive provokes action detrimental to others- Excessive indulgence of the self - a form of personal injustice to oneself, nursing the greed that destroys othersAction springing from the self seeking its goal = such desire must be moderated by prudence and fairnessOld Testament = a good man is called a just man|- he acts rightly out of respect for himselfAnd out of his concern for othersØ THE END DOES NOT JUSTIFY THE MEANS- to the doer = an act is a means of achieving an aim or purposeEx. we study = to acquire knowledge, to pass the course, to receive a degree, to qualify for a jobWrong = to attempt at a good purpose by evil meansExamples:- Student may not cheat in an exam in order to graduate- Employee may not fake his documents in order to be promoted in job- Public official may not accept bribe in order to finance a health centerThe axiom "The End does not justify the Means"- means that the worthiness of purpose does not make an evil act good(nothing is more pernicious than for a hoodlum to believe that he is justified in robbing the rich because he wants to share the loot with the poor = Robin Hood)Ø INSIGHTS ON THE EFFECTS OF THE MOTIVE ON THE ACTION(Paul Glenn)a) An evil act which is done on account of an evil motive is grievously wrong (an objectively evil act performed for an evil purpose takes on a new malice from the evil end. If it has several evil ends, it takes on new malice from each)b) A good action done on account of an evil motive becomes evil itself (An act which is objectively good but done for an evil end is entirely evil. If the evil end is the whole motive of the act, an act is gravely evil if the evil end is gravely evil, and an act is only partially evil if the evil is neither gravely evil nor the whole motive of the act)c) A good action done on account of a good purpose acquires an additional merit (an objectively good act performed for a good purpose takes on a new goodness from the good end if it has several good ends)d) An indifferent act may either become good or bad depending on the motivee) An objectively evil act can never become good by reason of a good endIII. CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE ACTAn ACT = an event = it happens in a definite time and place= accompanied by certain elements which contribute to the nature and accountability of such actIn Law = we speak of mitigating or aggravating factors affecting a criminal actMorality = takes into account the circumstancessurrounding an act|- who- what- where- with whom- why- how- wherev WHO- refers primarily to the doer of the act = who is the agent?- at times, it also refers to the receiver of the act = to whom is the action done?- this circumstance includes the age, status, relation, family background, educational attainment, health and socio-economic situation of the person or persons involved in an actObservations:a) The moron, the insane, the senile, and the children below the age of reason are considered incapable of voluntary acts and therefore are exempted from moral accountability.- But actions against these persons are normally regarded most cruel due to their helplessness in defending themselvesb) Persons with higher educational attainment are presumed to know "better" than those with little education. Accordingly, their liability is higher. Indeed, "to whom much is given, much is expected."c) Persons vested with authority have higher accountability than those who merely follow their order or command. This is the meaning of "command responsibility"which makes a superior or official accountable for the actuation of those under their authority.d) The relationship between people involved in actmay modify the nature of such act.- In this sense, adultery is different from fornication, and parricide from homicidev WHAT- refers to the act itself and to the quality and quantity of the results of such act.- what is the extent of the act? Was the injury inflicted serious or slight? Was the amount stolen large or small?v WHERE- refers to the circumstance of place where the act is committed- where was the act committed?v WITH WHOM- refers to the companion or accomplices in an act performed. This includes the number and statusof the persons involved. The more people involved in the commission of an act, the greater and more serious is the crimev WHY- refers to the motive or intention of the doerv HOW- refers to the manner how the act is made possible- under what condition? Was the action performed by the agent done in good or bad faith?- How an act is performed contributes to the malice of an actv WHEN- refers to the time of the act- when was the act committed?Ø Observations:1) Circumstances may either increase or decrease the wrongfulness of an evil act2) Circumstances also may either increase or decrease the merits of a good act3) Some circumstances may alter the nature of an actEthical Principles:1) An indifferent act becomes good or evil by reason by reason of its circumstance2) A good act may become evil by reason of circumstance3) A good or evil act may become better or worse by reason of the circumstance and may even take on new goodness or malice from its circumstance4) An evil act can never be made good by circumstance5) A circumstance which is gravely evil destroys the entire goodness of an objectively good act6) A circumstance which is evil but not gravely so does not entirely destroys the goodness of an objectively good act.CONCLUSION:Distinction between good act and evil act = it is not an illusion of the mind= There are good actions and there are evil actions and their realities do not come from out mind= Evil is not man's invention = rather, it means that man uses his freedom to do wrong- only man can do something morally wrong = because only man has the power to choose between what is good and what is wrongØ To be an authentic person is to be a responsible person. He knows how to use his freedom only as an instrument to do good

What is wrongfulness?

Add your answer:

Who is Gay Williams?

What effect do circumstance have an action?