why were the judges in UK so scared to make a general duty of care for negligence?
before Donoghue v Stevenson
The answer should be obvious. Since Donoghue v Stevenson, more and more areas of life, of civil society, have been shut down. For example we had a teenage neighbour who loved horses. She would love to come over to our place and play with the horses and ride them. Before negligence law came along, we would be free to do that, and everyone would be better off. But now we’d be crazy to let her on the property, because *no matter how careful we were*, if she got hurt, she could sue us for our whole property.
Jeremy Bentham said the common law works like a man who waits until his dog has done something wrong, and then kicks it. That’s how negligence law works. No matter how careful you are, the courts always say, after the event, it wasn’t good enough. For example there was a case where a guy got injured in a national park. The park said there was already a sign there, warning people to take care. The plaintiff argued: “Ah yes, but that was only facing one way. There should have been a sign facing the other way as well.”
For another example, we read of crazy cases where a burglar gets injured on a property and sues the owners. Or where someone spills a cup of coffee and then sues the store owner. I knew a guy who used to run a ride at the fun fair. But he couldn’t pay the negligence insurance premiums, so a) he went broke and b) no-one can ride any more. We read about a kid who fell of a top bunk while staying with friends, and his parents sued their friends.
How many other activities, and fun, and livelihoods, and neighbourliness, and civility has been destroyed by this stupid law?
Before Donoghue v Stevenson, if someone got injured because he tripped on an uneven piece of ground, everyone would have said the common sense thing: “Watch where you’re going, and pick your feet up!” That is how it should be. It’s not someone else’s fault. The world shouldn’t have to look like a billiard table before people are free of liability for other people’s injuries.
The old judges wisely realised that if they created a standard of ‘reasonable’ care, it would be completely arbitrary, the definition would endlessly expand, and they would undermine morality and society with a new and daft rule: ‘You’re responsible for everyone in the world except yourself’. And that is exactly what has happened from Donoghue v Stevenson. The result has been the spread of a general standard of *un*reasonableness.
When did the Jedi religion began?
I’m doing this religion assessment on New Age religion and i know that Jedi began at some time, so when did that occur? when did Jedi religion start? any good and informative information will be much appreciated!! Thanks
The Jedi Church believes that there is one all powerful force that binds all things in the universe together. The Jedi religion is something innate inside everyone of us, the Jedi Church believes that our sense of morality is innate. So quiet your mind and listen to the force within you!
An Official Religion – Census Issues.
Make sure you answer the religion question correctly. The NZ Census bureau believe that the Jedi answer means “Response outside of scope” or “Answer understood, but will not be counted”, whereas “satanism”, “wican”, “yoga” etc are valid answers. The sheer number of people who entered “Jedi” was a significant in the last census, approximately 20000 in NZ alone (indicative result given confidentially). I note there were more Jedi’s than Assembly of God, or Jehovah’s Witnesses.
In order for the Jedi church to grow, we need access to these statistics just like any other church/order. In the UK the number of people who answered Jedi, were greater than many other common Christian denominations. In fact, in the UK, 2% of people in Brighton are of the Jedi Faith.
It is not against the law to answer Jedi, you are welcome to have any faith you wish. It is the governments responsibility to accept our faith and accurately record the statistics.
The Jedi Church recognises that there is one all powerful force that binds all things in the universe together, and accepts all races and species from all over the universe as potential members of the religion. Join the Jedi Church today!
Our church had 21000 unique visitors last month. The Jedi Church is a good force in the universe.
The force has ALWAYS existed and always will.
Our faith in the force existed well before the fictional Star Wars movies brought popular recognition to the terminology and concepts that our members always innately held, but had difficultly describing in a shared forum.
When the movement to answer Jedi to the religion question in the NZ census began, it was incredible to see how quickly word spread, and just how many people embraced the new popular name of their shared innate religion. With such immediacy, people from all around the world followed suit, now having an obvious and common name for their deeply held religious and moral convictions. It is the speed and numbers of people involved in the census movement, that show just how powerful the concepts of the Jedi Faith are.
The terminology used by the Jedi Church were introduced by the fictional Star Wars movies, and often references are made to the movies by our members, as a conceptual demonstration of how some might ascribe to the higher levels of a Jedi faith, in a far away land, a long time ago. The fact remains, that these concepts merely reflect a deep held innate morality, that we all have inside us, and now we have some common terminology and place to share our thoughts with each other. This morality existed prior to the movies. The movies do not in any way legitimise nor negate the legitimacy of the Jedi Church. They are merely a discussion point.
The Jedi Church neither confirm nor deny that George Lucas is a member of the Jedi Church. We do not mind if our members deny their involvement in our church should they seek to avoid persecution.
The Jedi Church movement is now progressing to gain legal status as a separate legal entity just like any other corner Church congregation. We have already received confirmation that Jedi themed marriages may be conducted by registered celebrants (registered cellebrants with the Department of Internal Affairs in NZ), in a manor no different, nor less recognised in law than any Christian marriage or marriage of any other religion or denomination.
Christians: does the prospect of Heaven or Hell have any bearing on your morality?
This follows from an earlier, related question:
Does this affect how you treat other people?
Or is Heaven/Hell only about adherence to the religion?
Jabber, it seems that you ARE getting through to some folks with this line of questioning. Perhaps that or it is just that the reasoning Christians have finally discovered this series of Questions and have decided to add what they can to it. There also seems to be a core element who seem just as determined to be and remain Pharisees and stand by “the Law” and ignore the spirit of the law, LOVE.
Let’s try this again.
Jesus DID say “I am the way…” OK, what did he mean by that?Form MY perspective, it did not mean that you must accept me. It meant “If you want to live a good life then follow MY example.” What was Jesus’s example? He LOVED, everyone and everything he encountered. He only had disdain for those who were hung up on money and hung up on the trivia of “the LAW”. He forgave those who did wrong, as an act of LOVE. He fed the hungry as an act of LOVE, he helped the sick and lame as an act of LOVE. He even died an excruciating death as an act of LOVE. There was NO glory in any of it for him, he received no rewards for any of it, he received NO accolades whatsoever as a result of it. He just DID it, because it was the RIGHT thing to do. THAT is what he means by “I am the way..”, His LIFE is the way, not him directly but his WAY. His way of living, his way of unselfish loving, his way of compassion. If you can’t DO that then you are NOT one of his followers. If you do, then you ARE, and you do not even have to acknowledge that you are. Just love and you automatically are his follower, because you are living his way.
Now if you adherents to “the LAW” can not understand that and hold to your belief that YOU and only YOU are “saved” and that all you need to do is accept Jesus without following his way, then you are seriously in need of psychological counseling. Why can’t you understand that all that you need to do is LOVE, love everyone and everything. Many of us Non Christians can see that and live that on our own. We have no fear of Hell, no illusions of an eternal reward ina Heaven. We just DO it, because it is the BEST way to live, period. Our sense of morality is intrinsic, it is motivated from within. We are NOT “pressured” by thoughts of reward or damnation. Our love is genuine and freely offered. YOURS is motivated entirely by fear and desire for eternal reward, it is completely selfish and nihilistic. Therefore it is NOT love at all, but something else entirely. With us, Jesus or God does NOT enter into the equation at all, we just love because we CAN love and that is reason enough for us. You “love” because Jesus or God TELLS you to do so and tells you to do so with the threat of eternal punishment hanging over your heads. That simply isn’t love, it is fear of displeasing your God. You are trying to appease your God by loving. We are merely trying to love and that is it, no other motivation is needed.
Raji the Green Witch
Right or Left what gives either of them the right?
What gives either side a right to dictate other peoples morality? I heard an interesting statement a while back that led me to think about a lot of different aspects of our government. The Republicans want my porn and the Democrats want my guns. To me it is pretty simple, if you don’t porn, don’t buy it. Don’t like guns don’t buy them. You will never keep guns away from criminals so no matter what laws you pass you won’t stop violent crime. Don’t believe in abortion don’t have one. Isn’t it pretty simple? I think the our nation would get along a lot better if everyone minded their own business first and stay out of their neighbors.
[UK] To answer your first question: traditionally, and very basically, the left (communist, Marxist, socialists) believe that someones life should be controlled economically to the highest extent possible. This means controlling ones wages, spending patterns, sharing the wage out equally amongst the community for the common good. (this example is typical Marxist communism) this would get rid of conflict in society between different classes. However, the left believe that they shout;d stay ut of peoples moral life. Ie- should not preach to people about how to lead their lifes when it comes to morality.
On the other hand, The right of the political spectrum believe the complete opposite. The government should stay out of peoples economic life as much as possible, (free market capitalism, liberalism) for example, this would enable people to spend how they like. However, the right believe that the government should control peoples lifes to the highest possible extent in morality, to encourage consensus in society.
Therefore, to answer your first question the Right believe they shold control peoples morality because it is part of their theory on how society works, and how it should be maintained. (functionalism is the building block of the right theory.)
to answer your second question, a party or a group of people united by a political idea always think they have the way for society to develop. Basically, people think they have the holy grail so to speak, and therefore think they can ‘enlighten’ others to their beliefs.
Another answer is that one cannot be isolationist in a society… It just does not work that way. You cannot ignore your neighbor if he steals your garden knome or something, can you? (i don’t suppose you have a garden knome, its just a silly example ^^) hence, one cannot “mind ones own business” when society come crashing though one front door. Besides, you live in a democracy, so you are imposing your morality and political viewpoint every time you vote, or stand on a chair and shout “china’s communist!”
Do I have the right to discriminate or deny my service due to…?
Someone like a known rapist or killer or child molesters or white supremacist and etc.
People we view as evil and a menace to society. I kinda am feeling there is this gray line but is it wrong.
I know its wrong to discriminate because race, religion, sexual preference, but what about with these types of human beings. I think its kinda deserved because of their choices in life.
Take for example a person with a felony, they cannot vote. That is a discrimination due to the fact they broke the law.
Is it right or wrong?
If your business is open to the public, then you do not currently have the right in the United States, United Kingdom, or in many other nations to discriminate on the basis of criminal history, but there are a few caveats to consider. If your firm falls into one of many classifications for industries where convicted felons would materially disrupt your business operations (ie. If your firm was a sauna or spa), or in the UK if you could sufficiently persuade the local magistrate, then you may deny service.
As for whether it is right or wrong, that calls for a more lengthy discussion. It is a culture that determines the morality of this kind of discrimination versus the immorality of that kind of discrimination, and as such, morality is relative to the perspectives prevalent in a culture. What if a felon, convicted of rape, will in later years be exonerated as perspectives on what constitutes rape change? Then today’s moral discrimination will be tomorrow’s bigotry. Moral discrimination is an act of social pressure, an attempt to inconvenience or humiliate a person into seeing faults in themselves as you do, and it may make society better or worse, but in our limited knowledge and perspective, we hardly know at all if we are truly making the world a better place when we discriminate on the foundation of morality. There is another type of discrimination, however, and that is the application of statistical probabilities. To illustrate, it is probable that a rapist will rape again. Probability discrimination is better known as common sense. The usefulness and outcome of discrimination is most often delineated along the lines of reason versus morality, rather than the subject of discrimination itself.
Powered by Yahoo! Answers