You must have Credits on your Balance to download this sample
Pages 20 (5020 words)
According to Aristotle, while all persons share a common "nature," some persons can acquire by engaging in habitual behaviour something like a "second nature" that is as much a determinant of their actions as is their "first" nature. (Aristotle, 1941) Aristotle and Plato have debated about the Rule of Law…
Plato suggests powers exercised by a ruler are governed by customary and community rules. Decisions are made by the minds of the rulers and their delegates. Humans have some innate knowledge of what is important and good in human life and because of this, we should not be constrained by laws and rules but by what our minds tell us what is right and just in the circumstances.
The laws do not expressly provide on how to deal with this specific situation and judgment must then be made on moral principles. Permanent laws are incompatible with changing demographics and technology. Laws must change at the same pace with the rest of society to maintain society's current perspective of justice and righteousness, but time delays in passing laws precludes this. Still now, the public waits for tougher dog laws to be passed on pit bulls and others alike. Even worse, there is no guarantee administration will be efficient. Here, Plato argues, rules fail to meet the differences of time and there is a need for rulers to exercise discretion as it encourages efficiency.
Where rules fail to take into account of specific, exceptional cases, Aristotle claims, equity should apply. Judges should correct errors of the law, rising from oversight by the lawmakers, given there are rules to be corrected in the first place. This is therefore, an argument to being ruled by laws. ...
Not exactly what you need?