Philosophy of Law Case Study 2022

Running Head: PHILOSOPHY OF LAW
Philosophy of Law
Student’s Name
Institution
Date

PHILOSOPHY OF LAW 2
Law against forgery
Law against forgery is supported by Harm Principle. To understand this, it is important to
reflect on the consequences of forgery. When a person commits forgery, the owner of the forged
information will have to lose his or her money or assets. The person committing forgery
therefore causes harm to the owner of the forged information. In addition to the forgery of the
ticket, the responsibility for the bill shall continue to be borne. This is because, according to the
provisions of the bill law, there is both a forged signature and a real signature on a bill. Then, the
person with the true signature should still bear the liability for the bill. This is different from the
norms of general civil conduct. In the general civil norm, if the act as a premise is invalid, the
subsequent civil act is also invalid. The principle of harm regards the illegal infringement of the
interests of others as the starting point of criminal law punishment, including the two dimensions
of restricting the state's penal power and restricting citizens' abuse of freedom.
Law against suicide
The Harm Principle supports the law against suicide. Suicide is violation of one’s
autonomy. A person who plans to commit suicide is harming him or herself. The Harm Principle
is against such action. That is why state has the right to punish such person so as to deter him or
her from engaging in suicide. Harm Principle maintains that if a citizen commits an act that
endangers his life or the life of others, the freedom to carry out such acts should be restricted.
People commits suicide in private place and hence the law against suicide cannot fall under legal
paternalism. Harm Principle argues that it is only legitimate to impose penalties on individual
members of civil society in order to prevent members of society from harming others and
themselves.

PHILOSOPHY OF LAW 3
Law that requires adult motorcycle riders to wear helmets
The legal paternalism guides the law that requires adult motorcycle riders to wear
helmets. First of all, first understand why the law punishes the act of not wearing helmets. This is
actually the universal role of law as a compulsory social norm. It is legally called "legal
paternalism", that is, the law must be a society. “Parents” protect every citizen and regulate their
behavior. This is the embodiment of human care in law. Then, regarding suicide, the law is not
expressly prohibited, but at least the value is not fixed. It is he punishment of not wearing seat
belts is very operational. After all, the driving area is in public space, there can be traffic police.
Police can identify the violators of the law and punish accordingly.
Law that requires everyone to stand for the national anthem
The law that requires everyone to stand for the national anthem is supported by legal
paternalism principle. This is because it is just a law that is designed to respect the flag and its
violation cannot cause any harm. It is just in line with the nationalism. In order to safeguard
national anthem dignity, standardized national anthem played to sing, play and use, and enhance
the concept of state citizenship, promote patriotism, cultivate and practice the nationalism core
values. This law is a form of legal paternalism because the law sees citizens as people who do
not have nationalism values and hence by requiring them to stand for national anthem, the law is
indirectly reminding them of the national values. The principle of power manifests itself as an
all-suppressing, despotic control that excludes any civil independence, and the “son” principle of
power relations essentially means a desire for dependency.
Law against bestiality

PHILOSOPHY OF LAW 4
The law against bestiality is guided by the legal moralism. The key to defining good law
or evil law is whether it conflicts with justice. And how justice is defined, and justice originates
from morality, and morality can be traced back to the habits of the country and the region for
many years. Engaging in sexual activities with animals is immoral. First, it is believed that such
engagement is inhumane. The acts of bestialism, originated by zoophilia, destroy the integrity
and life of each of the victims. Nothing can justify an act as lascivious and perverse as bestialism
is; therefore, we need to be legislated against such practices and that abusers are effectively
punished. The law is not supported by the Harm Principle because in most cases, the animal does
not get injured or harmed in the process. That is why the legal moralism is the best philosophical
principle for such law.
Law against walking around nude in the public
The Harm Principle support the law against walking around nude in the public. A nude
person can create uneasiness on the viewers. This is particularly true if the viewers compose of
children, adolescents and parents. Walking around nude is like violating the rights of viewers.
The essence of the principle of harm lies in respecting the autonomy of the individual. The moral
precepts based on the principle of harm can only limit individual autonomy if the necessary
protection involves the rights of others, otherwise the individual should have the general right of
autonomy. At the same time, however, the principle of harm also implies that citizens cannot
jeopardize the interests of others when exercising their rights. Therefore, the principle of harm is
not only a restriction on the behavior of the state, but also a restriction on the individual behavior
of the citizen. Therefore, the principle of harm not only reflects the respect for autonomy in
essence, but also imposes moral restraint on autonomy. The exercise of autonomy cannot harm
others, otherwise the application of the penal power of the state is justified.

PHILOSOPHY OF LAW 5
Law against polygamy
Such law is supported by legal paternalism. Polygamy is an individual decision. Harm
Principle often focus on the decisions that can affect the public. Islamic countries are
polygamous, which is the result of their customary laws. Most countries, such as the United
States and the United Kingdom, do not have such a habit, so they are not so legislated, and such
acts are not protected by law, but rather are legal sanctions.
Law against junk food
Legal paternalism supports the law against junk food. The principle of legal paternalism
is anchored on the fact that human beings are generally less and less convinced that an individual
is the one who knows his own interests best; and because of the increased awareness of many
factors in the broader context, the importance of being associated with apparent freedom of
choice and consent is weakened. . Choice or consent may not be appropriate for introspection or
assessment of results; or simply for short-term gains... Paternalism tend to believe that there are
few “normal people” and this is true because in modern life, people are preoccupied by the hustle
and bustle and have little time to think about their life and health. That is why the prevalence of
obesity and overweight is so high. Paternalism principle help the individuals makes decision
because it believes that most people do not know their interest best.
Law against spitting on the sidewalk
The law against spitting on the sidewalk is supported by legal paternalism. It is not a
decent act to spit on the sideways. The function of (criminal law), as we have seen, is to protect
public order and decency, protect people's rights from outside invasion or injury, and provide
adequate protection against exploitation and corruption from others. ), especially for those who

PHILOSOPHY OF LAW 6
are particularly vulnerable because of youth, physical and mental weakness or lack of
experience. Sidewalk is a public place. Many people uses the sidewalks and the conduct of
pedestrians is very crucial. Spitting on the sidewalk does not cause physical harm but just
because people should behave in a certain manner, such act are often prohibited. Legal
paternalism is designed to remind busy people about the dos and don’ts.
Law against men driving car or truck without a shirt
When men drive car without a shirt, they are abusing freedom of autonomy. The
philosophical principle that support the law against men driving a car or a truck without a shirt is
Harm Principle. The principle of harm regards the illegal infringement of the interests of others
as the starting point of criminal law punishment, including the two dimensions of restricting the
state's penal power and restricting citizens' abuse of freedom. These two dimensions have
profound legal philosophical significance: the dominant legal philosophical significance is to
protect civil liberties by limiting the penal power. The implicit legal philosophical significance is
to protect and promote the citizens by protecting the autonomy of citizens. High utilitarianism of
dignity and development. A person driving without a shirt can infringe the interest of others. It
may force others to stop and waste their time marveling at the shirtless driver. The principle of
harm regards the harm caused by citizens to others as the only effective basis for the state to
interfere with the legality of civil liberties.
Law against marriage between two people of the same sex
The Harm Principle guides this law. after the debate between the English legal
philosopher Herbert Hart and the British jurist, Lord Patrick Devlin, the principle of harm has
made significant progress. In the 1960s, Lord Hart and Lord Devlin launched a fierce debate

PHILOSOPHY OF LAW 7
about whether homosexuality, such as homosexuality and prostitution, should be considered
crimes. Hart cites Mill's principle of harm, suggesting that the state should respect individual
liberty, and that the state can only intervene in the free choice and autonomy of citizens through
coercion in order to prevent or punish acts that cause obvious harm. Therefore, Hart regards the
principle of harm as the theoretical basis and basis, and proves the unjustifiedness of enforcing
and maintaining social morality through law, and thus proves that the moral behavior such as
homosexuality that belongs to individual pluralism is not legally enforced.
Law against selling alcohol during certain hours of the day
The Harm Principle supports the law against selling alcohol during hours of the day. This
is because it is meant to prevent alcohol sellers from indirectly attracting the drinkers, which may
interfere with their daily duties. Harm Principle maintains that the only purpose of violating its
will without losing its right to any member of a civilized society is to prevent it from harming
others. The theoretical object of the principle of injury is to oppose paternalism and to try to
argue a boundary that is sufficient to divide state intervention, that is, "harm", an act that does
not harm others, and society is ineligible to violate Intervene in his will.
Law against gambling
The legal paternalism promotes law against gambling. This is because gambling is
individua decision and even if the person loses money, it is his individual decision. Imposing
laws against gambling is a form of paternalism. Mier believes that the intervention of
paternalism not only involves the interference of the individual's freedom, but also the contempt
for the individual's character. For example, even if a person suffers from alcoholism, as long as it
is based on his own independent and mature decision, even if Behavior may endanger himself,

PHILOSOPHY OF LAW 8
but it is also the manifestation of the individual's personality. Mill believes that as long as it is
related to his personality, then his intervention is unjustified because a society has no right to
decide its members. Gambling is a personal decision and cannot cause harm to others. When a
gambler loses, he or she is the one who suffers. However, like a parent, legal paternalism
attempts to reduce the suffering experienced by gambler by limiting gambling.
Law against begging
The legal paternalism supports law against begging. Legal paternalism is based on
principles that some ideals, activities and behaviors are fundamentals. Legal paternalism aspires
to even build societies forged according to legal content and repressive force, that indicate very
well the way its members should behave, ends up blurring a liberal State that has not forgotten
build some strokes and some consensus on the good and the fair under a certain system of values
and fundamentally constitutional principles and in the light that can give you your bill of rights.
Supporters of legal paternalism do not consider the plights of beggars because they cannot be in
their shoes. Such law is designed to forced some people to live in a particular manner just
because the law makers cannot associate with their situations.
Law against eating unpasteurized cheese
Principle of legal paternalism supports this law. The people and the society in the past are
relatively simple. People are more aware of what they want, but modern society is different. We
can’t believe that individuals are the most self-interested. If people are given autonomy and
freedom to choose what they eat, they will east unpasteurized cheese and this might cause some
harm. Patriarchal interpretation means that although the law cannot be interpreted as a law
protecting others, the law is a paternalism that focuses on the avoidance of pain (whatever the

PHILOSOPHY OF LAW 9
pain), thereby excluding the concern for pain. The legal and technical rules for punishing
immorality are not because the former does not cause real "pain" to anyone, and the latter does
not have "pain". That is why by questioning the imagination of the individual and the
understanding of reality in Mill's theory, Hart thinks that Mill's concerns about paternalism are
out of place in modern society, because the paternalism that Mill is fighting against, in fact not
so evil.
Law against e-cigarettes
The legal paternalism supports law against e-cigarettes. The creation of e-cigarettes was
to solve the shortcomings of the traditional cigarettes. However, e-cigarettes still have harmful
effects and many people may not be aware of such harm. That is why it is necessary to restrict
people from using e-cigarettes. Legal paternalism believes that the people are no so well-
informed about the harmfulness of a give product, service or thing and works at infringing on
their autonomy in process of saving them from harm. Legal paternalism is governed by many
aspects. First, the administrator must subjectively have the intention to restrict the freedom of the
parties. Second, the administrator must limit the freedom of the parties, mainly because he
believes that this intervention helps to improve the welfare of the parties. The manager must be
based on a good intentional motive, or increase the welfare of the person or protect him from
harm. Third, the goodwill motivation of management must be independent of the party's
preferences at the time. Otherwise, the administrator is the person who provides convenience to
the parties and does not limit their freedom. Fourth, the administrator must either (1) the fact that
the parties are engaged in the restricted act in substance or not, or (2) deliberately restrict the
substantive will of the parties.
Law against marrying a foreigner

PHILOSOPHY OF LAW 10
This law is often designed to prevent or curb marriage for convenience. It is supported by
the philosophical principle of legal paternalism. Such laws are formulated not out of the real
harm but just because the formulators are worried about what might happen. The law of limiting
freedom to marry from foreign country is designed to promote certain culture. Those formulating
such laws often feel that people who marry foreigners may not behave like other citizens and
hence like a parent, legal paternalism will warn such people of the dangers or negative
consequences of marrying a foreigner. Such law limits the citizen’s freedom not because
marrying causes harm but because of the preconceived fear. Such fear is often harbored by those
in authority. It should be noted that legal paternalism is a form of forced coercion.
Law against disrespecting the Buddha
The law against disrespecting the Buddha is a supported by legal paternalism. According
to the tradition of legal paternalism, the law can promote people to establish and protect virtue
by: (1) preventing citizens from further degrading, in case they choose to indulge in unethical
behavior; (2) prohibiting the establishment of bad The role model, in order to prevent others
from being tempted to imitate these behaviors; (3) to protect the moral environment so that
people make ethical choices; (4) to educate moral right and wrong. A traditional moral
legislation model presupposes a variety of preconditions. The important premise is that the state
is not morally neutral, but can make substantive judgments on moral issues; public domain
exists. Moral truth, according to which members of society can be required to act in accordance
with these moral truths.
Law against uber and Airbnb

PHILOSOPHY OF LAW 11
Law against Uber and Airbnb is supported by legal paternalism. Uber is considered a
private transport company, just as AirBnB will be considered as a hotel company or Ali Express
as a retail. The reality is that it is a new economic activity. They are "ecosystems." Ecosystems
do not "do" something, but "get it done." In a more satisfactory, economical and efficient way for
the consumer. Ecosystems get the entire value chain to collaborate, and win all in the process
(win/win), overcoming the previous paradigm of a zero-sum business chain, which faces
suppliers, distributors and customers. The stock market has understood this, valuing those three
companies well above any of those that do the same under the paradigms of the 20th century.
They act as intermediaries. Uber is not just any collaborative trading platform. The company,
which through a mobile application allows individuals to offer their car as a means of public
transport, is a giant valued at 32.2 billion euros that has Google and the investment bank
Goldman Sachs among its investors. They are better ways to meet the needs of consumers,
businesses, organizations and even governments. Everything will remain the same. The market is
done by users, which continue to increase. They like the service and the way it works, not just
the fact that it is cheaper. Due to fear of competition, the state is feeling threatened and hence
regulating such companies. This is a form of legal paternalism.