Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

Natural Law

  • 07-07-2006 11:32am
    #1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,268 ✭✭✭


    Is it good or bad? Is it meaningless or meaningful to talk about innate rights. Why was Keane J so against it.

    MM


Comments

  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,187 ✭✭✭✭Sangre


    I could go on a long spiel about this but that would feel too much like a Jurisprudence exam :)


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 699 ✭✭✭hada


    well keane CJ was so against it probably because natural law, as a doctrine of interpretation is completely vague and open to being completely malleable and subjective in its application.

    Such a doctrine, while sound in theory, can be completely unreliable in practice. Also on a side note, isn't the idea of natural law (god made law), applying in ireland, where more and more people do not practice their faith/have any faith, is kind of, well, silly...


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,062 ✭✭✭dermot_sheehan


    Is it good or bad? Is it meaningless or meaningful to talk about innate rights. Why was Keane J so against it.

    MM
    Natural law is one of those things that sounds good in theory, but it's application can be so subjective as to render its legitamacy as law in question.

    The idea that there are some inate rights that everyone has, regardless of written documents garnered favour at varies points in history. For example at the time of the American War of Independence the idea that a polity had an inherent right to break away. After the second world war, the idea of the unversalism of human rights.

    The problem is they can be used to introduce the subjective views of the judges, who represent the views of society. For example in Ireland, the views of the catholic church were given regard to with regard to adoption and abortion law. This was because the constitution referred to the christian nature of the state.

    It was even argued in Re: Abortion Information Case that natural law could prevent the people from amending the constitution by referendum, thankfully this was rejected.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,187 ✭✭✭✭Sangre


    Natural law doesn't have to be theistic, it just was assumed it was because of the numerous references in the Constitution to God.

    Although in McGee v AG the doctrine was used to allow a decidedly on catholic decision!


Advertisement