CHOOSE ONE THE QUESTIONS

Choose one the questions

Choose one the questions

From the beginning of the creation of civilised societies man has felt the need for the creation of a set of rules that will govern his society and allow the smooth everyday living in them. Since early societies could only be ruled by the sword or by God it is evident that the first set of rules created by man were based on religious guidelines. As societies evolved into more complex and sensitive structures, so did the needs of the people living in them. Therefore the old religious rules had to be upgraded into new rules which would cover a broader area of everyday life and which were usually based on experiences and moral and ethical rules of society.

Modern law has now developed into a mixture of a clear legislative rule and its interpretation by the judicial. On this matter, two schools of thought have had a great impact, Natural Law and Legal Positivism. A third school of thought is the one developed by Professor Ronald Dworkin and is described as the Intermediate Theory. Professor Dworkin's is said to belong to neither of the pre-mentioned schools of thoughts as he is not a Natural Law theorist but his theory is critical of Legal Positivism. Since verdicts given by modern courts of law are not solemnly based on fixed legislative statutes but also on the judiciary discretion, there is much discussion to be made on the different views on each case. In this case we shall examine how the theories of Professor Dworkin and those of Legal Positivists apply in cases where there is controversy as to the law itself and its interpretation.

For many years, preferential treatment has been used to try to make up for past wrong-doings to minorities. There have been many cases tried over racial discrimination, with verdicts of both innocent and guilty. Ronald Dworkin attempts to argue that preferential treatment is socially useful and at the same time does not violate people's rights. This is wrong for many reasons; here I shall illustrate how preferential treatment hinders racial equality, violates people's rights, and can lead to a lower opinion toward a particular race.

Dworkin believes that continuing preferential treatment will decrease racial consciousness and the importance of race. This is the total opposite of what truly happens. If a person were to consider America's past, as an example, he would see how racially diverse people were. Now look around. Just walking across any given area, groups of people of the same race are seen walking together. Most people do not notice this, but very rarely are groups of ethnically diverse people seen. Although there are no longer any laws stating that there must be a separation between different races, people still practice it unconsciously. Dworkin states that the long-term goal of preferential treatment 'is to reduce the degree to which American society is overall a racially conscious society (294).' Preferential treatment does nothing of the ...