What, in your judgment, is the most philosophically defensible position on the issues at stake in the case? Which philosophical theory/theories or principle(s) help to best support the position you are defending?

Philosophy of Law -Hate Speech – R. v. Keegstra- Philosophy paper.

Description

Focus:

The goal is to develop, articulate, and set out a position on the philosophical issues at stake in one of the Canadian legal cases and support that position with a philosophical theory/theories or principle(s) that provide the most compelling and persuasive account with respect to the position being argued for.

Note that you may find that a combination of theories and principles will be most conducive to your arguments. Make connections between your position, the reasoning of the judges, and/or arguments of the litigants in the case (as reflected in the reported decision and related commentary).

Provide a clear, cogent, and coherent account of the issues at stake in the case, your arguments for your position, and the interpretation and application of the philosophical theory/theories or principle(s) you relied upon to support your position.

Provide a persuasive and compelling articulation and justification for your position, your interpretations, and your arguments.

Be sure to address the potential objections and criticisms to your position from the perspective of a competing philosophical theory or principle, and respond to these in order to bolster your position.

Questions:

What, in your judgment, is the most philosophically defensible position on the issues at stake in the case? Which philosophical theory/theories or principle(s) help to best support the position you are defending? (Note that you may find that a combination of theories and principles will be most conducive to your argument.)

Which philosophical theories or principles can illuminate why and how the judges reasoned in the ways that they did and the litigants argued in the ways that they did? What are the philosophical implications of the ruling in the case?

In the context of addressing these questions, give consideration to the approaches and perspectives being used by the judges to determine which “law” is being applied to the case. Consider the relevance of the theories of legal interpretation.

The paper should constitute an argument for a clearly stated thesis, though that thesis might itself be nuanced or qualified. Note that a thesis statement may, and often will, consist of several sentences or even a full paragraph.

1. Choose a Canadian legal case (Hate Speech – R. v. Keegstra)

2. Identify the philosophical issues at stake and determine the position you will defend with respect to those issues.

3. Review the theories and principles (see options listed below), and choose a theory/theories or principle(s) to support your position.

4. Identify which parts of the reasoning of the judges (i.e., either the majority, dissent, or the whole court if a consensus decision was reached) or the arguments of the litigants you will be analyzing and connecting to your arguments.

Theories/Principles Options

• Autonomy

• Canadian Critical Race Theory

• Feminist Legal Theory

• Freedom of Conscience

• Freedom of Expression

• Freedom of Religion

• Harm Principle

• Interpretivism

• Kantian Deontology

• Legal Moralism

• The Offense Principle

• Paternalism

• Quality of Life Perspective

• Sanctity of Life Perspective

• Utilitarian Consequentialism

Last Completed Projects