Thanks to you all for such thoughtful comments. Fun reading. I would however make some points regarding the early discussion of the German hijacking law, which attemped to allow state authorities in limited circumstances to shoot down a hijacked airplane where there was a threat to the population on the ground, and which the German courts rejected as unconstitutional in relation to the right to life, protected in their written Civil Code, of any passengers or airline personal on the plane . I took a brief look at this ruling in the case -- it seems to be a poor translatiaon -- and can't agree that this case is a clear example of a German preference for deontological over teological moral positions
First of all the ruling includes a clear recognition that the defenses of justification and necessity are applicable in Germany wrt a charge of murder, stating roughly that these defenses are relevant where a PRIVATE individual commits what would otherwise be a crime in order to prevent or stop a greater evil -- ie German law like most jurisdictions, already recognizes a teological or results/greater good oriented perspective to key moral and legal issues.
Second in the somewhat meandering judgement or poor translation, the Courts also considers it relevant to discuss the effects of a plane shot down by the authorities on people on the ground and approving the fact that the proposed law sought to avoid actions over populated areas -- again recognizing issues of the proportionality of potential harms.
In my mind, again based on a quick reading, the best way to understand this judgement is not primarily in terms of differences in moral orientation but more in terms of historical factors involving a reluctance, based on experience, to extend the power of state actors even in life or death situations; and secondarily in terms of the difference between the German versus English and North American systems of law (google "civil law vs common law") -- basically German legal judgements are dispensed on a case by case basis referencing a written uniform civil code while Common law judgments more often reference judge made law or case law involving similar questions of facts or interpretation. That is, it is the structure of the German legal system, perhaps more than any cultural inclination, that favours a deontological approach -- in constitutional cases involving limitations on the power of the state, the question is more the application of relevant constitutional provisions as opposed to the interpretation of such.
I also tend to wonder about the effect of globalization and Euro integration on a point of view which sees moral purity as being both desirable and possible.
Of course this is just my opinion, no need to spread it around.
Modifié par ismoketoomuch, 27 avril 2013 - 07:00 .
Retour en haut
