examine when the moral decision to use force arises from a conflict of prima facie obligations. The theory operates within a prima facie duty to use force as a last resort in defense of human life and values. When the moral tension arises between these prima facie obligations‚ they conflict with each other. The just war theory indicates that when the prima facie duty not to injure or kill others can be overridden by another prima facie duty‚ to act justly and always pursue justice. According to the
Premium Peace Laws of war Law
states have differing requirements of proof. Monaco’s case was tried in New Jersy under the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination (NJLAD)‚ under which Monaco contended that prima facie requirements are less rigid in their application. While it was established that Monaco met the first three requirements of a prima facie case the court granted the defendants motion for summary judgment because Monaco was unable to meet the fourth condition and prove that his age was the decisive factor in his
Premium Discrimination Employment Gender
PHI 180: Introduction to Ethics Reading & Study Questions for Unit 2: Ethical Theories 1 Explain Marquis’s presentation of the "typical" anti-abortion argument. 1. Fetuses are living and human. 2. Humans have the right to live. 3. Fetuses have a right to life. 4. Women have a right to control their bodies. 5. The right to life is morally more important than the right to control one’s body. 6. Abortion places the right to control one’s body over the right to life. Abortion
Premium Ethics Morality Human
against you in federal court”. The information that is provide is not enough information to prove that Carol was discriminated again. She will need to prove that there is a discrimination and she must first establish a prima facie. According to Bennett-Alexander & Hartman (2009)‚ prima facie is “presenting evidence that fits each requirement of a cause of action.” However‚ the information that was provided is not showing that there has been a disparate treatment. And therefore it is not recognized under
Premium Employment Discrimination Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
Introduction According to the article‚ Rhino poaching is in no way shown as moral. The ethical issues I see are that people are ignoring the fact that this horrible act is occurring and many people who do know about it won’t do anything about it‚ but are able to waste time watching pointless videos. The You Tube interventions took a moral approach to help with the petition. Although some were offended‚ the majority signed the petition and became more aware of the world around them. Utilitarianism
Premium Ethics Morality
TORTS FINAL EXAM OUTLINE INTENTIONAL TORTS 3 2. Battery 3 3. Assault 3 4. Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress 3 5. False Imprisonment 4 6. Trespass 4 6.1. Trespass to Land 4 6.2. Trespass to Chattels 4 6.3. Conversion 4 AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES 5 7. Consent (Privilege) 5 8. Self Defense (Privilege) 5 8.1. Self-Defense by Force Not Threatening Death or Serious Bodily Harm 5 8.2. Self-Defense by Force Threatening Death or Serious Bodily Harm
Premium Tort Common law Law
Westlaw India Delivery Summary Request made by : |IP USER 1| Request made on:|Tuesday‚ 06 November‚ 2012 at 18:02 IST| || Content Type:| > ... > B| Title : |Bina Murlidhar Hemdev and Others v Kanhaiyalal Lokram Hemdev and Others| Delivery selection:|Current Document| Number of documents delivered:|1| 2012 Thomson Reuters (Legal) Limited Bina Murlidhar Hemdev and Others v Kanhaiyalal Lokram Hemdev and Others Supreme Court of India 14 May 1999 Appeal (civil) 3141 of 1999 The Judgment
Premium
constitutionally restricting certain types of hate speech. The court was to hear a case that spoke to one specific Virginia state statute that prohibited cross burning with the intent to intimidate‚ and also rendered that any such burning shall be prima facie evidence of an intent to intimidate a person or group. This court would see this statute being used between two separate cases. The first case was against Barry Black; in August of 1998 Black led a Ku Klux Klan rally at which the conclusion resulted
Premium United States Supreme Court of the United States Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution
injunction in the suit against the defendant. Issues Involved Whether prima facie expression “Sugar Free” is a coined word or not or in other words whether the plaintiff can at all claim "Sugar Free" as a trademark or not? Whether a considerable degree of distinctiveness of expression “Sugar Free” in relation to plaintiff’s products was prima facie recognized in the defendant’s product or not? Whether a prima facie case of misrepresentation was made out against the defendant to show his intention
Premium Trademark Sweeteners