Course:Law3020/2014WT1/Group S/Separation Thesis

Hart Morality concern is separated. Discriminating against people who don’t pay, has nothing to do with dignity Just discriminating on whether you payed or not in order to make whole system viable for people 	who need it on broad basis RGP is about objective and end aspect is protecting people who need it. Penumbra - judges decision for SCC - they use fundamental principles of fj 	Imparitality, objectivity, Sometimes it does overlap - CPP is supposed to overlap with a moral good, which is to help people who need it the most. They created, and created special provisions so that people could take advantage of it, even in cases of exceptions. This might look like morality but it is just a natural consequence of following the proper order

Laws and morality run in parallel - section 15 has nothing to do with morality, just good governance Drop out provisions have nothing to do with morality - clearly anticipating problems and attempting to rectify them in advance, You can weigh the rule against morality Legal rules ought to be followed - Granovsky should have followed the rules, not following the rules doesn’t deny his dignity What about the rules not applying to people it should? That’s a moral argument at this point time.

Have no choice but to follow legal rules (pay taxes) Choice is apparent in this case, you are choosing to buy into a legal program Backed up by a system (pay your taxes every year) CPP system you have to buy into, system monitors contributions Rule of recognition (valid and right by majority of people in society to pay taxes - we give validity to tax) Recognized by the people who give power to the parliamentary entities that enabled the act You have to think it is valid to buy in

Players in legal system have to give validity to the system, they are bound to follow the law, right to do so	Everyone has to enable the rule

You follow the rules for reasons other than to avoid punishment - we ought to intrinsically Could be path of least resistance as well, but that’s ok. Law doesn’t need to be good necessarily Maybe because people are inherently good, justice oriented individuals Long term self interest - murder someone have to fear for a long time being caught

Section 7, Section 1 - have the RGP Included Section 15 - allowing this section follows RGP because it allows dignity/full autonomy

Opted in manually - believe in the rule in order for it to be a law, they believe because they bought in, not a free ride program, they should submit to the validity of the law - if it doesn’t work for him that’s too bad. Morality leading to dignity would have no effect. We have the ability to not follow etiquette rules, we have no choice but to follow legal rules, he 	didn’t follow the rule

Fuller CPP exists as a program exists due to the inner morality of the law. Inner morality of the law guided us to the provisions. Coherence, rational, explainable - laws that have these currents running through them are moral The legislation tends towards good stuff, good laws are more coherent, that’s why this thing works Purpose of law is to help people who fall within the cpp provisions, law is moral and good within itself, some problems do happen for people who fall outside the program.

Section 15 Is inherently moral, coherent, explainable etc, tends towards better social good.