EXAMPLES OF LAW under the each of the following Philosophies of Law

1. Legal Moralism
Legal moralism involves laws prohibiting what is offensive to the majority of a community, or
actions seen as destroying the fabric of a society (pornography is an often used example,
although for some people the basis of this argument is that it causes harm to women).

"A Legal Moralist believes that a State should use its laws to preserve its society's moral
qualities, and that this goal justifies restrictions on liberties of its citizens. A simplistic
reading here is that so long as a great majority of its population take a view that something is
immoral, the State can justifiably enact a law in order to penalise it. It does not matter
whether this concept of morality held by its citizens is well founded or not."

1.a law on bigamy

1.b

R.A. 9775 – Anti Child Pornography Act of 2009

R.A. No. 10364 – Expanded Anti-Trafficking in Persons Act of 2012
Revised Penal Code – TITLE VI: Crimes Against Public Morals (Art. 195-202)

2. Legal Paternalism
Paternalism and Legal Moralism are linked in that each involves questions about the extent of
individual liberty. Paternalism involves the state eroding individual liberty by behaving like a
parent and forcing the citizen to behave in her best interest (seat belts, for example).

"Paternalism" comes from the Latin pater, meaning to act like a father, or to treat another
person like a child. ("Parentalism" is a gender-neutral anagram of "paternalism".) In modern
philosophy and jurisprudence, it is to act for the good of another person without that
person's consent, as parents do for children. It is controversial because its end is benevolent,
and its means coercive. Paternalists advance people's interests (such as life, health, or
safety) at the expense of their liberty. In this, paternalists suppose that they can make wiser
decisions than the people for whom they act. Sometimes this is based on presumptions about
their own wisdom or the foolishness of other people, and can be dismissed as presumptuous.
But sometimes it is not. It can be based on relatively good knowledge, as in the case of
paternalism over young children or incompetent adults. Sometimes the role of paternalist is
thrust upon the unwilling, as when we find ourselves the custodian and proxy for an
unconscious or severely retarded relative. Paternalism is a temptation in every arena of life
where people hold power over others: in childrearing, education, therapy, and medicine. But
it is perhaps nowhere as divisive as in criminal law. Whenever the state acts to protect
people from themselves, it seeks their good; but by doing so through criminal law, it does so
coercively, often against their will.

An Act Regulating the Sale, Manufacture, Distribution and Use of Firecrackers and
other Pyrotechnic Devices – Republic Act No .7183
Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002 - Republic Act No. 9165
Revised Penal Code, Art. 253 –Giving Assistance to Suicide
Comprehensive Firearms and Ammunition Regulation Act – Republic Act No. 10591

2.a use of motorcycle helmets

2.b
3. Harmful Principle Justification
The Harm Principle states that interference in self-regarding conduct is illegitimate except
where that conduct may cause harm to others.

Joel Feinberg believes the harm principle does not provide sufficient protection against
the wrongful behaviors of others, as it is inconsistent with many criminal prohibitions
we take for granted as being justified. If the only legitimate use of the state coercive force
is to protect people from harm caused by others, then statutes prohibiting public sex are
impermissible because public sex might be offensive but it does not cause harm (in the
Millian sense) to others.

Harm is something that would injure the rights of someone else or set back important interests
that benefits others

Chain Saw Act of 2002 - Republic Act No. 9175

Philippine Plant Variety Protection Act of 2002 - Republic Act No. 9168
Wildlife Resources Conservation and Protection Act - Republic Act No. 9147
Ecological Solid Waste Management Act of 2000 - Republic Act No. 9003
Philippine Clean Air Act of 1999 - Republic Act No. 8749
Animal Welfare Act of 1998 - Republic Act No. 8485
Philippine Mining Act of 1995 - Republic Act No. 7942
Toxic Substances & Hazardous & Nuclear Wastes Control Act of 1990 - Republic Act No. 6969
Public Assembly Act of 1985 – Batas Pambansa Bilang 880

3.a non-payment of taxes

4. Offense Principle Justification

Something which we would say “hurt our feelings”

Feinberg argues the harm principle must be augmented by the offense principle, which he
defines as follows: "It is always a good reason in support of a proposed criminal
prohibition that it would probably be an effective way of preventing serious offense
(as opposed to injury or harm) to persons other than the actor, and that it is probably
a necessary means to that end" (Feinberg 1985). By "offense," Feinberg intends a
subjective and objective element: the subjective element consists in the experience of an
unpleasant mental state (for example, shame, disgust, anxiety, embarrassment); the
objective element consists in the existence of a wrongful cause of such a mental state.

Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012 - Republic Act No. 10175

Anti-Bullying Act of 2013 - Republic Act No. 10627
Special Protection of Children Against Abuse, Exploitation and Discrimination Act - Republic
Act 7610
New Civil Code of the Philippines, Book Two, Title VIII – Nuisance
SPECIFYING THE LEGAL GROUNDS AND PROCEDURES FOR THE PROHIBITION AND
ABATEMENT OF BILLBOARDS AND SIGNBOARDS CONSTITUTING PUBLIC NUISANCE OR
OTHER VIOLATIONS OF LAW – Administrative Order No. 160-A, s. 2006

4.a chastity