Should a President be a moral person, as most understand morality to be? Why or why not? Explain why Clinton's immorality did not hinder his presidency as some had wished? These areas are explored.
If we were to define morality, we would have different answers depending on whom we asked. This underscores the root of the confusion. Our modern western world has tried to divorce morality from law. Yet, is such a trend philosophically valid? Probably not. In fact, many philosophers (including Aquinas and Aristotle) as well as legal scholars (Blackstone being notable in this category) have argued rather strongly and convincingly that natural law and morality are mixed together and cannot be separated. For example Blackstone argued the following two fundamental principles of law: (1) No "manmade" law may conflict with natural law; and (2) all valid laws derive their force and authority from natural law.
But this brings us to the issue between natural law and positive law. Most lawyers today (and certainly most law schools today) emphasize positive law rather than natural law. And, in my opinion, there is where the problem lies. It should go without saying that most legal scholars today deny or reject the validity of Blackstone's principles.
It is clear that there are unjust laws -- unless you believe in fascism (in which case, you may as well stop reading now). Fascism is a political philosophy predicated on the believe that anything goes so long as it can be justified -- ...
This job assesses if a president should be a moral person. Why Clinton's immorality did not hinder his presidency as some wishes are determined.