, PLEASE USE THIS DOCUMENT AS A GUIDE TO ANSWER YOUR ASSIGNMENT
Please note that the author of this document will not responsibility for any plagiarizing you
commit.
1. With reference to the judgment in Prince v President of the Law Society of the Cape of Good
Hope 2002 (2) SA 794, discuss the philosophical approaches the majority and minority decisions
followed.
In the case of Prince v President of the Law Society of the Cape of Good Hope 2002 (2) SA 794
(CC), the Constitutional Court of South Africa had to decide whether the prohibition on the use of
cannabis infringed upon the applicant’s constitutional right to freedom of religion. This case is
notable for the philosophical approaches taken by the majority and minority judgments, which can be
broadly categorized into utilitarian and deontological perspectives.
Majority Judgment
The majority judgment, delivered by Justice Chaskalson, adopted a utilitarian approach.
Utilitarianism is a consequentialist theory that evaluates actions based on their outcomes, aiming to
maximize overall happiness or welfare. The majority argued that the prohibition of cannabis was
justified by the state’s interest in protecting public health and safety. They emphasized the broader
social harms that could arise from legalizing cannabis, such as increased drug abuse and the
associated social and economic costs.
Public Health and Safety: The majority held that the state's interest in protecting public health
and safety justified the restriction on the applicant's religious practices. They noted that
cannabis use has been associated with various negative health effects, which the state has a
legitimate interest in preventing.
Proportionality and Reasonableness: The majority applied the proportionality test to assess
whether the limitation of the applicant’s religious freedom was justifiable. They concluded that
the prohibition was a reasonable and necessary measure to achieve the government's objective
of safeguarding public health.
Balancing of Interests: The judgment involved balancing the applicant's right to religious
freedom against the state's interest in protecting public health. The majority concluded that the
public interest in preventing harm outweighed the applicant’s individual rights.
Minority Judgment
The minority judgment, delivered by Justice Sachs, followed a deontological approach. Deontology
focuses on the adherence to moral rules or duties, regardless of the consequences. Justice Sachs
emphasized the importance of respecting individual rights and human dignity, arguing that the state
must accommodate religious practices unless there is a compelling reason not to.
Respect for Religious Practices: Justice Sachs argued that the right to freedom of religion is a
fundamental human right that should be protected. He contended that the state must show a
compelling reason to restrict such a right, and mere public interest in health and safety does not
automatically override individual rights.
Please note that the author of this document will not responsibility for any plagiarizing you
commit.
1. With reference to the judgment in Prince v President of the Law Society of the Cape of Good
Hope 2002 (2) SA 794, discuss the philosophical approaches the majority and minority decisions
followed.
In the case of Prince v President of the Law Society of the Cape of Good Hope 2002 (2) SA 794
(CC), the Constitutional Court of South Africa had to decide whether the prohibition on the use of
cannabis infringed upon the applicant’s constitutional right to freedom of religion. This case is
notable for the philosophical approaches taken by the majority and minority judgments, which can be
broadly categorized into utilitarian and deontological perspectives.
Majority Judgment
The majority judgment, delivered by Justice Chaskalson, adopted a utilitarian approach.
Utilitarianism is a consequentialist theory that evaluates actions based on their outcomes, aiming to
maximize overall happiness or welfare. The majority argued that the prohibition of cannabis was
justified by the state’s interest in protecting public health and safety. They emphasized the broader
social harms that could arise from legalizing cannabis, such as increased drug abuse and the
associated social and economic costs.
Public Health and Safety: The majority held that the state's interest in protecting public health
and safety justified the restriction on the applicant's religious practices. They noted that
cannabis use has been associated with various negative health effects, which the state has a
legitimate interest in preventing.
Proportionality and Reasonableness: The majority applied the proportionality test to assess
whether the limitation of the applicant’s religious freedom was justifiable. They concluded that
the prohibition was a reasonable and necessary measure to achieve the government's objective
of safeguarding public health.
Balancing of Interests: The judgment involved balancing the applicant's right to religious
freedom against the state's interest in protecting public health. The majority concluded that the
public interest in preventing harm outweighed the applicant’s individual rights.
Minority Judgment
The minority judgment, delivered by Justice Sachs, followed a deontological approach. Deontology
focuses on the adherence to moral rules or duties, regardless of the consequences. Justice Sachs
emphasized the importance of respecting individual rights and human dignity, arguing that the state
must accommodate religious practices unless there is a compelling reason not to.
Respect for Religious Practices: Justice Sachs argued that the right to freedom of religion is a
fundamental human right that should be protected. He contended that the state must show a
compelling reason to restrict such a right, and mere public interest in health and safety does not
automatically override individual rights.
