Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
relation between law & morality
relation between law & morality
the relationship between law and morality
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: relation between law & morality
Question: Is there a role for morality in the law? If so, what is this role?
In society a code of morality could be seen as a set of beliefs, values and principles. The root of morality is bad and good behaviour. Moral views differ between individuals also within society. A dictionary definition of morality is ‘a set of personal or social standards for good or bad behaviour and character.’ Furthermore, law could be seen as a set of rules assigned by the government to keep society in order by following these rules. John Salmond (1862-1924) defines law as, ‘the body of principles recognised and applied by the state in the administration of justice.’ This essay aims to examine the relationship between law and morality to address the role of which morality participates in law.
Natural law theory recognises law and morality are connected and believes that human law is defined by morality and not from the government. Legal positivism is the opposite from this they argue that the law does not have to be moral, to be law and law is absolute. An example of this would be the Hart-Fuller debate. The Hart-Fuller debate was focused on, a Nazi woman who used the law immorally against her husband. The women reported her husband who was a German soldier to officials saying he had made serious remarks against Hitler. The result of this was her husband being arrested and sent to the Eastern front. The laws and procedures in the Nazi regime did not agree with moral values. According to Fuller the Nazi regime was “lawless” and everything within the regime did not qualify law. On the other hand, Hart, although he agreed the law was wicked, the Nazi regime at the time was a system of
While maintaining a open look of this moral law, Lewis presents two objections one would present to the moral law: “The moral law is just herd instinct” and “Morality is just social convention. The moral law is not a herd instinct due to man’s choice to suppress stronger instincts in fa...
In legal theory, there is a great debate over whether or not law should be used to enforce morality. The sides of the debate can be presented as a continuum. At one end, there is the libertarian view, which holds that morality is an individual belief and that the state should not interfere in the affairs of the individual. According to this view, a democracy cannot limit or enforce morality. At the other end, there is the communitarian position, which justifies the community as a whole deciding what moral values are, and hence justifies using the law to enforce community values. For libertarians, judges should play a prominent role in limiting the state, while for communitarians, judges should have as small a role as possible. In between these two extremes sit the liberal egalitarians, who attempt to reconcile democratic decision-making about moral values with liberalism. The problem is made more complex when one considers that both law and morality are contested concepts. Two recent cases where this continuum can be illustrated are Canada [Attorney-General] vs. Mossap, and Egan vs. Canada. In this essay, I will attempt to explore some of the issues produced in these two cases. I will begin with a summary each case, followed by an analysis of the major themes involved. I will then place the issues in a larger, democratic framework, and explore the role of law in enforcing morality in a democracy. I will then prove how the communitarian position - as articulated by Patrick Devlin - supports the decisions given in Mossap and Egan, and how even the great proponents of libertarianism - Mill and von Hayek - would agree that the decisions were just. A conclusion will then follow.
The answer to this question depends very much on our understanding and opinion on the status of the law. On this issue it is likely that everyone falls into one of two broad categories. People falling into the first of these categories would be those who consider that through social contract we are obliged to obey the law, whatever the law states and regardless of our opinion on the moral status of that law and that we are morally obliged to operate within the law. Furthermore by this way of thinking we can conclude that if the law binds us over to commit, what we consider to be an immoral act then we must be exempt from guilt as our morality dictates that we should obey the law regardless. Those who fall outside of this category would therefore believe that we are not bound over to obey the law and that in fact we should be morally obliged to disobey any law that we consider to be immoral. There is however a problem with this situation, in so much as it relies on appealing to a set moral code to justify our actions and such a moral code is merely an abstracted system of laws.
Morality is the principles and standards set by society for evaluating between right and wrong. “One has not only a legal but a moral responsibility to obey just laws” (A Natural Law Approach 284). Unreasonable laws created by a democratic legislature can very e...
The concept of morality is that it’s connected with harm prevention and the “central provisions of the criminal law prohibiting killing,
Starting with perspective one I would like to point out the key points. Laws are there to provide peace and avoid chaos, although we should follow the laws if there are things that people may disagree with. Instead of just keeping quiet they should have the right to speak out about it without necessarily breaking the law. Breaking the law wont make it change but discussion of why the law is unjust and why the law was put in place in the first place is bound to make more progress than breaking the law to prove a point. Perspective two, I don't completely agree with the statement that people have a moral obligation to break laws that are unjust, unfair, or immoral. I would more say the entirety of perspective two will get you no where but in trouble and in jail or in legal trouble with the law.
When an average person is asked ‘what is morally correct?’ most respond with an answer that requires each person to follow the laws of the country in which they are living. This is at least the case in modern American society, where your “moral standing” depends ultimately on whether or not you conform to the laws outlined by the government. Regardless of what one’s individual beliefs are, religious or not, morality is judged on how well you blend into your specific societies definition of what is good, evil and indifferent, while law is just a bunch of rules and regulations to divide up power amongst the people in order to predict the future and keep civil peace.
In society today there are many religions and cultures that each in their own way preaches different values. Morality is a subject that is often studied and analyzed to evaluate how people act and why they act in that manner. Being moral refers to “what persons ought to do in order to conform to society’s norms of behavior” (Beauchamp, 1997, p.2). Without morality it would be very difficult to have expectations on how people would act within society. This would in turn impact day to day interactions with strangers as with no morals of how one should act to their neighbor, there would be no mutual trust. If someone questions the conventional customs and laws of their culture and religion, why should they be good? If someone does not want to conform to the norms of their religion, they will have little to no
The central aim of this essay will be to support the legal-positivist that law and morality are strictly separable. In its simplest form many understand legal positivism to be the existence and content of law, which depends on social facts, and not on its merits. I will engage closely with the work of John Austin and his concept of law, which offered a developed and progressive piece of work from Bentham, focusing on Austin’s The Province of Jurisprudence Determined (1832) in order to demonstrate one of the earlier accounts of legal positivism. By exploring Austin’s theory of sovereignty, in which he outlines that in every state there exists an authority to which a large mass of citizens show compliance, I will address the consideration that
This theory looks at how the sovereign and its officials created the law based on social norms and the institutions (Hart, 1958). However, hard cases such as this makes for bad law, which test the validity of the law at hand based on what the objective of the law was in the first place. The law should not be so easily dismissed just because it does not achieve justice in the most morally sound manner (Hart, 1958). Bentham and Austin understood that there are two errors in the way law is understood, what the law is and what the law should be (Hart, 1958). He knew that if law was to become what humans perceived the law ought to be, the law itself would be lost, but he also recognized that if the opposite was to occur where the law replaced morality, than any man would escape liability and there would be no retribution (Hart, 1958). This theory looks at the point of view of the dissenting judge, Justice Gray, which is that the law is what it is, even if it may conflict with morals. Austin stated that “The existence of law is one thing; its merit and demerit another. Whether it be or be not is one enquiry; whether it be or be not conformable to an assumed standard, is a different enquiry (Hart, 1958).” This case presents the same conflict that Bentham and Austin addressed, that the law based on the statute of the
The intention of this essay is to explain the process of law reform within the English legal system. The way in which the activity of parliament and that of the judiciary affects the way in which laws are reformed in the UK will be also discussed. The common law system in the UK means that the UK's primary legal principles have been developed by the judiciary rather than by parliament. However, as parliamentary sovereignty is an important key principle of the UK constitution parliament is the supreme legal authority in the UK. Parliament can create, change or repeal any law and generally speaking the judiciary cannot overrule legislation that has been passed by parliament.
While the philosophers such as Plato were not deemed to be lawyers, their theories later set forth later developed with natural law (Riddall, pg. 59). Classical natural law theory was deemed skeptical by those believing many would value selfish means of natural desires to an extent in which others are disregarded, but philosophers such as Plato recognized the need for such principles to be moderated in order for natural responsibilities to occur a moral approach (Coleman, pg. 3). Such moderation sought by Plato was with the intent to legitimize legal orders on the account of their ethical principles. These desires or responsibilities are founded on natural, universal yearnings, demonstrating why such a foundation has proven to be so versatile in its use. The moral principles set forth through religion also played a major role in determining what was the appropriate standard as Christianity was such a dominant force in this age. This power was further applied by St Thomas Aquinas through his interpretations of living in a godly society, primarily how this involved man being at peace with one another, and allowing them to serve their religious inclinations. Aquinas favored law being for the “divine good” of society, and claimed that law that does not adhere to such principle is in fact, unjust, therefore invalid (Riddall,
Law is the foundation of central structures of social life on which society’s integrity depends, which is why Petrazycki, Ehrlich and Habermas perceive it to be a key steering mechanism in society,
Firstly in this report, I will be giving the different definitions of rule of law by different philosophers; secondly, I will be applying the rule of law to the English Legal system and thirdly I will be explaining separation of powers with a focus on the impartial judiciary. Finally, I will be using cases to support every detailed point given.
The relationship between law and morality has been argued over by legal theorists for centuries. The debate is constantly be readdressed with new cases raising important moral and legal questions. This essay will explain the nature of law and morality and how they are linked.