Analysis Of Lon Fuller 's ' Inner Morality '

In August 2015, the case Miller V Davis brought to light the complicated relationship between law and morality. Indeed, Mrs Davis a county clerk in Rowan county (Kentucky), is being sued for not delivering marriage licences to same sex couples as she believes that homosexuality is morally wrong. Thus, despite the fact that same-sex marriage has been made legal by the U.S Supreme Court since June 2015. Ought individuals to apply the law though it is in inadequacy with their moral beliefs? Do the law should be totally free from any moral influence? Many legal scholars have argued on these questions, as well as trying to define the terms “law” and “morality”. While no one has agreed to a universal definition, law can be defined as a “body of rules, whether proceeding from formal enactment or from custom, which a particular state or community recognizes as binding on its members or subjects”. On the other hand, morality is referred to as an “ethical wisdom” , the set of common values unifying a society. This essay will discuss the role of morality in the law, while analysing different legal school of thoughts arguing on the topic. First of all, positivists such as Bentham, Austin and Hart, argued that morality should not interfere with the law as it is created by a legitimate authority. On the other hand, naturalist theorists, such as Aristotle, Fuller and Dworkin, believed in the existence of a “higher law”, highly influenced by morals, has to be integrated in a legal system

Criminal law is a construct of the government, enforced through tangible measures. In a democratic society, the government is elected by the citizens, and as such, laws are generally conceived with the aim to reflect whatever ethical or moral standards are presently acceptable. However, in order to be truly effective, some legislation must circumvent current sociological viewpoints in order to create laws that are genuinely in the best interests of society. This results in a delicate balancing act, as lawmakers attempt to weigh the views of the majority against the need for laws to be both reasoned and objective.

Aristotle once said “At his best, man is the noblest of all animals; separated from law and justice he is the worst. “ Aristotle saw how we as humans were different from other animals; we were able to create these non-existent rules for humans to follow without question. Laws help shape the society we live in, whether they are positive or negative, our morality can come into play when faced with a troubling situation, why should words on paper dictate what we can and cannot achieve? Why is parchment more credible than the humans’ testimony? Should Gods sway the way laws work? These questions are all important when dealing with the creations of rules and regulations.

He believed that in order to understand law, one must first realize what law’s purpose is. He, like Thomas, argued that law’s purpose it to benefit society by creating a morally sound order to human action and conduct. He detailed seven goods that he believed to be intrinsic and universal, and argued that laws should be enforced under the stipulation that they adhere to the enhancement of these goods, because they are what determines a fulfilling life. They are: life, knowledge, play, aesthetic experience, sociability, practical reasonableness, and religion. The goods that relate to the thesis of this paper the most are knowledge and sociability, as the result of the case has a direct benefit on them and is, therefore, moral and legitimate. Legal positivists, however, disagree that morality has any place in determining what legitimate law is.

Laws have been a part of civilization for many years. Without them, civilization would implode. Chaos would erupt and people would be a danger to one another. The world would be in anarchy and a brutal place to live. Humanity would cease to exist. According to Wikipedia, law is defined as “a system of rules that are enforced through social situations to govern behavior (www.wikipedia.com).” Laws are put into place to regulate society.

Imagine if someone you loved was shot. You call the cops, but they say that there is nothing that can be done because there are no laws saying they have to punish the criminal. If there were no laws, criminal could get away with crimes like that repeatedly without any punishment. This is a prime example of why laws are needed to keep society in order. The idea of rules in society has been around since King Hammurabi created the first set of laws in 1760 B.C. Egyptian civilizations created laws so that their society would last longer than other civilizations because people would respect their morals. William Golding, the author of Lord of the Flies, made a statement about human nature, saying that, “Man produces evil as a bee produces honey.” He had a theory that

Section three of Chapter Eight titled Doing Justice begins with the following sentence “It should be obvious that laws and trials mean something.” The role that legislated laws play in maintaining the stability and integrity of our society is something that many individuals assume to be determined by unbiased social convention. Throughout Section three the perceived significance of the law is critically examined. Additionally, the section analyzes the effectiveness of implemented legislation in the dispensation of justice to all American citizens.

The social constructs of law relate it to be something of complexity, where one’s rights and protections are imagined to be difficult to find. The law is an historic and modern aspect of the world, ensuring uniformity. It is important for the law to become not only a creator, but also a product of its environment. For society to accept the law and for its effectiveness, it must be made in ways reflect societal values.

The World in which we live in are run by systems. Systems of governance, systems of living, and importantly, systems of law. Law is the groundwork in which all other things in the human existence are built. This process causes people to wonder, what happens if Law ceases to be just? An Idea that might be absurd to some, though might have an eerie kernel of truth to it.. The Dystopian novels of Fahrenheit 451, Anthony Burgess' A Clockwork Orange, and the Film of 1984 All have terrifying perversions of Law, giving us an insight into how overbearing our government can become.

However, Shelby neglects the inherent intertwining of moral and civic obligations in his determination that some crimes are justified and permissible. Since law is a set of rules determined by the entirety of society, it reflects the moral code and ethos that the particular society subscribes to. Consequently, each society, as well as its members, hold varying perspectives of morality. An action that is considered by one individual as a civic obligation can also be construed as a moral obligation

Our society is built off of the concept of a social contract by which the individuals who comprise the society give up certain freedoms in exchange for protection by the government. The government then has a duty to properly balance the conflicting freedoms of its various constituents and ensure that they can enjoy the maximum amount of freedom without interference from the government or from other individuals. Along with the social contract comes the concept of rule of law, an essential tenet of any structured society, whether free or not. In a perfect society, all laws would be constructed off of the social contract, and thus there would be no legitimate reason to oppose them as they would promote maximal freedom and justice. However,

In his essay "Some Moral Minima," Lenn Goodman (2010) attempts to challenge moral relativism by arguing that certain acts contain "natural meanings," and subsequently that certain acts are inherently right or wrong, due to their natural moral meaning (p. 92). Goodman discusses a number of acts that he views as inherently wrong, including genocide, germ warfare, and rape, and purports to offer reasoned explanations for why these acts are wrong. However, upon examining Goodman's claims in detail, it becomes clear that he cannot offer any evidence for the existence of objective morality, and instead is reduced to mere assertions and the conflation of cultural evolutionary tendencies with existence of natural, objective meaning. In reality, objective moral meaning does not exist, quite simply because objective meaning in general does not exist; there is no meaning but what human beings have created as a result of biological and cultural evolution, and thus no act is inherently right or wrong. Instead, there are certain acts that have been defined as such through centuries of social conditioning and the gradual homogenization of subjective moral standards, or else utilitarian principles that prove effective for achieving a specific moral goal (that is itself subjective, and thus ultimately arbitrary).

Throughout history laws have been in place to restore or keep order in society. Some laws are put into place to protect while some laws are made to punish. No matter the purpose, laws are put in place with the expectation they will be followed.

Since we were kids and became conscious of our surrounding, our parents and grandparents instilled in us an awareness of what is right and wrong. In other words, it is a trait of all human beings and fosters from our desire to get along with each other to live a harmonious life. Laws are a set of rules and behaviors set by governments that society illustrate on what people can or cannot do. The purpose of this paper is three-fold: it will identify and define what distinguishes law from ethics and what similarities they share. The second is an analysis of examples of where law and ethics either meet or diverge. Third is the role where law and ethics either meet or diverge.

Dworkin suggested that the law was imbued with specific attributes of morality. This was also known as the laws integrity. Dworkin’s aim was to explain how it was people’s duties to obey the laws, which is a moral duty, and the states hold the monopoly of the power to enforce the laws, rests on the laws integrity. However, for this the effectively work,