Ethics And The Separation Of Law And Morals

In The Perils of Obedience, Stanley Milgram introduces us to his experimental studies on the conflict between one’s own conscience and obedience to authority. From these experiments, Milgram discovered that a lot of people will obey a figure in authority; irrespective of the task given - even if it goes against their own moral belief and values. Milgram’s decision to conduct these experiments was to investigate the role of Adolf Eichmann (who played a major part in the Holocaust) and ascertain if his actions were based on the fact that he was just following orders; as most Germans accused of being guilty for war crimes commonly explained that they were only being obedient to persons in higher authority.

Defining law can be difficult to do since its definition varies among various people. Many people see law as standards for human behavior that reflect the deepest values and morals of the society. Others see law as a game which acts as a set of guidelines for settling disagreements in a nonviolent way. From a sociologist’s perspective law is viewed as a behavioral system with the two aspects of roles/hierarchy and rules/discretion. Not only is law thought of as a behavioral system from a sociologist’s perspective but also as an institution which is a set of directions for doing things. When laws have been disobeyed by a member of society a form of punishment will be determined and it is not always effective. Everyone has their own views on law and punishment which is why I want to look at what theorists Emile Durkheim and Karl Marx view as the role and function of law and punishment. Before I can show the weaknesses, similarities and differences between each of their views I will give an overview of their thoughts on the role and function of law and punishment.

In “No Crueler Tyrannies”, Dorothy Rabinowitz rightly criticizes the lawyers taking part in the prosecution; the nature of these criticisms includes the prosecution’s ultimatum stance on seeking finality over justice, their subjective reactions to the Moral Panic of the time, and the mere lack of physical evidence used in trial.

Dietrich Bonhoeffer was a 20th century theologian living in Nazi Germany who was deeply critical of Hitler’s leadership and his attempt to eliminate the Christian Church. His opposition to the state was demonstrated by being a member of the Confessing Church and by joining the Widerstand (the Resistance towards the Nazi Party) and eventually led to his execution in Flossenburg concentration camp on the 9th of April 1945. Before his death, Bonhoeffer recorded his views on ethics in his works such as “The Cost of Discipleship” and “No Rusty Swords”. The relevance of Bonhoeffer’s teachings on ethics today has significance as it questions whether his ideas are applicable in the increasingly secular, multi-cultural and less dangerous society in which we live in contrast to the extreme threat Bonhoeffer and other Germans were experiencing under the control of the Nazi state. Some argue that Bonhoeffer's teachings do have relevance today such as Joseph Fletcher and Stanley Hauerwas as we have a duty to fight for justice even if we have to disobey laws. However, others believe that they do not have any relevance today as threats to humanity are not extreme enough to warrant disobedience. In this essay, I will attempt to express that Bonhoeffer's teachings do not have relevance today.

“The theory of moral condemnation as the basis of criminal law is argued most cogently by Henry Hart in his classic article The Aims of the Criminal Law.95 Hart concludes that "what distinguishes

Since my journey here at Bryant began in September, I have changed so much. Coming here, I expected certain things such as my study habits, daily routine and friend group to be altered. One change I was not anticipating making was my approach to ethics. Over the course of the past fifteen weeks, my knowledge of ethics as well as my approach to ethics has changed. I have become more knowledgeable about the different approaches to ethics and have gained insight as to where I stand in my approach to ethics.

A woman from Wyoming, Taylor Blanchard, is responsible for bringing to attention the issue that American women are serving years in prison while men, who commit the same crimes, are able to attend boot camps for months. Blanchard’s case reveals the disadvantages of Weber’s rationalization model as they apply to the sentencing of Wyoming’s female convicts. The sentencing guidelines are an example of formally rational law which features rigid written rules of conduct, which are impersonally applied without morality, and require legal knowledge that is unintelligible for most of the female convicts.

“Brad is a production engineer at a bicycle company and part of his job includes inspecting broken bikes and drafting the design repairs for their repair” (Bartlett). Brad is considering replacing a broken brake cable with a more durable material, even though the customer did not request it in their order and specifically requested that “No aesthetic changes be made to the bike” (Bartlett). Brad’s manager suggests that his considered actions would go against the company’s policy of “The customer is always right.” Should Brad disobey the manager and the customer to possibly lose his job or go along with

This short paper will discuss Moral Foundation Theory in relation to the Germanpeople’s initial support and eventual disgust at the “Final Solution” pre and post World War II. Iposit that The Nazi party appealed to the German people using arguments of purity, fairness,authority, and loyalty. This rendered them to feel morally justified in their support of the “FinalSolution” which was the Nazi party’s policy of eugenics and genocide towards the Jews andother undesirables like homosexuals, mentally challenged, and the disabled. After the war, whenconfronted with defeat and the harm caused, the moral lens with which they viewed the “FinalSolution” reversed itself. Moral foundation Theory is one way to explain their changed views onthe “Final Solution” even though many authors have tried to discover the reasons. This theoryuses dichotomous concepts that hold inherent emotional values which are used to influence ourmoral viewpoints. There are five foundations: 1) loyalty/betrayal 2) care/harm 3)fairness/cheating 4) authority/subversion and 5) purity/degradation. In theory the moral actiondesired is linked with one of the two emotional values.One might ask why the German people so readily supported the Nazi party’s plan ofeugenics and genocide. The answer might be so

Ethics and morals are two congruous ideas. However, their fundamental difference lies in the fine detail: ethics refers to the relative social acceptability of actions or beliefs as dictated by social systems or professions. Morals exist internally as abstract tenets without exterior influence. In Regeneration, both are strongly represented. The character of Dr Rivers is the principal embodiment of the constant battle between duty and integrity. His central dilemma, to "regenerate" men but send them back to France where they will die, causes Rivers to repeatedly self-evaluate, particularly after the arrival of the maverick Sassoon who has, Rivers claims, 'a very powerful anti-war neurosis '. Barker 's Regeneration invites us to consider

“Ethics is the manner by which we try to live our lives according to a standard of right or wrong” (Ghillyer). And government ethics is “the application of ethical rules to government”

Namely, one may argue that the commoners blindly accepted Nazi ideology due to the pressure, which they didn’t have enough integrity to resist, and thus acted in the context of the whole Nazi system rather than individuals. In this way, their actions were not fully independent, and thus possibly less immoral. They were following a trend, and even following direct orders from the authorities without any personal intentions involved. This is particularly true for the workers that participated in the genocide, i.e. those who collected the Jews, who transported them to their respective camps, who averted them from prohibited areas in cities, etc. Here, the question is raised as to whether a person enforcing someone else’s plans is equally, more, or less responsible than the person who concocted them, regardless of whether the person in question could have dissented or

Essay title: HLA Hart stated that the goal of his theory was ‘an improved analysis of the distinctive structure of a ... legal system and a better understanding of the resemblances and differences between law, coercion, and morality, as types of social phenomena’. Discuss critically the extent to which Hart realized this goal.

What is law? “Laws are rules made by government that forbid certain actions and are enforced by the courts.” (Government of Canada, Department of Justice, Electronic Communications, 2017). [In other words] Law is a set of rules and regulations enacted by a government that affects our daily lives. “The Rule of Law” is; none is above the law. This rule ensures equality. Another significant aspect of law is morality. Morality is what is deemed ethically right or wrong. It is a set of societal standards or principles that are based on primary sources such as religious doctrines. Morality comes from the word moral. A moral is a value or principle that differentiates the good from bad. The connection between law and morality is that, morality is that basis and foundation of law. “Law cannot be established without reference to morality” (Blair & Elliott, 2004, p. 110). Though morality is the building blocks of law, occasionally they conflict. For example, stealing is against the law, but what if a man stole a loaf of bread to feed his starving wife and children? Would it seem to be as big and bad of a crime then? No, but it is still deemed to be “illegal”.

This essay aims at briefly explaining the key components of Hart’s theory while constantly comparing and contrasting his propositions with those of his predecessors, Bentham and Austin as the former quintessentially flows from Hart’s aim, the one of providing the world of Jurisprudence with an improved analysis of some of the earlier proposed correlation between law, morality and coercion. This will be later followed by a detailed analysis and subtle criticism, where necessary, of Hart’s theory because the important question pertinent to the validity of his philosophy will be left unanswered if his departure from classical positivism isn’t examined.