Legal Framework Of The Making : Csr : Issue Of Law Or Morality Essay

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.

The world is at a constant struggle to push away Crime from society but crime persists and is very much like thorns on a simple pine apple fruit. All you can do is to try to remove them and enjoy your fruit but next fruit taken will again have them. Society can be said to have same characteristics and is made in such a way that crime will persist in each and every era we live in, but this doesn’t stand as a valid illustration to sit back and do nothing, crime has to be reduced as far as possible and society is in constant process of fighting it. The crime can only be fought well with the laws which are capable and not obsolete and does not violate the human rights which reside with each and every individual. An incompetent law has no utility if it does not fulfill its criteria for which it was made. And hence demand for repealing such laws is observed by the collective conscience of the society.

A significant debate on this topic was stimulated by Wolfenden Report 1957 in England which led to the famous debate between H.L.A Hart and Lord Devlin . The report is about the recommendation of legalising homosexuality and prostitution as law should not intervene within everyone’s private lives. This view was supported by Hart as he believed that the law should not enforce moral codes and everyone should have the right to privacy. Hart also believed that what may be required by law might be prohibited by one’s morals and what law may prohibit is morally unacceptable which presents that law and morality do not interlink together . On the other hand Lord Devlin argues that law should reflect morals so there is a sense of social solidarity. He states that “society is not something that is kept together physically; it is held together by invisible bonds of common thought” meaning laws are there to uphold society’s morals and without this connection society would disintegrate. Whereas Hart retaliates saying “There is no evidence that the preservation of a society requires the enforcement of its morality as such” . He believes there does not need to be a strong relationship or link between law and morality for

(2009). Law and Morality. Christian Research Journal, 21(3). Retrieved from: http://www.equip.org/article/law-and-morality/ Retrieved on: 15 November 2017.

Genzyme is an American Biotechnology party based in Cambridge, Massachusetts. Genzyme is third biggest biotechnology company with over 10,000 employees around the globe. it is located within over 65 countries. Genzyme has over revenues over $4.6 billion. Fun fact about the company I found was they had donated almost $100 million in 2006. The case talks about HAND which means find effective drugs for neglected diseases.

The relationship between law and morality has a substantial degree of interest; but, the controversy between law and morality still remains unclear. This paper articulates that Devlin is correct and the state should be ready to purpose to some definite “harm” in order to justify law’s intervention. Both Devlin and Mill are discovered through the context of harm in their theories of good and bad and what they believe and sharing its strengths and weaknesses of strictly relying on harm as the main and by legitimate justification for state action. Therefore, harm is shown through cases by Labaye and R. v. Butler by discovering through examples by exogenous substances, religion and socioeconomic statuses.

This article focuses on one of his highly appreciated work, Concept of Law – 1961. The book analyses on the law, morality and fear or threat through which the author is attempting to classify the question as to whether the law can be conceptualized as the forceful orders or the moral commands. Prof. Hart is of the opinion that all laws need not be classified as coercive or moral commands, there need not be any logical connection between the Laws, and morality or between the laws and coercion. He is of the opinion that by classifying all laws as either moral commands or coercive orders will be misleading and mischaracterizing the purpose and function for which the law was originally created. Different laws have different applicability as it is drawn from several sources and there exists a purpose for which a law will be created.

This sentiment correlates with the massive amount of incarceration in the U.S. for often minor crimes. The idea that the law is synonymous with morality is preposterous, and alludes to a supposition that everyone’s morals are the same. Personally, the law should only protect individual rights by punishing acts by individuals that encroach upon the rights of others. Since everyone shares the same desire to free himself from the tyranny of his neighbor, such a policy would vastly reduce the amount of incarceration and protect to an even greater extent individual liberties. - 93 words

Hart does not deny that the concept of a command backed by coercion is essential to the understanding of Law. However, he argues that restricting law to this definition restricts our understanding of the concept of law to Law as it is applied to society, rather than Law as it operates within society. Hart argues that while Law “may appear to be the gunman situation writ large…this reduction of the complex phenomena of law to this simple element may seem…to be a distortion and a source of confusion even in the case of a penal statute

This essay aims to examine the connection or otherwise between law and morality from the perspective of Herbert Lionel Adolphus Hart (HLA Hart) and Lon Fuller. Legal positivism, as propagated by Thomas Hobbes and HLA Hart is the idea that legal systems are composed only of positive law, which does not necessarily mean that law is not connected to morality at all. Hart proposed the concept of legal positivism by disassociating positive law from the imperative theory of law, moral philosophies, and analytical aspects of legal language. Hart characterized his thesis by suggesting that legal positivism involves the split between law and morals. Positivists suggest that the assessment of the content of law does not depend on moral

In applying both Dworkin and Hart’s theories of law, they come to very different conclusions in regards to the case of Riggs v. Palmer. According to Dworkin’s theory of law, judges do not solely focus only on the rules, instead, they focus on seeking right answers. Dworkin has many problems and disagreements with Hart’s theory, one in particular is relating to what Dworkin labels ‘principles and policies’. Dworkin defines a ‘principle’ as a standard that is observed due to it being “a requirement of justice or fairness or some other dimension of morality (Dworkin, p.153-154). Policies, which go alongside principles, are standards in which a goal is set out to be reached by the community (seen as improvements to life) (Dworkin, p.153).

In an attempt to demonstrate a connection between law and morality, Fuller has claimed that there exists both an ‘internal’ and ‘external’ morality of law. While in practise the distinction is not so clearly defined, the internal morality refers to the morality implicit in the creation and application of law, whereas the external morality concerns itself with the moral goodness of the substantive aims of law. This twofold analysis creates the novel claim that law is subject to morality not only existent in the substance of law as is traditionally argued by natural law

Corporate Social Responsibility is a major part of The Home Depot and should be considered a function of all businesses. It is, in part, the reason why shareholder wealth is maximized and precisely why it should be considered a function of business. For some businesses, the level of CSR should be higher, based on the size of the business, the number of employees and other stakeholders as well as profit margins and impact on communities and the earth’s natural resources. Some argue that CSR should not be a part of business because they think it is the government’s job to address the environmental interests of the society. Another argument is that the priorities of CSR are subjective and it is difficult to

Nowadays, corporations which are considered to be profit-driven organizations try hard to come up with novel marketing strategies and utilize them to maximum their own profits. Moreover, more and more consumers’ attitude toward corporations’ impression are on the basis of their performance on social environment. This trend makes corporations tend to concentrate on how to give consumers a so called “good” impression (CSR or CRM?).

Kelsen distinguishes the legal norm and normal norm. Legal norm derives its validity from the external sources and the particular “ought” of the legal, as distinguish from the moral norm, is the sanction. Kelsen found the distinction between legal and other “oughts” in that the former backed by the force of the state, the preoccupation of law being with the prospect of disobedience rather than obedience. Thus, it is prescription of sanction that imparts significance of a norm, or putting it in another way, Law is the primary norm, which stipulates the sanction. Kelsen focused on the problem of determining legal validity, that is, on the issue of how legal rules and public acts are to be invested with normativity, their formal authority as binding law, enforceable through sanctioned state power. Simplifying, Kelsen viewed a system based on legislative sovereignty as logically incomplete, and indeed unstable, and sought to ground the legality of state action more formally in a supra- legislative body of rules, a Grundnorm. He argued that any given act could only be considered valid, or normative, if it is enabled by, and does not conflict with, a specific and formally superior legal rule. Furthermore, all legal rules, in order to confer validity on lower order rules, must be capable of being enforced by a judge or ‘jurisdiction’.