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

  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

A substantial debate over the law’s relationship with morality exists within the legal system. This debate gained new perspective when Oliver Wendell Holmes published The Path of Law in 1897, which outlined his view on the relationship between the law and morality. This paper will first consider whether or not Holmes believed that a writing must be moral in order to constitute a law. Next, we will explore my general agreement with Holmes’ view on this matter. Then, the paper will consider an objection to my agreement with Holmes, and then reply to that objection. Finally, we will end by analyzing the discussion of the relationship between morality and law. In this paper, I will argue that Holmes does not believe that a writing must be

However what if, in reflecting morality, the law infringes on the rights of individuals? Can these infringements be justified? Is Legal Paternalism necessary?

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

concentrates that law is purely used to promote good by the state. Furthermore, law should

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.

As years goes by, society’s morals and values changes which depicts that the law is also changing to fulfil the same morals and values with society.

Recalling Hunt’s definition of moral regulation describing such a concept as a method of governing where specific attention is paid to a specific group, the image which arises presents a host of government officials overseeing the group which needs to be regulated. However, Hunt draws away from this simple mentality taking a less convention approach arguing that such regulation is not limited to solely government officials arguing it stems from a variety of social bases, from the elite to the disadvantaged. Three distinct positions are identified through which moral regulation occurs, these being; from above, the middle, and below. Moral regulation from above follows the common way of thinking seeing that this method is reliant on government officials and state enforced policies designed to contain a group who appears to be deviating from the normative. The middle ground of moral regulation is condensed with religious organizations and the like which are the only group able to push their agenda

But in the end, there must exist a separation of the private and public life in society. I concur with Devlin that government not ought to impose full-blown morality, rather it ought to eliminate intolerable morality (Devlin, Lecture number 10). Furthermore, under a theory of a natural law, I believe there exists moral truths that prescribe principled and unwavering standards for morality, and that these standards ought to be made law. As Thomas Aquinas claimed, “an unjust law is no law at all” (Aquinas, Summa Theologica). Hence, government ought to enforce morality based on principles and standards of morality that no logical argument could be made against, such as the immorality of slavery. Not the idea of collective morality derived from the general will that Devlin subscribes too. However, I will admit that not all moral questions are as clear of moral questions as that of slavery, or murder. In such cases, man with his ability to reason is the appropriate authority. For regardless, morality is often a private matter and privacy as Devlin ironically claims ought to be respected. Thus, preserving the separation of the public and private life.

If morality is so significant that one could justify breaking the law we must consider the importance of being moral in the first

Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) is something that affects all companies and should be an active factor in the company’s decision making. It is something all corporations need to care about. CSR is when business’ or corporations take part in an initiative or campaign for a cause that will benefit society and/or in some way make the world a better place (Taylor, 2015). Initially, Corporate Social Responsibility started to take shape around the 1950’s, but some say that it dates all the way back to the 1800s, the idea of CSR was seen (Carroll, 2007). One may think that because it is dated so long ago, it doesn’t have an important impact today nevertheless, it is proven that Corporate Social Responsibility is a pathway for entities to self benefit as they are in the process of benefitting society.

This paper will demonstrate how Hart’s account of the relationship between law and morality shows an understanding of how they both work together yet can also work as separate entities. It will take a specific look into the internal point of view to aid the understanding of why

This is a persuasive paper defining various business terms like corporate social responsibility and equal distribution of wealth. The thesis statement does state that the CSR programs are applied in various developed organizations to set an example for small and rising enterprises whereas the anti thesis statement is that there are no moral obligations felt by businesses to be involved in CSR. The financial aspect of CSR activities is also discussed; at times it is thought that involvement of business in any environmental friendly work may lead to higher costs whereas an opposite point of view is that CSR increases long run profit (Aras & Crowther, 2009). Now day’s Triple bottom line concept is aligned with business which is another

Morals are norms of behaviour that the society acknowledges. Religion sets rules and customs for its followers. These religious rules influence the legislative system. If religion plays a role in government policies, it would also influence laws. For example, religious beliefs and morals influence abortion laws in many parts of the world. It is still looked upon as morally wrong on the basis of religious ideas to undergo an abortion procedure. Phillip Montague points that “legal and political debate and decision making should be governed by standard criteria for assessing reasons and reasoning, and when religious considerations fail to satisfy such criteria, they should not be allowed to influence matters of law and public policy” (Montague 17). He further states that these matters consist of abortion, capital punishment, and euthanasia along with numerous subjects of social justice such as welfare policies. Montague claims that in comparison with secular reasons, “religious reasons fail by a wide margin to deal adequately with the complexity of such issues” (Montague 17). For instance, a person who argues that homosexuality is morally wrong for the reason that it opposes the divine law would be referring to religious grounds to support his argument and not secular. Individuals should not be arguing for restrictive laws or policies if they do not have secular grounds to support them. They should only put across views that are

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.