The Legality Presides Over Morality

There are no definite boundaries, standards or definition to determine whether an action is considered moral. The same action under different circumstance or environment may result in different beliefs whether it’s moral or immoral. Something that's moral doesn't necessarily means it's ethical either. What makes a moral action moral is that the person performing the action did it with good intention and foresees a positive outcome. Even though, the action may have been unethical or puts another person at risk. Referring to Julie’s post about stealing medicine to save a life which could result in taking away someone else's life. In an ideal world, a life is a life, no one’s life is more precious or valuable than someone else’s life. But we are

James Rachels' article, "Morality is Not Relative," is incorrect, he provides arguments that cannot logically be applied or have no bearing on the statement of contention. His argument, seems to favor some of the ideas set forth in cultural relativism, but he has issues with other parts that make cultural relativism what it is.

The main theme of The Natural is morality and the consequences of bad morality. The novel takes a firm stance on morality, and punishes the characters who make bad moral choices. Many of the characters in the novel have very blurred morals; however, the main character Roy Hobbs must make the most moral choices. Roy's dream at the beginning of the novel is to be the best baseball player to ever play the game. He has the natural talent to accomplish this, but his poor choices hinder him. Roy's weakness comes in the form of attractive women. He is interested in a woman names Harriet at the beginning of the novel, and he eventually catches her eye by showing off his baseball talent. She meets Roy at a hotel room and attempts to murder him. Harriet

It is possible to legislate morality and the Constitution of the United States of America is evidence. All creations were created in the image of God for his purpose (in each thing was given to grow and achieve whatever God or Allah impelled it to be). Morality is basically taught to individuals by their parents, grandparents and teachers. However, people tend to pick up various behaviors from their peers which can either conflict or support to the teachings already received. Society requires people to know right from wrong. Unfortunately, everyone has not been taught the values and principles of conduct which must be abided by so laws have been enacted. Most families align their lives with the fundamentals of religion (Christianity or Islam)

Thesis: If the law does not breach person A’s moral code, and person A knows beyond a reasonable doubt that breaking the law could harm another human being (weighing the potential consequences), it is morally wrong for person A to knowingly violate the laws of country C. If [Conditions] are not met, then it is morally permissible.

The problem with law is, it doesn’t always intersect with morality, and what one should do can fall into a moral/legal grey area. This is displayed well in the classic novel To Kill a Mockingbird by Harper Lee. After the attempted homicide of on the main characters, Scout and Jem, it becomes obvious that Boo Radley had killed Bob Ewell, protecting the children. The sheriff of maycomb, Sheriff Tate, is left with a terrifying decision. Boo Radley, the mentally unbalanced introvert, had killed someone to defend the closest thing he had to a friend.

Morals, a person's standards of behaviors or beliefs concerning what's not acceptable for them not to do. Two words that stick out of them the most ofthat definition is concerning and acceptable. Because morals are based on peoples beliefs on what is right or wrong and even though some laws do follow morals, however, some laws are unjust and breaking them is morally correct.

“When your conscience says law is immoral, don 't follow it.” (Washington v. Glucksberg, n.d) This line, originally from Jack Kevorkian seems to resonate deeply with the proponents of legalizing marijuana use, despite it originally referring to assisted suicide. The legalization of marijuana use had become one of the biggest hot button issues of the last decade, and is being fiercely debated across the United States. First made illegal in 1970 with the passing of the Controlled Substances Act, which declared it an addictive drug with no medical value, many are now fighting against this law, citing medicinal uses and an apparent lack of fierce addictiveness. Since 1996, 23 states have passed laws allowing for medicinal use of marijuana,

What is the difficulty of “legislating morality?” How does that apply to accounting ethics? As I read the verses in this week’s discussion forum I begin to realize that it is difficult to establish a law if there is no moral component to it before it was made a law. Laws are driven by an array of moral interest such as to protect life, property, or liberty. This also means that just because a person obeys the laws of man doesn’t actually make them a good person they may be living a sinful life according to God’s word. In the Bible verse Deuteronomy 25: 13-15 talks about that as Christians we must be fair and consistent in every area of life. Also, we shouldn’t be judging others by one set of standards and then judge ourselves by a different,

Law and morality work together to guide our behavior; while law does it by punishing us if we do something wrong, morality does it through incentives. In their articles, both H.L.A Hart in “Positivism and the Separation of Law and Morals,” and Lon Fuller’s reply to professor Hart in “Positivism and Fidelity to Law,” discuss the concept of law post world war II Germany and their re-imagining of natural law as put forth by Gustav Radbruch’s theory. In this paper, I hope to show how both law and morality is needed to create just rules, more specifically drawing from the “grudge informer” case mentioned in Hart’s article. First, I will explain the dilemma of the “grudge informer” case and the contradicting theory laid down by Radbrunch’s.

Morally, morals, standards, are they the same for all people. Are these words interchangeable or not? Does morally change overtime or just our perspective of morally. Are most societies based on a morally standard that gotten corrupted over time, or is society not based on morals but people add morals to society? How do you tell what is moral and just and what is normal and you was taught to believe?

What do these fatwas indicate with regard to the balance between practical legal reasoning and religious dictates?

Natural law theorists believe that all law must be morally justified if it can be legitimised as law at all. Legal positivism means the simple contention that it is in no sense a necessary truth that laws reproduce or satisfy certain demands of morality, though in fact they have otherwise done so. (Hart, DATE)

It is not a surprise that too many people have found themselves in incidents where one has to deal with moral gravity as well as with ethics. Ethics is a branch of sociology that simply deals with how, why and when people do things. Ethics, as well as moral gravity, deal with morality principle of doing the right or the wrong things in the society (Wehrs 32). Basically, it can be referred to as the badness or the goodness of human being character. The code of the conduct that is put forward by religion, culture, family or society is best known as morality. More so, the fundamental and concepts doctrines of right humanoid behavior are what are actually referred to as ethics (Smith 27). I am writing this essay to describe a personal experience where a decision of moral gravity was taken. The decision itself and the results have an impact on my life to this date.

I can imagine a perfect world. A world where morality is of upmost importance in our dealings with each other, where morals are critically examined, and debated with reason as well as passion. This world would be a pinnacle of human achievement. A pinnacle that we are nowhere near. Why is this? Well, in today's society, morals are often associated with obeying the law, and since laws are legislated by politicians, they are subject to politics. Laws are not right in and of themselves, and morals are not a matter of a majority's opinion. Some matters that are in the domain of charity are done through politics, often citing morality as a reason. Where exactly does charity fit in with morals? With politics? In this paper I will explore the