The Relationship Between Law And Morality

People that work with laws every day know that it isn’t an exact science. The reason is not that it has a lot of issues or that it is always affected by politics, instead the main reason is the human factor. People end up changing their minds and everyone one makes mistakes at some point. For example, in legal situations the information that is collected could be incorrect or made up. That is the main reason why law and ethics go side by side. Most people want to make the correct decision whenever it comes to something that deals with law and ethics. When people look at something that is illegal, they automatically see it as unethical. However, whenever something is legal people think that it is ethical. Law is a system of rules of human conduct created by society but enforced by public authority. Being able to understand what is right or what is wrong, plus the ability to recognize the difference between them is called ethics. To have a successful business, employers need to have intensive ethical values as well as an organizational culture run on a set of ethical principles. As a matter of fact, the ethical issue is very important because it could certainly affect stakeholders who are interested in the company. Furthermore, if an organization has high values in terms of ethics, the impression that the stakeholder obtains will be the key in building a trust relationship convincing them stay in the organization longer. Finally, to gain a good reputation in society it is

Morality and contract law look like two separate concepts, however, if we consider deeply, we will discover the relationship between them. Morality and legality are features of law. Consulting the fact that contract law should consider the acceptance of both sides, it will involve more problems about morality. If we attempt to understand the linkage, we should interpretation correlate notions of morality and contract law. What I intend to demonstrate is to hold the understanding of the purpose of contract law constant while analyzing varying understandings of morality. Firstly, I intend to solve what is the purpose of contract law. We must note that there exist two kinds of morality after a scrutiny of this question. Hence, being taken into account, we should critique magnanimous morality and mundane morality. Thirdly, we will construe the relationship between morality and contract law. As a final point, we will ponder the limits of contract law.

“Man was created a rebel; and how can rebels be happy?”(Dostoevsky. The Grand Inquisitor. Trans. Matlaw. 131). Nietzsche elaborates on this point by affirming the idea that we are made up of two instinctual drives: the Dionysian, which causes us to be passionate, impulsive and unrestrained, and the Apollonian which makes us disciplined, restrained and controlled beings. Mill and other utilitarian’s like Jeremy Bentham denies the former. I embrace this idea that most of us are creatures of chaos, who are born wild and need to be tamed by the structures of society. What type of society would we live in if people did not believe in sins, or heaven and hell? Although we would like to deny it, the reality is that the greater majority of the human race is not capable of living without paternalistic laws, and moral limitations that stem from religious doctrines. J.S. Mill would strongly disagree with this statement: “ That the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others.”

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.

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)

17-18). For example, Elmer’s grandfather had not legally taken him out of his will yet, so, there is no way of ever knowing if he would have been taken out of the will. Therefore, at the time, the defect in law could have still allowed Elmer legally to obtain his inheritance regardless if he had or had not committed the crime. In other words, a criminal, could commit a crime similar to Elmer’s crime, like killing both parents but no matter what the individual could still receive his/her inheritance from the deceased parents. Consequently, the only reason why Elmer’s case was even questionable was because he had murdered the testator, if this crime had not taken place the case would have never been presented to the courts.

A substantial debate regarding 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. This work outlined Holmes’ 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, the paper will explore my general agreement with Holmes’ view on this matter. Then, the paper will consider the best objection to my agreement with Holmes, and reply to that objection. Finally, the paper will end by drawing conclusions from the discussion of the relationship between morality and law. In this paper, I will argue that Holmes

The link between morality and human nature has been a progressive reoccurring theme since ancient times (Prinz, 2008). Moral development is a characteristic of a person’s general development that transpires over the course of a lifetime. Moral development is derived by a wide variety of cultural and demographic factors that appear to influence morally relevant actions. Turiel (2006) defined morality as an individuals “prescriptive judgments of justice, rights, and welfare pertaining to how people ought to relate to each other.” Individuals’ moral judgments are frequently considered to be a product of culturally specific controls that provide a framework for behavioral motivations that are sensitive to the effects of gender, education, religion and politics (Banerjee, Huebner & Hauser, 2010). While several approaches have been utilized to examine the interaction of multivariate contributors to fundamental moral differences such as: disputes about family life, sexuality, social fairness, and so on, research has suggested that ideological considerations have provided a potent and diverse explanation for the polarization of contrasting views (Weber & Federico, 2013).

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.

In Hart’s eyes, though there may be a congruence between law and morality, it is by no means a necessary connection. (Hart, DATE)

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

When discussing the relationship between law and ethics a lot of things are taken in consideration. But the first thing is to know what each of them mean. In some ways law plays a role in ethical values, while some laws can be influenced by ethical values.

The fine line between obeying the law and not obeying it. Obeying the law kind of makes the world safer. When you don't obey a law and therefore caught doing the crime; you will be charged and possibly sentenced to a place where you are no longer free to do as you please. When you obey the law you get to do as you please with your life as long as you follow the laws. Laws are put into motion to create a safe environment for everyone to live in. No one should have to be worried about their lives everyday; but there are accidents everyday in which lives are lost.

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

     The protection of this "individuality" poses a problem. What causes harm and what ultimately leads to good? When should government step in and when should it let things be? Knowing where that line is tough. Mill's answer to this is that society has jurisdiction over every aspect of behavior that, "affects prejudicially the interests of others." More specifically society has no interest in the aspects of one's life that affect only the individual acting, or others, for that matter, that are affect at their own consent. Society has no right to keep a person from doing with his life what they wish, and it is stupid to do so their own good for nobody will every truly know what someone else aspires to do. Though Mill rejects the concept of the social contract he does believe that people do have obligations to the society in exchange for the protection of their freedom. And if one acts in a manner that harms the society as a whole then they are subject to punishment. Not