Law and Morality – What is the relationship law & morality?

Law and Morality essay: Legal principles are often compared to moral principles. One reason for this is that we want the law not to violate ethics. The compatibility of law with ethics, in the eyes of some (followers of “natural law”), is a condition for the existence of law: a rule that clearly violates ethics, no binding legal principle Will be.

Law and Morality
Law and Morality

Another reason is that governments consider it their job to enforce the law but not to enforce ethics. Therefore, it is important that legal rules be clearly identified as such and distinguished from principles that are “merely” moral.

Differences Between Law and Morality

Degrees vs. Binary

The law guides behavior as one of its primary functions, telling people what to do or not to do in the form of prohibited and prescriptive actions. However, much of ethics has nothing to do with behavioral guidelines: it does not directly tell us what to do or not to do. Ethics basically sets the standard by which we can judge behavior as “good”, “not so good” or just “bad”. Good and bad come in degrees: better or worse. From a legal point of view, whether a particular action is allowed or not, without such gray areas.

However, there are ethical principles that determine behavior. Take, for example, the Ten Commandments “You shall not kill.

Moral Standards Important A second difference is that moral norms and standards are normally considered to be important for the well-functioning of society, while this is not necessarily the case for all legal rules.

Ethical Standards Important Another difference is that ethical principles and standards are generally considered important for the well-being of society, while this is not necessarily the case for all legal rules.

For example, general moral principles prohibit lying and injuring or killing other people. Lying, injuring, and killing are serious issues, and so are the moral guidelines to deal with them.

These ethical codes are equivalent to legal principles, which therefore deal with important issues. However, there are a number of legal rules that deal with issues that are not widely considered “serious”, such as the amount of salt in food, and the correct form in which government agencies apply. Must be, or the way the bicycle must be equipped with a light.

State Enforcement

The third difference between law and ethics is that legality is a prerequisite for laws enacted by state institutions. Such moral principles are not enforced. However, many ethical laws and standards are consistent with the law, so state enforcement of ethics is possible in the case of state enforcement of law.

Examples include:
  1. The moral prohibition of killing people, which is enforced under criminal law, which imposes fines for “murder” and “murder” (legal terms), and
  2. Prohibition on the destruction of another’s property, as enacted by the law of violence, is linked to the obligation to compensate for the damage caused by the destruction.

Positive and Critical Morality Law

Positive Morality

Positive Ethics Given the relationship between law and ethics, it is useful to keep in mind that the concept of “ethics” itself is ambiguous. On the one hand, it can relate to positive ethics, ethical standards, and principles that are widely accepted at a particular time and place. Such “positive ethics” at a particular time or place may differ from positive ethics at another time or place.

It may be that all people in the West are treated equally, while the elderly in the East have some advantages because they are culturally considered more deserving of respect. Another example would be that views on the moral and social acceptance of homose-xual behavior have changed over time.

Critical Law and morality cases

On the other hand, “ethics” can stand for critical ethics, moral principles, and standards that must be accepted rationally, regardless of what positive ethics says. In general, these principles and standards will not be fully compatible with positive ethics.

Suppose drug use is considered morally bad in a particular society, whatever the consequences. But the same society has no moral problem with the use of alcohol if it does not cause disrespect. One wonders if these moral attitudes are compatible.

Why not consider the use of alcohol unconditionally bad? Or, why is drug use not considered bad only when it is mistreated?

If one asks such questions, one engages in critical ethics, and if one concludes that alcohol use is “really” as bad as the use of other drugs, then one is subject to critical ethics. Has arrived at.

Often, when people ask if something is good or bad, it means that it meets the standards that should be accepted rationally. While it is generally easy to establish what is required of positive ethics standards, it is often controversial what critical ethics is required.

Take the example of giving to the poor. According to positive ethics, this may be seen as a good thing, but it is not necessary, and not as a moral obligation. One way to set it up is to interview a large number of people.

However, it is not easy to determine whether giving money to the poor is a moral obligation in terms of critical ethics. In fact, there are fundamental differences of opinion. Liberals believe that people are free to do whatever they think is appropriate with their money and goods, as long as they do not violate the rights of others.

On the contrary, utilitarianists believe that morally, people should do what maximizes the total amount of happiness. If giving to the poor increases happiness (the benefit of the poor is greater than the loss of the rich), then according to the benefactors, it is the moral duty of the rich to help the poor.

Leave a Comment