Law and morality cannot mix Essay

One can argued that law and morality are closely interconnected, their main similarity is the purpose of regulating their common relations is to do justice in relations between individuals, which ensures the normal progressive improvement of every individual in particular and of society as a whole. Firstly we will be discussing what mean by law and morality. So, moral is a set of requirements, regulations, norms and values concerning human actions in relation to the public, social institutions, subjects, to other people and to oneself from the standpoint of good or evil.

The law is an act that establishes compulsory rules in the public and has the highest legal force in one or another country. Secondly, we will argue what ethical and legal norms are dynamically linked, as the legal function of organised society establishes the most important moral values and ideals for society.Thirdly, one can note that not always the law supports morality, and vice versa. This includes homosexuality, abortion.

.Lastly, we will conclude the fact that the improvement of the system of society increases the requirement to analyse the importance of law and morality, their affiliation as the fundamental ways of streamlining the connection among people and effective ways of social influence on the behaviour of subjects.The association between morality and law is one of the main problems of any society. The enforcement of legal norms is controlled by a special state apparatus, and compliance with moral norms and rules ” public view. The main rule of the general human content of morality is best expressed by the well – know truth: Handle with people as you want them to do with you. In ancient times, the concepts of law and morality were practically identical. Legitimacy was considered the highest virtue. In the Middle Ages, the words law and morality are no longer synonymous. The epoch of the formation of a system of law, which is quite autonomous from the institutions of morality, has begun. But the criterion for the correctness of both laws and moral attitudes was one ” compliance with God’s Law. One of them is Do not kill. This is both immoral and illegal. This is also the case Homicide Act 1957. According to which the violation is punishable strictly by law. Law and morality do not appear from the outside; they are products of the development of society. The correlation of morality and law is rather uneasy. Between them there is a close link that has the following components: unity, interaction, differences and contradictions. Unity: both concepts have normative content and regulate the behaviour of people, they have one goal ” the coordination of the interaction of society and individual. They have the only social norms based on the commonality of customs, economic and social interests of society. Interaction: one goal ” is to comply with laws. Misconduct is anti-moral. In their assessment, the law and morality are the only ones. Differences: the law is reflected in the legal acts that are developed by the competent authorities. The demands of morality are reflected in public opinion. Ideas of morality are transmitted through art, literature, media.. Law and morals are in the process of constant development, as well as society. But the law is more conservative. Legislation often has many drawbacks and gaps. The morality is more dynamic, more responsive to changes taking place in society. As a result, morality is the foundation of law, with the help of its norms, the state adopts progressive norms of morality, which, contributes to support of the moral right of law, and hence there is an improvement of both the norms of morality and the rules of law. Morality and law complement each other, namely, morality gives internal motivation, and the law is a compulsion to perform. Some researchers argue that the legal norm lives only because of its moral content. As soon as such content disappears, the legal norm will cease to exist de facto. Therefore, the right is interested in preserving the moral values that nourish it. But there are cases where not all laws are morally justifiable. One example of this recent protest in London near one of Hassanal Bolkiah’s hotels. Although the Sultan Hassanal Bolkiah extended the death penalty moratorium for same-sex sexual relations and adultery under pressure from the world community. In early April, Sharia Law, which supported for stoning to death for homosexual relationship and adultery, had come into force in Brunei, which caused protests around the world. Famous public figures called for refusing to rest in this country, as well as not to visit hotels in London, Paris and Los Angeles owned by the Sultan. The United Nations (UN) High Commissioner for Human Rights demanded that the Sultan repeal laws adopted four years ago, stressing that this is a serious violation of human rights. Another landmark case was Gillick v West Norfolk and Wisbech Area Health Authority (1985). Mrs Gillick was a mother of five children, one of whom had sought and received contraceptive advice from a local doctor whilst below the age at which she could lawfully consent to intercourse. This advice was provided pursuant to guidance issued by the Department of Health and Social Security. Mrs Gillick sought a declaration from the court that the Department’s guidance was unlawful as, amongst other things, it adversely interfered with parental rights and duties. It was held by House of Lords that the guidelines were lawful. The majority, in reaching this conclusion, stressed they were merely applying the law rather than taking moral standpoint, however, minority referred to the kind of moral arguments Mrs Gillick had advanced. In addition, Re A (conjoined twins) [2001] 2 WLR 480 is a Court of Appeal decision on the separation of conjoined twins. Two girls were born as conjoined twins; they were joined at the pelvis. Medical evidence suggested that if the girls were not separated, they would both die before they were one year old. If they were separated then it was likely that the stronger one, Jodie, would survive, but the weaker one, Mary, would certainly die. Although the issue for the Court of Appeal was simply whether the surgery should be allowed, this required them to consider the criminal law. This was because, if the operation took place, the surgeon might be guilty of murder. If he would commit that offence, then the operation could not be authorised by the court. The judges allowed the doctors to separate. Lord Justice Brooke declared the situation as one of necessity, allowing the option of a lesser evil. The stronger twin survived and made a full recovery. The thankfully rare case, otherwise found in philosophy debates, shows the relationship between law and morality, perhaps one of the first questions on a legal theory course. One more example of the fact that not everything is legitimate is morally acceptable ” Abortion Act 1967 (UK). According to which a woman will not be held liable if the pregnancy is terminated by the doctor who carries her case and if two or more doctors give their consent. Also, in the presence of the risk of the continuing of pregnancy: the physical or psychological health of a woman, also if there is a risk that the child will be born with any defect. So, abortion is lawful in almost all cases, but immoral from the point of view of the Bible and some opponents of abortion, who consider it a kidnapping.Law and morality are co-ordinated, and they fully form new social relations. It is the moral sources that are the basis for any law. The severity of punishment should correspond to the level of development of the culture of society; for that reason, no punishment should be a manifestation of violence, it should be fair, namely, based on morality. Consequently, law and morality have to cooperate. With no morality there would not be a fair law, and with lacking of the law morality would not be effective.

Still stressed from student homework?
Get quality assistance from academic writers!