Morality – rules of conduct in cases of greater importance. Violations of these can disrupt individual conscience and social sanctions. This is only one of many mysteries about the relationship between the domains of legality and morality, but it indicates a significant source of conflict and confusion. I can say that I do not agree with the person who participated in the discussion on the clinical case and who said that laws are the end of the story. That`s not all. Ethics to establish principles of GOOD and right behavior Ethics deals with the basic principles that serve as the basis for moral rules. Different principles lead to different rules. So it`s out of the way. We know that we must be moral, and that others should do the same, and without some sense of morality, it would be very difficult, if not impossible, for many people to live together. Let us now turn to the questions that deal with the rules of morality and all the rules that govern human behavior. First of all, some terms need to be clarified. A related and undisputed hypothesis is that, to be binding, moral values must come from a source external to man.
Again, the analogy between law, judges and police emerges. In everyday life, we obey laws that seem to be created by others, judged by others, and enforced by others. Why should moral rules be different? But if such an anthropomorphic vision is an outgrowth of human self-esteem, it is also evidence of a certain lack of imagination. Why must the only source of higher morality be a superhuman being? Why not something completely unusual and incredibly superior? When theologians imagine that people without a theologically derived moral system would have no reference point to anchor their ethics, they forget the following factors that most people have in common: Some theologians try to claim that their God is indeed incomprehensible. But even then, they do not escape human analogies and use terms like “legislator”, “judge”, etc. The picture that emerges from religious moral philosophy and even some secular moral philosophies is clear that, just as conventional laws require legislators, morality requires an ultimate source of morality. How should we relate to each other? Morality is a social phenomenon. Think. If a person is alone on a desert island, would something that person has done be moral or immoral? This person may do things that increase or decrease the chances of survival or rescue, but would these actions be moral or immoral? Most of what we deal with in ethics is related to the situation in which people live with others. Humans are social animals. Society helps make people who they are.
For humans, the question arises as to how people should relate to each other. As society evolves and opinions change, so does what is considered moral. If you look back in history, there are many examples of laws that were clearly immoral by today`s standards. Among other things, the United States stole Native American land, enslaved blacks, and discriminated against homosexuals. As society becomes more informed and open, citizens demand that their laws reflect their new definition of what is moral. While not everyone agrees with the decisions, changing the laws is a big step toward changing general social views. The amendment to the law provides the company with the new definition of what is acceptable. Law and morality interact with each other and often cause each other`s change.
Ultimately, when laws are unjust or outdated, people must stand up and fight for what is right. Once this is seen, one may wonder what are the reasons to believe that people cannot continue to act in this way when it comes to laws and moral teachings that govern things like trade and commerce, property rights, interpersonal relationships, sexual behavior, religious rituals, and the rest of those things that theologians say need a theological basis. The mere fact that ancient and revered holy books make statements on these matters and attribute such statements to divine moral principles does not make theology a necessity for law and morality than it would be a necessity for baseball if those rules had appeared in these ancient works. (1) If we can obey our own laws of sexual intercourse without the need for a theological or metaphysical basis, we are also able to obey our own rules in other areas. Comparable considerations of human needs and interests, in accordance with the facts in both cases, can be applied to the invention of the best laws and rules for living. We can therefore apply to laws what the astronomer Laplace said to Napoleon: in relation to a god, we “do not need this hypothesis”. People don`t see themselves as immoral or others as immoral because they break these laws. Moral philosophy to understand and justify the moral principles that are applied by society. Violations may result in the loss or reduction of liberty and property. Hart, in his reply to Devlin, agreed with the Wolfenden Report`s statement that “there must be an area of private morality or immorality which, in short and roughly, is not a matter of law.” This idea, according to Hart, had a close connection with the doctrine of John Stuart Mill in his essay On Liberty, which stated, “The only purpose for which power over a member of a civilized community can be lawfully exercised against his will is to avoid harming others.” Morality is believed to have existed since the beginning of the human species. However, it is widely accepted that religion has cemented morality as an essential social construct.
Thanks to common religions, it became common for people to adhere to norms of behavior that had serious consequences. Thus, religion and morality have been passed down from generation to generation and place, and although they have been different for different people, morality has become a central element of society. Fuller was a naturalist who believed that there was a much-needed link between law and morality. According to him, all legal norms are based on moral norms. In the simplest sense, no law can be considered valid if it does not pass the morality test based on the ethical ideas that people have. Fuller further classified morality into two aspects; Morality of effort and morality of duty. The first deals with the moral standards followed by a person in his or her individual interest. The latter, on the other hand, is more relevant to the proper functioning of society by prescribing standards that everyone must follow. Fuller also addressed two concepts, namely the “internal morality of law,” which deals with the law-making process, and the “external morality of law,” which is more concerned with the nature of the law used to make decisions. So ethics and morals are not the same thing! A person is moral if he follows moral rules.
A person is immoral if he violates moral rules. A person is amoral if he does not know or care about moral rules. Before reflecting on what is at stake between positivism and non-positivism, Murphy distinguished the question of the boundary between law and morality from two other questions. Positivists and non-positivists may agree that there are no possible legal documents that would allow judges to decide all cases in a completely mechanical way. Although the positivist insists that the judge make the law rather than interpret it if the legal documents are vague, proponents of both views must consider (1) how legal documents should be designed, i.e. whether these documents should be more or less determined, and (2) why judges decide cases, if the legal documents are vague. Murphy suggested that both of these issues should be resolved taking into account the appropriate institutional role of the judiciary, although efficiency considerations are also relevant. Whether the positivists or their “moralistic” opponents are right about the nature of the law, everyone seems to agree about the nature of morality. We must, it is said for the common good, distinguish between conventional morality and critical morality. The first consists of proposals supported by social consensus; The latter consists of statements affirmed as objective truth.
Regardless, morality, like the law, consists of statements—standards that we violate or follow. There are, broadly speaking, two theories that have contributed to the development of law, namely legal positivism and natural law theory. In the 1960s, liberal legislation was passed by Parliament, and England saw people like the Conservative Lord Devlin soften his stance. But when the reactionary movements of the 1980s took hold, a handbrake on liberalization was applied: Margaret Thatcher would do her best to bring the liberalization vehicle to the opposite. In 1988, his government “passed a new law to lower the legal limit on abortion. from the 28th week of pregnancy to the 18th week of pregnancy week of pregnancy. A few months later, his government passed a law that “prohibited local authorities and schools from `promoting` homosexuality.” Others fundamentally disagree.