Relationship of law and morality

Law and Morality

relationship of law and morality

Relationship between law and morality: “The state is founded on the minds of its citizens, who are moral agents”, says; Professor R.N. Gilchrist, “.A bad people. JURISPRUDENCE. LAW AND MORALITY. The purpose of this article is twofold: to determine the specific areas of relationship between law and morality; and to. Ever since the revival of the scientific study of jurisprudence the connection of law and morality has much discussed, but the question is not yet, and perhaps.

Ethics enables us to think in moral terms and upgrades us in moral terms. It helps us in raising our moral standard. Laws framed by the state also aim at the same. The ultimate end of the state lies in promoting the welfare of the people. The state aims life. Political Science also enables individuals to come out as good citizens, individual can become an ideal citizen only when he follows the Code of conduct by morality.

So there is a close affinity between law and morality.

Theory of Relationship between Law and Morality

Ideal citizens are to be an ideal state. A state can become an ideal state only when it operates through ideal laws of morality. Morality is the basis of ideal laws. If the state operates through ideal laws which are based on morality, it will help the emergency of an ideal state. For example, laws framed with a purpose of eliminating such evils and malpractices as drinking of wine, gambling, theft, dacoity and murder are moral laws.

They arouse our sentiment of morality and enable us to become ideal citizens. Only those laws which are based on morality remain permanent.

Theory of Relationship between Law and Morality

A state within moral laws cannot make a progress. In a state where crimes are given impetus people will remain busy in committing crimes and will not be able to think of their own progress.

As a result, they will degenerate into the primitive savage. A bad state will have bad citizens and a good state will have good citizens. One finds philosophers who took the enquiry concerning the nature of law to be an attempt to define the meaning of the word "law". Traditionally those who adopted the linguistic approach concentrated on the word "law". However, it encountered the overwhelming problem that that word is used in a multiplicity of non-legal contexts.

We have laws of nature and scientific laws, laws of God and thought, of logic and of language, etc. Clearly the explanation of "law" has to account for its use in all these contexts and equally clearly any explanation which is so wide and general can be of very little use to legal philosophers. Only one assumption can the explanation of "law" hope to provide the answer to the legal philosopher's inquiry into the nature of law.

That assumption is that the use of "law" in all its contexts but one is analogical or metaphorical or in some other way parasitical on its core meaning as displayed in its use in one type of context and that that core meaning is the one the legal philosopher has at the centre of his enquiry.

Unfortunately, the assumption is mistaken. Its implausibility is best seen by examining the most thorough and systemic attempt to provide an analysis of "law" based on this assumption, that proposed by John Austin in The Province of Jurisprudence Determined. The Lawyers' Perspective Many legal philosophers start from an unstated basic intuition: Quite naturally and imperceptibly they adopted the lawyers' perspective on the law.

Lawyers' activities are dominated by litigation in court, actual or potential. They not only conduct litigation in the courts.

relationship of law and morality

They draft documents, conclude legal transactions, advise clients, etc. From the lawyer's point of view the law does indeed consist of nothing but considerations appropriate for courts to rely upon. Hans Kelsen says he follows a combination of the linguistic approach and the institutional approach: In defining the concept of law we must begin by examining the following questions: Do the social phenomena generally called law present a common characteristic distinguishing them from other social phenomena of a similar kind?

The clue to the methodological approach Kelsen was in fact pursuing is in his insistence that legal theory must be a pure theory. Kelsen regarded it as doubly pure. It is pure of all moral argument and it is pure of all sociological facts. Kelsen indicates his belief that the analysis of legal concepts and the determination of the content of any legal system depends in no way at all on the effects the law has on the society or the economy, nor does it involve examination of people's motivation in obeying the law or in breaking it.

For Kelsen, it is self-evident that legal theory is free of all moral considerations.

Relationship and Difference between Law and Morality

The task of legal theory is clearly to study law. If law is such that it cannot be studied scientifically then surely the conclusion that if the law does involve moral considerations and therefore cannot be studied scientifically, then legal theory will study only those aspects of the law which can be studied scientifically.

Since Kelsen has no good reason to insist that legal theory should be free from moral consideration, he has no good reason to delimit the law in the way he does. The international Approach It is the lawyer's perspective which delivers the verdict.

relationship of law and morality

Yet there is something inherently implausible in adopting the lawyer's perspective as one fundamental methodological stance. There is no doubting the importance of the legal profession and of the judicial system in society.

relationship of law and morality

It is however, unreasonable to study such institutions exclusively from the lawyer's perspective. Institutional approach seems much superior to its rivals. The institutional approach strives to present an analysis of a central political institution should be accepted as the analysis of law.

From the institutional point of view, the basic intuition is the starting point for further critical reflection. It is entirely plausible to regard the notion of law as bound up with that of a judicial system but what are the essential characteristics of a court and why are they important to the political organization of society?

Relationship and Difference between Law and Morality

Three features characterize courts of law: They deal with disputes with the aim of resolving them. They issue authoritative rulings which decides these disputes. In their activities they are bound to be guided, at least partly, by positivist authoritative consideration. At the highest level of philosophical abstraction the doctrine of the nature of law can and should be concerned with explaining law within the wider context of social and political institutions.

It shows how the inclination to identify the theory of law with a theory of adjudication and legal considerations with all those appropriate for courts is based on a short sighted doctrine overlooking the connection of law with the distinction between executive and deliberative conclusion. Clearly, a theory of adjudication is a moral theory. It concerns all the considerations affecting reasoning in the courts, both legal and non-legal.

When the doctrine of the nature of law is identified with a theory of adjudication it becomes itself a moral theory. The doctrine of the nature of law yields a test for identifying law the use of which requires no resort to moral or any other evaluative argument.

But it does not follow that one can defend the doctrine of the nature of law itself without using evaluative arguments. Its justification is tied to an evaluative judgment about the relative importance of various features of social organizations and these reflect our moral and intellectual interest and concerns. Law and Morality In the modern world, morality and law are almost universally held to be unrelated fields and, where the term "legal ethics" is used, it is taken to refer to the professional honesty of lawyers or judges, but has nothing to do with the possible "rightness" or "wrongness" of particular laws themselves.

This is a consequence of the loss of the sense of any "truth" about man, and of the banishment of the idea of the natural law. It undermines any sense of true human rights, leaves the individual defenseless against unjust laws, and opens the way to different forms of totalitarianism.

This should be easy enough to see for a person open to the truth; but many people's minds have set into superficial ways of thinking, and they will not react unless they have been led on, step by step, to deeper reflection and awareness.

relationship of law and morality

Relationship between Law and Morality or Ethics Law is an enactment made by the state. It is backed by physical coercion. Its breach is punishable by the courts.

It represents the will of the state and realizes its purpose. Laws reflect the political, social and economic relationships in the society. It determines rights and duties of the citizens towards one another and towards the state. It is through law that the government fulfils its promises to the people. September 10, At first there seems to be no distinction between law and morality. There are passages in ancient Greek writers, for example, which seem to suggest that the good person is the one who will do what is lawful.

It is the lawgivers, in these early societies, who determine what is right and wrong. But it is not long before thoughtful people recognize the difference between what is actually legal, or legally right according to the political authorities and what should be legal.

What should be legal roughly corresponds to what is really right or just, that is, what we would call morally right.

relationship of law and morality

We find, for instance, the distinction between what is legally or conventionally right and what is naturally or as we would say today morally right. Sometimes this is expressed as an opposition between what the gods command i.