Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Relation between law and morality under jurisprudence
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
What is jurisprudence?
One definition of jurisprudence is ‘’the philosophy of law, or the science which treats of the principles of positive law and legal relations’’.
According to the above statement jurisprudence is simply the study of the fundamental nature of law or analysing the basis of man-made law and how they relate to one another. The study of jurisprudence can be said to be the analysing of man-made laws or positive laws.
Jurisprudence focuses on determining the problems with man-made laws and seeks to find a solution that will be socially acceptable.
There are 2 major types of problems that jurisprudence tries to deal with:
1) Problems internal to law and legal systems.
2) Problems of law as a particular social institution
…show more content…
By analysing these clashing moral views judges are able to find out the root of the disagreement and use that knowledge to help try solve the problem. This is effective as we can learn from analysing the problems that have occurred in the past.
However the events that took place in history shape law and morality, so when looking to define either one, one must look to history and the philosophers who argued about law and morality.
Formalist’s point of view
Formalists take law as a math or science, they acquire data and have a systematically way of reaching a theory. Example a judge identifies a legal principle that is relevant to the case, and find a solution that will govern the outcome of the situation.
However looking at law as a math or science constricts its usage as in mathematics a formula is only limited to a specific problem while looking at law from a realism point of view opens up the scope of law and allows one principle to be applied in different
…show more content…
The judge must base his decision on reasonableness rather than on a mathematical formula. This is because the formula may not incorporate the human element and it may fail to incorporate some elements that might be vital in deciding the outcome of the case.
CONCLUSION
While analysing jurisprudence and using historical jurisprudence to help solve a problem, one must not only look at one point of view to the problem.
However he must look at the opinions of multiple philosophers so as to come to a conclusion after looking at different opinions.
For example a judge can not only look at a formalist’s point of view but he must even look at the realist point of view so as to be able to tackle the problem he faces in a mathematical sense and in a sense or balancing the interests of the parties as the realists believe.
In short law is an entity that cannot be quantified and is wide in nature, therefore while analysing it or referring to its principles one must be able to look at law from his/her point of view as well as from the historical and philosophical point of
However, after looking at the facts, and the ruling, Dworkin's theory of law and judicial reasoning provides us with the most satisfactory explanation, and also shows that rulings, when applying social principles are meant to enhance society and bring about social growth.
The legal Model is the behavior of judges explaining the law while making decisions. Justices tend to make judgments based off past precedent. Judges subscribe to the legal model for public consumption. J...
Our ideas about laws and philosophy are borrowed from those of Justinian’s code, which was the main set of laws of the empire. For example, the Declaration of Independence says the “unalienable rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.” (Doc. D) This is similar to the “maxims of law... to live honestly, to hurt
Legislation and the Common law are not separate and independent sources of law. They exist in a symbiotic relationship. Symbiotic relationship refers to the two different sources of legal norms that provide the sum of rules establish system as a whole. (Brodie v Singleton Shire Council (2001) 206 CLR 512, 532 [31])
of the law as a whole. I hope to be able to analize the spirit of the law versus the
The first model to the judicial decision making is the attitudinal model. This model of judicial decision making speculates that a judge’s behavior can be predicted mostly by his or her policy attitudes. It perceives judges of the court as motivated by policy goals and unconstrained by the law. Therefore, they decide cases according to moral preference rather than by the meaning or intention of legal texts. One review of the attitudinal model is the fact it relied heavily on unreliable evidence. Also, the attitudinal model of decision making does not always interpret from explaining justice’s decisions at the Supreme Court. Most legal practitioners such as lawyers and judges are likely to think that a very simple attitudinal model is missing
Case law/Common law – body of law developed over time by higher courts. Laws are c...
In every society around the world, the law is affecting everyone since it shapes the behavior and sense of right and wrong for every citizen in society. Laws are meant to control a society’s behavior by outlining the accepted forms of conduct. The law is designed as a neutral aspect existent to solve society’s problems, a system specially designed to provide people with peace and order. The legal system runs more efficiently when people understand the laws they are intended to follow along with their legal rights and responsibilities.
This theory looks at how the sovereign and its officials created the law based on social norms and the institutions (Hart, 1958). However, hard cases such as this makes for bad law, which test the validity of the law at hand based on what the objective of the law was in the first place. The law should not be so easily dismissed just because it does not achieve justice in the most morally sound manner (Hart, 1958). Bentham and Austin understood that there are two errors in the way law is understood, what the law is and what the law should be (Hart, 1958). He knew that if law was to become what humans perceived the law ought to be, the law itself would be lost, but he also recognized that if the opposite was to occur where the law replaced morality, than any man would escape liability and there would be no retribution (Hart, 1958). This theory looks at the point of view of the dissenting judge, Justice Gray, which is that the law is what it is, even if it may conflict with morals. Austin stated that “The existence of law is one thing; its merit and demerit another. Whether it be or be not is one enquiry; whether it be or be not conformable to an assumed standard, is a different enquiry (Hart, 1958).” This case presents the same conflict that Bentham and Austin addressed, that the law based on the statute of the
Law is a social construct, which is a result of various external social influences like culture, history, politics, economy and power. It describes the society that it exists in as it is the ideologies and values of a society that are embodied as rules and principles of law. Law constructs a framework for the society, according to the goals, interests and understandings of the people of that society i.e. It reflects the ideals, ideas and ideologies of a distinct legal culture.
According to Black's Law Dictionary Law is defined as, "A system of principles and rules of human conduct, being the aggregate of those commandments and principles which are either prescribed or recognized by the governing power in an organized jural society. " Laws are what keep society from chaos and anarchy. Laws are used by lawyers to help promote "justice" and fairness, yet at times they look out for their own best interest instead. Lawyers, in general, do not have a good reputation. Social commentary can be read in literature as lawyers have been negatively portrayed since Shakespeare.
The concept of ‘the rule of law’ has been discussed by many. Professor Geoffrey Walker in his 1988 paper wrote ‘…most of the content of the rule of law can be summed up in two points: (1) that the people (including, one should add, the government) should be ruled by the law and obey it and (2) that the law should be such that people will be able (and, one should add, willing) to be guided by it’.
Legal realism is a contemporary theory of law. It was established as a legal theory at the start of the 19th century, when numerous legal scholars and judges in the United States set out to examine the law in a realistic fashion,
According to Reference.com (2007), law is defined as: "rules of conduct of any organized society, however simple or small, that are enforced by threat of punishment if they are violated. Modern law has a wide sweep and regulates many branches of conduct." Essentially law is the rules and regulations that aid in governing conduct, handling disputes, and dealing with criminal actions.
Both law and morality serve to regulate behaviour in society. Morality is defined as a set of key values, attitudes and beliefs giving a standard in which we ‘should’ behave. Law, however, is defined as regulating behaviour which is enforced among society for everyone to abide by. It is said that both, however, are normative which means they both indicate how we should behave and therefore can both be classed as a guideline in which society acts, meaning neither is more effective or important than the other. Law and morals have clear differences in how and why they are made. Law, for example, comes from Parliament and Judges and will be made in a formal, legal institution which result in formal consequences when broken. Whereas morals are formed under the influence of family, friends, media or religion and they become personal matters of individual consciences. They result in no formal consequence but may result in a social disapproval which is shown also to occur when breaking the law.