Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Law and morality an essay
Merits and demerits of citizenship
Law and morality an essay
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Law and morality an essay
Introduction
The jurisprudential question as to whether in a modern constitutional democracy citizens have a duty to obey the law regardless of whether the content of the law is morally just or not has been central to many theorists. Natural law theorists advocate that laws should only be obeyed if they are in line with morality. Conversely, Positivists argue law has the status of law if a recognized ‘Human’ authority makes it in the accepted manner and therefore should be obeyed. Both theories if examined in their simplistic definitions are problematic. However, if one analyses individual theorists there are theorists from both schools who argue credibly. I propose Bentham’s theory is the greatest workable theory in a modern constitutional democratic society and consequently I will argue that we should obey the law with reference to Bentham’s guidelines.
Law and morality
Law is generally difficult to define as it emerges from so many sources and fulfills so many functions and different branches in a society. Yet it is objectively evident that the general purpose of law is to order society by means of prescriptive rules. Hobbes addressed the need for law and described a state of nature, ruled by instinct. He elaborates where society exisits without order the people would become extinct. Hence the people would willingly sacrifice their unlimited freedom to achieve protection from their fellow citizens.
Similarly morality is another normative system of morals where a group deems what is right and wrong. Understandably morals and law intertwine as both are concerned with upholding standards. However, the standards are not always the same and subsequently can conflict. Challengingly, in a modern democratic society finding a p...
... middle of paper ...
...ith concerns regarding Bentham substantiate that Bentham’s theory is the most congruable under the circumstances. I nevertheless will briefly rebut this critism of democracy as one needs to acknowledge individuals make up the majority.
Conclusion
Extreme interpretations of either theory are unworkable. Natrual law as an absolute would facilate chaos and disorder as “sacred laws” would justify all actions. Similarly positivism devoid of values could present catastrophic consequences as it justifies Natzi Germany and other political agenda’s. Thus the objective need for law must endorse citizen’s to obey the law and in the context of a modern democratic society Bentham’s theory is the most congruable as in a constitutional democracy majority of the people have voted and elected their sovereign democratically and the purpose of law is protected by the Constitution.
In legal theory, there is a great debate over whether or not law should be used to enforce morality. The sides of the debate can be presented as a continuum. At one end, there is the libertarian view, which holds that morality is an individual belief and that the state should not interfere in the affairs of the individual. According to this view, a democracy cannot limit or enforce morality. At the other end, there is the communitarian position, which justifies the community as a whole deciding what moral values are, and hence justifies using the law to enforce community values. For libertarians, judges should play a prominent role in limiting the state, while for communitarians, judges should have as small a role as possible. In between these two extremes sit the liberal egalitarians, who attempt to reconcile democratic decision-making about moral values with liberalism. The problem is made more complex when one considers that both law and morality are contested concepts. Two recent cases where this continuum can be illustrated are Canada [Attorney-General] vs. Mossap, and Egan vs. Canada. In this essay, I will attempt to explore some of the issues produced in these two cases. I will begin with a summary each case, followed by an analysis of the major themes involved. I will then place the issues in a larger, democratic framework, and explore the role of law in enforcing morality in a democracy. I will then prove how the communitarian position - as articulated by Patrick Devlin - supports the decisions given in Mossap and Egan, and how even the great proponents of libertarianism - Mill and von Hayek - would agree that the decisions were just. A conclusion will then follow.
There are a variety of traditions which examine the relationship between the rule of law and freedom, which include Berlin’s positive and negative liberty, Republican Liberalism and concept of freedom as a Triadic relationship . Historically, liberalism has been viewed as an attempt to limit state power to preserve individual freedoms however this remains an oversimplification of liberal thought. Whilst liberal rights can be understood as the freedom to pursue individual interests, they are best considered the product of a strong liberal state and the rule of law. Therefore, when considering laws which respect or interfere with our freedoms, it may be problematic to consider them in terms of simple binaries as different laws affect...
Bentham's theory calls for "ultra-democracy", he believes that each individual has the right to decide what the public interests are. He insists that the interest of the community is nothing than the sum of the interests of several members who compose it. And to be able to understand any individual's interest, you should understand his preferences and the pleasure he seeks, which could be achieved through maximizing the preferences of the greater numbers. Bentham was objected to the "sinister interest" of the ruling elite, because he has a great believe that they were bound to pursue their own interest, which in turn the interest of the minority and could be conflicted to the rest of the society's interests. Therefore, the only remedy for this evil is to allow each person a share in choosing who will represent his or her interests in the parliament.
William Smith, Democracy, Deliberation and Disobedience (Paper presented at the UK Association for Legal and Social Philosophy Annual Conference, University of Newcastle upon Tyne, April 2003).
Jeremy Bentham spent most of his life focused on what he saw as failings in the justice system. He felt that there were “irrational and chaotic foundations” in the leadership of his time (Lawhead, p465). Bentham did not believe that morality was ingrained in every person from birth, or that moral laws were the same for everyone – and since there was no scientific proof of these things, things that the former government had come to regard as fact, Bentham dismissed them. What Bentham did believe was that pleasure and pain were experienced by each and every person, even if the sources were different. He also believed that achieving this pleasure was the end goal of every person. Even when a person does something that takes the pleasure of others into account, ultimately it is in order to indirectly promote their own pleasure. Therefore he came up with a method for calculating the amount of pain and pleasure that a situation created. Then, by adding up these amounts and determining which course of action provided the most pleasure, for all in the situation, he determi...
An introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation, by Jeremy Bentham, he writes in this work about the process of decision-making through moral reasoning. According, to Bentham decisions are made on the basis of morality, which actions are right or wrong. For lawmakers, when formulating laws they consider what brings about the most happiness. In this type of governing society, happiness is most valued, and is the driving justification for laws. In this particular work of Bentham’s he explains his Principle of Utility.
Although Bentham and Mill were both undoubtedly utilitarian, there are some crucial topics they disagreed on. Jeremy Bentham is an act-utilitarianism, meaning he believes that an act is right if and only if it leads to greater utility (Johnson, “Consequentialism” 4). While Mill is a rule-utilitarianism—he believes that an action is right if and only if it conforms to a general rule which, if followed consistently, leads to greater utility (Johnson, “Consequentialism” 4). More simplistically, it seems as though Bentham would judge an actions morality based on the results of said action, whereas Mill would judge the morality of an action based on the intentions and reasoning for deciding upon such
He claims that acts of kindness, charity and benevolence are always actions that the performer believes will result in a beneficial consequence for himself. Hobbes’ basis for this argument lies in the concept of reason. He writes that human beings are logical creatures and unlike other animals, use reason to make all of their decisions (Leviathan 2, 17). A law dictated by reason that will benefit a man is called a law of nature. Hobbes lists three fundamental laws of nature that promote the primary motivation of men, which is self-preservation.
To fully understand the origins of the ideas and opinions expressed by Mill and Bentham it is useful to examine their backgrounds and influences. John Stuart Mill was the eldest son of James Mill, a British historian, economist and philosopher. He was educated entirely by his father, who was a strict disciplinarian, and by the age of 10 had read all the Latin and Greek authors commonly read in the schools and universities of the time. His main reading, however, was history and by this age had read the whole works of the historian Herodotus, and was acquainted with the satirist Lucian, the histori...
and the theories of Petrazycki, Ehrlich and Habermas prescribes law as an important mean in the structuring of society.
Frerichs, S., Münich, R. (2010). Morality, Modernity, and World Society. In S. Hitlin, S. Vaisey (Ed.), Handbook of the Sociology of Morality (pp. 15-33). New York, NY: Springer.
Hobbes believes that “law is nothing more than the will of the sovereign” . A legal philosopher named John Austin later on developed this by defining law as a law simply because it is being obeyed. In his theory of legal positivism, it “saw the defining feature not as i...
And also ethical and moral influence each other, then both were to have a close relationship with the norms and laws in society. Law can not be separated from public life in order to create a supportive atmosphere of a society that has a moral code of conduct therein. In case of violation of the moral code of conduct, then the law will take the role of sanctions. The sanctions may be social sanctions at national and international result of a breach in accordance with applicable international law and in accordance with agreements between
Law is one of the most important elements that transform humans from mere beasts into intelligent and special beings. Law tells us what is right and wrong and how we, humans, should act to achieve a peaceful society while enjoying individual freedoms. The key to a successful nation is a firm, strong, and fair code of high laws that provides equal and just freedom to all citizens of the country. A strong government is as important as a firm code of law as a government is a backbone of a country and of the laws. A government is a system that executes and determines its laws. As much as fair laws are important, a capable government that will not go corrupt and provide fair services holds a vital role in building and maintaining a strong country.
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.