Morality and Legality Which Should Come First

Contemporary American jurisprudence rejects Blackstone`s theory of natural law and rejects its standard of validity. Instead, contemporary jurisprudence deliberately separates law from morality. It explicitly accepts „morally unjust laws” and applies „legal rights and duties that have no moral justification or force.” But beyond that, I think as doctors and ethicists, we still have a lot of work to do to look in more detail at how we should balance legal structures in our work. Do we even have a moral obligation to obey the law? If so, how big is a moral obligation? How bad does a law have to be before we can justly recommend disobedience? Let`s say I`m driving in my car and I run into a red light. If I want to turn right, and that`s for sure in this situation, then in most states I can continue without fear of punishment. But what if I do it where it`s not legal or safe? Then it is possible that a police officer will give me a ticket. Is the police officer and the court system supporting the contravention an external tax for me? Yes, but at the end of the day, traffic laws were made by people like me and can be changed by me and others working together. Thus, the law that governs how I behave when I want to turn right at a red light is a human invention to solve a human problem. This essay focuses on the first principle listed above, the theory of natural law. He explains how natural law theory maintains harmony between law and morality. Then he explains the contemporary movement to separate law from morality in American law.

Finally, this essay examines the terrible consequences of the separation of law and morality in the Soviet Union, Nazi Germany, and the United States. 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. According to this view, we have only a moral obligation to obey laws that we believe to be primarily moral – good laws – and only because of their content and not just because they are laws. The law may not attempt to regulate the purely internal sphere of personal conduct; Morality can. Human or civil law is related to external acts, precisely to the extent that and because they interfere with the lawful rights or actions of others. Hence the necessary combination of law and justice. For the regulation of interpersonal relations must be based on the fundamental principle of justice: „Everyone is due”. Hence the fundamental question of what each individual is entitled to, and thus the supplementary question of human rights. Everyone deserves what they deserve.

Everyone deserves something. It is the feeling of equality before the law. The possibility of giving not only to a relative, friend, citizen or co-religionist what is due to him, but also to every human being, simply because he is a person, simply because justice requires it, is the honor of the law and jurists. If there is an expression of the unity of the human race and the equality of all men, then this expression is rightly given by the law, which cannot exclude anyone from its horizon without changing its specific identity. Even for those who see law and freedom in mutual opposition, the whole concept of law is essentially linked to that of justice. The old principle lex iniusta non est lex (an unjust law is not a law) is the basis of so many modern protests in the name of freedom. „This law is discriminatory, so it`s not fair.” But justice is a moral concept; These protests thus confirm the intrinsic link between law and morality: „There is another crucial link between virtues and law, for knowing how to apply the law is only possible even for someone who possesses the virtue of justice.” „The law must respond to `life situations`. All well and good, but not in the sense that he should take the situation as the norm. Justice must remain the norm, and sometimes the law must regain ground for justice. Austin also attacked Blackstone`s „declaratory theory” that judges can never make new laws. Austin, in fact, prefers judges to legislators to make laws.

„The part of the law of each country made by the judges,” he wrote, „has been much better done than the part consisting of laws promulgated by the legislature.” When theologians imagine that without a moral system derived from theology, people would have no reference point to anchor their ethics, they forget the following factors that most people have in common: And yet, despite this problem, people seem to develop moral and legal systems themselves and improve them later. What is the explanation? Where do moral values come from? Why does contemporary American jurisprudence reject Blackstone`s theory of natural law? The vehicle for change is a legal philosophy known as legal positivism. Three English utilitarian philosophers, Jeremy Bentham (1748-1832), John Austin (1790-1859) and H.