When an assignment is written by LawEssays. In case you used our services but do not have an account yet, please choose ' I am a new customer ' option on the order page. Thank you for understanding! Please, enter email address. Writing Paraphrasing Editing Proofreading Formatting. Please accept our Terms. Your message has been successfully sent!
We will get back to you soon. But in relation to some conduct, the answer to the question of 4 N. Routledge, , retrieved 19 May from http: Penalties relate to stigma, and stigma relates to informing a societies interactions. This is a deficient understanding of law and its social functions. For the typical, law-abiding citizen the significance of law resides not in its coerciveness but in its normativity.
Such a person obeys the law not in order to avoid its coercive sanctions but because they consider obedience to be the preferable or correct course of action. A legal system could not operate effectively if this were not so.
In this light, we must question whether a theory of the limits of law based on the assumption that law is seen by those to whom it is addressed as an invasion of their autonomy is likely to be sound.
Why should we determine the limits of law by reference to the perspective of the minority of people who obey it only because of its coercive capacity, rather than the perspective of those who view law as a legitimate source of standards of behaviour? If law were viewed from this latter perspective, the idea that it might appropriately prescribe standards of behaviour that express shared social values and aspirations would seem much less objectionable.
Even if the behavior is bad for the community as a whole, just considered in itself, the consequences of trying to censor or otherwise suppress it would be, in the long run, even worse.
Even if the behaviour makes the community worse off, even in the very long run, it is nevertheless wrong to censor or restrict it because this violates the individual moral or political rights of citizens who resent the censorship.
Favouring the Rights-Based Strategy p. I shall call this the right to moral independence, Justification of the Right to Moral Independence. If someone has a right to moral independence, this means that it is for some reason wrong for officials to act in violation of that right, even if they correctly believe that the community as a whole would be better off if they did.
To some extent, the argument in favour of a particular right must depend on which general background justification for political decisions the right in question proposes to trump. This is the most prevalent background in Western Democracies. Suppose we accept then that, at least in general, a political decision is justified if it promises to make citizens happier or to fulfil more of their preferences, on average, than any other decision could.
Suppose we assume that the decision to prohibit pornography altogether does, in fact, meet that test, because the desires and preferences of publishers and consumers are outweighed by the desires and preferences of the majority, including their preferences about how others should lead their lives.
How could any contrary decision, permitting even the private use of pornography, then be justified? A proper understanding of the underlying justification for utilitarianism will itself justify the Right.
Utilitarianism owes whatever appeal it has to what we might call its egalitarian nature. Utilitarianism claims that people are treated as equals when the preferences of each, weighted only for intensity, are balanced in the same scales, with no distinctions for persons or merit. If utilitarianism is to figure as part of an attractive working political theory, then it must be qualified so as to restrict the preferences that undermine egalitarianism.
One very practical way to achieve this restriction is provided by the idea of rights as trumps over unrestricted utilitarianism. The right of moral independence can be defended in a parallel way. Neutral utilitarianism rejects the idea that some ambitions that people might have for their own lives should have less command over social resources and opportunities than others, except as this is the consequence of weighing all preferences on an equal basis in the same scales.
But then it cannot for the reasons just canvassed count the moral preferences of those who do hold such opinions in the calculation whether individuals who form some sexual minority, including homosexuals and pornographers, should be prohibited from the sexual experiences they want to have.
The right of moral independence is part of the same collection of rights as the right of political independence, and it is to be justified as a trump over an unrestricted utilitarian defence of prohibitory laws against pornography.
The situation is that a nuclear war has occurred, which has destroyed most of the centres of civilization. There are five people that are that have escaped death by finding their way to a nuclear bunker. These five people consist of a pregnant woman; an old man, who is a retired judge; two teenagers — a fourteen-year-old boy and a sixteen-year-old girl; and a young and healthy woman who is a doctor.
They all have been there for fifteen days and they must remain there for an additional fifteen days before they can be rescued. The problem is that although there are five of them in the bunker, there is only enough food for four people to survive for the remaining fifteen days. Rationing the food will not be of any use, because all will die with such a plan. The only way for most of the survivors to live for the next fifteen days is for one to die.
It is unlikely that someone will voluntarily allow someone to kill them so that the others may live, that is why another form of decision making must be allowed. The best way to do so is probably by that outside aid to suggest that they try drawing lots. For example whoever pulls the shortest straw is the one who dies. With no time to procrastinate, this would seem the most time efficient and fairest way to choose who will die. Of course a reason must be provided to the person who had drawn the shortest straw, and that is the objective of this paper.
From that explanation of the decision made, it will attempt to justify it. This paper proposes to explain and justify the decision by using legal tools such as Law and Morality, the Meta Rule, and The Doctrine of Necessity. Law and morality play a large role here, mainly because there is a legal issue and a moral issue associated with the predicament.
The reason law has a part in the situation is that after the decision is made, it will be examined legally and must be accountable for its consequences. First, morality is only concerned with right or wrong, with the good and evil; law is concerned with lots of things on which there is no right and wrong — procedures for land registration, incorporation and so on.
Second, morality is to some extent uncertain and a matter for each individual, law tries to be objective, written down in black and white and there for all to see.
Third, morality often leaves things vague and subject to general principle, law goes into specifics. When the time comes for one of the five people in the bunker eventually to die, it must be legally justified. The reason for this is that murder is illegal, unless legally justified. Since law and morality are equally important and both are evenly delicate when dealing with this issue, advising the survivors on what to do will not be easy.
Pleasing everybody is impossible, whether it is examined from a legal viewpoint or a moral one. However, if the situation is analysed with both the law and morality issues in mind, there may be a chance that many will see some sort of vindication behind the decision to kill someone.
One example that can probably create a good foundation to better explain the complexity of the given situation, is that of the case of R.
Law and Morality Essays The main intellectual obstacle to overcome while writing a law and morals essay is resolving the discrepancy between the objectivity of morality and the explicitness of the rule of law.
Disclaimer: This essay has been submitted by a student. This is not an example of the work written by our professional essay writers. You can view samples of our professional work here. Any opinions, findings, conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the authors and do.
Relationship Between Morality And The Law This essay will look at the issue of the relationship between morality and the law. The emotive topic will then be illustrated by looking at whether voluntary euthanasia should be legalised in England. Law and morality play a large role here, mainly because there is a legal issue and a moral issue associated with the predicament. The reason law has a part in the situation is that after the decision is made, it will be examined legally and must be accountable for its consequences.
Title: "The ultimate basis for adhering to the positive thesis of the conceptual differentiation of law and morals is itself a moral reason. The point is to make sure that it is always open to the theorist and the ordinary person to retain a critical moral stance in face of the law which is.". In this essay I intend to discuss the relationship between law and morality through the perspectives of legal philosophers, I will provide a brief explanation of law, and what does law .