Topic: Philosophy of law Description: final paper are intended totest your ability to understand the material covered in the course, to develop unique andoriginal insights regarding that material, and

Philosophy of Law: The Relationship between Law and Morality

Most philosophers advocate for the argument that morals and laws have a significant link based on the ethical principles of truth, justice, and good and the promotion of these principles by laws. Nevertheless, over the years, the viewpoints presented by these specialists regarding comprehension of the relationship between morality and law have been different. Laws and morals are identified with a contradictory aspect since the two concepts are usually considered complementary. From this statement, people who practice the law, such as lawyers, may be trapped in a dilemma regarding the relationship between morals and laws. However, true people of law must understand and apply the law's knowledge and recognize the role that morals play when associated with the law. In this sense, this essay explores the connection between morality and law and its application in different contexts.

The Concept of Law

Society is often linked with a significant purpose that is marked by order unity founded on the goals of society. In other words, societies are identified with people's needs and dignities where the rules and guidelines presented are selected by man. Laws are a significant aspect in any given society since they are crucial in attaining the common good, which is society's core objective. In most societies, the core objective is to ensure that each person attains a considerable chance to lead a full life. Thus, societies have an immediate common goal: peace and an ultimate core objective, which is a life of reason. The term "law" is itself a complex word often subjected to various definitions that lead to complexities, depending on how society interprets the term. Law involves a system of standards set up and recognized by society or state for directing and guiding people on social interactions. Evaluating various law elements presents significant and notable characteristics that examine the law's notion, alienating it from other societal phenomena.

The Concept of Morality

Morality entails the set of principles and standards established in society that help people associate with each other in groups. Society deems morality to be the acceptable and right standards that every individual should live by and follow in life. In traditional and contemporary society, morality has never been fixed, meaning it is transformative. Additionally, the differences in societies make morality an ever-changing aspect where today, something may be considered immoral, but tomorrow, the same thing may be considered moral. Morality in society is influenced by several aspects, including life experiences, family, religion, and geographical regions. However, scholars and academics have always disagreed on the exact development of morals in society. Many scholars have explored morality and its establishment in society.

Sigmund Freud explored morality and presented an individual perspective where he stated that the development of morals happens based on the replacement of individual ability to selfish needs by significant values, including an individual's parents. Secondly, Jean Piaget also examined the development of morality, where he presented that morality began with the development of children's moral actions. Furthermore, another scholar that explored morality involves B.F. Skinner presented that moral development is influenced and shaped by external forces. Based on these moral development evaluations, it is rational to state that moral development plays a crucial role in society's interpretation and application of what is right and unacceptable (Stoeklé et al., 2019). Morality and law are two concepts that have an extensive connection that can never be ignored. Considering law and morality complementary aspects sets the stage for assessing and understanding the relationship between these two aspects.

Law and Morality: The Connection

The debate concerning the relationship between law and morality has always been used as a platform of legal thoughts since the past decades. An excellent example of legal thinking based on the connection between these two aspects involves Greece and the Romans. When ancient Greece lacked a clear set of established morals and laws, the Romans' legal framework took essential steps of presenting the law's independence in association with morality (Lazar, 2018). Traditionally, the law required that each person in society be given what they deserve and avoid harming others. Based on this law presentation, its alienation from morality became an issue for the traditional society. Doctrines indicate that the law and morality context can be interpenetrated, and if not, then the law is considered a morality minimum.

According to Pich (2017), Aristotle had a belief that a subordination relationship must exist between morality and law. Thus, after a virtue promotion goal ends, Aristotle proceeded to state that the law turns to a mere convention, with no interference to morals and individual justice. Another viewpoint concerning morals that explains its connection to law is presented by the Ciceronian conventions of morality. Remer (2017) explains that Cicero as a lawyer and a person who practiced law, insisted that people's care and love for others, social ethicism, political morality, and justice presuppose individual connections. Even though the perspective considers nature as the origin of law, right and wrong are judged based on the law, indicating the significant relationship between morality and law.

Law and morality's connection can also be evaluated from a positivism point of view. On a considerable definition of legal positivism, individuals who practice law present that positivism is founded on various related ideas. In other words, positivism and its association with law and morality revolve around two significant issues. First, legal positivism relates to morality based on how the law in society is recognized. Secondly, the law is questioned, particularly how it is connected to morality. Moore (2017) significantly explains the analysis of law by approaching the ideas put forward by Joseph Raz. Joseph Raz presented that what is considered law or not depends on society and its norms. Raz further explains that consideration of something as the law related to morality requires examining the social criteria for accepted rules and regulations where certain aspects, including established legislation, are deemed law. Additionally, considering something law in society requires that aspect conform to and satisfy socially acceptable norms. In other words, Joseph Raz pointed out that morals and laws are directly connected where if set legislation does not align with morals in society, then it is not contemplated as law.

However, Joseph Raz also states that anything regarded as law based on socially accepted criteria must not be disqualified as set law just because society deems it morally indefensible. For Raz, aspects such as obligation, duty, and right mean different things under morals and laws. As an illustration, individuals that practice or present laws can confer rights and prescribe roles but have no power to authorize morally connecting responsibilities or defensible moral rights. From this perspective, the relationship between accepting certain laws that present morally indefensible aspects can be supported by assessing situations where there are corrupt legal complexes and evil legislation.

Several cases in the past decades provide a significant perspective that can help people best understand the necessity of law and morality's connection. First, German's Third Reich had a legal system established by society, which the people adhered to at all times. Nonetheless, the actions depicted by the Germans were against socially accepted norms, and certain laws were unjust. Secondly, the Apartheid system run by the South African government also had laws that guided society and its normal operations. However, the system had extremely unjust laws that, if linked with morality, would be disqualified as law. These legal complexes and established laws are extensively "inappropriate" they are purported to be morally accurate unless obligations, duties, and rights mean completely different things when talking about morality and law. In the case of the Third Reich and South Africa's Apartheid system, despite the imperfection, the legal systems and unjust legislation were considered normal systems and real laws.

Nevertheless, it is deemed implausible to state that the legal systems and laws like Apartheid and the Third Reich that are morally indefensible should not be considered legal systems and real laws. Both proponents and opponents of the connection between morality and law consider such unjust laws and systems as socially accepted legal systems. In other words, since the law is termed as a construct by humans, anything that humans regard as legislation is the law. Therefore, any individual that opposes these unjust laws and states that they are not laws expresses detestation of such legal systems. Denying implies that the systems or laws cannot be considered as a law because they fail to fulfill morally connecting obligations that they claim to support.

On the contrary, the presentation regarding the different meanings of obligation, duty, and right in morality and law is indefensible. Certain philosophers state that obligations, duties, and rights carry different interpretations when morality is linked with law, whereby the moral meaning of these terms is stronger than the legal definition. From a citizen's perspective, the law is usually a consideration among many things on making decisions concerning what to do and what not to do. However, this perspective does not support the definition of duties as what is imposed by law that requires contemplation of other people in society. This interpretation has been criticized by many philosophers and theorists, including Joseph Raz. According to Raz, considering duties as deciding what to do is stemmed from constitutional authority. Raz states that making laws under authority is useless unless it includes the power to present what people in society are expected to do and not what they are expected to do when their actions are dictated by law (Moore, 2017). In other words, it will be incompetent for lawmakers, such as officials, judges, or legislators, to tell people what to do if they want to adhere to established laws. Instead, the lawmakers should tell society what to do.

Lawmakers' arguments regarding things that are considered morally connecting can be presented in two distinct ways. First, lawmakers can state that established law requirements align with what is morally accepted even when it is different from the law, such as providing family support. Secondly, the lawmakers can state that what the law requires is morally supported even apart from legislation, such as paying tax and morally connecting due to its law prescription. For this reason, to understand that connection that law and morality have calls for assessing the oughtness of law or, in other words, its normative interpretation.

Besides a constitutional perspective, it would be irrational based on history if terms like an obligation, duty, and rights had discrepant definitions in morality and law. These terms were coined from Roman laws, making it even more strange to deem them different since Roman law was established as an association of obligations and rights balanced between the state and the people. From a legal viewpoint, the terms were linked with moral discussions where philosophers were allowed to use such terms as moral rights, moral obligations, and moral duties. It is not rational to alter these terms' interpretation, particularly from a less-considered legal to a robust moral interpretation. In this sense, the difference of moral and legal rights and duties is not a definition discrepancy but rather a difference involving institutional, formally identified rights and duties and their non-institutional, informal aspects. The application of such ideas outside a legislation context indicates that people need to consider some interests and actions like they are among institutional aspects that contribute to establishing law, even when they are not part of law establishment.

As an illustration, if society states that fathers have moral obligations to provide support to their children's mother, it means that, despite not being legally connected or required to provide support, the fathers should consider themselves legally bound to offer required support mothers. There is no pressing need for society to imply that the moral obligation or right be transformed into a legal requirement. However, the issue remains open as questions arise concerning turning a father's moral obligation to offer required support to the child's mother into law. Moral obligations and rights are considered independent terms, but the definitions of moral obligation and moral right depend on the legal framework from which they are established. Thus, in certain cases, the application of morality in society is directly influenced by law establishments and what lawmakers expect people to do based on laws.

In conclusion, the relationship between law and morality is essential, but it does not depend on any aspect. The connection between morality and law is relevant in all legal systems and law aspects. The presentation of laws in a legal system can be challenged legally if it lacks moral backing, whether the questioning fails or succeeds in certain circumstances. Some moral aspects cannot be supported without a significant connection to laws in society, indicating the association between these two aspects. Lawmakers can only tell people what to do based on established laws, which support socially accepted norms. However, in certain cases, established laws and legal systems may not align with morally accepted aspects, which may be considered unjust systems and laws. Moreover, establishing a difference in definitions of obligations, rights, and duties is crucial for assessing morality and law connection. Therefore, the connection between morality and law is presented on the notions that moral establishments in society are likely to align with certain laws in that society, making morality and law a necessary connection.

References

Lazar, S. (2018). Method in the Morality of War. In The Oxford Handbook of Ethics of War. 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199943418.013.25

Moore, W. D. (2017). Legal positivism. The Wiley‐Blackwell Encyclopedia of Social Theory, 1-2. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118430873.est0207

Pich, R. H. (2017). The Aristotelian Background of Diego de Avendaño's Moral and Legal Thought. Patristica et Mediaevalia, 38, 53-88. http://revistascientificas2.filo.uba.ar/index.php/petm/article/view/7384

Remer, G. A. (2017). Ethics and the Orator: The Ciceronian Tradition of Political Morality. University of Chicago Press.

Stoeklé, H. C., Deleuze, J. F., & Vogt, G. (2019). Society, law, morality, and bioethics: A systemic point of view. Ethics, Medicine and Public Health, 10, 22-26. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jemep.2019.06.005

Philosophy of Law: The Relationship between Law and Morality

Most philosophers advocate for the argument that morals and laws have a significant link based on the ethical principles of truth, justice, and good and the promotion of these principles by laws. Nevertheless, over the years, the viewpoints presented by these specialists regarding comprehension of the relationship between morality and law have been different. Laws and morals are identified with a contradictory aspect since the two concepts are usually considered complementary. From this statement, people who practice the law, such as lawyers, may be trapped in a dilemma regarding the relationship between morals and laws. However, true people of law must understand and apply the law's knowledge and recognize the role that morals play when associated with the law. In this sense, this essay explores the connection between morality and law and its application in different contexts.

The Concept of Law

Society is often linked with a significant purpose that is marked by order unity founded on the goals of society. In other words, societies are identified with people's needs and dignities where the rules and guidelines presented are selected by man. Laws are a significant aspect in any given society since they are crucial in attaining the common good, which is society's core objective. In most societies, the core objective is to ensure that each person attains a considerable chance to lead a full life. Thus, societies have an immediate common goal: peace and an ultimate core objective, which is a life of reason. The term "law" is itself a complex word often subjected to various definitions that lead to complexities, depending on how society interprets the term. Law involves a system of standards set up and recognized by society or state for directing and guiding people on social interactions. Evaluating various law elements presents significant and notable characteristics that examine the law's notion, alienating it from other societal phenomena.

The Concept of Morality

Morality entails the set of principles and standards established in society that help people associate with each other in groups. Society deems morality to be the acceptable and right standards that every individual should live by and follow in life. In traditional and contemporary society, morality has never been fixed, meaning it is transformative. Additionally, the differences in societies make morality an ever-changing aspect where today, something may be considered immoral, but tomorrow, the same thing may be considered moral. Morality in society is influenced by several aspects, including life experiences, family, religion, and geographical regions. However, scholars and academics have always disagreed on the exact development of morals in society. Many scholars have explored morality and its establishment in society.

Sigmund Freud explored morality and presented an individual perspective where he stated that the development of morals happens based on the replacement of individual ability to selfish needs by significant values, including an individual's parents. Secondly, Jean Piaget also examined the development of morality, where he presented that morality began with the development of children's moral actions. Furthermore, another scholar that explored morality involves B.F. Skinner presented that moral development is influenced and shaped by external forces. Based on these moral development evaluations, it is rational to state that moral development plays a crucial role in society's interpretation and application of what is right and unacceptable (Stoeklé et al., 2019). Morality and law are two concepts that have an extensive connection that can never be ignored. Considering law and morality complementary aspects sets the stage for assessing and understanding the relationship between these two aspects.

Law and Morality: The Connection

The debate concerning the relationship between law and morality has always been used as a platform of legal thoughts since the past decades. An excellent example of legal thinking based on the connection between these two aspects involves Greece and the Romans. When ancient Greece lacked a clear set of established morals and laws, the Romans' legal framework took essential steps of presenting the law's independence in association with morality (Lazar, 2018). Traditionally, the law required that each person in society be given what they deserve and avoid harming others. Based on this law presentation, its alienation from morality became an issue for the traditional society. Doctrines indicate that the law and morality context can be interpenetrated, and if not, then the law is considered a morality minimum.

According to Pich (2017), Aristotle had a belief that a subordination relationship must exist between morality and law. Thus, after a virtue promotion goal ends, Aristotle proceeded to state that the law turns to a mere convention, with no interference to morals and individual justice. Another viewpoint concerning morals that explains its connection to law is presented by the Ciceronian conventions of morality. Remer (2017) explains that Cicero as a lawyer and a person who practiced law, insisted that people's care and love for others, social ethicism, political morality, and justice presuppose individual connections. Even though the perspective considers nature as the origin of law, right and wrong are judged based on the law, indicating the significant relationship between morality and law.

Law and morality's connection can also be evaluated from a positivism point of view. On a considerable definition of legal positivism, individuals who practice law present that positivism is founded on various related ideas. In other words, positivism and its association with law and morality revolve around two significant issues. First, legal positivism relates to morality based on how the law in society is recognized. Secondly, the law is questioned, particularly how it is connected to morality. Moore (2017) significantly explains the analysis of law by approaching the ideas put forward by Joseph Raz. Joseph Raz presented that what is considered law or not depends on society and its norms. Raz further explains that consideration of something as the law related to morality requires examining the social criteria for accepted rules and regulations where certain aspects, including established legislation, are deemed law. Additionally, considering something law in society requires that aspect conform to and satisfy socially acceptable norms. In other words, Joseph Raz pointed out that morals and laws are directly connected where if set legislation does not align with morals in society, then it is not contemplated as law.

However, Joseph Raz also states that anything regarded as law based on socially accepted criteria must not be disqualified as set law just because society deems it morally indefensible. For Raz, aspects such as obligation, duty, and right mean different things under morals and laws. As an illustration, individuals that practice or present laws can confer rights and prescribe roles but have no power to authorize morally connecting responsibilities or defensible moral rights. From this perspective, the relationship between accepting certain laws that present morally indefensible aspects can be supported by assessing situations where there are corrupt legal complexes and evil legislation.

Several cases in the past decades provide a significant perspective that can help people best understand the necessity of law and morality's connection. First, German's Third Reich had a legal system established by society, which the people adhered to at all times. Nonetheless, the actions depicted by the Germans were against socially accepted norms, and certain laws were unjust. Secondly, the Apartheid system run by the South African government also had laws that guided society and its normal operations. However, the system had extremely unjust laws that, if linked with morality, would be disqualified as law. These legal complexes and established laws are extensively "inappropriate" they are purported to be morally accurate unless obligations, duties, and rights mean completely different things when talking about morality and law. In the case of the Third Reich and South Africa's Apartheid system, despite the imperfection, the legal systems and unjust legislation were considered normal systems and real laws.

Nevertheless, it is deemed implausible to state that the legal systems and laws like Apartheid and the Third Reich that are morally indefensible should not be considered legal systems and real laws. Both proponents and opponents of the connection between morality and law consider such unjust laws and systems as socially accepted legal systems. In other words, since the law is termed as a construct by humans, anything that humans regard as legislation is the law. Therefore, any individual that opposes these unjust laws and states that they are not laws expresses detestation of such legal systems. Denying implies that the systems or laws cannot be considered as a law because they fail to fulfill morally connecting obligations that they claim to support.

On the contrary, the presentation regarding the different meanings of obligation, duty, and right in morality and law is indefensible. Certain philosophers state that obligations, duties, and rights carry different interpretations when morality is linked with law, whereby the moral meaning of these terms is stronger than the legal definition. From a citizen's perspective, the law is usually a consideration among many things on making decisions concerning what to do and what not to do. However, this perspective does not support the definition of duties as what is imposed by law that requires contemplation of other people in society. This interpretation has been criticized by many philosophers and theorists, including Joseph Raz. According to Raz, considering duties as deciding what to do is stemmed from constitutional authority. Raz states that making laws under authority is useless unless it includes the power to present what people in society are expected to do and not what they are expected to do when their actions are dictated by law (Moore, 2017). In other words, it will be incompetent for lawmakers, such as officials, judges, or legislators, to tell people what to do if they want to adhere to established laws. Instead, the lawmakers should tell society what to do.

Lawmakers' arguments regarding things that are considered morally connecting can be presented in two distinct ways. First, lawmakers can state that established law requirements align with what is morally accepted even when it is different from the law, such as providing family support. Secondly, the lawmakers can state that what the law requires is morally supported even apart from legislation, such as paying tax and morally connecting due to its law prescription. For this reason, to understand that connection that law and morality have calls for assessing the oughtness of law or, in other words, its normative interpretation.

Besides a constitutional perspective, it would be irrational based on history if terms like an obligation, duty, and rights had discrepant definitions in morality and law. These terms were coined from Roman laws, making it even more strange to deem them different since Roman law was established as an association of obligations and rights balanced between the state and the people. From a legal viewpoint, the terms were linked with moral discussions where philosophers were allowed to use such terms as moral rights, moral obligations, and moral duties. It is not rational to alter these terms' interpretation, particularly from a less-considered legal to a robust moral interpretation. In this sense, the difference of moral and legal rights and duties is not a definition discrepancy but rather a difference involving institutional, formally identified rights and duties and their non-institutional, informal aspects. The application of such ideas outside a legislation context indicates that people need to consider some interests and actions like they are among institutional aspects that contribute to establishing law, even when they are not part of law establishment.

As an illustration, if society states that fathers have moral obligations to provide support to their children's mother, it means that, despite not being legally connected or required to provide support, the fathers should consider themselves legally bound to offer required support mothers. There is no pressing need for society to imply that the moral obligation or right be transformed into a legal requirement. However, the issue remains open as questions arise concerning turning a father's moral obligation to offer required support to the child's mother into law. Moral obligations and rights are considered independent terms, but the definitions of moral obligation and moral right depend on the legal framework from which they are established. Thus, in certain cases, the application of morality in society is directly influenced by law establishments and what lawmakers expect people to do based on laws.

In conclusion, the relationship between law and morality is essential, but it does not depend on any aspect. The connection between morality and law is relevant in all legal systems and law aspects. The presentation of laws in a legal system can be challenged legally if it lacks moral backing, whether the questioning fails or succeeds in certain circumstances. Some moral aspects cannot be supported without a significant connection to laws in society, indicating the association between these two aspects. Lawmakers can only tell people what to do based on established laws, which support socially accepted norms. However, in certain cases, established laws and legal systems may not align with morally accepted aspects, which may be considered unjust systems and laws. Moreover, establishing a difference in definitions of obligations, rights, and duties is crucial for assessing morality and law connection. Therefore, the connection between morality and law is presented on the notions that moral establishments in society are likely to align with certain laws in that society, making morality and law a necessary connection.

References

Lazar, S. (2018). Method in the Morality of War. In The Oxford Handbook of Ethics of War. 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199943418.013.25

Moore, W. D. (2017). Legal positivism. The Wiley‐Blackwell Encyclopedia of Social Theory, 1-2. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118430873.est0207

Pich, R. H. (2017). The Aristotelian Background of Diego de Avendaño's Moral and Legal Thought. Patristica et Mediaevalia, 38, 53-88. http://revistascientificas2.filo.uba.ar/index.php/petm/article/view/7384

Remer, G. A. (2017). Ethics and the Orator: The Ciceronian Tradition of Political Morality. University of Chicago Press.

Stoeklé, H. C., Deleuze, J. F., & Vogt, G. (2019). Society, law, morality, and bioethics: A systemic point of view. Ethics, Medicine and Public Health, 10, 22-26. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jemep.2019.06.005