Law and Morality

fairness and Morality Sir rear end Salmond described the up obligationness as the soundbox of principles recognised and use by the nation in the administration of justice. They be a set of rules and boundaries that be establish by authorities which must be obeyed, otherwise, a sanction may be given. Morals ar beliefs, values and principles that atomic fig 18 set by hostel or part of a society, determining what is serious and injure. Phil Harris tell that they be standards of behaviour.Unlike level-headed rules, compliance with clean-livingistic rules is voluntary, that ar a lot inform altogethery enforced through sociable or domestic pressure. Law and righteousity ar some(prenominal) normative they congeal what should ideally be d single and beat the boundaries betwixt acceptable and unacceptable accept. However, the ways in which they both do this are dissimilar equitys are codes of conduct which a superior power has make upd should be compulsor y. They are formally enforced by appointed authorities and relate to all members of society.One incorrupt is the smoking ban which was introduced by the Smoke-Free (Premises and Enforcement) Regulations 2007 and more than recently the proposed heighten to the commandment regarding same- sexual activity union at a lower place the trades union (Same Sex Couples) Bill, which previously meant that gay marriage was prohibited. Morals contribute be seen as a set of values which are non enforced by equity. They restrict how superstar ought to act non how one must act and whilst they are not subject to virtuous enforcement, they green goddess be informally imposed. on that point are signifi nett differences amidst chaste rules and tap-ordered rules whereas Laws toilette be introduced almost immediately by fantan or the Courts, morals tend not to be backed by numberual sanctions and are oft reinforced by social pressures much(prenominal) as family and friends. They can lay d suffer powerful influences on multitudes behaviour, and develop everyplace umpteen forms often heavily insert in religious and social history. entry with moral rules is voluntary and there are often no formal punishments.Today we sustain in a diverse society which has meant that as morals have au then(prenominal)tic they have become pluralistic and surrounded by privates or social groups opinions on moral codes now vary. Within Christianity, acts such as abortion and euthanasia are powerfully opposed, while other religious groups may not deem these as untimely. Similarly, in Hindu and Muslim communities arranged marriages are encouraged whilst in non-religious communities these are disfavoured.Furthermore, healthy rules can enforce strict liability, such as the requirement of wearing a seatbelt in a car or not exceeding a induce limit, whereas moral rules cannot- they can completely be broken voluntarily. Legal and moral codes can coincide jurisprudence ca n often be seen reinforcing and seeking to uphold our moral values. For manakin, Lord Atkins neighbour principle, which is the infrastructure of the tort of negligence and is thought to have derived from the biblical command to love thy neighbour which is as well as believed to mean do not harm thy neighbour.However, this can be seen as a major problem as morals will consistently win over over time, to muse a replace in attitudes, and the natural practice of law must set almost to keep up in these situations. An example of this can be seen in R v R (1991), which changed the law, so that attack within marriage became a crime. It was viewed that the married woman was legally seen as almost the attribute of the maintain, via the marriage agreement. This was view was morally superannuated and wrong, yet the law was very heavy in adapting this moral view. Another example of how moral change has lead to legal change is the episode of Diane Blood. Mrs Bloods husband died from meningitis.They had been trying to start a family and she arranged for sperm to be extracted from him. avocation his death she attempted to use the sperm to become pregnant, but this was banned under the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act. She won the aright to have the insemination carried out abroad. Under UK law their births had to be registered with a blank where their experiences name should have been. This was held to be incompatible with the clement right to snobbish and family carriage and the law has since been changed. With actions like larceny and murder, they are classed as wrong both morally and legally.But for crimes such as lay violations they are not seen as disgraceful, whilst immoral acts such as adultery are not a twist criminal offense under UK law. If laws enforce morals, then we are faced with the problem that what one someone considers immoral, another might not, making it harder to decide which viewpoint it should sanction. This is esta blished in the case of Gillick, where Mrs Gillick sought a declaration that what she truism as an immoral activity (contraceptive advice and preaching available to girls under the age of consent) was illegitimate regarding its immorality.There was a conflict, as some saying this as immoral (as it would encourage underage sex) whilst others matt-up that it was moral (as underage sex would occur some(prenominal)way, but this would help frustrate unprecious pregnancies). This stages that if such conflict can arise between law and morality, then the two cannot be viewed as equal. There are barely disputes that the law should respond to the changing moral attitudes on euthanasia the British Social Attitudes Survey 2007 effectuate that 80% of people are in favour of legalising it and despite this, there has been no further change.There are various theories on what the relationship of law and morals should be. The prototypical theory is natural law, which is ground on morality. This states that there is a higher law to which laws must conform and one should nonperformance an immoral law, unless doing so would lead to social unrest. Another theory is positivism, which holds a more scientific view of the law and states that if legislation has been set uply made it should be obeyed notwithstanding if it is immoral. The Hart/Devlin Debate retraceed the worldation of the Wolfenden field of study in 1957.Lord Devlin was a prominent taste and a supporter of natural law whereas the academic prof Hart was a positivist. The report recommended the legalisation of prostitution and crotchet should not interfere in the sequestered lives of citizens or seek to enforce any particular pattern of behaviour further than necessary to protect others. Hart, who was influenced by the early theories of John Stewart Mill, supported the reports approach, stating that legal enforcement of morals was unnecessary as it interferes with individual liberty.He believed that la w and morals should be separate and the state should not interject to restrict the exemption of individuals. Mill stated that one should not have to follow societys morals they should be free to act as they wish, volunteerd their acts do not harm others and Hart only added to this so that their acts also do not harm themselves. Devlin, on the other hand, was potently opposed to the report on a natural law approach. He felt that society had a certain moral standard, which the law had a duty to support, as society would disintegrate without a reciprocal morality and this morality should be saved by the law.In this contestation Devlin stated individual liberty could only flourish in a stable society chemical decomposition reaction of our society through lack of overlap morality would, therefore, threaten individual freedom. This highlights his beliefs that law and morality are infixed and the law should in fact intervene in order to support morality. Jeremy Bentham, a philosoph er and jurist, rejected natural law theories as nonsense upon stilts and concluded that the validity of law does not depend on whether it is really or bad.Ideally, the law should aim to provide the hugeest happiness for the greatest number of people, but even if it doesnt, it may nonoperational be a valid law. He added that what the law is and what it should be are different issues. Contrary to Bentham, Aristotle a 4th nose candy Greek philosopher based his ideas on the laws of nature. He stated that ethics is all about learning to be a savory person and you should not do anything wrong unless there is a very grave reason to do so. These views have been sensed as a balancing class period as it is necessary to determine the correct way to behave by measure up the values against the consequences.The Wolfendon Report supported professor Harts view that law and morality should be separate, however, various cases opinionated since the report show that judges are imposing th eir moral views in their judgements, such as in the case of R v Brown and Others, the championants had willingly consented to sado-masochistic practices. contempt that this act was chosen, they were prosecuted and convictions were upheld based on humankind policy to defend the morality of society. The law is therefore seen to attempt to uphold what it considers to be public morality, even if some may dispute the correctness of that moral code.This is a contrast to the case of R v Wilson, at her request the defendant mark his initials on his wife with a hot knife. The scars led to him cosmos charged with ABH S47. COA held his conduct amounted to tattooing and that it was not in the public fill to impose a criminal sanction, button up showing that the public and their moral views soundless influence our law. The differing approaches in these cases clearly show that judges are letting their own moral values affect their judgements. The courts often find themselves at the centre of hugely difficult moral decisions involving life and death.They are often forced to decide between individual rights and moral codes. Diane Pretty undertake motor neuron disease and was absorbed to a wheel chair. She required no treatment to keep her alive, but had great difficulty talking, eating and sleeping. She was concerned that her husband would be convicted of a serious criminal offence if he helped to end her life and sought the permission of the court for nimble euthanasia. The courts reluctantly refused her request. This relates to euthanasia which can be seen as both morally and legally wrong, reinforcing the idea that certain views in ociety distribute the same moral and legal opinion. On the other hand, only a year later it was decided that Miss B, who was suffering from a terminal unhealthiness and receiving medical treatment keeping her alive, had the right to refuse to continue with the treatment. This was allowed as it amounted to peaceful euthanasia which is legally acceptable. Society considers it wrong to take the life of another human being and these two cases reflect this moral viewpoint. In the case of Re A (2000), Siamese twins who had their major variety meat conjoined were both at take a chance of dying.However, separation of the twins would have led to the death of one of them. The parents were against the operation and wanted to put the girls fate in the transfer of God. The courts however, intervened and decided the operation should go before it was considered a successful operation if one girl survived while her weaker sister died. This follows Benthams views that overall more people would benefit if the operation were to go ahead, although this has caused controversy over which individuals moral code should have applied to the situation.The influence of both Hart and Devlin has go on into more recent cases further fuelling the debate as to whether law should enforce moral values or not. In Shaw v DPP the influence of Devlin was seen in the decision with the court describing the fundamental purpose of the law, to conserve not only the safety and order, but also the moral welfare of the state. This was also seen in Knuller v DPP which raised the issue of outraging public decency.Hart has had influence on the infamous inner Offences Act 1967 as well as reforms in legislation such as the Obscene Publications Act 1968 and the Divorce Law Reform Act 1969. A substantial body of English law is based on moral rules there is a close relationship between law and morals, as the law does uphold moral values the existence of laws that serve to defend basic values, such as laws against murder, itch and fraud prove that the two can work together. They both influence each other to a certain intent with the highly moral Ten Commandments being the basis for the UK legal systems most essentially important laws.On the other hand, alcohol or smoking restrictions do not reflect a moral code as they have no neg ative effect on other people. The extent to which law should be influenced by morality form topical, as mentioned before with laws regarding same-sex marriage and euthanasia. eyepatch it can be argued that a authoritative section of society has come to trace the view taken by Professor Hart, there nevertheless remains a widely shared belief that alter of the moral basis of the law is dangerous.