Law and morality

Law and morality 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. (MacCormick) Discuss. EXAM MODEL ANSWER Introduction This discussion focuses on the relationship between law and morality and the conceptual differentiation of the two paradigms. It is appropriate to begin with a definition of terms. Law can be defined as a body of rules and principles of procedure and conduct established and enforced by a political authority. Morality can be defined as a code of conduct advanced by a society or religion or adopted by an individual to guide his or her own behaviour[1]. In essence, as Kant asserts in Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals[2], morality is a personal concern, whereas law is a societal concern. There is a complex nexus between law and morality, the extent and depth of which has fluctuated over time and the appropriateness of which is the subject of considerable debate. The following commentary contains an analysis of the featured quote underpinned by observations from eminent authorities in the field. Law and Morality Law can be distinguished from morality on the grounds that a legal system is comprised of specific, written principles and rules interpreted by officials who are charged with the duty of applying appropriate penalties and awarding appropriate remedies. In very broad terms, the law and morality have a common goal, being the lessening of social harm or evil. There is undoubtedly a substantial overlap between the conduct governed by law and that governed by morality and laws are inevitably often judged against a moral matrix. As, for example, the current debate concerning the age of criminal responsibility for children illustrates, moral criticism is commonly the catalyst for reform of the law and as Dworkin argues in Law’s Empire, the interpretation of the law should delve beyond the black letter of the legal framework into the realm of morality[3]. This position is comparable to that of Raz in Legal Principles and the Limits of Law[4]. It is often difficult to chart a neutral path between the substantive theories of legal positivism and legal moralism, as Koller illustrated in The Concept of Law and Its Conceptions[5]. Debate on the issues of ‘natural law’ and ‘morality’ has been plagued by vague definition and incongruous terminology. Even those positivists who might be characterised as ‘soft’ or ‘inclusive’ have conceded that there is no obligatory connection between morality and law, although they often contend that moral criteria are referenced in determining the validity of legal principles, such as constitutional rights as put forward by Waluchow in The Weak Social Thesis[6]. The famous Hart/Devlin debate of the 1950s and 60s sparked by publication of the Report of the Committee on Homosexual Offences and Prostitution (the Wolfenden Report)[7] in 1957 concerned the proper relationship between morality and law. This debate eventually saw the arguments for the dislocation of law from private moral choices advanced by Hart win out over the conservative ideology of Lord Devlin, who was concerned to preserve the link for the ‘good’ of society. Hart put forward a theory of positive law, which has been considered in recent times by commentators such as Orts, who in Positive Law and Systemic Legitimacy: A Comment on Hart and Habermas[8], has argued for exception from the thesis of the separation of morality and law along the lines of ‘systemic legitimacy’ drawn from the work of Habermas. It is certainly true that critical legality can be employed to contrast Hart’s own conception of â€Å"critical morality† and it is submit ted that Orts is well founded in his central contention that modern positive legal systems must maintain systemic legitimacy. MacCormick’s view is manifestly correct, although it is really stating little more than the obvious. A critical moral stance must always be retained in the face of the law and while the legal system is operated by human beings this will inevitably be the case. The law will always be guided, to some extent by a moral compass and morality will continue to influence decision-making and the day-to-day administration of justice in every corner of the legal system. Cases such as Pretty v United Kingdom (2002)[9] concerning the right to die and euthanasia, R v R (1991)[10] concerning rape in marriage, Re A (Children)(2000)[11] regarding the separation of conjoined twins and R v Brown (1993)[12] dealing with consensual acts of homosexual sadomasochism, illustrate that in practice (which overrides the abstract) the relationship between law and morality is indivisible. Concluding Comments Law governs conduct within our society. Morality influences personal decisions relating to individual conduct. The conceptual differentiation of law and morals is thus, at fundamental level, difficult to identify with precision. It is true to conclude that law can be divided into two components. Law consists of a body of basic concepts (its conceptual system) and of a body of general legal principles (its substantive system). The distinction between these two components is not easy to describe, but in essence the underlying conceptual system endeavours to distil the basic framework and superstructure of the paradigm of law, whereas the overarching substantive system lays down its morally-shaded, normative constituent parts. It is submitted that in what is a highly subjective and often abstract field of theory, there are no right answers, but some that are clearly ‘better’ than others. Rational natural law theory clearly anchors the contents of law firmly in morality and equates legal principle with moral principle. Therefore, while conceptual legal dogma separates law from morality (although this need not discharge itself into positive law), natural law forges a coalescence. This commentator supports the line taken by Puchta in Cursus der Institutionen[13], in drawing a distinction between law and morals which, in turn is in accord with the Kantian distinction between legality and morality. In this sense the law delineates the outer limits to be imposed on individual freedom of choice, while morality is confined to an internal, personal choice which is influenced by a subjective sense of obligation, conduct and social duty. This suggests that the primary connection between law and morality is that the law provides individuals with the possibility to make moral choices with certain parameters. THE END EXACT WORD COUNT INCLUDING TEXT OF ANSWER ONLY : 1002 Question text, footnotes and bibliography not included. BIBLIOGRAPHY Case law as footnoted to standard citation Dworkin R, Law’s Empire (Legal Theory), (1986) Belknap Press Kant, I., Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals, (1967) Barnes Noble Koller, P., The Concept of Law and Its Conceptions, (2006) Ratio Juris Vol.19 Issue 2, pp 180 -196 Orts, E., Positive Law and Systemic Legitimacy: A Comment on Hart and Habermas, (2007) Ratio Juris, Vol. 6 Issue 3, pp 245 278 Puchta, G., Cursus der Institutionen, (2002) (reprint of 1850 edition), Adamant Media Corporation Raz, Legal Principles and the Limits of Law, (1972) 81 Yale Law Journal 823 Report of the Committee on Homosexual Offences and Prostitution 1957 (London: HMSO) Cmnd 247 Wallace, G. and Walker, A. D. M., editors, The Definition of Morality, (1970) Methuen Waluchow W., ‘The Weak Social Thesis’ (1989) 9 Oxford Journal of Legal Studies 23 Footnotes [1] See for insightful comment: Wallace, G. and Walker, A. D. M., editors, The Definition of Morality, (1970) Methuen. [2] Kant, I., Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals, (1967) Barnes Noble. [3] Dworkin R, Law’s Empire (Legal Theory), (1986) Belknap Press [4] Raz, ‘Legal Principles and the Limits of Law’ (1972) 81 Yale Law Journal 823. [5] Koller, P., The Concept of Law and Its Conceptions, (2006) Ratio Juris Vol.19 Issue 2, pp 180 -196. [6] Waluchow W., ‘The Weak Social Thesis’ (1989) 9 Oxford Journal of Legal Studies 23. [7] (1957) (London: HMSO) Cmnd 247. [8] Orts, E., Positive Law and Systemic Legitimacy: A Comment on Hart and Habermas, (2007) Ratio Juris, Vol. 6 Issue 3, pp 245 278. [9] (2002) 35 EHRR 1. [10] (1991) 1 All ER 759. [11] (2000) EWCA Civ 254. [12] (1993) 2 WLR 556. [13] Puchta, G., Cursus der Institutionen, (2002) (reprint of 1850 edition), Adamant Media Corporation.

Be Smart, Don’t start. Essay -- Smoking Tobacco Health Cigarettes Essa

Be Smart, Don’t start. We can vividly recall the endless television commercials from reporters and speeches we received from teachers that informed us of the side affects of smoking. As young boys, neither one of us quite understood what was so bad about smoking. We just knew it was frowned upon, and it was strictly discouraged by our parents. Recently our foundations were shaken when we read an article by Peter Brimelow that presented smoking as beneficial and a preventative tool against certain diseases and cancers. Was our education about smoking just a myth programmed into our heads? According to Brimelow it was. Brimelow provides clear and evident research and statistics supporting the fact that smoking is healthy. Thank you for Smoking In the article â€Å"Thank You for Smoking†¦?† by Brimelow, the major claim is that smoking, in some ways, may be good for one and one’s health. Brimelow reports that people who smoke have half the risk of getting Parkinson’s disease compared to that of non-smokers. People who smoke have been found to have a 50% less chance of getting Alzheimer’s disease. Smokers have a 50% lower rate of prostate cancer than that of non-smokers and a fifty percent chance of developing colon and ulcerative cancer. It is clear that smoking can considerably reduce the chance of contracting some of the most deadly diseases in the United States today (Brimelow 142). Brimelow doesn’t stop with just presenting statistics. He points out that smoking is an individual’s freedom as an American. Every American is defensive toward their rights and freedoms provided by the Constitution, so the issue stirs an up an emotional and value orientated interest. Whether people view smoking as good or bad,... ...ential evidence and data to keep people smoking and to inform people of the benefits of smoking. Readers are also reminded of their individual rights, which is never a bad thing. However, the information presented is somewhat lopsided. The reader is not informed of the terrible negatives caused by smoking. We feel that smoking is a person’s right. However when we endure the effects of second hand smoke, our rights are also violated. Let it be known, that smoking really is bad for one, and the effect can be fatal to the smokers and the people in the environment surrounding them. Be smart. Don’t start. Works Cited Brimelow, Peter, â€Å"Thank You for Smoking...?† The Genre of Argument Ed. Irene L. Clark Boston: Thomson/Heinle, 1998. 141-143 â€Å"Health Tobacco Report.† Carter. 22 Mar. 1998. 7 Oct. 2003 http://www.napanet.net/~joshc/smoking/effects.htm.

Naturalism in The Open Boat

Life has got different connotation for everyone. It’s a constant learning process throughout our lives. Shades of happiness, agony, pain, frustration are all part and parcel of life and one subtle message that life tends to give us is that nothing can be achieved without thriving for it or making an all out effort to achieve it. Destiny favours the brave and blaming everything as pre-destined is an act of the coward. Those who get this lesson early in life never get annoyed with the mix of emotions that life has to offer and eventually succeed and those who blame the forces for all their ills gradually but eventually perish. Everyone is equally prejudiced and treated as favourite by nature. In his short story, â€Å"The Open Boat,† based on an original account by the author Stephen Crane tries to show and give us the same message: a Universe totally detached with the dealings of human race, it is in these conditions that Man has to make struggle to survive. The protagonists in the story learn this fact by facing this apathy of the sea towards them and are almost overwhelmed by the nature’s lack of concern for them. They win the battle of survival only by fighting bravely against all the odds, patience and mutual cooperation. The story begins with four men, addressed as the captain, the correspondent, the oiler and the cook, stranded in the ocean in a small boat or dinghy. The author at the start of the story displays the hostility of the man and the sea and nature's indifference for the tragedy they were in: â€Å"The birds sat comfortably in groups, and they were envied by some in the dinghy, for the wrath of the sea was no more to them than it was to a covey of prairie chickens a thousand miles inland.† The men are in an anxious state and are constantly fighting a losing battle against the fury of the sea, but the nature shows no pity on them and continues in its wayward ways not taking in to account the consequences they have to face. The Sun continues to rise and set everyday but the sailors are aware of that by the changing color of waves due to the rising and setting sun. The shore is â€Å"lonely and indifferent.† They are even confronted by a wild shark, who finally decides that these men are of no use to her. The men, though, are least aware about whats happening around them fighting the ghosts within but still somehow in the centre of all the action. The current state that they are in makes them more and more pessimist and a feeling sinks in that the whole Universe is hostile to them: â€Å"The waves were nervously anxious to do something effective in the way of swamping boats.† At this point though they fail to appreciate that it is a natural phenomenon and they are just unlucky to be in the wrong place at wrong time, and not certainly any specific act of aggression by nature against Men. At this point in the story there is a bit of irony in their thought process, while fighting the wild rage of the sea conflicting thoughts have engulfed them, a moment of despair and a moment of hope against hope. They think that some external force is controlling their destinies: â€Å"If I am going to be drowned–if I am going to be drowned–if I am going to be drowned, why, in the name of the seven mad gods who rule the sea, was I allowed to come thus far and contemplate sand and trees?†¦ If this old ninny-woman, Fate, cannot do better than this, she should be deprived of the managemant of men's fortunes.† After a while after through all the futile struggle that there is nothing called fate and no reason for their being where they are. The moment this feeling sinks in their conscious as well as sub conscious the men are reduced to mere mortals: â€Å"When it occurs to a man that nature does not regard him as important, he at first wishes to throw bricks at the temple, and he hates deeply the fact that there are no bricks and no temples.†   They realize at this point in the story that theirs is a hopeless situation. To take courage from the captain one of the crew members asks him whether he thinks that they will be able to make it, to that, the captain answers â€Å"If this wind holds and the boat don't swamp, we can't do much else.† Situations like these, in real terms show the frustrations and feeling of despair a man feels when faced with condition out of his control. In times like these man realize that he is a mere puppet and a very small player and he can’t do much than to play his small role in this very big theatre of life. What can Man do when faced with a Universe that has got no compassion for him? How to survive alone against a indifferent nature? As the story unfolds the characters come to a realization that their only source of hope is by looking inwards and showing equal sympathy and concern for other human beings. The correspondent who in fact was the author himself starts getting a feeling of oneness and camaraderie towards the other crew, demolishing all his previous learning in life of being cynical of men. The author tells us that this was the best experience of the correspondent’s life. A sweeping change comes over all the men when they realize that all they have is each other. The correspondent recalls a childhood verse and feels sympathy for a dying soldier, one who does not even exist: â€Å"The correspondent, plying the oars and dreaming of the slow and slower movements of the lips of the soldier, was moved by a profound and perfectly impersonal comprehension. He was sorry for the soldier of the Legion who lay dying in Algiers.† His current experience has imparted a lesson to the correspondent that he can relate to the agony of the dying soldier. He now fully gets the grasp of what it is to be human: those constant efforts against a certain defeat, and the need for others that nobody can deny. Stephen Crane's â€Å"The Open Boat† is a classic that gives us inkling in to the complex human mind by imparting a simple lesson of oneness and humanity and the never dying human spirit against all the odds. He wants to say that though whatever happens but still we have others to comfort and support us if leave aside our false egos and rely on them truly.

Fitzgeralds From Rags To Riches - Free Essay Example

Sample details Pages: 2 Words: 739 Downloads: 1 Date added: 2019/03/26 Category Literature Essay Level High school Tags: The Great Gatsby Essay Did you like this example? Happiness is the key to a fulfilled life; but in many cases this pursuit is hard to attain. The American Dream is an etho of the United States. It is the ideal that prosperity will bring you life, liberty and happiness. Don’t waste time! Our writers will create an original "Fitzgeralds From Rags To Riches" essay for you Create order To many, the American Dream has become the pursuit of material prosperity; it has brought inferior outcomes, more working hours for big investments and less hours to enjoy their success. The term, rags to riches is usually intertwined with the ideal of the American Dream. When the working poor seek a prosperous life, they are lavished with riches, hence the term rags to riches. But can money really buy you happiness? In the novel The Great Gatsby by F. Scott Fitzgerald, Gatsbys erroneous plan of achieving his dream to be with Daisy, exemplifies the rags to riches trend of the pursuit of the American Dream. In the novel, Fitzgerald emphasizes Gatsbys luxurious life and later reveals that Gatsby was not always rich. Nick Carraway, the narrator of this book, foreshadows that Gatsby is hiding something from the past as he is skeptical about the stories that Gatsby tells throughout the book. There were always so many stories about Gatsby, it was hard for Nick to identify which ones were true and which ones were not. But he always found so much respect for Gatsby, Theyre a rotten crowd, I shouted across the lawn. ?Youre worth the whole damn bunch put together . Although Nick looks up to this great Gatsby, we learn that Gatsby didnt always live a great life. It was Gatsbys father, a solemn old man, very helpless and dismayed, bundled up in a long cheap ulster against the warm September day . At the beginning of the book, Gatsby illustrates himself as a man from a wealthy family with a father who had died. But in the last chapter we are introduced to Mr. Gatz, Gatsbys father, and we learn that Gatsby was born into a poor family, and fabricated most of his past. Within the last five years of his life, he was able to become successful enough to impress his one true love, Daisy Buchanan. Gatsby was so focused on making Daisy happy, that he overlooked all the greatness that he already possessed. Using the money that Gatsby had obtained, he held extravagant parties for all of East and West Egg to enjoy, The lights grow brighter as the earth lurches away from the sun, and now the orchestra is playing yellow cocktail music, and the opera of voices pitches a key higher (40). Everyone was guaranteed a great night at Gatsbys parties. But the primary purpose of these parties were to attract as much attention as possible, in hopes that one day a party would catch the eye of Daisy and entice her to attend. Gatsby always looked for Daisy at his parties. He didnt socialize much with others though, he was too focused on grabbing Daisys attention. When he his feelings with Daisy, he wanted to take her away from her husband and relive the love they once had. Cant repeat the past? he cried incredulously. ?Why of course you can. He still believed that no matter what obstacle came in his path, he we would be with Daisy. But his flashy new life and passionate heart, lead to his death. If Gatsby was not rich, he would not have been able to afford his yellow car, in which caused the accident of Myrtle Wilsons death. Lovestruck Gatsby had allowed Daisy to drive his car that night; she had been the one to hit Myrtle. Gatsby was too in love with Daisy to blame her for the death. As a result, George Wilson, Myrtles husband, killed Gatsby. Gatsby would of done anything to keep Daisy safe. He had made himself a successful man, and yet he didnt feel the greatness; he didnt have the one thing he really wanted, Daisy. But even Daisy, being the careless person she was, did not attend Gatsbys funeral. I found myself at Gatsbys side, and alone (164). Nick Carraway, the only man who Gatsby truly befriended, cared to be with his body everyday until his funeral. Only three people showed up to pay their respects to a man who gave all of West and East Egg so much. But it showed that even with his riches and big parties, he still didnt have many friends.