what should be the relationship between law and morality?when should things we disapprove of be made unlawful?

Answer 1

Primum non nocere - First do no harm.

Morality can be a very private issue - personal standards. These standards are not necessarily governed by law and in a tolerant society the discrepancy between one's own high personal standards and what one is prepared to tolerate in the rest of society lends that society a liberal civilised governance.

The problem is that if the law does not specify that it is illegal say to con an old lady with alzheimers into buying double glazing, when she already has double glazing, an illiberal society may deem it fine to make that sale and as the law does not cover this questionable moral sale unscrupulous traders may need a law to smother the targetting of vulnerable people in this way.

A civilised society will bring up its citizens to adhere to high personal moral standards and legislate only to prevent harm being done to others. A high level of tolerance and a wide margin between personal moral standards and that which is governed by the law is a good litmus test of any civilised society.

Lack of tolerance would include a non-smoker preventing a smoker from smoking out doors where others are not harmed and that is the sort of society we are gravitating toward. A society where that which we disapprove of is barred even though others may not be harmed.

Disapproving of something is not sufficient cause to make that activity unlawful. The criteria an issue should be judged on is whether any harm is likely to accrue to those who choose not to participate in that activity.

See also St Augustine - Love God and do what you like -

Answer 2

The dilemna of legislating 'morality' is one that has confronted mankind since the dawn of civilization and will continue to the end of time. Ultimately, it just depends on the priorities of the given society.
In a society that values liberty above all else (as ours once was), the only morality that should be made law is that which can be shown to directly and appreciabley affect in a negative way unwilling parties and/or society as a whole. If it does not have a direct and appreciable negative affect, then it is a private matter and should be left as such.

Answer 3

Are you by any chance a first year law student?! It does get better, I can assure you.

I used a book called Legal Philosophies by J W Harris, published by Butterworths. It was £14.95 when I bought it several years ago but you could probably get it on Amazon or e-bay just as easy. It is a bit mind-bending but will answer your question.

Try going online looking at info on Dworkin and Hart, or was it Durkheim and Hart? Anyway, they had opposing opinions about morality and the law and that should impress the lecturer anyway. And look up about Thomas Aquinas and natural law - that always gets good marks.

By the way, do you know anything about cases relating to the equity maxims?

Answer 4

Changes in society is the pointer to lawful and unlawful things. What would have been considered taboo a few decades ago, gets the nod from society as normal behaviour. Over generations that is what we have done in the case of remarriage, marriageable age, divorce etc., in a global context and any other matter can be related that way.
VR

Answer 5

some issues were more beneficial positive made in some concepts. there change into for sure more beneficial metallic and timber and a lot less plastic in maximum issues, so that that they had a more beneficial important, a lot less flimsy visual allure. yet products are outfitted round what the fashion designer perceives because the shopper's expectancies for its life expectancy. maximum individuals anticipate a vacuum purifier to very last about 15 years; they'd pay somewhat more beneficial for one which will very last 20, yet just about no longer something more beneficial for one which will very last 30, in view that they are going to be searching for the hot variety through that aspect. it really is portion of the clarification put up-warfare fridges have shorter lifespans than prewar ones; earlier the warfare, the conventional public change into suspicious of the sturdiness of those intense priced equipment; some had reliability issues, even if those that did not tended to be overbuilt and lasted continuously. After the warfare, the marketplace concluded that maximum individuals will be seeking to "improve" after 15 or 20 years, so that they lightened up and parts that were designed for an prolonged life. This made the fashions of that era larger, lighter, more cost-effective or maybe more beneficial efficient, yet their life change into shorter. for sure, there have been exceptions to that rule, and the 50 year-previous refrigerator you note on YouTube is probable more beneficial positive outfitted than maximum of what change into offered back then. TVs from that era seem more beneficial everlasting than prominent fashions, with metallic chassis and authentic timber circumstances, yet they necessary to be repaired some times a year. prominent TVs paintings reliably even as they very last, yet many of the parts pass out of production after a year or 2, so in the journey that they die after that, they're unrepairable. countless the flaws we purchase today will live on previous every person's expectancies, yet we do not understand which of them they're. even as human beings locate this stuff, they are going to wonder at how a lot more beneficial positive issues were made today than at that aspect 20 or 30 years into the destiny.

Answer 6

Something should be made unlawful if it does harm people. You may find homosexuality between consenting adults immoral but it doesn't hurt anybody so it should not be unlawful. A drug addict destroy only himself but the large abuse of drugs has important social consequences. So the fact of being an addict should not be criminalized but drug traffic should be kept unlawful.

Answer 7

How else would we set and establish law. By what standard? You might think getting high is a personal choice. I think drugs are a danger to society. you feel your hurting no one by getting buzz in your home. Your probably not. I have to go to a crime scene where someone robbed and killed a elderly couple to get money to buy drugs. Big difference in perspective. There are people that believe in consensual sex without age limits.Right here in America. If you touch my 13 year old daughter and your an adult I will save the court the money and the time. I think fathers of raped and molested kids should be able to legally kill the molester. Would you agree with that? Tell me how you would decide and by what standard.

Answer 8

Common sense should be the guiding factor here. Something that causes harm, pain or loss either physically or mentally, to another person should be illegal. You should not be able to inflict these on someone else for your own satisfaction. In that respect, law and morality should go hand in hand.

Answer 9

The leading paper you should read is Devlin and Hart the role of Morals in Judicial decisions.

Answer 10

Who would decide? Morality is a very subjective word.

One mans meat is another mans poison after all.