RELATION BETWEEN LAW AND MORALITY.

LAW COMPRISES A SET RULES THAT REGULATE THE CONDUCT RIGHTS, DUTIES, AND RELATIONSHIPS OF THOSE WHO ARE SUBJECT IT.

MORALITY MAY BE DEFINED AS A SET OF BELIEFS, VALUES AND PRINCIPLES THAT A SOCIETY HOLDS.

THERE ARE NO UNIFORM STANDARDS OF MORALITY AND MORAL VALUES OF INDIVIDUALS MAY VARY FROM PERSON TO PERSON.
THE THEORIES OF NATURALISTS, POSITIVIST AND LIBERTARIANS REFLECT THE DIFFERENT APPROACHES TOWARDS THE CONNECTION BETWEEN LAW AND MORALITY.

NATURALISTS POINT OF VIEW:

THEY BELIEVE THAT NATURAL LAW HAS MORALITY AND JUSTICE AS IT BASICS. THEY ARGUE THAT LAW IS AND AND SHOULD BE CONCERNED WITH MORALITY AS DIVINE LAW SHOULD PREVAIL. THEY BELIEVE THAT A CIVILIZED SOCIETY COULD ONLY FUNCTION WHEN SENSE OF NATURAL JUSTICE IS BESTOWED UPON MAN. THE BELIEVE THAT THE PURPOSE OF LAW IS TO PROTECT MORALITY AND THEREFORE UNJUST RULES DO NOT DESERVE TO BE CALLED LAWS. THEY BELIEVE THAT A SOCIETY IS ENTITLED TO PUNISH ANY ACT THAT WEAKENS THE MORAL VALUES OF THE SOCIETY.

• CASE EXAMPLE :

         (KNULLER V DPP)
         KNULLER WAS ADVERTISING HOMOSEXUALITY. EVEN THOUGH                   HOMOSEXUALITY  WAS LEGAL, THE JUDGES HELD HIM LIABLE 
         FOR " OUTRAGING PUBLIC DECENCY ".

POSITIVIST POINT OF VIEW:

THEY BELIEVE THAT LAW SHOULD NOT BE CONFUSED WITH MORALITY. THEY ARGUE THAT NO MATTER HOW UNJUST OR MMORAL A LW MAYBE IT IS STILL THE LAW OF THE LAND AND IT SHOULD BE RESPECTED, OBEYED, AND FOLLOWED. THET BELIEVE THAT LAW IS INDEPENDENT OF MORALITY ALTHOUGH IN CERTAIN CONDITION THEY ALSO ARGUED THAT ONE MIGHT DEFY THE LAW FOR MORAL REASON AS IN " BUCKIKE V GLC ".

NATURALISTS POINT IF VIEW:

THEY BELIEVE THAT HITLERS'S LAWS DURING THE NAZI ERA WERE SO IMMORAL AND UNJUST THAT HIS GENERALS AND EFFORTS SHOULD BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE IN THE POST-WAR COURTS FOR CRIMES. AND POSITIVIST ON THIS STATED THAT THE LAWS OF NAZI ERA WERE NEVERTHELESS THE LAWS OF LAND AT THAT TIME AND HAD TO BE OBEYED EVEN THOUGH THEY WERE IMMORAL.


LIBERTARIAN POINT OF VIEW:

THEY BELIEVED THAT LAW SHOULD NOT BE CONCERNED WITH PRIVATE ACTS OF IMMORALITY. THEY FELT THAT WHAT PEOPLE DID IN THEIR PRIVATE LIVES  WAS NOT THE LAWS  BUSINESS UNLESS THEY WERE HARMING THEMSELVES OR HARMING OTHERS.     


DIFFERENCE BETWEEN LAW AND MORALITY:

• LAW CAN BE DELIBERATELY CHANGED WHILE MORALITY CANNOT BE.

• MORALITY INVOLVES SMALL CHANGES BY PEOPLE AND THEY MAY TAKE TIME TO ACCEPT CHANGES WHILE AN ACT CONSIDERED UNLAWFUL CAN BE DECRIMINALIZED OVERNIGHT.

• MORALITY IS VOLUNTARY WITH CONSEQUENCES BUT GENERALLY CARRYING NO OFFICIAL SANCTIONS  ( ALTHOUGH SOME RELIGIONS MAY EXCOMMUNICATE ) AND LAW MAKES CERTAIN BEHAVIOUR OBLIGATORY WITH LEGAL SANCTIONS TO ENFORCE IT.

• BREACHES OF MORALITY ARE NOT USUALLY SUBJECT TO FORMAL ADJUDICATION AND BREACHES OF LAW WILL BE RULES ON BY A FORMAL LEGAL SYSTEM.

IN MY OPINION THE AIM OF THE LAW SHOULD E TP PROTECT BASIC PUBLIC MORALS. ALTHOUGH MANY PEOPLE BELIEVE THAT THE LAW IS NOT CONNECTED WITH MORALITY. BUT THEY SHOULD THINK THAT THERE ARE SAME LONG-ESTABLISHED RULES THAT ARE MORAL RULES AS WELL AS LEGAL RULES.