Not All Legal Is Moral but What Is Moral Is Worth Legalizing

The first legal code, the Codex of your-Nammu, was developed in Mesopotamia around 2000 BC. The Code lists prohibited acts and the penalties associated with them. The law had the support of the powers that be and was enforced throughout the empire. The Ur-Nammu codex was remarkably modern with a mixture of physical and monetary punishments. Current laws are still based on the structure of the your-Nammu Code. Morality is believed to have existed since the beginning of the human species. However, it is widely accepted that religion has cemented morality as an essential social construct. Thanks to common religions, it became common for people to adhere to norms of behavior that had serious consequences. Thus, religion and morality have been passed down from generation to generation and place, and although they have been different for different people, morality has become a central element of society. The laws were clear about what had to be done (legally), but compliance with the laws would likely lead to a bad outcome in this case. In the end, we were divided on how to proceed with the case, but this discussion raised a broader question: To what extent exactly should we weigh the law in moral considerations? For example, you have to obey a law that says, «Don`t kill,» because murder is wrong in the first place; Making it a law does not make it particularly morally reprehensible. Imagine taking a walk in your city one evening. You arrive at an intersection with a traffic light.

The pedestrian light says stop, but the whole street is empty. You wait and wait before finally deciding to cross the road. There are no cars coming, and you keep walking. Technically, what you did was illegal. But if you asked the average person if what you did was immoral, they would probably say no. Scenarios like this raise the question of whether we have a general moral obligation to obey laws simply because they are laws. This is an important issue with important implications. If we have a general moral obligation to obey the law, then this applies to any law, even bad laws. But beyond that, I think as doctors and ethicists, we still have a lot of work to do to look in more detail at how we should balance legal structures in our work. Do we even have a moral obligation to obey the law? If so, how big is a moral obligation? How bad does a law have to be before we can justly recommend disobedience? So this view takes us back to the first beginning: even if we have a moral obligation to obey the law, what degree of moral obligation do we have, and when do we prevail over our other moral obligations? However, it becomes more difficult when we delve deeper into the issue. Imagine walking along a country road and arriving at an abandoned intersection. The pedestrian sign indicates that you are not allowed to cross the street.

You wait a very long time. There are no cars or people in sight, so choose to cross the street even if you know it`s against the law. They did something illegal. But did you do anything immoral? This is only one of many mysteries about the relationship between the domains of legality and morality, but it indicates a significant source of conflict and confusion. I can say that I do not agree with the person who participated in the discussion on the clinical case and who said that laws are the end of the story. That`s not all. According to this view, we have only a moral obligation to obey laws that we believe to be primarily moral – good laws – and only because of their content and not just because they are laws. However, law and morality are not the same thing. On the one hand, the law is binary, which means that an act is legal or illegal. But morality is full of gray areas. For example, stealing bread is illegal for any reason, but most people are more sympathetic when made to feed hungry orphans than as a random act of theft.

In addition, the law is enforced by state actors such as the police and courts, and penalties are provided for violators. Morality is not formally regulated, although there can certainly be social consequences for immoral acts. After all, the law is the same for all citizens, but morality depends on who you ask, because everyone has a different perspective and experience. Keep these similarities and differences in mind as we define exactly what legal and moral means. Others fundamentally disagree. You say that you have done nothing morally wrong by crossing the street, since you have no general moral obligation to obey the law – this law or any other law. Where should this moral obligation come from? Have you ever promised to follow all the laws? Do you owe the government obedience to the law? The study of ethics is a constant effort to analyze, investigate, and question human behavior in order to lead people to the right moral values. The main objective of this article is to give an overview of two important ethical paradigms, namely: teleological ethics and deontological ethics. A narrative review of relevant work related to the study of ethics and moral values was conducted.

The importance of ethics and moral values in personal and social life is obvious; The pursuit of noble and superior moral values is an attempt to create and establish a better life. This article provides a modest overview of one of the two most influential ethical theories in modern history. This article offers inexperienced researchers in the field of ethics the opportunity to understand and understand some of the fundamental foundations of teleological and deontological ethics. Morality is a set of principles that attempt to define what is good and bad behavior. Moral principles can be based on culture, religion, experience and personal values. An action is considered moral if it meets these standards, even if everyone has different standards. Slavery in the United States is often used as an example. «Of course,» a good modern citizen would say, «slavery was bad, even though it was legal.» The passage of the 13th Amendment did not make slavery morally reprehensible; This was already wrong, and the legal structures eventually caught up with the moral structures.

There are many actions that are immoral, but it should not be illegal. For example, it may be immoral to gossip about your friend`s private life, but most would agree that this type of gossip shouldn`t be banned. The fundamental distinction between legal and moral seems quite simple. As society evolves and opinions change, so does what is considered moral. If you look back in history, there are many examples of laws that were clearly immoral by today`s standards. Among other things, the United States stole Native American land, enslaved blacks, and discriminated against homosexuals. As society becomes more informed and open, citizens demand that their laws reflect their new definition of what is moral. While not everyone agrees with the decisions, changing the laws is a big step toward changing general social views. The amendment to the law provides the company with the new definition of what is acceptable. Law and morality interact with each other and often cause each other`s change. Ultimately, when laws are unjust or outdated, people must stand up and fight for what is right. What is legal and what is moral is similar in many ways, but very different in others.

Both provide social organization, meaning they shape how people behave and what is considered socially acceptable. They also help people interact more coherently and aim to protect individuals from harm. After all, they accept or discourage many of the same actions. For example, drunk driving is legally and morally unacceptable. For example, if the law says that you must hand over undocumented migrants to the authorities, then you would have a moral obligation to do so because it is the law. The mere fact that the law is the law creates this obligation, but we might agree that, in some cases, this obligation can be offset if we believe that the law itself is immoral, or if we believe that our other moral obligations outweigh our moral obligation to obey the law. The fundamental distinction between legal and moral is easy to identify. Most people agree that what is legal is not necessarily moral and that what is immoral should not necessarily be illegal. The law is a system of rules that a state applies to regulate behavior through punishment. Legal principles are based on the rights of citizens and the state, which are expressed in the rules. An action is admissible if it does not violate any of the written rules. I recently discussed a clinical case with medical students and physicians that involved reconciling opaque ethical issues with relevant laws.

One participant sat down and said, «Well, if we know the laws, that`s the end of the story!» By the way, I would cross the street. Three times. Just for the thrill. Sign up for our educator newsletter to learn more about the new content! -By Peter Koch, Ph.D., Assistant Professor of Philosophy at Villanova University and Clinical Ethics Fellow at Baylor College of Medicine`s Center for Medical Ethics and Health Policy Now imagine that one of your friends just got a haircut. When they ask for your opinion, you lie and say, «That sounds great!» When they leave, you`re chatting with another friend about how bad the haircut really is. In this case, nothing you did was against the law, but most people would say you were wrong.