Why Is Legal Not Moral
But it is clear that he accepts that the drone program is legitimate from the point of view of ius ad bellum, because he says that it constitutes self-defense and that the program is therefore moral. 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. To this problem, both philosophers proposed that an open, tolerant and democratic society was the only moral solution (ironically). “Plural morality under the conditions of great modern societies,” Hart wrote, “may well be mutually tolerant.” And indeed, “in almost all open democratic societies, there are different morals living in peace.” Luban then contradicts Kevin on the morality of the drone program. I don`t think Kevin`s reasons for believing that the drone program is not moral involve moral considerations. To say that the program does not have a “strategic rationale” is an instrumental justification for whether the program is an effective means of achieving the desired outcomes. If this is correct, then Kevin`s point does not show that the drone program is immoral. It would also warn those who summarily reject that “the fetus is a person at every stage,” suggesting that this position has led to the failure to convert “many to a different view of the moral status of the fetus.” But, he pointed out, “English law has rarely equated any form of abortion with murder.” Hart`s view was that in England, a traditional belief observed in the wording of the law is that there is a difference between a fetus and a newborn. 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. In this sense, Hart has addressed the issue of abortion in several conferences. For Hart, moral pluralism meant that there was nothing necessarily wrong with a society that contained different views on the morality of abortion. As he said in the interview mentioned above, “I can see how Catholics could be against abortion.” His legal positivist convictions did not allow him to conceal the facts. As he openly admitted, medical evidence confirms that “the physical structure . of a fetus is remarkably similar to that of a newborn” and “the legal facts are those that show that the law recognizes the unborn fetus as justified.” There is no doubt that the United States was attacked, and therefore, after the attack, there is no doubt that the United States can use moral force in self-defense. Also, if you believe something is moral, it`s not always legal. For example, if someone morally thinks it`s okay to rob other people because their moral values are weak, that doesn`t make them legal. Theft most likely motivates self-interest because the morale of the individual is low. It can give them happiness and pleasure, so it is possible for them to think that it is moral. For example, some things are immoral but completely legal.
You can probably find many of your own powerful examples, but we`ll only offer a few. First, if you don`t tip in a restaurant, it`s not illegal; But it seems like a crime, especially if the service is good. As another example, wealthy individuals and companies are often heavily criticized for using loopholes, offshore accounts and other systems to avoid taxes. However, businesses rely more than individuals on publicly funded resources to generate wealth, including routes for shipping goods and services, energy and communications infrastructure, law enforcement, national defense, and bureaucracies that support state, domestic, and international trade. 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. 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.