i_am_stuck
Badges: 0
#1
Report Thread starter 12 years ago
#1
hey, I was wondering whether anyone could help me with Law and Morality. I'm absolutely sorted with Fault and Justice. So if anyone is interesting in sharing any morality essays, i could perhaps help out with Fault/Justice essays (as I've got full marks in both). Thanks!
0
reply
staffygirl
Badges: 6
Rep:
?
#2
Report 12 years ago
#2
This is the info I have been given for Law and Morals. I would love to see your examples of fault and justice, as those are the topics I am needing help with. If you could email me them at [email protected]

Law is a set of rules and boundaries that are established by authorities which must be obeyed, otherwise, a sanction may be given. Law was described by Sir John Salmond as ‘the body of principles recognised and applied by the state in the administration of justice’.
While Morals are beliefs, values and principles that are set by society or part of a society, determining what is right and wrong.
Unlike legal rules, compliance with moral rules is voluntary, that are often informally enforced through social or domestic pressure.

Law and morals are both “normative”: They specify what must/ought to be done and mark the boundaries between acceptable and unacceptable conduct.

However, the ways in which they both do this are different, as laws are codes of conduct which society has decided should be compulsory.
Laws are formally enforced by appointed authorities; such as Police and Criminal Prosecution Service.

With morals, they tend not to be backed by legal sanctions, but are often reinforced by social pressures; such as family and friends. They can have powerful influences on people’s behaviour, and develop over 1000’s of years; often heavily embedded in religious and social history. (Mainly Christianity) while Laws can be introduced almost immediately by Parliament or the Courts.

Law can often be seen reinforcing and seeking to uphold our moral values. But this can be seen as a major problem, regarding the nature of any moral code.
Morals will consistently change over time, to reflect a change in attitudes, and the law must attempt to keep up in these situations. An example of this can be seen in R v R (1991), which changed the law, so that rape within marriage became a crime. It was viewed that the wife was legally seen as almost the property of the husband, via the marriage agreement. This was view was morally outdated and wrong, yet the law was very slow in adapting this moral view.
If the law is to enforce morals, then it is faced with the problem that what one person considers immoral, another might not, making it harder to decide which viewpoint should it sanction? This is established in the case of Gillick, where Mrs Gillick sought a declaration that what she saw as an immoral activity (contraceptive advice and treatment available to girls under the age of consent) was illegal regarding its immorality. There was a conflict, as some saw this as immoral (as it would encourage underage sex) whilst others felt that it was moral (as underage sex would occur anyway, but this would help prevent unwanted pregnancies).
This shows that if such conflict can arise between law and morality, then the two cannot be viewed as equal.

Morals can be seen as a set of values which are enforced by law. They define not how one ‘must’ act, but how one ‘ought’ to act, and whilst they are not subject to moral enforcement, they can be informally imposed.
While law can be related to this culture, for example, Lord Atkins’ ‘neighbour principle’, which is the basis of the tort of negligence, and derived from the biblical command to ‘love thy neighbour’. Which is also believed to mean do not harm thy neighbour.
With actions like theft and murder, they are classed as ‘wrong’ both morally and legally. But for crimes such as parking violations they are not seen as immoral, whilst immoral acts such as adultery are not a criminal offence under UK law.

Laws are also fully compulsory (one ‘must’ obey them) and are formally enforced through the court system. Law and morality can therefore be seen to be particularly different, and one would thus expect their relationship to be similarly separate. They are, however, intertwined, an example of which being the ‘vote of conscience’.
There are various theories on what the relationship of law and morals should be.
The first theory is natural law, adopted by St Thomas Aquinas.
This states that there is a higher law to which law must conform. One should disregard a law which is at odds with this natural code, unless doing so would lead to social unrest. The problem arises in establishing what this higher code is, although it would seem to be based on human rights. Aquinas saw it as coming from God, while Aristotle believed it came from nature.
Another theory refined by John Stuart Mill. is utilitarianism, which proposed that the moral action was the one that produced good for the many, even if it was at the expense of the one (i.e. ‘the greatest good for the greatest number). Mill’s refinement of the idea argues that whilst this idea is true, the individual should not have to follow society’s morals, and should be free to act as they wish, provided their acts do not harm others.

An extension of this idea can be seen in the ‘victimless crimes’ debated by Edwin Schur in Crimes Without Victims. He argues that criminal acts such as homosexuality (illegal when he was writing), abortion, and drug abuse do not harm innocents, only those who partake of their own free will. A major criticism is, however, that not only can the nature of harm and others be questioned (as with utilitarianism) but it is difficult to argue that someone with a powerful drug addiction, for example, is acting of their own free will.

The Hart/Devlin Debate followed the publication of the Wolfenden report in 1957. The committee behind the report contained Lord Devlin, a prominent judge, and the academic Professor Hart. The report recommended the legalisation of prostitution and homosexuality ‘should not intervene in the private lives of citizens or seek to enforce any particular pattern of behaviour further than necessary’ to protect others.
Hart, who was influenced by the theories of Mill, supported the report’s approach, stating that legal enforcement of a moral code was unnecessary and morally unacceptable, as it interferes with individual liberty. Devlin, on the other hand, was strongly opposed to the report, on what might be cited as a natural law approach. He felt that society had a certain moral standard, which the law had a duty to support, as society would disintegrate without a common morality

The Wolfendon Report supported Professor Hart’s view that law and morality should be separate, however, various cases decided since the report show that judges are imposing their moral views in their judgements, such as in the case of R v Brown (1994), the defendants had willingly consented to sado-masochistic practices, and none of them had complained to the police. Nevertheless, they were prosecuted, and convictions were upheld based on public policy to defend the morality of society. The law is therefore seen to attempt to uphold what it considers to be public morality, even if some may dispute the correctness of that moral code.


This is a contrast to the case of R v Wilson [1996], At her request D branded his initials on his wife’s buttocks with a hot knife. The scars led to him being charged with ABH S47. COA held his conduct amounted to “tattooing” and that it was not in the public interest to impose a criminal sanction, still showing that the public and their moral views still influence our law.

The differing approaches in these cases clearly show that judges are letting their own moral values affect their judgements.
The courts often find themselves at the centre of hugely difficult moral decisions involving life and death. They are often forced to decide between individual rights and moral codes. The following cases illustrate some of their approaches:

Diane Pretty (2001): contracted motor neuron disease and was confined to a wheel chair. She required no treatment to keep her alive, but had great difficulty talking, eating and sleeping. She was concerned that her husband would be convicted of a serious criminal offence if he helped to end her life and sought the permission of the court for active euthanasia. The courts reluctantly refused her request. This relates to euthanasia which is both morally and legally wrong, reinforcing the idea that certain views in society share the same moral and legal opinion.

Another case involving illnesses and euthanasia is the Miss B (2002): she was suffering from a terminal illness and receiving medical treatment keeping her alive. The High Court decided she had the right to refuse to continue with the treatment, this was allowed as it amounted to passive euthanasia which is legally acceptable.

Society considers it wrong to take the life of another human being and these two cases reflect this moral viewpoint.

In the case of Mary and Jodie (2000), Siamese twins had their major organs conjoined and the separation of the twins would have led to the death of one of them, but if the separation was not done, both of them could die. The parents were against the operation and wanted to put the girls’ fate in the hands of God. The courts intervened and decided the operation should go ahead; it was a “success” in that one girl survived while her weaker sister died.

In this case medical opinion seemed to overrule religious and moral beliefs, so the law was not supporting moral opinion, in favour of a medical view.

In the case of Diane Blood, Diane Blood’s husband died from meningitis after falling into a coma. They had been trying to start a family and she arranged for sperm to be extracted from him. Following his death she attempted to use the sperm to become pregnant, but this was banned under the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act. She won the right to have the insemination carried out abroad. Under UK law their births had to be registered with a blank where their father’s name should have been. This was held to be incompatible with the human right to private and family life and the law has since been changed.

This case is an example of how moral change led to legal change.

In conclusion, there is a close relationship between law and morals, as the law does uphold moral values in some cases, though the extent to which law should be influenced by morality remains topical
5
reply
zeher
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#3
Report 12 years ago
#3
Law, a set of rules and principles created and enforced by the state. Morals are a set of beliefs, values principles and standards of behaviour created by society.

There are differences between legal rules and moral rules. Law are created by formal intuition e.g. parliament. Morals evolve as a feeling within society. No formal creation exists.
Laws can be instantly made and instantly cancelled. It can exist one minute and the next it does not. E.g. when act is repealed. Morals form slowly and change slowly as society’s attitudes change. There is usually a slow transitional period e.g. society’s attitude to premarital sex.
A law either exists or it does not. Its existence can be established. Morals are much vaguer in definition. Although society is generally that certain activities are immoral, e.g. murder, as many issues society’s opinion is divided such as homosexuality.
Breach of law leads to some form of punishment or remedy enforced by the state. Breach of moral leads to some form of social condemnation but the state is not involved.
Society’s attitude to law is irrelevant. A law exists even if the vast majority disobey it. Morals are rules that reflect society’s values and beliefs. Therefore these values and beliefs are vital for the existence of moral.

There is overlap between law and morals. An example includes prostitution.

The area of law that will be discussed is euthanasia. Factors will be taken into account, the extent to which the law does and should enforce moral values.
Euthanasia is the bringing about of a gentle and easy death in the case of incurable and painful disease with the consent of the victim. English law forbids euthanasia. R v Cox.

There are many moral arguments both in support of legalising euthanasia and for maintaining it as illegal. An important case here is R (Pretty) v DPP
Arguments in favour of legalising euthanasia are as follow. It can be seen as merciful, Diane Pretty. It is strongly argued that people have the right to die how and when they want to.
The libertarian argument is, if it promotes everyone’s best interest and violates no one, then it is ok.
This argument may be harsh but it may become necessary for fair distribution of medical resources. Since it will also happen anyway so it therefore better to legalise it and regulate it properly. Death may not be seen as a bad thing for the people involved such as the victim and family members.

However moral arguments against legalising euthanasia should be taken into account as well.
There are religious arguments such as euthanasia is against the word and will of God. It also weakens respect for sanctity and undermines the value of suffering, illustrated by John Paul.
There is the slippery slope argument, which suggests to what extent do we allow people to have euthanasia? Is it for everyone? E.g. flu, sickness or just terminally ill?

Some argue that legalising it would mean that sick or disabled lives are worth less than others.
Euthanasia may not be in patient’s best interests
As euthanasia affects family members. These are third party rights. What if family members do not want their loved ones to die this way. These views should be taken into account as well.

There are three theories that deal with law and morality. The liberal view, Harm to others principle, John Stuart Mill, 1859. He suggests that the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilised community against his will is to prevent harm to others. His own good either physical or moral is not a sufficient warrant. Mill believed that the law should be used not to uphold a particular morality but to prevent harm to citizens. Preventing someone from harming himself is excluded by this harm to others principle.
Example of an existing law, which illustrates this theory, is standard criminal offences such as murder, non-fatal offences and manslaughter.
However, homosexuality between consenting males was decriminalised. Wolfenden Report said law is to preserve decency and protect people, not to interfere in private lives.

The Moralistic view, harm to society principle, Lord Devlin, 1950-1960. Devlin’s theory is that a recognised morality is essential to society’s existence. Individual liberty and freedom should be limited in order to protect the fabric of society. Devlin stated that society may use the law to preserve morality in the same way that it uses law to safeguard anything else that is essential to its existence. The theory is based on an objective morality, a common morality shared by all in society.
Example of an existing law, which illustrates this theory, is the defence of consent in non-fatal offences, R v Brown & Others.
However law is concerned with minimum not maximum standards. Consent is an example of this.

The Paternalistic view, harm to self and others view, Professor Hart, 1960s. He argued that the law should only intervene in the private lives of citizens to prevent harms to others and harm to oneself. He acknowledged the problem of defining harm and stated that it did not include moral harm to oneself.
Example of an existing law, which illustrates this theory, includes laws preventing methods of prostitution.
Paternalistic view focuses on individuals.

A reflection can be made of the theories about the relationship between law and morality in connection with euthanasia. The liberal harm to others view suggests that euthanasia should not be illegal. Moral harm to society view suggests euthanasia should be illegal and paternal view harm to self-view suggests euthanasia should be illegal.

Overall the law does not uphold the moral values of society in connection with euthanasia because euthanasia still remains illegal in UK. The arguments in favour and against resurfaced with the case of Dianne Pretty however the House of Lords still rejected her case.
However society means opinions of all in society. Therefore there are some people who still would like euthanasia to remain illegal, therefore their views should be taken into account as well and can be said the law does uphold the moral values of society in connection with euthanasia.
2
reply
Nero132
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#4
Report 12 years ago
#4
wicked notes.
0
reply
The Black Chuck Norris
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#5
Report 12 years ago
#5
Yeah haha can you believe we've gotta write these in an hour and 30 mins? Mine came up to 12 pages and had to shorten them.
0
reply
NEVERYOUMIND
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#6
Report 11 years ago
#6
i still need to write my justice essay. i'll send you my morality essay i have which is near top marks in exchange for your justice one

PM to remind me tho. Or quote this message so i see it tomorrow
0
reply
flowers786
Badges: 0
#7
Report 11 years ago
#7
the exam was so easy. hooray its over!
0
reply
Gaishan
Badges: 9
Rep:
?
#8
Report 11 years ago
#8
I would recommend (I don't work for them :p: ) the unit guides offered by Phillip Allen Updates. They are offered in many different subjects and for the different examining boards.
0
reply
sweetgyal24
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#9
Report 10 years ago
#9
(Original post by staffygirl)
This is the info I have been given for Law and Morals. I would love to see your examples of fault and justice, as those are the topics I am needing help with. If you could email me them at [email protected]

Law is a set of rules and boundaries that are established by authorities which must be obeyed, otherwise, a sanction may be given. Law was described by Sir John Salmond as ‘the body of principles recognised and applied by the state in the administration of justice’.
While Morals are beliefs, values and principles that are set by society or part of a society, determining what is right and wrong.
Unlike legal rules, compliance with moral rules is voluntary, that are often informally enforced through social or domestic pressure.

Law and morals are both “normative”: They specify what must/ought to be done and mark the boundaries between acceptable and unacceptable conduct.

However, the ways in which they both do this are different, as laws are codes of conduct which society has decided should be compulsory.
Laws are formally enforced by appointed authorities; such as Police and Criminal Prosecution Service.

With morals, they tend not to be backed by legal sanctions, but are often reinforced by social pressures; such as family and friends. They can have powerful influences on people’s behaviour, and develop over 1000’s of years; often heavily embedded in religious and social history. (Mainly Christianity) while Laws can be introduced almost immediately by Parliament or the Courts.

Law can often be seen reinforcing and seeking to uphold our moral values. But this can be seen as a major problem, regarding the nature of any moral code.
Morals will consistently change over time, to reflect a change in attitudes, and the law must attempt to keep up in these situations. An example of this can be seen in R v R (1991), which changed the law, so that rape within marriage became a crime. It was viewed that the wife was legally seen as almost the property of the husband, via the marriage agreement. This was view was morally outdated and wrong, yet the law was very slow in adapting this moral view.
If the law is to enforce morals, then it is faced with the problem that what one person considers immoral, another might not, making it harder to decide which viewpoint should it sanction? This is established in the case of Gillick, where Mrs Gillick sought a declaration that what she saw as an immoral activity (contraceptive advice and treatment available to girls under the age of consent) was illegal regarding its immorality. There was a conflict, as some saw this as immoral (as it would encourage underage sex) whilst others felt that it was moral (as underage sex would occur anyway, but this would help prevent unwanted pregnancies).
This shows that if such conflict can arise between law and morality, then the two cannot be viewed as equal.

Morals can be seen as a set of values which are enforced by law. They define not how one ‘must’ act, but how one ‘ought’ to act, and whilst they are not subject to moral enforcement, they can be informally imposed.
While law can be related to this culture, for example, Lord Atkins’ ‘neighbour principle’, which is the basis of the tort of negligence, and derived from the biblical command to ‘love thy neighbour’. Which is also believed to mean do not harm thy neighbour.
With actions like theft and murder, they are classed as ‘wrong’ both morally and legally. But for crimes such as parking violations they are not seen as immoral, whilst immoral acts such as adultery are not a criminal offence under UK law.

Laws are also fully compulsory (one ‘must’ obey them) and are formally enforced through the court system. Law and morality can therefore be seen to be particularly different, and one would thus expect their relationship to be similarly separate. They are, however, intertwined, an example of which being the ‘vote of conscience’.
There are various theories on what the relationship of law and morals should be.
The first theory is natural law, adopted by St Thomas Aquinas.
This states that there is a higher law to which law must conform. One should disregard a law which is at odds with this natural code, unless doing so would lead to social unrest. The problem arises in establishing what this higher code is, although it would seem to be based on human rights. Aquinas saw it as coming from God, while Aristotle believed it came from nature.
Another theory refined by John Stuart Mill. is utilitarianism, which proposed that the moral action was the one that produced good for the many, even if it was at the expense of the one (i.e. ‘the greatest good for the greatest number). Mill’s refinement of the idea argues that whilst this idea is true, the individual should not have to follow society’s morals, and should be free to act as they wish, provided their acts do not harm others.

An extension of this idea can be seen in the ‘victimless crimes’ debated by Edwin Schur in Crimes Without Victims. He argues that criminal acts such as homosexuality (illegal when he was writing), abortion, and drug abuse do not harm innocents, only those who partake of their own free will. A major criticism is, however, that not only can the nature of harm and others be questioned (as with utilitarianism) but it is difficult to argue that someone with a powerful drug addiction, for example, is acting of their own free will.

The Hart/Devlin Debate followed the publication of the Wolfenden report in 1957. The committee behind the report contained Lord Devlin, a prominent judge, and the academic Professor Hart. The report recommended the legalisation of prostitution and homosexuality ‘should not intervene in the private lives of citizens or seek to enforce any particular pattern of behaviour further than necessary’ to protect others.
Hart, who was influenced by the theories of Mill, supported the report’s approach, stating that legal enforcement of a moral code was unnecessary and morally unacceptable, as it interferes with individual liberty. Devlin, on the other hand, was strongly opposed to the report, on what might be cited as a natural law approach. He felt that society had a certain moral standard, which the law had a duty to support, as society would disintegrate without a common morality

The Wolfendon Report supported Professor Hart’s view that law and morality should be separate, however, various cases decided since the report show that judges are imposing their moral views in their judgements, such as in the case of R v Brown (1994), the defendants had willingly consented to sado-masochistic practices, and none of them had complained to the police. Nevertheless, they were prosecuted, and convictions were upheld based on public policy to defend the morality of society. The law is therefore seen to attempt to uphold what it considers to be public morality, even if some may dispute the correctness of that moral code.


This is a contrast to the case of R v Wilson [1996], At her request D branded his initials on his wife’s buttocks with a hot knife. The scars led to him being charged with ABH S47. COA held his conduct amounted to “tattooing” and that it was not in the public interest to impose a criminal sanction, still showing that the public and their moral views still influence our law.

The differing approaches in these cases clearly show that judges are letting their own moral values affect their judgements.
The courts often find themselves at the centre of hugely difficult moral decisions involving life and death. They are often forced to decide between individual rights and moral codes. The following cases illustrate some of their approaches:

Diane Pretty (2001): contracted motor neuron disease and was confined to a wheel chair. She required no treatment to keep her alive, but had great difficulty talking, eating and sleeping. She was concerned that her husband would be convicted of a serious criminal offence if he helped to end her life and sought the permission of the court for active euthanasia. The courts reluctantly refused her request. This relates to euthanasia which is both morally and legally wrong, reinforcing the idea that certain views in society share the same moral and legal opinion.

Another case involving illnesses and euthanasia is the Miss B (2002): she was suffering from a terminal illness and receiving medical treatment keeping her alive. The High Court decided she had the right to refuse to continue with the treatment, this was allowed as it amounted to passive euthanasia which is legally acceptable.

Society considers it wrong to take the life of another human being and these two cases reflect this moral viewpoint.

In the case of Mary and Jodie (2000), Siamese twins had their major organs conjoined and the separation of the twins would have led to the death of one of them, but if the separation was not done, both of them could die. The parents were against the operation and wanted to put the girls’ fate in the hands of God. The courts intervened and decided the operation should go ahead; it was a “success” in that one girl survived while her weaker sister died.

In this case medical opinion seemed to overrule religious and moral beliefs, so the law was not supporting moral opinion, in favour of a medical view.

In the case of Diane Blood, Diane Blood’s husband died from meningitis after falling into a coma. They had been trying to start a family and she arranged for sperm to be extracted from him. Following his death she attempted to use the sperm to become pregnant, but this was banned under the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act. She won the right to have the insemination carried out abroad. Under UK law their births had to be registered with a blank where their father’s name should have been. This was held to be incompatible with the human right to private and family life and the law has since been changed.

This case is an example of how moral change led to legal change.

In conclusion, there is a close relationship between law and morals, as the law does uphold moral values in some cases, though the extent to which law should be influenced by morality remains topical
Excellent! I'm so happy I came across this thread, even though it's like 2 years old! I've come onto this post so far and as I said
E x c e l l e n t :p: It's very clear and concise and everything is in the right order (I think)? lol What did you get for this exam if you don't mind me asking, and what are you doing now? x
0
reply
JarvisEX
Badges: 0
#10
Report 10 years ago
#10
These essays are pretty good. But you only get around 40-50 minuets to write them in this years exam.
0
reply
Miss Aliza
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#11
Report 9 years ago
#11
(Original post by zeher)
Law, a set of rules and principles created and enforced by the state. Morals are a set of beliefs, values principles and standards of behaviour created by society.

There are differences between legal rules and moral rules. Law are created by formal intuition e.g. parliament. Morals evolve as a feeling within society. No formal creation exists.
Laws can be instantly made and instantly cancelled. It can exist one minute and the next it does not. E.g. when act is repealed. Morals form slowly and change slowly as society’s attitudes change. There is usually a slow transitional period e.g. society’s attitude to premarital sex.
A law either exists or it does not. Its existence can be established. Morals are much vaguer in definition. Although society is generally that certain activities are immoral, e.g. murder, as many issues society’s opinion is divided such as homosexuality.
Breach of law leads to some form of punishment or remedy enforced by the state. Breach of moral leads to some form of social condemnation but the state is not involved.
Society’s attitude to law is irrelevant. A law exists even if the vast majority disobey it. Morals are rules that reflect society’s values and beliefs. Therefore these values and beliefs are vital for the existence of moral.

There is overlap between law and morals. An example includes prostitution.

The area of law that will be discussed is euthanasia. Factors will be taken into account, the extent to which the law does and should enforce moral values.
Euthanasia is the bringing about of a gentle and easy death in the case of incurable and painful disease with the consent of the victim. English law forbids euthanasia. R v Cox.

There are many moral arguments both in support of legalising euthanasia and for maintaining it as illegal. An important case here is R (Pretty) v DPP
Arguments in favour of legalising euthanasia are as follow. It can be seen as merciful, Diane Pretty. It is strongly argued that people have the right to die how and when they want to.
The libertarian argument is, if it promotes everyone’s best interest and violates no one, then it is ok.
This argument may be harsh but it may become necessary for fair distribution of medical resources. Since it will also happen anyway so it therefore better to legalise it and regulate it properly. Death may not be seen as a bad thing for the people involved such as the victim and family members.

However moral arguments against legalising euthanasia should be taken into account as well.
There are religious arguments such as euthanasia is against the word and will of God. It also weakens respect for sanctity and undermines the value of suffering, illustrated by John Paul.
There is the slippery slope argument, which suggests to what extent do we allow people to have euthanasia? Is it for everyone? E.g. flu, sickness or just terminally ill?

Some argue that legalising it would mean that sick or disabled lives are worth less than others.
Euthanasia may not be in patient’s best interests
As euthanasia affects family members. These are third party rights. What if family members do not want their loved ones to die this way. These views should be taken into account as well.

There are three theories that deal with law and morality. The liberal view, Harm to others principle, John Stuart Mill, 1859. He suggests that the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilised community against his will is to prevent harm to others. His own good either physical or moral is not a sufficient warrant. Mill believed that the law should be used not to uphold a particular morality but to prevent harm to citizens. Preventing someone from harming himself is excluded by this harm to others principle.
Example of an existing law, which illustrates this theory, is standard criminal offences such as murder, non-fatal offences and manslaughter.
However, homosexuality between consenting males was decriminalised. Wolfenden Report said law is to preserve decency and protect people, not to interfere in private lives.

The Moralistic view, harm to society principle, Lord Devlin, 1950-1960. Devlin’s theory is that a recognised morality is essential to society’s existence. Individual liberty and freedom should be limited in order to protect the fabric of society. Devlin stated that society may use the law to preserve morality in the same way that it uses law to safeguard anything else that is essential to its existence. The theory is based on an objective morality, a common morality shared by all in society.
Example of an existing law, which illustrates this theory, is the defence of consent in non-fatal offences, R v Brown & Others.
However law is concerned with minimum not maximum standards. Consent is an example of this.

The Paternalistic view, harm to self and others view, Professor Hart, 1960s. He argued that the law should only intervene in the private lives of citizens to prevent harms to others and harm to oneself. He acknowledged the problem of defining harm and stated that it did not include moral harm to oneself.
Example of an existing law, which illustrates this theory, includes laws preventing methods of prostitution.
Paternalistic view focuses on individuals.

A reflection can be made of the theories about the relationship between law and morality in connection with euthanasia. The liberal harm to others view suggests that euthanasia should not be illegal. Moral harm to society view suggests euthanasia should be illegal and paternal view harm to self-view suggests euthanasia should be illegal.

Overall the law does not uphold the moral values of society in connection with euthanasia because euthanasia still remains illegal in UK. The arguments in favour and against resurfaced with the case of Dianne Pretty however the House of Lords still rejected her case.
However society means opinions of all in society. Therefore there are some people who still would like euthanasia to remain illegal, therefore their views should be taken into account as well and can be said the law does uphold the moral values of society in connection with euthanasia.
Cheers!! it was a big help as we are doing this atm xx
0
reply
nduyeobong
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#12
Report 9 years ago
#12
i love the articles on law and morality and i find them useful for my paper. thanks.
0
reply
cal_louise_
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#13
Report 3 years ago
#13
Are you able to send your essays on justice and fault also?
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Should there be a new university admissions system that ditches predicted grades?

No, I think predicted grades should still be used to make offers (727)
33.8%
Yes, I like the idea of applying to uni after I received my grades (PQA) (921)
42.82%
Yes, I like the idea of receiving offers only after I receive my grades (PQO) (408)
18.97%
I think there is a better option than the ones suggested (let us know in the thread!) (95)
4.42%

Watched Threads

View All