could also be morally right if He commands it (Wainright, 2005). That is, how do we govern the interpretation of sacred text and which sacred text is the correct one. When He states that an action is immoral is it always as such or is there any specific context that make it immoral, it is in this method of interpretation that we begin to exercise our own intuition of morality (Wierenga,
If the law lacks morality, and principles that ensure justice, and fairness is it even a law at all? . Yes it may be in a book of laws, signed by congress, and enforced by superiors, but the question still remains is a law actually a law if it doesn’t ensure the best interest of all people ? . Is a unjust law one that doesn’t bind lawmakers to obey ?.
Most of the time peoples get their ethical or moral views from their religion since they were young. Most religions have explicit or implicit requirements or ideals for moral conduct although they also include other elements. In some cases, religions contain explicit rules or commandments: ‘Honor thy father and mother’ and ‘Thou shalt not kill.’ Some religions recognize and revere saints or holy people who provide models for us and exemplify virtues we should follow. (Barbara Mackinnon & Andrew Fiala, 2015) Divine command theory is the view that morality is dependent on the God, and that moral obligation consists in obeisance to the God’s commands. This theory includes the claim that morality is eventually based on the God’s commands and character, and that the morally right action
He or she would judge that the offender is immoral in some way and, therefore, make a personal judgment that is separate from the law. For these reasons, I believe that moral relativism is ideal for those who work in the field of criminal justice. The law, as it stands, is to be enforced free from the moral judgments of the criminal justice community. A community that bases its morality on personal experience and does not pass judgment on the morality of an offender is a more professional force than a group of people with varying moral views who are tempted to apply a personal system to the enforcement of the
Without morality, law does not exist because it does not contain real justice. Real justice is following natural and moral law in how a person punishes and acts. Natural law is instilled into the hearts of men by God and provides a means of deciphering right from wrong. It can be “discovered by reason alone and applies to all people, while divine law can be discovered only through God 's special revelation and applies only to those to whom it is revealed and who God specifically indicates are to be bound.”12 Though one may not believe in divine or moral law, natural law can still be used to determine justice from injustice. Many do not understand that natural law and civil law are both branches of moral law, and when either are used, moral law is being referenced.
In a summary written in the article “The Perils of Obedience” (Milgram 1974), states: “The legal aspects of obedience are of enormous import, but they say very little about how most people behave in concrete situations.” The experiment set up at Yale University was to measure how much pain an ordinary citizen would mete out onto another person just because an authoritative direction or instruction to do so was given. The extreme willingness of adults to go to almost any lengths on the command of an authority constitutes the chief finding of the study and the fact most urgently demanding explanation.” Agency theory says that people “will obey an authority when they believe that the authority will take responsibility for the consequences of their actions.” This idea is reinforced by some characteristics of Milgram’s evidence in his
Moral subjectivism does not entail a lack of adherence to moral law. It only changes the reasons for adhering to moral law, and how an individual views moral judgments, i.e., opinion rather than truth. An individual who lives in a given society has an obligation to live by the law of the land. This is Gewirth's golden rule: "Agents must act in accord with the generic rights of others as well as their own." If an individual infringes upon their social contract, they are liable to be brought to task for their transgressions.
People will do whatever they want without a fear of consequences because they will always find a reason to justify breaking the law I believe what makes this whole law argument extremely confusing and difficult is the nature of the law. The problem with the law in general is that it is based on ideas and notions that are somewhat as previously mention subjective and prone to change through time. And until we could all agree on what we believe to be right and wrong, just, moral, and virtuous, the law will be sometimes but not always unfair, but that doesn’t give us the right to break
There are absolute moral rules that can be established irrefutably by reason. 2. One should moral rules out of a sense of duty in order to be moral. 3. All persons are unique individuals who are never to be used for anyone else’s purposes or ends.