Morality is More Important than Laws

Also, why is most of the citation in the last sentence of the paragraph-which comprises the paragraph’s conclusion?

Morality is More Important than Laws

This paper presents an argumentative essay that justifies the concept of morality as being superior to established laws. In our postmodern societies, moralities as well as laws are considered to be unrelated fields. In human engagement, however, legal ethics denotes the professionalism of honesty and fairness as exhibited by lawyers, it should be understood that this, has nothing to do with the rightness or wrongness of particular laws in context. The latter is a consequence related to the loss of logic concerning man and the exclusion of the idea of natural justice. This aspect violates the ordered set of human rights and leaves an individual vulnerable to unfair regulations and totalitarian forms of governance. Many people thought systems have been altered to dwell on shallow thinking about truth and what need to be done; they don’t willfully act unless they are guided to find sense in the wrongness and rightness of an act (Hooker page number).

The term moral is applied to mean an aspect of being in regards to human existence as well as consciousness. Therefore human beings are endowed with moral capabilities when confronted with alternatives based on moral evaluations and interpretation. Further, morality is a subset of philosophy which denotes the universal principles that guide man. If a person continuously labors in doing what makes him feel good, happy and he likes it and can comfortably survive with it, then it is rightful for him to subscribe to that. The basis of morality is informed by moral codes which enable persons to live harmoniously without conflicting interests. On the hand, according to (Greasley page number) laws are used to denote a set of rules which informs human act, they are in managerial constructs and regulate human behavior for a morally as well as socially coexistence. Laws are binding and all citizens of given nations must obey them if when they don’t like them. Unlike morality, laws have pronounced consequences which the actor may face when found liable of violating them.

According to ancient thinkers (who), the argument between morals and laws can be addressed in varying facets. Immanuel Kant believes that, individuals’ morals are informed by experiences and they are resolute in one’s life through self-rule (Hooker page number). Therefore, for proper understanding of the arguments presented herein, the hedoism and Aristotle model based on actions and principles that maximize self interest and concern of others will be applied.

Ardently, it is poised that human behaviors are informed by cultures they are or were raised in. this notwithstanding, people have the ability to choose between a wrong and a good act depending on what informs their culture. The values which are propagated in a cultural setting, they become innate to an individual and in their process of growth, they believe in them and act according to them. It should be further noted that individual set of morals are based on their values but informed by their culture. Kant postulates that good will is the ultimate good with no condition; this implies that a good feeling about act is moral to specific persons. Therefore, individual values inform their specific character with a quantum of universal happiness. Consequently, Aristotle holds that pleasure and contentment are the basic maxims for morals as well as values (Hooker page number). Value based choices are considered harmless as is the case of moral goodness of doing things in the right way.

It should be noted that if something is termed as legal, it may not be necessarily moral. For instance, if a person wants to procure an abortion, it is the right thing for him to do since it is legal, though this doesn’t mean that performing an act of abortion is the moral thing to do. This entirely depends on an individual’s established values and principles of whether the act is right or wrong. If a person is hedonist, he will foster an act that pleases them and promotes their self-efficacy. Conversely, according to (Greasley page number) things which we believe are legal they may not be moral. For example, someone may think that stealing is okay because their low moral values tells them so, does not justify the act. Though, the latter act brings happiness and satisfaction to them.

The principles of laws and ethics are contradicting, it is clear that morality as well as laws are based on free will, this is not an ultimate draw point as individuals free will is not wholly informed by their own opinion, but rather they are influenced by the cultures, institution and experiences they have had in their lives (Raz 148). Further, to illustrate this Aristotle indicates that individual values are motivated by self-interest and choices which avails them with freedom of good will. From these two stances, it is evident that morality is a factor of individual suggestions as well as values unlike the laws which are based on established systems that compel one to act in their accordance.

The Legality and Morality of Abortion

The questions of whether the acts of abortions are legally or morally justified have raised a lot of controversies among many scholars. According to the nature of rights, abortion as an act is legal and therefore, a woman has absolute choice to such a thing in no means whatsoever should be instituted with an attempt of restricting it. The argument here is, if something is legal, then it is considered moral and when it is legal and moral the society views it as an immoral act to oppose it. In this sense, morality is reduced to mere regulations. It is astonishing to note that a good number of people have baseless rights which they pluck on cosmic trees, but they cannot justify their stand on why they consider their choice (Greasley page number).

But what sort of a right is abortion right? Is it a transcendent right or just a right accorded by a government? It should be optimally noted that abortion is a human instituted law, and when they enact laws, they have the right and tendency of repealing them. A sound constitution cannot legalize acts of abortion, the concept of abortion came into existence when a counsel of few men came together and formed it in 1973 (Dyzenhaus et al. page number). Under all odds, it should be noted that the right to abortion is a man-made right and not morally godly justified. The sycophants who argue that abortion is legal do so thinking that it is immoral to alter the standing laws which govern a given institution. The laws accord us the right to act in particular way either wrong or right but still they can be changed depending on the pressing need of a people. An instance where there is presence of higher laws calls for complete subdual and it would be immoral to change mans established laws to violate the principles of higher rules. But again, do we have examples of higher laws that accord the termination of the life of the innocent unborn beings?

The confusion we are facing as a people of the postmodern world is our inclination to the so called society relativism, sometimes used interchangeably with normative ethics. Such codes are absolute to a given society but not necessarily acceptable to another society. This implies that what one society considers being right may be wrong to another society.  The objection posed towards the concept of abortion is informed by the heavenly rules which are above man instituted laws. The fact that a woman has a right to perform an act of abortion doesn’t justify her to perform the same act of abortion (Greasley page number). The fact that is legal does not make it moral. Other instances which can help us deduce the concept of legality and morality is the case of the apartheid as seen in South Africa, the move was legal but not moral. It should be understood from a humanistic perspective that the acts which were associated with the apartheid regime were a violation of the supreme human rights and needed to be abolished. The same case is associated with the issues of slavery during the early 1960s. These acts were motivated by individual interests of exploiting and meeting a certain objective. It should be made clear that people opposed the move though it was based on status quo, the argument was that, despite the fact status quo is legal does not make the acts of slavery moral.

Societies believes that the laws dictates what is right and wrong; such rules are based on the maxims that man’s made rules are absolute and that the institutions of justice are the only bodies which are above mans instituted laws. Therefore, the decisions made by such institutions are final and binding. This is wrong, and immoral, the philosophies behind such arguments are skewed and lame. For example during an interview, a woman was asked, when are you going to accept that abortion is a law of the land? She responded that, we may not appreciate it, but the law states so and that Americans women have the right to choose whether to perform or not to perform an act of abortion. The American women may be at liberty of doing what seem good to them, but that doesn’t make their actions morally acceptable (Hooker page number).

The Separations between Laws and Morality

 People should have established values on which they base their decisions when faced with the dilemma of deciding between the wrong and right.In our current world, people are ethical egoist as they put their personal interests before any other thing. As human being we are obliged to reason maturely and make sound choices with which we can comfortably live with. When is the concept of good used to inform decisions? Do we make choices to impress ourselves or to arrive at principle that are consistent with our values? When choices are not morally informed they can result to violence and conflict (Raz 150). Therefore, the concept of ethical egoist is lame and suffers from logical deficiency as it lacks the ideals of universalism.

When attempting ostensibly to draw clear lines between morality and legality, the most important part is consider how we should approach the elements presented in the question. Morality and law are just words which professor Hart refers to matters of establishing the interconnectedness between variables. Therefore, for this case, a law may be denoted as in line of morality and fairness (David et al page number). Further, some scholars’ argue that, the two concepts should be addressed independently as is, what is law? Without considering the aspects of normative theorist of ethics, but rather on the stance of societal view. The embodiment of legal positivism postulate that there is no connection between law and morality, that is, law as it is and law as it ought to be. The likelihood of similarity between the two terms may only occur on the quanta of coincidences and readily not through the decrees of legal fairness. It is evident that when two thoughts in the realm of positivist and native laws exist, the argument between the two terms comes to play.

The works of Thomas Hobbes constitutes a moment of stream in liberalism. He is considered as the true father of legal positivism. As is in the preliminary message of the politics by Aristotle, he commence by explaining nature and culminates with a polity, he puts into consideration that men do what they feel is right with the view of achieving a set mandate which is good. In general view, the rightfulness and wrongness of an act is informed by the will to understanding the motives in context. Aristotle indicates that matters of morality are irreducible and that morality entails a keen conceptualization of the ultimate guide that governs our practices and daily lives. He further recognizes that morality constitutes the elements of politics and as a result, he derided the sophists who acclaimed that the desired approach to politics is simply compiling the laws on ground and choosing the best format (Dyzenhaus et al. page number) This was with the view that the standards of judgments and the distinction between the right and wrong can surface. In governance, people are faced with the task of making laws which are binding to all.

To substantiate the above argument, keen attention should be given to moral systems, which implies that, there is a sense of ordered good derived from reason. A moral system entails elements of free choice and the aspects of acting in a right or wrong manner or against the established systems of justice (Hooker page number). If an individual lack a sense of duty towards the established values, then there is no point of justification of such a person being a friend. Again, when should the laws be disobeyed? Sometimes our acts of disobedient are cogent by sanctioned facts within agreed bodies. Sometimes they appear pernicious on one side and beneficial to the other side. For example, to incite people to form resistance affiliations may be determined by the view of utility which sometimes is beneficial as they are grounded on definite prospects of good.

The Philosophical View of Morality

The concept of ethics was long ago conceptualized by philosophers such as Aristotle, Socrates, Plato as well as stoics who had differing experiences on the approaches that attempted to explain the nature of man in light to morality. The inclusion of natural laws when delving on matters of harmonious human existence is of essence. In the current world, natural laws are focused on explaining the way in which morality is construed to justify the existence of legal bodies. In addition, Plato in his fundamentals of ethics, he presents binding morals that should be emulated. It is critical to understand a person sense of purpose as reflected in his nature of doing things. According to Plato, man as a social being ought to be knowledgeable and be in a position to meet the requirements of nature with a view to flourish and achieve his unending goals. On the other hand, Thomas Aquinas based his thoughts of natural laws and morality within the Christian theology foundation. According to him, human actions are derived from natural laws, though; in some instances the laws inform what is right and wrong but leave room for human desires. The laws are based on human reason and ethical consideration. For example, the question on war, in most instances is as a result of human action in violation of an ordered principle. It should be noted that human regulations should be compatible with the established principles even though such instances are not availed to us but through our actions and reason, we justify the existence of such laws.

Aspects of Laws which are not based on Morality

It is always argued that laws are immoral as they are not based on fairness and sometimes because of their counterproductive nature. Many laws governing people and bodies such as the Germans as well as those revolving around women were morally unjustified. As stated early, the apartheid case of South Africa, the laws which were applied on the people were morally skewed. They are not instituted to serve and protect human being rather they are meant to violate the ordered life of such people in question. For instance the laws which instituted to help people escape the challenges of poverty and starvations are violated and instead serve to worsen the situation and suffering a people (Raz 153).

Systems which have inadequate laws also have immoral implications. For instance laws concerning the procedure of obtaining evidence in courtrooms in most instances are not clear and as a result may lead to prosecution of innocent defendants. In my opinion, if one was to be charitable on legislators, he may be tempted to argue that they pass and foster laws which serve them the best (David, et al page number). Further, there is enough proof that law makers often legislate rules for political reasons informed by the urge of either winning or sustaining support from those the laws will favors.

The concept of moral as either being superior or inferior to the established laws lies in the realization that human actions are informed by varied factors. The good or bad side of action is circumstantial in most cases and therefore, the values of ethics and morality are sidelined. For a just society and for mutual coexistence, we must have rules that inform and regulate human action. This serves to bring order when addressing critical issues affecting the normal life of a people. In this case, we have laws which are instituted to meet certain interests of the people concerned and subjecting the rights of a majority at stake. Therefore, to this end, I believe that when we have morals in place which are informed by sound reason, the extend of human suffering will be reduced; as from a moral perspective, before one sets out on performing a given act, he/she will think of the consequences which will emerge from the same. According to the utilitarian principle, acts which bring maxim joy to a greater number of people should be pursued regardless of who is/are involved. Therefore, it is clear to state that with the above illustrations, morals are more important than laws.

Works Cited

Hooker, J.N. Kant and Cultural Relativism. Carnegie Mellon University. March 1996. Web. February 2, 2010

“No Necessary Connection Between Law And Morality Philosophy Essay.” 11 2018. All Answers Ltd. 04 2019

<>. (do away with this source please. Its not credible)

Dyzenhaus, David, et al. Law and Morality: Readings in Legal Philosophy. U of Toronto P, 2007.

Greasley, Kate. Arguments about Abortion: Personhood, Morality, and Law. Oxford UP, 2017.

Kramer, Matthew H. “On the Separability of Law and Morality.” Where Law and Morality Meet, 2008, pp. 223-246.

Joseph, Raz. “About Morality and the Nature of Law.” Law and Morality, 2017, pp. 141-155.

Place this order or similar order and get an amazing discount. USE Discount code “GET20” for 20% discount

Order your Paper Now