LAW AND MORALS

The law is a set of rules and prinicples enforced by legal sanctions and imposed by
the state. Morals involve questions of right and wrong and issues that depnd on
conscience and instinct. Immoral behaviour is sometimes sanctioned by society
and in somecases sanctioned by the state. There are strong arguments put
forward as to why the law should enforce morality whereas others say that it
should not. Contemporary issues, especially those that deal with life and death
issues, show the complex relationship between the two.

We can not think of an external system to regulate the activities of the mind. On
the contrary, human behaviour, in its rudimentary nature is physical and
superficial. And so a legal system can find a methodology of directing it or guiding
it or even governing it. therefore a legal system having rules and regulations with
regard to trade, commerce, finance and employment will be greatly successful
because the writer thinks, there are the areas in which human behaviour is
physically; desirable. In these areas an external force, law is such an external
force, a system in more comprehensively physical. Moreover the external
element of deciding, adjudication, administration or even policing is possible. On
he other hand, the definition of morality or the concept of morality changes from
person to person. May be what is morality for me, that is not moral for you. For
e.g. the viewing of porn sites in the scenario of the society existing in Indian
subcontinent is not considered to be a moral act, but the viewing of the same
porn site is considered to be a legible and conveniently acceptable in European
and American societies.

If we look at the form and content of law, we find that a legal norm may be
common with that of religious and moral norm. For example, all religious and
moral norms say not to kill or not to steel, and it is the same here in law. So, we
have almost the same content between law and morality. Then the question
arises that, if it is so, then what is the difference between law and morality? The
answer is that, the legal system is distinct from religion and morality in the ?form?
and not in the content.
But in a modern society life changes very fast, hence morality and religion are
under a great pressure. Hence, law is the only alternative to human development.
In a multi religious, liberal and multi communitarian society, law can only work in
a impartial and efficient manner. The greatest examples are the world's biggest
democracies. Being more specific and illustrative, I would like to quote the
example of India, U.S.A., England, and France etc. which have successfully
established a deliberate and conscious mode of law making process through
constitutionalism and this is done out of an age old monarchial and religious
morality. In Russia, before the 1917 Bolshevik Revolution, the morality among
general masses was that the Czar is having divine powers to rule over them. Laws
were used to enforce such moral standards, but after long period of exploitation
mass revolution broke up in 1917 and finally the negative effects of morality were
overthrown and a constitutional setup was established. The same happened
during French revolution. In India, in the ancient Vedic period, the common
morality was that society was unequal and hence caste system and untouchability
grew. This moral standard was given the institutional shape of law. But, after
independence in 1947 we have stopped the legal enforcement of such illegitimate
morals. The actual conclusive situation is that religion, morality or law all have the
work of controlling the behaviour of individuals of our society, hence we must not
exclude the importance of morality in our society. In the case of International
Humanitarian Laws, certain moral standards are also recognized as a part of law.
So, the absolute separation of law and morality is not possible in these areas
where morality produces a positive effect in society which is prospective in
nature.

There seems to be quite a strong connection between law and morality. Although
people sometimes say "you shouldn't legislate morality", they presumably don't
really mean this - why would we outlaw rape and murder if they weren't wrong?
Instead, I suppose they mean that people shouldn't impose their personal moral
views (especially regarding sexuality) upon others. I would agree with that
sentiment, though my reason is precisely because I think legislation should be
morally informed, and the "moral views" in question are entirely misled.
As a quick aside: it is unfortunate that the word "morality" has become associated
with conservative values, because the obvious invalidity of those values to many
people tarnishes their attitude towards morality as a whole. And that is a damn
shame. When conservative groups advocate bigotry masquerading as "family
values", we need to recognise the injustice of this, and instead stand up for what
is right. But I digress - this isn't intended as a post about how liberals need to
reclaim the moral high ground.