COURSE : CERTIFICATE IN

LAW
MODULE: FOUNDAMENTALS OF
LAW

ASSIGMENT 1
CAN MORALITY BE ENFORCED?

K0PANO H.T SER0KE

STUDENT NUMBER : 968566

0
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page #

1. Introduction ............................................................. 1
2. Literature review........................................................ 2
 What is law and its effect on law enforcement......... 2
3. Conclusion ................................................................ 3
4. References ................................................................3

INTRODUCTION
Can morality be enforced? This can be further be clearly clarified if we first know and
understand how does it implement on law enforcement and Is it possible to make
decisions about legal regulations without any moral judgment whatsoever, If moral
judgment is necessary in deciding what qualifies as applicable damage, does it follow
that general enforcement of morality is appropriate?
With few a day to day life instances we shall come to a conclusion of understanding and
knowing what morality is and how it can/will affect on law enforcement. Therefore
knowing if it is applicable to enforce it, and if this sort of judgment is necessary or not
and perhaps to imagine a legal system with regulations based on an assessment of
negative consequences that considers only on overall individual preferences,
happiness, or ability to pay, without relying on others moral judgments, that is when
deciding that only preferences, happiness, or ability to pay should be considered by
itself as law enforcement.

WHAT IS MORALITY AND ITS EFFECTS ON LAW ENFORCEMENT?

If someone conceives the grounds for legal regulations as restricted in any other way,
would the grounds for that legal regulation seem more limited than the grounds for
moral judgments in general because morality is a complicated problem, as some people
accept its principles easily while others may refuse to follow them as morality in one
may not be morality on another.This can be seen in the case of Gillick V Norfolk and
Wisbech Area Health Authority (1986) where Mr Gillick sought a deceleration that what
she saw as an immoral activity (making contraceptive advice and treatment available to
girls under the age of consent) was by nature of its morality, illegal. This was moral
conflict as some saw this immoral that it encouraged early sexually activities while
others felt it was moral because young girls would engage in underage sex anyway but
contraceptives would prevent unwanted pregnancies and diseases.
It’s a set of values common to society which are normative specifying the correct course
of action in a situation and limits of what society considers acceptable. Therefore these
values can change over a period of time as the society repetition to perceive
consequences that differs with instances so this will effect on the law to keep changing
with these values with time that is if future consequences that are likely, but not certain,
position a more complex problem. Suppose evidence strongly suggests that if the use of
a particular psychedelic drug became legal, most people who began to use it would
eventually become addicted and would, at that point (because of cost and physical
effects of the drug), be unable to perform family obligations. Further, once people used
this drug extensively, their desire to consume it would be more intense than if they had
never or seldom used it and would this harm "down the road" be a proper basis for
forbidding all use of the drug or all use of the drug by parents of young children? If a
high percentage of parent-users would eventually neglect their children and no one
could determine, in advance, which parents would be the "neglectors," forbidding all
use, at least by parents of young children, would make practical sense. Certainly a
consequential perspective warrants such a restriction. And if otherwise these
consequences were different the law well not change or cause the restriction to take
course depending only on the resulting from the cause of the morality in the society.
To justify legally restricting an act considered immoral, if that consideration does not
stop from any harm (to others or self) and offense the act may cause? Sometimes this
seems to be the issue about legal enforcement of morality, but conceptual clarity is not
easy. Part of the difficulty is that claims that such enforcement of morality is improper
dissolve into rather different kinds of arguments.

CONCLUSION
Moral judgment is needed to determine what count as relevant harms and to decide
what is appropriate bases for legal regulations but whether law should enforce some
aspects of morality is genuinely disputed. And to discourage behavior may be justified
as an even prohibition unless it is linked to a belief that action is immoral. Various
reasons may explain why societies should punish acts that people regard as immoral,
even when no identifiable individuals are harassed. The strongest of these arguments
rest on undesirable consequences to the social even these are much easier to
emphasize than to support with convincing factual theories. If this essay has a dominant
point is the need to avoid openness when addressing whether, and when, the law
should enforce morality because sometimes we could say that the law is like a fight
between perfectionist morality and absolute freedom. Enforcement of morality by the
law is a part of legal order therefore morality must be enforced.

REFERENCES

 Rawls, s. J. 2000. Lectures on the history of moral Philosophy, Cambridge,

Massachusetts, London Havard University Press.
 www.lawenforcementandmoralityhistory.com
 R. Dunkin, rupre note 0, at 1001
 J 5.. Mill, UTILITAREANISM (Bobb.Merrill ed. 1957)