Law and Morality - Coursework Example

Introduction

Law is referred to as a social mechanism that is used in controlling the society. Likewise, it is prudent that all the students of law must be fully aware of the nature of the formal structure that is linked to law and morality. On the other side morality are specific principles of conduct that are held by a given person in the society. This paper gives a distinction that exist between law and morality under different cases.

Sometimes law and morals of a person tend to differ in different ways. A good example is the English Law that explained that there are cases where no legal duty is advocated under the circumstances where morality would be required to act. It is morally to help a child that is drowning even if he is not your child, but it is not a requirement of the law for a person to do that as he might decide not to help the drowning child as he is not his own. On the other side, there are strict liability offences that are seen as to be too harsh when imposed to particular firms. A firm that is held liable for polluting a river will have gone against the law and moral principles, thus harsh measures will be instilled to such a firm. A pipe that might have been blocked and failed to operate as required due to the negligence of the firm will mean that the firm will be liable for such an immoral act as the law does not require negligence of action by firms in operation. The cause of any leakage can be harmful to both human and the environment, thus such a firm will face the law in a harsher manner as evident in the case of Alphacell LTD v Woodward (1972) AC 824).

Generally, as the moral value changes, the law can also change. A good example is the case of legislation of homosexuality (Sexual Offences Act 1967) and the legislation of abortion and criminalizing rape inside marriage (Rv R1991). As people were jo interested in having sex between same sex implying that their moral values had changed, thus the law had also to change. Under such a situation, the Sexual Offences Act 1967 disriminalised homosexual acts in private between two men who had attained the age of 21. Based on the publication of 1957 of the Wolfenden report that recommended the legislation of homosexuality. Lord Devlin also argued that this should not happen and explained that the society had the right to say that some behavior was not right and should not be acceptable. There were arguments that the law had no right of interfering with what happened with people in private, but the actual sense is that the moral actions of the community had deteriorated to a deeper extend that the law had to change. Professor Hart claimed that what happened to people in private was not to be questioned as long as it did not cause any harm. Despite all the arguments it is true that people are supposed to be morally upright and do what is right as having sex among same sex is not a morally upright action.

Consequently, the change of the law also changes the attitudes. A good example is the change on racial discrimination that take place under the (Race Relation Act 1965, and the Race Relations Act 1976). Evidently, the race relation Act of 1965 was the first legislation in the United Kingdom that was used to address racial discrimination that was taking place in the country. It was this Act that outlawed discrimination that was taking pace in the country on grounds of color, race or ethnic or even national origins in public places. The Act also worked to promote the creation of the race relations board in 1966, to ensure that all the complaints under the Act were considered. The Act had to be introduced as the UK saw an influx of economic migrants in the country after the World War II from most of the commonwealth countries. The casual color prejudice was oar of the daily life for many, thus changes that took place in the law changed the attitude of many. It was these changes that made many citizens not to be morally upright. The establishment of Race Relations Act 1968, was used to strengthen the Race Relation Act of 1965. The extension remit that was required to cover housing and employment was extended under the Act. The Act ensured that both law and morality were distinct through establishing a commission for racial equality with a view to review the legislation that had been instilled in place to make sure that the Act was followed accordingly. Race equality was followed and procedure were demonstrated that prevented any further race discrimination.

Moreover, there seem to be no more distinction existing between law and morality as there are many passage that appears in Greek that evidence that a good person is the one that will try his best to be do what is right (Morally upright). In the past, the law givers in the society are the ones who had the opportunity of identifying what is right and wrong. It does not take long for thoughtful people to relies what is wrong and what is right according to the legal authorities based on what is legal. what ought to be legal ted to corresponds to what is right and that is what we can be referred to as morally upright actions required of any individual by the law. Based on the above juxtaposition, such terms are mainly used in making sure that they help in distinguishing the legal systems and approaches that are all used in the law. Evidently, the use of the term common law in this context is used to refer to those legal systems, despite the fact that most of the common law countries ensure they maintain a common law system. On the other side, the term civil law is used mainly to refer to other jurisdictions that have been adopted by the European continental system of the law that is derived essentially from the ancient Roman law even though it contains most of the Germanic traditions.

Consequently, the distinction that is made between the two systems is based on the fact that the common system of law tries being case-centered as well as judge centered. Such an explanation implies that the law also is a scope for a discretionary ad hoc, based on the pragmatic approach that is used in courts of the law to solve particular problems that are presented before the court of the law. Apparently, the civil system of the law tends to be a much-codified body of general abstract principles that are controlled by the exercise of judicial discretion. Moreover, the reality of the matter is that both of the above views are categorized as extremes under the former overemphasizing the extent under which the common law judge can ensure that they impose their discretion. Such arguments are as based on the latter underestimating the extent to which continental judges have the power to ensure that they exercise judicial discretion. Under such a situation, the civil law principle will be at the forefront of recognizing the benefits linked with the establishment of a body of case law.

Moreover, the ECJ is bound by the operation of the doctrine of stare decisis as it still has no power of deciding an individual case on an ad hoc and in the light of clear decision of all the European courts. The common law is described as the common law of the people living in England as it emerged as a particular struggle for many political powers that were arising in the country. Before the Norman Conquest of England took place in 1066, there was no unitary in the country and no national legal system was in existence. It was during that time that the common law was forced whose emergence represented the imposition of such a unitary system that prevailed in the country.

The common law, evidence actions of kings traveling around the country to establish peace. Such peaceful actions make the basis of the law of England in the altruistic procedure. The reality behind the common law is the judge's assertion of the authority that is linked to the central state and its legal forms over disparate and fragmented legal forms as well as feudal period. All the remedies associated with the common law as availed as of right. Evidently, remedies in equities are discretionary, or they are awarded at the will issued by the court as they mostly depend on behavior and all the situation of the party claiming the ownership of such remedies. In such a case, the court does it necessarily need to award and equitable remedy in cases where after investigation, it considers that the conduct of the party seeking such an award does not deserve to have it.

In this case, the common law refers to the substantive law and procedural rules that are majorly created by the judiciary through the decision in the cases they have heard. On the other side, the law that has been created by the Parliament in the form of legislation is referred to as the statute law. Despite there being an increased statute creation by the parliament the courts still have a higher mandate of operating and creating the law to determine the operation of particularly the legislation. The central importance of both common law and the statute law is evident where the issue of morality vis-a-vis the law constitutes an external environment that mostly interacts with the law making process. Such moral actions ought not to be underestimated as it might be the reason as to why the public law would be termed as criminal law. The allocation of domestic matters is mostly linked with the private law a factor that evidences the denial of general interest as to how and why women are ill-treated and not protected as much as they should.

Conclusion

Civil law is defined as a form of private law that involves all the relationship taking place between individual citizens in a given country. As the moral values tend to change, the law tend to change as in the case of homosexuality. There were contentions that the law had no privilege of meddling with what happened with individuals in private, yet the real sense is that the ethical activities of the group had decayed to a more profound extend that the law needed to change. Professor Hart guaranteed that what happened to individuals in private was not to be addressed as the length of it didn't bring about any damage. The Homosexuality taking place is deemed to immoral and the law had to bend to ensure that such laws are instilled in place and no offensive actions are taking place. Devlin additionally contended this ought not occur and clarified that the general public had the privilege to state that some conduct was wrong and ought not be satisfactory. Therefore, moral actions have to be employed for use in making sure that the right actions are well used.