Why Legal Is Not Always Moral

In 2000, the total number of deaths due to total illicit drug use was 17,000; In the same year, 435,000 deaths were attributed to tobacco.* Why isn`t tobacco the #1 public enemy in our war on drugs? @Patrick S.ODonnell «Although the specific justification of jus cogens and obligations erga omnes is contested in international law, there is sufficient agreement that these are legal norms based on intrinsic notions of moral normativity and binding character that seem to be fairly well understood by the parties concerned» I cannot agree here. There is certainly no account of what normativity is, on which most philosophers agree. What you will find are unsuccessful attempts to provide theoretical images of it, but in the end, all these reports fail. Naturalists who are not cognitivists (A. Gibbard, S. Blackburn), for example, argue that there is no categorical obligation because they are eliminativist and philosophers like Korsgaard or Rawls, who are modern Kantians and non-naturalists, provide a narrative that is not accepted by many philosophers. For example, Korsgaard attempts to explain normativity through his notion of «normative self-management,» which incorporates the first-person point of view, but his report does not explain why others are forced to take seriously norms that are governed by law from such a first-person perspective, and this shows that their representation does not. Read More » So this view takes us back to the beginning: even if we have a moral obligation to obey the law, what degree of moral obligation do we have, and when is it offset by our other moral obligations? However, law and morality are not the same thing. On the one hand, the law is binary, which means that an act is legal or illegal. But morality is full of gray areas. For example, stealing bread is illegal for any reason, but most people are more sympathetic when made to feed hungry orphans than as a random act of theft. In addition, the law is enforced by state actors such as the police and courts, and penalties are provided for violators. Morality is not formally regulated, although there can certainly be social consequences for immoral acts.

After all, the law is the same for all citizens, but morality depends on who you ask, because everyone has a different perspective and experience. Keep these similarities and differences in mind as we define exactly what legal and moral means. Zdenek seriously distorts my argument. I did not claim that the drone program is immoral because it has no strategic justification. I argued that the drone program is immoral because it causes the death of innocent people without any strategic justification. If worrying about unnecessary and counterproductive murder is not a «moral consideration,» I have no idea what it is. Errata: «The law depends on several ethical `isms` and often invokes moral principles and values, although it can rarely be affected.» «. Although these debates and discussions between legal theorists and legal philosophers have implications and fallouts (rhetorical analyses are useful in this regard).

By the way, I tried to address some of the ways in which morality or a moral understanding is essential to «our» idea (or ideas) of the law, in response to an article by Thom Brooks here: papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1804641 The article comes from a blog post (!), so one day it will be filled in with more care and detail. Needless to say, our moral critique of existing law has implications over time, as any historical review of the law will attest. Of course, this does not mean that the law is intended to fully serve purely moral purposes, or that the moral intentions or intentions that actually animate many theories, principles, doctrines or legal laws are recognized, let alone observed, if only because the gap between what «is» and what «should be» is persistent and difficult to bridge. In some ways, he even likes the necessary. But beyond that, I think as doctors and ethicists, we still have a lot of work to do to further inform how we should balance legal structures in our work. Do we even have a moral obligation to obey the law? If so, how big is a moral obligation? How bad does a law have to be before we can justly recommend disobedience? There are many actions that are immoral, but it should not be illegal. For example, it may be immoral to gossip about your friend`s private life, but most would agree that this type of gossip shouldn`t be banned. The fundamental distinction between legal and moral seems quite simple.

Luban then contradicts Kevin on the morality of the drone program. His arguments are mainly based on hedonism, where happiness and pleasure come from the fulfillment of our human nature and nature is born in excellence. Aristotle developed two types of virtues, intellectual virtue and moral virtue, which are an individual`s generosity and self-control. The morality of a hedonist is somewhat similar to the morality of a relativist, where he believes in human nature and his personal values. Regardless of the economic consequences of ending slavery, ending the evil inherent in slave labor was worth the cost of ending the practice. Today, we look back on a time when it was legal to own another human being and wonder how people at that time justified slavery. I believe that one day people will remember a time when millions of Americans died from cigarettes for economic reasons, and these people will wonder how we justified legalizing cigarettes. In the case of the Paradise Papers and offshore tax havens, obeying public morality would mean making such deals illegal, as in the case of cocaine.

However, as in the case of La Salada, the amendment of the law on tax havens poses a huge challenge that no State can tackle alone. Offshore financial activities are the result of other states offering tax breaks to attract companies to their jurisdictions – without an agreement on tax systems involving many countries, it is impossible to prevent this. Where there are still tax breaks, we can expect everyone who can to exercise their legal right. In the meantime, the court of public opinion will continue to form its own opinion about what is «right» and what is «wrong.» I agree – although even lawyers are entitled to their moral sensibilities, no matter how parched-out. With respect to my previous point, I think what needs to be emphasized is that the drone program is actually moral if it is legal, and that is not because you equate the right with morality, but because the law in question, which governs the issue of the drone program, is signed by the doctrine of just war, which is a moral doctrine. So if the drone program exists from this dual perspective, then the program has been shown to be morally justified, not just legally justified. Moreover, compared to Kevin Jon Heller`s argument, which is based on his claim that the program is not moral because it is not «strategically justified» (which mixes morality with non-moral considerations), the program`s advocate has a stronger argument because, in his view, the program is both legally and morally justified. And the proponent of the program, of course, does not rely on merging morality with non-moral consideration. unlike Kevin. Jon Heller, whose argument depends on the merger.