The Ninth Amendment, while often ignored or vilified even by the courts for ironic reasons, is, I think, one of the most important, because it recognizes « rights »—a moral concept—that the government cannot override when it says: As society evolves and opinions change, so does what is considered moral. If you look back in history, there are many examples of laws that were clearly immoral by today`s standards. Among other things, the United States stole Native American land, enslaved blacks, and discriminated against homosexuals. As society becomes more informed and open, citizens demand that their laws reflect their new definition of what is moral. While not everyone agrees with the decisions, changing the laws is a big step toward changing general social views. The amendment to the law provides the company with the new definition of what is acceptable. Law and morality interact with each other and often cause each other`s change. Ultimately, when laws are unjust or outdated, people must stand up and fight for what is right. It may be possible to have general principles of law that distinguish all conduct that should be lawful from that which should not distinguish in the same manner or manner that correct general moral principles might distinguish between all morally just and all morally wrong actions. But moral principles or legal principles are unlikely to lead to a comprehensive and specific (predetermined) approach. In this context, it is important to stress the importance of the role of the social partners in the development of the common agricultural policy.
It took courage on the part of our leaders and great sacrifices of hundreds of thousands of Americans (at least 618,000 Americans died in the Civil War) to end the practice of slavery. It will also take courage and sacrifice to make cigarettes illegal. Will we be the ones to change the law, or will we leave it to a future generation? Hundreds of thousands of family members and friends will die every year if we don`t act. Morality is believed to have existed since the beginning of the human species. However, it is widely accepted that religion has cemented morality as an essential social construct. Thanks to common religions, it became common for people to adhere to norms of behavior that had serious consequences. Thus, religion and morality have been passed down from generation to generation and place, and although they have been different for different people, morality has become a central element of society. For example, you have to obey a law that says, « Don`t kill, » because murder is wrong in the first place; Making it a law does not make it particularly morally reprehensible. Sometimes morality is confused with religion, and I have written about it elsewhere. But for the purposes of this essay, it does not matter whether or not someone`s moral principles are based on religious doctrines or commandments.
Important characteristics will be the solidity and perceived solidity of all moral principles, not their genesis. In some cases, civil disobedience is used not only as a moral position, but as a means of promoting a more just system or set of laws by publicly exposing the harms or injustices of the applicable law. The theory behind civil disobedience is sometimes phrased in such a way that it is not morally wrong to break the law if one is willing to be arrested and pay the penalty for it. However, this kind of claim of acceptance of civil disobedience is not entirely accurate, because it does not justify, for example, allowing people to run into neighbourhoods in high-speed cars simply because they are willing and able to pay speeding fines. Nor would it justify murder if the perpetrator is willing to go to jail or be executed. The justification for public civil disobedience is threefold: (1) the law that is violated is so blatant or has such egregious consequences that it should not be followed even for a short time, (2) that public civil disobedience is morally far better than obedience to the law, and (3) that public civil disobedience is the least unjust and least socially harmful effective means, convince those who have the power (or the power to persuade those who are empowered) to act to change the law immediately. The laws were clear about what had to be done (legally), but compliance with the laws would likely lead to a bad outcome in this case. In the end, we were divided on how to proceed with the case, but this discussion raised a broader question: To what extent exactly should we weigh the law in moral considerations? @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. Others fundamentally disagree. You say that you have done nothing morally wrong by crossing the street, since you have no general moral obligation to obey the law – this law or any other law. Where should this moral obligation come from? Have you ever promised to follow all the laws? Do you owe the government obedience to the law? Fourth, not all morality should be enshrined in law, for it would be far worse to impose a certain morality than not to enforce it. For example, even though it might be wrong for someone to stay in bed for another half hour instead of having a good breakfast or arriving at work on time, or even if it is wrong for a child or husband to leave dirty clothes on the bed or floor, or even if it is bad, interrupting a prom for no good reason, These violations are not a reason to call the police. Freedom and autonomy are important values, and sometimes they must let someone make a mistake or do the wrong thing – as long as the harm that is done is not so serious or so costly that civil society has a legitimate interest in preventing it. There are sometimes disagreements about where the line should be drawn, but there are clearly measures where autonomy is more important than the obligation to do what is legally just, and there are clearly measures where the prevention of harm takes precedence over autonomy and freedom. While society has a legitimate right to uphold morality to prevent great harm (or cost), it does not need and should not cause everyone to always do the right thing.
In cases where autonomy takes precedence over the prevention of wrongdoing, the law should not compel people to do what they should. While it is wrong for people not to do the right thing, it is worse or « bad » for the law to interfere in situations where autonomy and privacy are more important than the application of good behaviour, or in cases where police or other government agencies make things worse by trying to impose the right behaviour. There are many documents and documents that describe, suggest, and argue practical and procedural ways to elaborate ethical differences (such as disputes over laws) in an ethical manner, and I will not discuss them here. But I would like to point out that democracy and law tend to use an interesting general type of procedure, which I will describe briefly, which attempts to objectify or formalize morality or legislation by appearing empirically or by being systematically, formally or empirically determined.