This essay will be discussing the distinction between the duty to obey the law and morals taking into consideration the trial of socrates within which this essay will be using as a vehicle to analyse the jurisprudential question as to why in a very modern constitutional democracy the citizen has a duty to obey the law.
Socrates-Law vs Morality
The trial of Socrates suggests that there are three possible bases for an ethical obligation to obey the law. First and foremost a citizen might have agreed to the law, that is, we might find that an express or implied agreement to conform exists. Secondly, short of an implied agreement, his own actions might stop him to decline, if the term were used in a legal sense the argument would in fact be redundant. Thirdly, absent any assent or action by the citizen himself, he might simply are the recipient of advantages presented by alternative citizens and so arguably ought to have associate obligation to conform the laws enacted by those citizens. Logically, these three prospects appear to exhaust the vary of sources of obligation.
Laws are the body of rules that are recognized as binding among folks of a community or state in order that they will be obligatory upon them and enforced on them by applicable sanctions are referred to as laws. Morals are beliefs and values which are shared by a society or a region of a society. These tell those who share them what's right or wrong. problems in identifying the ethical values of a society is that Some folks sometimes regard things as morally right or wrong that at over again or in another place are thought to be matters of taste or indeed to be matters of no importance at all.
Moral attitudes tend to alter overtime as an example homosexuality and woman's liberation. in a fashionable developed society it is tough to pinpoint a set of moral values shared by all. Some tribal groups are likely to share a moral code however in a society like our own wherever individuals defer widely in social status, income, occupation and ethnicity, the members are unlikely to share identical moral values although they largely agree on some basic points.
Legal Positivism and its effects on Conscientious objection
Positivism simply implies that the law are some things that is "posited": laws are genuinely created in accordance with socially accepted rules. The positivist view on law can be seen to cover two broad principles: firstly, that laws might seek to enforce justice, morality, or the other normative end, however their success or failure in doing so does not determine their validity. Provided a law is properly formed, in accordance with the rules recognized within the society concerned, it is a legitimate law, no matter whether it is simply by some other customary. Secondly, that law is nothing more than a group of rules to provide order and governance of society. No legal positivist, however, argues that it follows that the law is thus to be obeyed.
Central to those...