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 Ultimately, when laws are unjust or outdated, people must stand up and fight for what is right. Another difference is that legal norms are written by government leaders, while ethical standards are written according to societal norms. For example, in the United States, standing in line is the social norm. A person would be breaking an ethical norm by cutting the line.

However, this is not the case in another country. The social norm in this country might be that whoever can reach the door first can walk through the door first. In such a society, it is perfectly ethical to stand in line to reach the door first. There does not seem to be any difference between law and morality. Greek writers, he quotes, suggest that the good man is the one who will do what is permitted. It is the legislators of these early societies who determine what is right and what is wrong. What should be legal is roughly what is really right or just, that is, what we would call morally just. We find, for example, the distinction between what is legally or conventionally just and what is naturally or morally right. Sometimes this is expressed as a contrast between what the gods command (i.e. what is morally right) and what the political authorities command (i.e. what is legally just).

The knowledge of what is just or moral, and the ability to distinguish true justice or morality from what is only ostensibly just, depend on the full development and use of human reason. Forward from the relationship of morality to the law that binds judges, to the relationship of morality to the content of what should be the law in a liberal and democratic state. It thus moves from the judicial role to the legislative role. Legislators, no less than judges, need a theory of their role, a theory of what is right and what is not, that can be sought through legislation. A legislature should simply accurately reflect the views of its constituents, regardless of those views in relation to the new law that is to be created. But where do we find a theory of the right legislative objectives? The obvious answer for Moore is “morality.” If a judge has no obvious right at his disposal, morality is mentioned. Mill believed that one of the forbidden goals for legislators in a liberal democracy was to enshrine morality in law. Only legislation to prevent behaviour harmful to others is adequate; Laws promoting morality are condemned, as are paternalistic laws.

Example: The state should not force or promote a moral idea of the good life; or the State should abandon laws on moral issues where there is no overlap of consensus; or the state should provide only the equitable framework in which different moral visions can compete; etc. The critique of Mill and these post-millimanian liberalisms is very simple. If something is morally good, it gives each of us a reason to promote its realization. This applies to the legislator as well as to any other person. If laws can be passed to promote justice, there are good reasons to do so. Their degree of liberality depends on the structure of morality that they would translate into laws. If this morality contains such things as a general right to liberty, then a moralistic legislator should also respect this part of morality. Mill`s principle of damages is not a limitation of the actual legislative objective, but a theory of when the conduct is morally wrong. Most violations committed by others without their consent are morally reprehensible, and most grave immoral injustices involve causing such harm.

According to Moore, Austin was right when he thought we should legislate morality. The law we should have should be as morally correct as possible. But Moore can be criticized here if he supports morality legislation, which is virtually impossible. It is a common theme in law and ethics that they are meant to discourage people from behaving in a certain way. To ensure the functioning of society as a whole, the law is designed to defend the rights of all citizens. The purpose of ethics is to guide people in making moral decisions about their behavior. Pornography, prostitution, homosexuality, etc. are areas of one`s own consciousness and therefore a field of conflict that is still ongoing. So does the right have the right to intervene among people with religious and moral feelings? For example, there is a moral notion in our Indian society that love marriages or caste marriages are not feasible enough and therefore should not take place.

Consider the claim that homosexuality is immoral. I disagree. What is it now in a struggle between a majority of state legislators and me and those who agree with me, what favors the legislature`s judgment over morality. How are they experts? How does the election to the Legislative Assembly qualify them to make these judgments? Do they hold hearings on the morality of homosexuality and justify their conclusions? Or just press a button and record your voice. The most important thing is how we can assess the merits of their claim. If we can`t do that, then in reality they can ban whatever they want (and for whatever reason). Whatever the objectivity of morality, such a doctrine of constitutional law is a recipe for tyranny. Take the issue of living relationships, which is accompanied by a moral prohibition. I do not understand that when two important people, in the exercise of their free consent, decide to live together when the question of the violation of rational norms arises.

This shows that moral standards are never rational.13 Now, I wonder if a law should be made to uphold such moral standards. Is such a law not contrary to the constitutional principles of liberty and liberty? Legal positivists like Bentham, Austin, Kelson have always said that the law should never be used as a tool to enforce moral norms. Thus, since one cannot see the mind and conscience, the elements of morality become weak and indeterminable. But the law is convenient, the author of this article again claims that it is only practical; It has stood the test of time. At any time, for any situation, the law becomes a technique to establish a certain expected social behavior. Morality can serve enlightenment and would facilitate individual reading. Therefore, it is thought and envisioned by the present author, since constraints and aspirations affect life, a legal system should consist of principles of convenience and feasibility, while morality should be left to individual freedom and practice. The legal application of these mores, which have a negative impact on the growth of our society, must never be decided. Recently, a pastor told his congregation that Christians can no longer try to impose their moral values on a society that does not accept Christianity. At least the second part of the statement is completely false. While membership and church attendance have fallen sharply, the Roy Morgan study of the values of the Australian people shows that 80% believe in God.

Should Christians try to impose their moral values on the law and society? Some argue violently and aggressively that Christian values must be removed from law, society and politics. Gareth Evans (now Senator Evans) is reported in the Sydney Morning Herald on 7 May 1976 when he told a South Australian Civil Liberties Council convention that children wanted a right to sexual freedom and education and “protection from the influence of Christianity”. The same article referred to Mr. Richard Neville (made famous by Oz) stating that “promiscuity is a useful means of breaking the family structure that has led children to become the property of their parents. Law cannot be an instrument for expressing moral norms; On the contrary, law must be independent of all the moral dogmas sought, with the exception of certain areas where law is dominated by morality. For example, areas of law such as commercial law, cyber law, tax law, corporate law, commercial law, etc. are exclusively a legal treatise and morality has nothing to do with law in these areas. Let us take the historical example of SITA, whose fundamental and moral instinct has today transformed it into PITA. But on the other hand, we can never deny that an essential content of law derives its content from that of morality. Thus, criminal law is the product of moral ideas.

For example, all religious and moral norms say not to kill or not to steel, and it is the same here in the law. So we have almost the same content between law and morality. Positive thinkers thought in a narrow interpretation of the law because they neglected religious and moral values. The current conclusive situation is that religion, morality or law all have the task of controlling the behavior of individuals in our society, so we must not exclude the importance of morality in our society.