When theologians imagine that without a moral system derived from theology, people would have no reference point to anchor their ethics, they forget the following factors that most people have in common: So this view brings us back to first place: even though we have a moral obligation to obey the law, What moral obligation do we have and when will they be separated from our other moral obligations? compensate? What is the relationship between morality and law? Well, if enough people think something is immoral, they will work to have a law that forbids it and punishes those who do it. 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. The first legal code, the Codex of your-Nammu, was developed in Mesopotamia around 2000 BC. The Code lists prohibited acts and the penalties associated with them. The law had the support of the powers that be and was enforced throughout the empire. The Ur-Nammu codex was remarkably modern with a mixture of physical and monetary punishments. Current laws are still based on the structure of the your-Nammu Code. Therefore, laws dictate to their citizens what must be followed, what must not be followed (what is right and just), as well as penalties or penalties for violating these laws. Most importantly, the law plays a central role in the political, social and economic life of the country. 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? But suppose that theists cease such practical and humanistic appeals and return to basing all moral preaching on the will of God. A disturbing irony remained: there are many different gods. (2) The mere fact that religions around the world are able to promote similar moral behavior refutes the idea that only one particular God is the only „true” giver of morality. If only one of the many gods believed in is real, millions of people, though behaving morally, must do so under the influence, inspiration, or command of the FALSE GOD. Therefore, belief in the „good” God should not be very critical in terms of moral behavior. You can even stand by Cicero and profess hypocrisy and get the same result. And when you add that non-theists around the world have shown that they are just as capable of private moral behavior as theists (Buddhists offer perhaps the best example on a large scale), then belief in God turns out to be a minor issue in this whole affair. There is something about human nature that operates on a deeper level than mere theological faith, and that is what serves as a true appeal to moral behavior. As with laws, the same is true of morality: man seems quite capable of making reasonable and sensitive decisions on his own that influence behavior.

This is only one of many mysteries about the relationship between the domains of legality and morality, but it indicates a significant source of conflict and confusion. I can say that I do not agree with the person who participated in the discussion on the clinical case and who said that laws are the end of the story. That`s not all. 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. Things that are immoral (to many) but not illegal. The fundamental distinction between legal and moral is easy to identify. Most people agree that what is legal is not necessarily moral and that what is immoral should not necessarily be illegal. In our culture, people are so used to the idea that every law has a legislator, every rule has an executor, every institution has someone in authority, and so on, that the idea that something is different sounds like chaos. If one lives one`s life without reference to an ultimate authority on morality, one`s values and aspirations are considered arbitrary. Furthermore, it is often argued that if everyone tried to live this way, no agreement on morality would be possible and there would be no way to settle disputes between people, because no defense from a particular moral point of view would be possible if there were no absolute point of reference. Sanctions and penalties are also a big difference between law and morality.

There are direct punishments for those who break the law, while there are no such direct penalties for those who commit immoral acts. The regulation of the legal/moral question should therefore not influence the outcome of individual cases. Murphy wanted to show that, despite this lack of direct practical significance, clarification of the legal/moral question could still be of practical interest.