Law And Morals Essay

Positivist Theories Of Law And Morality
Positivist theories of law can be described as "those who understand the law to be a particular sort
of social ordering, a certain kind of social technology by which individuals who live together can
coordinate their behaviour and resolve disputes." Positivist theories also state that there is no
necessary connection between law and morality and rejects the idea of a higher law. Classical legal
positivism was first founded by Jeremy Bentham (1748–1832). Bentham's aim was to provide an
alternative to what he saw as 'errors of the conventional jurisprudence' of his time. His ideas were
later developed by John Austin, who promoted the 'Command Theory' of law. HLA Hart was very
much in favour of legal positivism; however, he didn't agree with some of the concepts outlined by
Austin. He analysed the classical theories of positivism, particularly those of Austin and Bentham
and attempted to update this view of law. His argument for legal positivism challenged many of the
concepts laid out by the classical theorists. This essay will, therefore, examine Hart's argument, in
favour of legal positivism, look at his analysis of other positivists theories as well as criticisms of
his own theory, notably that of Dworkin, and come to a conclusion on whether he provides a
persuasive argument in favour of positivism.
John Austin's theory on positivism was one of the main theories in which Hart critiqued in his legal
positivism argument. Austin promoted the 'Command Theory' of law, within
Get more content on HelpWriting.net

A substantial debate over the law's relationship with morality exists within the legal system. This
debate gained new perspective when Oliver Wendell Holmes published The Path of Law in 1897,
which outlined his view on the relationship between the law and morality. This paper will first
consider whether or not Holmes believed that a writing must be moral in order to constitute a law.
Next, we will explore my general agreement with Holmes' view on this matter. Then, the paper will
consider an objection to my agreement with Holmes, and then reply to that objection. Finally, we
will end by analyzing the discussion of the relationship between morality and law. In this paper, I
will argue that Holmes does not believe that a writing must be...show more content...
With a solid understanding of the nature of law according to Holmes, one may now determine
whether or not Holmes viewed morality as a necessary condition for a writing to be considered a law.
Based on the nature of the law outlined by Holmes, one can conclude that Holmes did not believe
that a writing must be moral in order to constitute a law. As we have seen, the law is nothing more
than a mechanism of prediction (Holmes, 184). According to this definition, a writing does not
have to be grounded in morality in order to be considered a law, but rather just has to play a role
in this prediction mechanism. In order to be considered a law, a writing must be a prediction of
how state force will be used in the future or a past legal decision which could help make more
predictions about how state force will be used. This leaves morality out of the necessary
conditions of a writing to be considered a law. Holmes goes as far as to say that moral language
confuses the distinction between morality and law (183). Furthermore, he says that he "often
doubt[s] [whether] it would not be a gain if every word of moral significance could be banished
from the law altogether" (Holmes, 185). This is in spite of Holmes noting that the law "tends to
make good citizens and [morally] good men" (183). Also contrary to the hard line Holmes draws
between morality and law, Holmes states that the law shows us the history and progression of
morality in humans (183). These two facts show that

Kant And The Moral Law
Introduction:
Kant argues that mere conformity with the moral law is not sufficient for moral goodness. I will
argue that Kant is right. In this essay I will explain why Kant distinguishes between conforming with
the moral law and acting for the sake of the moral law, and what that distinction means to Kant,
before arguing why Kant was right.
2) Meaning of Kant's Statement & Why:
According to Kant, we can control the will and meaning behind our actions. The morality of an action
should be assessed by what the motivation of the action is. The moral worth of an action consists not
in the consequences that flow from it, but in the intention from which the act is done. This is due to
the fact that , for Kant, what the motive behind your...show more content...
We should not enforce this because it is illegal to do otherwise, we should enforce this because we
genuinely care about that child 's well–being and because we are motivated by the moral law to do
what is right.
Kant would disagree with those who do the right thing for the wrong reason. We, as a society and
individuals in that society, should act in ways not because it's easy for us or more favourable, but
because its right and moral.
4) The Categorical Imperative:
We see that Kant establishes that a moral action effectively consists of a moral intention motivating
that action. Therefore, doing the right thing because it is right. Kant describes motives that are
selfish, and for the wrong reasons as 'motives of inclination.' In the seatbelt example, we see a
motive of inclination behind the action of putting a seatbelt on to avoid a fine.
Kant develops a principle that we must follow in order to act morally. He explains that we have a
duty to act morally. Duties as described by Kant "are rules of some sort combined with some sort
of felt constraint or incentive on our choices, whether from external coercion by others or from our
own powers of reason." He calls this overall principle the categorical imperative and it is the
fundamental principle of our moral duties. All of our moral actions should follow and should be
justified by the categorical imperative, and this means that all

Distinction Between Law And Morality
This essay will provide a critical discussion of Fullers distinction between law's internal and
external moralities. In taking a positivist stance, it will be argued that Fullers distinction is highly
objectionable, especially in light of Harts argument that the internal morality is more akin to
principals of efficiency and that therefore there exists no necessary connection between these
purported moralities to each other, or the law itself. This essay will begin by briefly defining Fullers
moralities, stating its novelty and considering the context in which it was made. What will follow is
a critical appraisal of his thesis, the arguments against it, and Fullers responses to these. This essay
will demonstrate that Fullers defence does not substantially allay the criticisms fronted against it.
Thus, it will be concluded that his thesis cannot hold good in light of the criticisms which have
followed it.
In an attempt to demonstrate a connection between law and morality, Fuller has claimed that there
exists both an 'internal' and 'external' morality of law. While in practise the distinction is not so
clearly defined, the internal morality refers to the morality implicit in the creation and application of
law, whereas the external morality concerns itself with the moral goodness of the substantive aims
of law. This twofold analysis creates the novel claim that law is subject to morality not only existent
in the substance of law as is traditionally argued by natural law

Law And Morality Essay
Law and Morality
It is not an everyday occurrence that someone must decide the fate of another's life. The dilemma
of making a decision that someone must die in order for the others to survive, can obviously be
troubling. The process in which the termination of one's life may be easy to make, but to justify that
decision is the most difficult one. This paper is given a situation in which a decision of taking one's
life is essential. The situation is that a nuclear war has occurred, which has destroyed most of the
centres of civilization. There are five people that are that have escaped death by finding their way to
a nuclear bunker. These five people consist of a pregnant woman; an old man, who is a retired judge;
two teenagers – a...show more content...
Law and morality play a large role here, mainly because there is a legal issue and a moral issue
associated with the predicament. The reason law has a part in the situation is that after the
decision is made, it will be examined legally and must be accountable for its consequences.
Morality has its place too, because many will find it morally wrong to take one's life despite any
justification. ....there is some connection between law and morality, but the two are clearly not
identical. First, morality is only concerned with right or wrong, with the good and evil; law is
concerned with lots of things on which there is no right and wrong – procedures for land
registration, incorporation and so on.
Second, morality is to some extent uncertain and a matter for each individual, law tries to be
objective, written down in black and white and there for all to see. Third, morality often leaves
things vague and subject to general principle, law goes into specifics.1
From that description of law and morality, it is obvious how they relate to the issue here. When the
time comes for one of the five people in the bunker eventually to die, it must be legally justified. The
reason for this is that murder is illegal, unless legally justified.2 On the other hand, reasons

Morals, Values, and Ethics Essays
Morals, Values, and Ethics Morals, values and ethics define who we are and what we believe.
Culture, religion, and many other things affect our beliefs. One uses various types off ethics when
surrounded by different groups. Knowing between right and wrong is a good foundation to
practicing good ethics and morals. These things make morals, ethics, and values important in society.
Many things can contribute to what you think is morally right or wrong. Religion, for example,
may create a barrier on to what extent you do something. Some religions set rules, or guidelines on
which they limit what people do. Cultures, as well, contribute to people's decisions. Many times our
values and ethics disagree with different people who hold different...show more content...
This doesn't mean our values or ethics are wrong it just means we think differently than others.
When surrounded by different groups, one uses various types of ethics. For example when one is
surrounded by friends and brothers or sisters one forgets what on was taught by our elders about
manners and about being courteous, but when dealing with elders or a superior, certain
carefulness is necessary. One cannot just say anything that pops out into one's head, because one
can be judged accordingly and would be thought to be vulgar or disrespectful. We develop many
values and ethics through past experiences whether it is a positive or negative experience. These
thoughts and beliefs are what guide us through our life. Knowing between right and wrong is a
good foundation to practicing good ethics and morals. In today's world, individuals can make a
single decision that can have an extreme positive or negative effect on their family, their
employer, a nation, and even on the entire world. The life we lead reflects the strength of our
character. For example, if we choose to steal, instead of earning it that makes one of weak
character or morals. Like in The Pardoner's Tale from Chaucer, " greed is the root of all evil."
Ethics are different for each person, but for the most part, people want to be known as a good
person. One wants to be known as someone who can be trusted, and one is concerned about his or
her relationships

What is Morality? Essay
What is Morality?
Philosophers around the world have debated the meaning of morality for centuries. However, it is
a word too subjective to be either denoted or defined. Aristotle, often referred to as the father of
philosophy, advised that one could determine what is moral by examining the mean between two
"less desirable" extremes. For example, courage is a mean between fear and thoughtless rashness;
generosity, between extravagance and parsimony. Plato argued that "to know the good is to do the
good." In other words, those who behave immorally due so out of mere ignorance, not defiance.
Furthermore, Plato believed that a moral person is a truly happy person; and because people always
desire their own happiness, they always...show more content...
This reward system trains us to believe that what is legal is moral. Although a person may be a
law–abiding citizen, he or she may not necessarily be moral.
The morality of an individual is also based on his or her childhood. Parents have an immense effect
on their children's values. For instance, if parents teach their child at early ages to be a hard–worker,
to be honest and true, and to have integrity, then it is likely that the child will grow up with these
morals instilled within them. However, some children grow to be the antithesis of their parents.
They see that their parents are immoral and so they intentionally grow to think and behave
differently. If so, is the child immoral for defying his or her parents, or is the child moral for
defying his or her immoral parents?
Another factor in determining one's morals is one's religiosity. For instance, some religions, such as
Hinduism, believe in animal sacrifices as a way of worshiping; however, other religions, such as
Catholicism, do not. Thus, to a Catholic, the sacrifice of innocent animals may seem immoral
whereas followers of the Hindu religion view the practice as sacred. Therefore, one cannot conclude
that simply because a person is religious, he or she is also moral. There are thousands of religions
throughout the world; who has the authority to determine whose

Ethics And The Separation Of Law And Morals
Law and morality work together to guide our behavior; while law does it by punishing us if we
do something wrong, morality does it through incentives. In their articles, both H.L.A Hart in
"Positivism and the Separation of Law and Morals," and Lon Fuller's reply to professor Hart in
"Positivism and Fidelity to Law," discuss the concept of law post world war II Germany and their
re–imagining of natural law as put forth by Gustav Radbruch's theory. In this paper, I hope to show
how both law and morality is needed to create just rules, more specifically drawing from the
"grudge informer" case mentioned in Hart's article. First, I will explain the dilemma of the "grudge
informer" case and the contradicting theory laid down by Radbrunch's....show more content...
Her defense was that she acted according to the law of that time and had not committed any
crime. Hart agrees with her defense, saying that we should now applaud ourselves for punishing
her for her 'immoral actions' because she adhered to the laws of her time, and was at that time not
doing anything wrong. Contradicting his view is Radbrunch's, who argued that extreme injustice
is no law, meaning that a particular social standard can lose its legal validity when it is extremely
unjust. Hart, a legal positivist, believes that "law is law," and argued against Radbrunch's theory in
servings as a solution to fix Germany's judicial system. He argued against his theory and wanted a
separation of law and morality because he thought that it would only "cloak the true nature of the
problems," and encourage a "romantic optimism," rather than addressing the dilemma that the
courts had in deciding on convicting Nazi criminals. Though Hart acknowledges that this case
poses a difficult situation for the law, he does propose his own solution to the problem. With his
positivist approach to the law, saying that the laws are the rules expected of us, and enforced at a
particular time, he proposes that the "grudge informer" should be punished through a different and
'new' set of laws. These laws he deems "retrospective laws," would entail punishing acts such as
revenge and duplicity. However, this dilemma between choosing if the "grudge informer" was
innocent

Separation Thesis : Law And Morals
"Even if law and morals are closely bound in most systems there are always possibilities they
maybe separated." The remarkable positivist Hart, believes law does not need morality to be law in
his so called 'separation thesis.' Maintaining law as it is not how it ought to be, positivists are not
refusing a relationship. Hart is contradicted by the positivist Raz who accepts necessary links. Such
hot debates never end as he is battled with numerous naturalists including Fuller and Finnis who
believe both obligations are inextricable. Whilst analysing differences in views of Hart and Raz and
prominent natural theorists Fuller and Finnis, I will favour the latter maintaining the separation
thesis a 'myth' considering numerous examples involving the union of both obligations.
Hart: Separation thesis
Distinguishing law from morality is controversial. Hart believes "no necessary connection between
law and morals or what law is and it ought to be." Thus is not concerned about whether law is just
or should be obeyed, which in turn leads to his claim that the existence of law does not depend on
morality. His matter lies in "rules being established by recognised sources such as statues." But Hart
does not connote moral obligations cease to have slight influences on law just because they aren't in
statues as his thesis averred "it is in no sense necessary truth that law reproduces/satisfy demands of
morality though often have done so." Therefore contending morality can mirror

Essay on Relationship Between Law and Morality
In this essay I intend to discuss the relationship between law and morality through the perspectives
of legal philosophers, I will provide a brief explanation of law, and what does law intend to achieve
in the society. When discussing the relationship between law and morality I will consider the
distinction between the theory of natural law and legal positivism and how these two theories
influence each other and whether there is a legal or moral duty for the society to obey the law.
Legal philosophers have tried to provide a brief explanation for the meaning of law; however their
definitions have been vague and ambiguous. John Austin explained law as 'something which is
man–made and separate from morality and justice, furthermore provided...show more content...
Law also provide facilities for people to make their own arrangements, law protect and facilitate
different arrangements between people, and law settles disputes about what law is and whether a
certain conduct conflicts with legal rules. It aims to create laws that are predictable, that are able to
be easily analysed and understandable by the general society.
Morality is what the society regard as right and wrong which is highly subjective, some legal
philosophers believe that there is a certain moral standard which human laws must contain. Chapter 2
in The Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996 which is the Bill of Rights contains moral
values which the country is based. Section 1 of the Constitution provides that South Africa is an
independent sovereign, democratic state which was based on following values:
пѓ 'Human dignity, achievement of equality and advancement of human rights and freedom,
пѓ Non racialism and non sexism.'
South African Constitution is entrenched with moral standards in the Bill of Rights, these is also
noted in the case of S v Makwanyane where the court declared death penalty unconstitutional based
on that it conflict on the right to life , human dignity and right not to inflict bodily harm. Natural law
dictates and limits the scope in which positive lawyers can enact and enforce the law, as we note in

Morals Vs. Ethics : Morals And Ethics Essay
Morals vs. Ethics
Morals and ethics are often thought of as interchangeable terms, and both can be applied in various
situations. Morals are ultimately the "groundwork" for ethics. However, the two nouns have a
distinct meaning.
Morals are internal principles that a person focuses upon when deciding between right or wrong
conduct. A person's true character can be revealed by understanding that said person's morals.Ethics
are a set of rules or rules of conduct that a person follows due to social or company standards. For
example, stealing money from your workplace would be considered unethical, and disrespecting
your coworkers would be immoral. In addition, both morals and ethics could be applied in both
situations.
Another way to explain the difference between the two nouns is to discuss the alleged origins of
both morals and ethics. Morality first came about in the Latin language. It is derived from the word
"mos", meaning custom. On the other hand, ethics is derived from the Greek word "ethos", meaning
character. As I said before, both morals and ethics have similar terminology, but each have a separate
description.
Morals and Ethics in Business When dealing with contracts, each party has a duty to fulfill one's
contractual obligations effectively and on time. Each party must exchange must exchange something
of value, whether it's money, services, or a product. While morals and ethics aren't exactly terms that
come to mind when thinking of value, they both have a

The Connection Between Law And Morality
II. WHAT IS MORALITY? "Law would not be really imperative, we know, unless behind the sword
of the magistrate, the bulk of mankind felt the weight of social obligation, the irresistible burden of
custom, of immemorial tradition, and the like, a social, and even a religious sanctity." The
connection of law and morality has been much discussed ever since the revival of the scientific
study of jurisprudence, but the question is not yet, and perhaps never will be, settled. Every variety
of opinion has been entertained, from the extreme doctrine held that law is absolutely independent
of morality, almost to the opposite position that morality and law are one. The popular conception
of the connection between law and morality is that in some way the law exists to promote morality,
to preserve those conditions which make the moral life possible, and thus to enable men to lead
sober and industrious lives. Morality is a value–impregnated concept relating to certain normative
patterns which aim at the augmentation of good and reduction of evil on individual and social life.
The sphere of morality denotes rules or principles governing human behaviour which apply
universally within a community or class. Morality is made up of actual standards which are adopted
in the life of any particular community. Positive morality, like law therefore, emphasizes conduct
rather than states of mind; it is similar to law in that it is imposed on individual for it has behind it
the effective

Ethics, Morals, And Laws Essay
Ethics are defined as "moral principles, as of an individual." Giving dropped money back to a blind
man is an example of good ethics. I believe in having a strong sense of ethics. Morality or morals
can be defined as "of, relating to, or concerned with the principles or rules of right conduct or the
distinction between right and wrong." I believe having a good moral sense is crucial to
participate in the world. Without one, you can make a lot of people angry, you could get fired
from a job, or you could even get thrown in jail. Legality or the laws which govern us are rules we
are forced to live by. They keep us in line and stop us from doing unjust things. I believe in the
Judeo–Christian laws of our country. People who don't abide by the strong morals of our country, or
who are unethical, have the capacity to damage our society.
The difference between Ethics, Morals, and Laws is slim. Morals make up ethics. Legality takes
ethical practices and tells you things you can't do based on what society thinks of as right and wrong.
Computer hacking can be both ethical and unethical. Ethical hacking is when something is hacked
legally and helps better the community. For example, operating systems are usually hacked by their
creators to see what the vulnerabilities are. Then they are fixed or patched.
The most serious issue in the computer world (and in the presidential race) is unethical hacking.
Unethical hacking is when someone steals data for their own gain, or when someone

Morality and the Law
Morality and the Law The United States likes to think of itself as a highly evolved nation and that
its judicial process is one of the fairest and least corrupt in the world. That might in fact be true but
it by no means makes the American judicial system perfect by any stretch of the imagination. Part
of the flawed aspects of the court systems and legislative systems in America has to do with the fact
that so much is open to interpretation. Atkins v. Virginia is a case which is classically controversial.
Some view it as a shining example where the highest court in the land was able to rule with a sense
of humanity and rightness which reflected the greater morality at stake. Others viewed it as a failure
on all count and a complete absence of justice. This paper will examine the two sides of this coin,
demonstrating how this case makes a huge influence on the eternal debate of the connection between
morality and the law. Atkins v. Virginia, which ruled it would be a violation of the constitution to
execute a mentally retarded criminal convicted of first degree murder, does indeed have a
tremendous amount of bearing on the central debate between natural law theorists and legal
positivists. The central contention between natural law theorists and legal positivists is as follows:
natural law theorists believe in the inherent bond between the law and morality; legal positivists do
not. This case demonstrates the inherent morality present within the constitution and

The Relationship Between Law And Morality
The relationship between law and morality is that law is specific and straight forward, whereas
morality concentrates on what is wrong and right which makes it vague. Lord Patrick Devlin and
John Stuart Mill have different opinions on law and morality. Devlin believes that we may not need
common religion but need common morality and also that society should be prevented from harm. It
should matter what society thinks about the good and right. Devlin is incorrect. As Mill would
agree, the ultimate freedom is what matters. Individuals should get to express themselves however
they want, as long as it does not cause harm to others.
John Stuart Mill's theory is more rational to me because first, it explains whether or not humans
are infallible, Second, it is applicable to leading a happy and free life and finally, regardless of how
free it seems, it still include morals in it in a sense that no harm should be done to anyone expect
for one's self.
To begin with, Lord Patrick Devlin believes that we may not need common religion but need
common moralism because he thinks society should be protected from harm. Society cannot be
protected from harm. There is the law to protect us from harm but not everyone agrees with what the
law says.
The Labaye's case can be used as an example of why Devlin's theory is incorrect. The Labaye's case
is about Jean–Paul Labaye who is being accused for the practice of indecency. Devlin would agree
with the judge who prosecuted the accused because he did

Morality As Good Or Bad? Essay
MORALITY
(MORALITY)
"He makes the point that we judge particular acts as good or bad and that we say things like, "He
ought to have done this or he ought to have done that." How can these be unless there was a supreme
morality that we could compare our actions and thoughts against?"
– C.W. Lewis, Author of "Mere Christianity"–
The definition of morality is, best described as, "beliefs about what is right behavior and what is
wrong behavior. The degree to which something is right and good. The moral goodness or badness
of something", according to Merriam–Webster Dictionary. An article from, Pursing the Truth
Ministries, (http://www.pursuingthetruth.org/sermons/files/conscienceAndMorality.htm), it says,
"Morality can be broken down into three different areas, Individual morality, Systems of principles
and judgments (moral values) shared within a cultural, religious, secular, humanist or philosophical
community and Codes of behavior or conduct derived from the moral code."
Our moral values are derive by the culture that we live in. For example, our surrounding environment
that we choose to surround ourselves with like our religion, our peers, and our towns we live in. We
achieve our moral values through our personal experiences, which can be seen through peer
pressure, conscience, our beliefs and by the law that we set for ourselves.
The Bible talks about morality and as Christians how we are to live by the principles set forth. In
(Mark 7:20–23) NIV, "What comes out

Ethics And Morals In Law Enforcement
Why are ethics and character so important in the field of law enforcement? Morals are vital in each
office on the grounds that there must be decency and great cooperation amongst us. I must have the
capacity to depend on my accomplice in the line of obligation, he must have the capacity to trust
and rely on me too. I consider morals to set up a tone of control. On the off chance that a division is
not controllable there would be finished bedlam. Law authorization is seen as a compassionate of
greater astounding political agitation. Residents admire utilize and depend for us to manage them
safe. In the event that individually don't maintain rules, in what capacity can ensure our kin? Strong
character and cross sections with

Morality, Law, and Politics Essay
I can imagine a perfect world. A world where morality is of upmost importance in our dealings
with each other, where morals are critically examined, and debated with reason as well as passion.
This world would be a pinnacle of human achievement. A pinnacle that we are nowhere near. Why is
this? Well, in today's society,morals are often associated with obeying the law, and since laws are
legislated by politicians, they are subject to politics. Laws are not right in and of themselves, and
morals are not a matter of a majority's opinion. Some matters that are in the domain of charity are
done through politics, often citing morality as a reason. Where exactly does charity fit in with
morals? With politics? In this paper I will explore the...show more content...
These should be the only rules that may overrule a person's actions, for the more restricted a
person's action becomes, the less likely it is that they'll submit to those restrictions. The reason
morals may overrule a person's actions because these rules are justified. Without justification, there
is no reason at all for people to obey the rules, for in their eyes, the rules would be arbitrary, and thus
would lack any sort of authority over people.
Many people ask why morals should be able to prevail over people's desires. This is a valid
question, one that must be answered if morals are to be defended. Morals must not only be
reasonable for people to follow, but they must also have good reasons for people to follow them,
otherwise people would not bother adhering to them. These reasons should motivate people to
follow these rules. They must appeal to their perceived interests, but if these rules are to apply to
all people, they cannot serve the interests of just a few people. Moral rules are not for imposing
your own values and tastes on other people! As Narveson puts it, "[w]hat matters for morals is that
its rules are individually reasonable for people to accept and to follow, so long as others do too"
(MM, 16).
Every nation today has laws, instituted by the ruling class (throughout this essay, when I mention
laws I am referring to legal laws, not moral laws). The

Law & Morality Essay
Consider the view that there is a close relationship between law and morality. Examine the debate
as to whether the law should reflect moral values, and discuss issues, which show the continuing
importance of that debate. (30marks + 5 for AO3) A definition of law adapted from LB Curzon,
Dictionary of Law states " the law is a set of rules which are binding among the people of a
community or a state, so that they will be imposed upon and enforced among those persons by
appropriate sanctions". The definition of morals given by Elliott and Quinn, Law for AQA state
that "morals are beliefs and values which are shared by society, or a section of society; they tell
those who share them what is right or wrong". There are many similarities...show more content...
Prostitution is the act or practice of providing sexual services to another person in return for
payment. In the United Kingdom, prostitution itself is not a crime, but soliciting in a public
place, kerb crawling, owning or managing a brothel, pimping and pandering, are crimes. In
England and Wales and in Northern Ireland it is an offence to pay for sex with a prostitute who
has been "subjected to force" and this is a strict liability offence and clients can be prosecuted even
if they didn't know the prostitute was forced. It is illegal to buy sex from a person younger than 18,
although the age of consent for non–commercial sex is 16. Section 53A of the Sexual Offences Act
2003 creates the offence of "paying for sexual services of a prostitute subjected to force etc.",
which is a strict liability offence. This section was inserted on 1 April 2010 by section 14 of the
Policing and Crime Act 2009. It is an offence for a person persistently to loiter or solicit in a street
or public place for the purpose of prostitution. This offence is created by section 1(1) of the Street
Offences Act 1959 as amended by section 16 of the Policing and Crime Act 2009. It prohibits
street prostitution. The term "prostitute" is defined for the purposes of sections 48 to 50 and 52 and
53 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003, and for the purposes of section

Moral Law
In book one C.S. Lewis talks about the Law of Human Nature, Moral Law, and the Rule of Decent
Behavior. He says that as humans we expect everyone to behave a certain way, to a set standard.
Yet when called out on our behavior we come up with a hundred excuses as to why we acted a
certain way. We expect everyone around us to have decent behavior but we don't hold ourselves
to that same level. One of the things that struck me was when he said, " If we do not believe in
decent behavior, why should we be so quick to make excuses for not having behaved decently." As
a society we expect every man and women to live up to this standard of behavior. With Moral Law
he talks about the herd instinct, which by definition means a situation in which people act like
everyone...show more content...
We are given the very words of God through the Bible, the words of eternal life. Nichols is trying
to show us the big picture and to help us make sense of what we are reading. The Bible goes from
creation, fall, and redemption into the restoration. He basically says the Bible tells us our story and
the transformation of us. Pages 165–169 talks about how to read the Bible. Nichols describes it like
being a journalist and having five friends. Those friends are Where, When, Who, What, and Why.
These five friends are said to help us learn to understand the scriptures in the Bible. Where is the
physical setting, the location, When is, when did it take place, Who is getting to know the
people involved, What is the point, are we getting the idea of the passage, and Why is why does
this have to do with us in the present. How did this impact me? I found both of these readings to
be very helpful, and good reference for a first time Bible reader. (Stephen J. Nichols Welcome to the
story of living, loving, & living God's

Law And Morals Essay

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

More from Paper Writing Service Cheap

More from Paper Writing Service Cheap (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Law And Morals Essay