For a Healthy Society its Laws Should Be Based on Morality: A Critical Study on Law & Morality
Abstract
Law & morality acting has a significant impact in the moulding and guideline of societies. There is likewise a specific measure of cross-over among regulation and ethical quality as frequently regulation gives articulation to the acknowledged principles of profound quality inside the general public, regardless of whether it straightforwardly enact for it. The examination centres around an analysis investigation of epistemological premise of the connection among regulation and profound quality in H.L.A. Hart's normal worldview. It is as indicated by prophetic worldview which depends on philosophical methodology. As per the examination, it is reasoned that Hart's viewpoint depends on the epistemological essential presumptions including the essential and optional standards; Value/Ethics including epistemological morals, for example, independent, individual, procedural, and relative morals while the prophetic worldview depends on the epistemological suspicions in which Relative Morality is the consequence of creation and will of outright reality. In the meantime, Norm of profound quality means the truth ought to be made by the able will through a representative with epistemological morals like the mix between truth of society and apocalyptical qualities. The technique of this article will be to break down the idea of regulation and profound quality; decide the particular region of their relationship; and to decide the impact of this relationship.
References
PAUL TILLICH, MORALITY AND BEYOND 22 (Westminster/John Knox Press, U.S. 1995)
BROAD, FIVE TYPE OF ETHICAL THEORY 276 et (1930); FRANK THEORY IN PHILOSOPHY 347 (1964)
Strawson, Social Morality & Individual ideal, CUP, Vol 36 (1961) 136.
Day v. Slaughter, Prec Ch. 16 (1690); Fursakar v. Robinson, Prec. Ch. 475 (1717); Chaman v. Gibson.
THOMAS ACQUINAS, SUMNA THEOLOGICA (Xist Publication 2015)
M. T. ADLER, A Question About Law, Thomism.
A distinction should be noted in natural law-namely, natural physical law and natural moral law. Natural law is the participation by things in the Eternal Law in which each thing is directed according to its nature. This participation will be commensurate with the nature of the thing: passive or active.
Cf. J. Maritain, The Natural Law, (Commonwealth, May 15, 1942)
THOMAS ACQUINAS, SUMNA THEOLOGICA (Xist Publication 2015)
Id.
SALMAN LUTHAN, IUS QUIA IUSTUM, 19,(2012), Yogyakarta: Faculty of Law Universitas Islam Indonesia, p. 516-517
MORRIS GINBERG, STAMMLER’S PHILOSOPHY OF LAW, 38-51 (1933)
V.D. MAHAJAN, JURISPRUDENCE & LEGAL THEORY, 6th ed (2022)
BENZAMIN N. CARDAZO, THE NATURE OF JUDICIAL (1932)
https://www.politicalsciencenotes.com/
HLA Hart, Positivism and the separation of law and morals, 71, 4, HAR. L.REV. 593- 629 (1958)
Benjamin C Zipursky,Practical Positivism versus Practical Perfectionism: The Hart Fuller Debate at fifty, 83, N. Y.U.L.REV. 1170- 1212 (2008)
Supra note 20.
LON L FULLER, THE MORALITY OF LAW, (Universal Law Publishing Co Pvt Ltd, 2000)
J. Markandey Katju, “The Hart Fuller Debate”, (2001)Web journal Available at http://www.ebcindia.com/lawyer/articles/496_1.htM (Last visited on 11 Aug. 2022)
Frederick Schauer, A critical guide to vehicles in the park, N.Y.U.L.REV. 1109- 1134 (2008)
Tommaso Pavone, “A Critical adjudication of the Fuller- Hart debate', https://scholar.princeton.edu/sites/default/files/tpavone/files/fullerhart_debate_critical_review.pdf (Last visited on 11 Aug. 2022)
Adkins v. Children's Hospital, (1923) 261 U.S. 525-67 L
Lochner v. New York, (1905) 198 U.S. 45-49 L.E
U.S. Ex Rei. T.V.A. v. Welch, 327 U.S. 546, 554; Kohl v. U.S., 91 U.S. 367
Muller v. Oregon (1908)208U.S.412-52L.Ed.551; Dent v.West Virginia (1889)129 U.S.I 14-32 L.Ed.628; Donglas v. Noble (1922) 261U.S. 165-67 L. Ed. 590; Weigle v. Curtice Bros (1919)248 U.S. 285-63 L.Ed. 242; Nebbia v. New York, (1934) 291 U.S. 502-78 L.Ed. 940; Jacobson v. Massachusetts , (1905) 197 U.S. 1 1-49 L .Ed. 643; Block v. Hirsh, (1921)256 U.S.135-65 L.Ed. 865; Mugler v. Kansas, (1887)123 U.S. 623-31 L.Ed.205; Murphy v. California , (1912) 225 U.S. 623
Pomeroy, Introduction to Municipal law 7 (1864)
Dredscott v. sanfrodHow. 393, 624
State Trials 1, 82
Plessy v. Ferguson 163 US 537 (1896)
Regents of the University of California v. Bakke, 438 US 265 (1978)
Benjamin N. Cardazo, The Paradoxes of Levai Science 43
WILLIOM E. HOCKING, WAYS OF THINKING ABOUT RIGHTS IN LAW: A CENTURY OF PROGRESS1259 (1937)
Gray, Nature and Sources of the Law 84, 17
Madhura Naikin v. EsuNaikin (1880) ILR 4 Bom 545
Nallathangal v. NainamAbbalam, AIR 1945 Mad 3
Balusami v. Balakrishna, AIR 1957 Mad. 97.
S. 23 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 declares that the object or the consideration of an agreement is not lawful in cert
K.C.Joshi, The Need for Curbing Obscenity, ALR (1970)
R.D.Garg. (1968).
Ranjit D. Udeshi v. State of MaharashtraAIR 1965 SC 881. S. 292 of IPC makes punishable to sell, distribute obscene literature etc.
Right to freedom of religion guaranteed under Art. 25 is subject to public order, morality and health. The Supreme Court in Acharya Jagadheswarananda Avadhutha v. Commissioner of Police, Culcutta (1984) 4 SCC 522 held that prohibition of "Tandava" dance at public places by Ananda Margis carrying lethal weapons and human skulls in the interest of public order and morality was not violative of Art. 25
Mr. 'X' v. Hospital 'Z' AIR 1995 SC 495
Theoretical explanation of balancing conflicting rights is t Ronald Dworkin, Taking Rights
Rangarajan v. State of Tamil nadu (2003) 6 SCC 581
Sai Ramani Garimella, "Balancing Conflicting Interests - The Judicial Response"in G. Manohar Rao (Constitutional Development Through Judicial Process 2006).
Bharath Kumar and Others1998 (1) SCC 201.
RK Garg v. UOI, AIR 1981 SC 2138
S. Khushboo v. Kanniammal 2010
