Not All Legal Are Moral Meaning

Given that there are disagreements on moral issues, even among reasonable, intelligent and knowledgeable people, given that even the critical analysis of moral issues is sometimes erroneous, given that there is room for a certain subjectivity in ethics, given that even votes and majority reign as any kind of psychologically based alleged determination, what is right, can fail, and since some moral errors may be more costly socially (at least in the short term) to try to If one considers both sides of the argument, law and morality are not synonymous. Morality is based on an individual`s opinions and values, while legality focuses primarily on the legal system and the forces of government. Scenarios like this raise the question of whether we have a general moral obligation to obey laws simply because they are laws. This is an important issue with important implications. If we have a general moral obligation to obey the law, then this applies to any law, even bad laws. In a sense, this is my view on collateral deaths caused by drone strikes. While I don`t think all drone strikes are martial law, for the reasons I`ll discuss in my next article, I`m certainly more legally supportive of the drone program than most of my left/progressive counterparts. In particular, I am extremely sceptical about the oft-heard claim that drone strikes violate the principle of proportionality of IHL. As I have explained elsewhere, the principle of proportionality – not to mention the war crime that flows from it – is so amorphous and pro-commanders that it is essentially useless. Yet I still believe that many, if not most, of the legally proportional collateral deaths caused by drone strikes are deeply immoral.

His arguments are mainly based on hedonism, where happiness and pleasure come from the fulfillment of our human nature and nature is born in excellence. Aristotle developed two types of virtues, intellectual virtue and moral virtue, which are an individual`s generosity and self-control. The morality of a hedonist is somewhat similar to the morality of a relativist, where he believes in human nature and his personal values. It is not necessary to formalize the law procedurally for the law to be (more) objective. Formality is not the only form of objectivity. The law could be more closely aligned with morality while remaining objective. If we really thought morality was only subjective, we wouldn`t argue with those who disagree, just as we wouldn`t discuss the flavor of ice cream or the color that should be preferred by everyone. And if we truly believed that morality is subjective, we wouldn`t worry about difficult personal ethical choices because we would have to believe that the simplest or most attractive option is just as morally valid as any other option. Subjective things are simply matters of opinion, and if everyone can have the opinion they want, and no opinion is better than any other opinion, there would be no reason to argue with others, no reason to agonize over ethical dilemmas, and no reason to even have to consider what is not the easiest and most personally desirable option. That`s basically how I feel about drone attacks.

I believe that the principle of proportionality accepts too much military force. But my fundamental objection to collateral deaths caused by drone strikes is that these deaths are almost always unnecessary because the drone program itself has no compelling strategic justification. In my view, the military benefits of drone strikes pale in comparison to their long-term costs – from radicalizing affected populations to encouraging the United States to rely on military force rather than other methods of counterterrorism. So I believe that the drone program should be significantly reduced, if not eliminated altogether. As a result, I think it is almost always morally indefensible for the United States to continue using drone strikes, even though it knows that it is virtually certain that innocent men, women, and children will die from it. The argument between legal and moral was, and still is, an ongoing discussion that distinguishes the two. Legal is something that has been named, established or authorized by law and has consequences in case of violation. All citizens of society must obey these laws, even if they do not necessarily value them. So this view takes us back to the first beginning: even if we have a moral obligation to obey the law, what degree of moral obligation do we have, and when do we prevail over our other moral obligations? I believe that the law could be based on morality rather than formality, and the only problem with that is not that it would make the law less objective, but that it would seem more subjective or unreasonable, because too many people don`t know how to resolve (moral) problems and disagreements reasonably.

The law only seems to be more objective when it is made through formal procedures and majority decisions, as judges can hide behind legislators when making decisions, and legislators can hide behind majority decisions and formal procedures. Making the law formal only hides its problems and subjectivity; It does not solve or eliminate them. Morality is believed to have existed since the beginning of the human species. However, it is widely accepted that religion has cemented morality as an essential social construct. Thanks to common religions, it became common for people to adhere to norms of behavior that had serious consequences. Thus, religion and morality have been passed down from generation to generation and place, and although they have been different for different people, morality has become a central element of society. Sometimes when something is legal, it`s not always moral, in fact there are many things where it`s true. For example, if someone wants an abortion, they are entitled to it because it is legal. However, this does not mean that it is right or moral. It depends on the values and opinions of the individual, whether they are fair or not. A hedonist would do what he appreciates most, which promotes his self-interest. My college dorm had only one rule on noise, instead of the specific rules that all other dorms had.

For example, we did not set aside specific times such as “quiet hours” when radios or stereos could not be listened to. We just shouldn`t disturb other students in the dorm and prevent them from learning. If you did this accidentally, you should stop when they informed you that you were interrupting their learning. Any questionable disputes would be decided by the RAs or by a court. We had the quietest dorm on campus, even though we played our stereos and radios at any time of the day or night and had no specific restrictions. Everywhere else, people made as much noise as they could, whenever it was allowed, and found all the loopholes they could, just to be disruptive. Our rule was really a moral principle and not an objective legalistic recipe. It`s not the kind of rule a formal, legalistic society would have, but I think it`s a better way to make a system work — or could be equipped with the right moral protections to prevent abuse of power. (Return to text.) However, it is important that the circumstances in question, which are difficult to say in some respects, were not invented intentionally or negligently to require bad laws or bad actions.

For example, President Kennedy once said that if those in power make peaceful revolution impossible, they make violent revolution inevitable. If so, it would be equally wrong for those who want change to reject government proposals that would achieve it peacefully, just to necessitate violence. If someone knowingly and unnecessarily promotes bad circumstances that remedy it, the best of a series of bad options must be, one cannot claim high moral reason by then exercising the wrong option that is best in those circumstances. The conditions or circumstances that required the wrong remedy should not have been created in the first place. (Return to text.) And what causes people to willingly obey laws when they do so is either that they believe that the law is compatible with what is morally right (or if it is a procedural law, they believe that it does not contradict what is right) and is just and useful, or they believe that the law in question is not so bad. Even if it is wrong, that it is justified to break it, either because it would do more harm than not to do it, or because it could undermine the general cultural respect for the law. But many morally good people will disobey laws they think are very bad, either in some form of civil disobedience or to get away with it (such as speeding on a long, flat, open road with no traffic, in the West, especially if the speed limit was 55 miles per hour) because they believe that the law then has no moral authority.