An important aspect of interpreting law and morality is finding a balance between the two. Behaving morally is a matter of listening to reason and following its directives whereas obeying the law is considered a general moral obligation and provides the basis for good order, protection and benefits all people whilst giving them equal rights. To incorporate these ideals most laws have developed as society has evolved and are principled upon societal ethical codes and therefore enable the law to embody morality.
Unfortunately each society’s standards of morals and the individual interpretation of right and wrong are as erratic as the times in which they live and are furthermore attributed to one’s personal experiences and those of your parents or peers, your education, your religious background, etc, essentially; the surroundings that you grew up in.
Morality and law do not always compliment each other and there are certain situations in which morality transcends the law and vice versa, particularly when our laws become outdated. Ultimately such laws, when applied in a civil court of law and based on precedent, do not always imply a contemporary, progressive reflection of morality. These laws are not necessarily absolute but transform, over time, according to the changing ethical codes of a society.
For example if a random stranger walked into your house, picked up your television and started walking out with it, you would naturally be expected to get up and attempt to stop them. What you are essentially doing in that scenario is appealing to an accepted, utilitarian moral law. Unfortunately there are countless ‘grey areas’ in the law and we find, in this instance, the English legal system to be unequivocally flawed as the distinction between what is legally or conventionally right and what is naturally, or morally right, are two utterly separate principles.
There can be situations in which there is no essential moral obligation to obey the law and under such circumstances one might argue that the law can be broken as it does not adequately represent morality and to obey it is therefore not a moral obligation. For example, under schedule 8 of the Terrorism Act 2000 (TACT 2000) the police could lawfully detain terrorist suspects for a maximum of fourteen days from the time of their arrest. If an officer consciously made the decision to detain the suspect for longer than the official fourteen days without having sought a warrant for further detention from the district judge based on substantial, conclusive evidence that the suspect was a danger to society, they could face prosecution. However if their initial intuition was correct and they had in fact prevented an impending disaster thus saving lives it could be argued that the officer, although disobeying the law, had acted for the greater good and the greater majority therefore his actions were morally acceptable.
Situations such as this one will have both legal and moral repercussions. However, if the situation is analysed with both the law and morality issues in mind, there may be a chance that the political authorities will see some sort of vindication behind the decision, identify that the consequence is justifiable and reflects the greatest good and recognise that the difference between what is actually legal and what should be legal is considerable enough to set new precedence, i.e. of the Terrorism Act 2006 amended to the Terrorism Act 2000 (TACT 2000) to extend the maximum time terrorist suspects could be detained for prior to charge from 14 days to 28 days.
For society to continue to progress, I believe the concepts of law and morality must be continually reiterated and re-infused into society. Both moral and civil law can correlate with each other very effectively in protecting people's needs and both represent the crucial components of being a decent human being, without such aspects society would crumble.
Word Count: 971
Bibliography
Mark 12:29 - N.I.V Bible
Lee, R. G. and Stallworthy, M. (1995) ‘Constitutional and Administrative Law’ (4th Ed). London: Blackstone Press Limited.
Wade, E. C. S. (1965) cited in M. Allen and B. Thompson, (2002) ‘Cases and Materials on Constitutional and Administrative Law’ (7th Ed). London: Oxford University Press.
Dingle, L. & Miller, B. (2004), UK Constitutional Reform, Squire Law Library, (18/10/09)
(Mark 12:29) - N.I.V Bible
