How morality influence law?

(By: Shirley Chung)

In present times, there are a lot of different type of definition for both law and morality. In my opinion, law are a set of rule and principle that are created and enforced by the state which must be obeyed, or else, some form of punishment will be given. While, morals are a set of belief, values, principles that are created by the society, had the power to determine what is right and wrong and usually reinforced by social pressure mostly by family and friends. Between law and morals, I think that both of them had their own differences in several ways. For instance, law are created formally by formal institution like the parliament itself but morals are raised as a feeling within a society that has been developed since long ago and heavily imprinted with religions and social history. Nowadays, the law system may often see as a system that reinforces and upholds our moral values. But actually this is a major problem for morals will consistently evolve in time as the attitude changes and due to this matter, the law must be constantly update or change to keep up in this situations. This can be seen in the case R v R (1991), which changed the law so that rape within marriage became a crime. It was viewed that through the marriage agreement, a wife was legally almost the property of the husband. This view as definitely morally wrong and outdated but the law was very slow in adapting this moral view due to the original precedent principle which stated that only when there is no previous judicial decision on the point of law before the court, then the decision made in that case on the point of law will be original precedent. In addition, the court often find themselves at the junction of big moral decisions that involve life and death matter and forced to choose between ones rights and moral value. The following is a case involving illness and euthanasia. In 2001, Diana Pretty who suffered from contracted motor neuron disease and confined to a wheel chair due to her illness, was concerned that her husband would be convicting a crime if he helped her to end her life. She hoped the court would permit her for active euthanasia which is both morally and legally wrong. Unfortunately, the court refused her request because she required no treatment to keep her to stay alive but had serious difficulty in talking, eating and sleeping. Through this case, we can see that this case has reflected the society point that it is wrong to take the life of other human being. In another case, R v Human Fertilisation and Embryology ex parte Blood (1997), Diana Bloods husband died from meningitis after falling into a coma. They had been trying to start a family and she arranged for the sperm to be extracted from him. She attempted to use the sperm extracted to become pregnant after her husband death but this was banned under the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act. She won the right to have the process carried out abroad. Under the United Kingdom law, their births had to be registered with a blank where their fathers name should have been. Yet, this was actually incompatible with the human right to private and family life and since, the law has been changed. This is a perfect example of how moral influenced law.

In a nutshell, there is definitely a close relationship between law and morals and morals can really affect the law in some cases but the decision on which law should be influenced by our human morals still remain debatable.

(605 words)

References:
1. http://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/showthread.php?t=587689 2. http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/A2566389