As part of my law04 exam coming up, i need to do aspects of law and morality (and law and justice too, but thats easier)
I am looking for some morality views from people, so see about different morality aspects, which ones are more radical, currently acceptable, or complete crap. feel free to criticize english law (fairly) if you can use things to back it up, please do!

Legal positivism is the view that all laws are valid when made by the recognised legal powers (parliament) irrespective of content --- do you guys think this view of the law is crap, great, allowable... etc

Natural law (opposite of positivism) is where laws are only valid if they are compatible with a "higher moral authority" (tis derived from "eternal law"

what in your opinion causes a breakdown of morals in society? - factors outlined by one person are; ethnic diversity, fading influence of religious belief and specialisation of labour... do you believe that any of these can cause a breakdown?

Should individuals be free to decide their own morality OR should the law ("as guardian of public morals") intervene to ensure the dominant morality within the state

Do you feel in any form, that the elected majority force their views on us - thereby restricting freedom? "tyranny of the majority"

Hart - bigamy - a bigamist is punished for offence caused to the feelings of others and NOT the act of bigamy itself. how far do you agree with this statement?

Euthanasia - the case of PRETTY - under the human rights, article 2, a right to live is not a right to die. she wanted to die with assistance from her husband as suffering from motor neurone disease. he would have been charged with either murder or manslaughter if he had. do you agree that stopping her from killing herself, is fair? do you agree with the decision to not allow her to so as "to protect the vulnerable in society". if you disagree please say why. personally i go with the stance, she had a right to choose how to end her own life, in a way she felt most dignified, as it was a one off, and affected only herself.

The harm principle is where an individuals private conduct can be restricted but ONLY where it brings harm to other people - but persons can harm themselves otherwise (as long as it doesnt hurt others) - do you agree with this stance
Sir Stephen argues against the above, saying there is NO distinction between an act that harms others and an act that hurts ones self. aka by hurting yourself you automatically hurt others.


This is just the start of what I must do lol and memorise argument points. so any feedback would be greatly appreciated

Id say that, as much as we like to think that we have our own morals and beliefs, we are all affected by how the people around us and how the majority are.

With euthanasia, I believe if a person has an illness or injury that they will never recover from and restricts them from living a proper life severely, who is able to clearly say they don't wish to live anymore should be allowed to die with assistance. It's cruel to keep somebody alive who wants to die.

I stopped giving a shit about mortality. Most of the time it keeps me from making decisions and stuff. I've developed a somewhat decent understanding of how my choices affect others and i lie a lot to not fuck up. I think there's a word for it but cbb too find out.

Id say that, as much as we like to think that we have our own morals and beliefs, we are all affected by how the people around us and how the majority are.

With euthanasia, I believe if a person has an illness or injury that they will never recover from and restricts them from living a proper life severely, who is able to clearly say they don't wish to live anymore should be allowed to die with assistance. It's cruel to keep somebody alive who wants to die.

While I do agree with what both Abbie and Navid have said above, I think that the law shouldn't really interfere with your own morals and beliefs, however I can see where, at times, it might need to step in and take charge.
The thing about morality is, it, obviously, depends on the individual involved, so a law, or anything that could be said to "control" ones morality really can't (provided the person has a strong enough conviction about it), there are just two many people with too many different beliefs to blanket them all.

My own feelings or thoughts towards morality are mostly non-existent at this point, which brings me to Mct's point:

I stopped giving a shit about mortality. Most of the time it keeps me from making decisions and stuff. I've developed a somewhat decent understanding of how my choices affect others and i lie a lot to not fuck up. I think there's a word for it but cbb too find out.

While I'm not quite at the same stage as him, I think I'm heading in the same direction, I do have strong personal convictions on a number of things, but overall I find myself caring less and less. I'd like to say I have a decent understanding of what the consequences of my choices, both for me and others, will be, but who can really say that? Although I do lie too much (trying to cut down on it) in real life, especially to cover up if I've made the wrong decision or just generally screwed something up badly, I try to make decisions which I feel are the right ones for not just me, but for those around me.

thanks so far guys

We're born into a world with free will in our own decisions so who's right is it to say if we can choose to live or die. If its inevitable that you're going to suffer with your illness or injury it should only be our choice if we wish to go through it, but for what? To keep your family and friends smiling? I doubt they would if you we're suffering.

In terms of breakdowns in morals, social integration is a big part of this. Just look at suicide and the types if crimes committed. Morals rely on a state of anomie throughout society (Durkheim's theory) and if individuals are under socially integrated they aren't going to share common values therefore be devious or cause crime.