Ethics Paper


Published on

  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Ethics Paper

  1. 1. Morality and Law Siddharth Agarwal | Y7429 November 6, 2009 Contents 1 Acknowledgements 1 2 Introduc on 2 3 The Philosophy of Law 2 4 Legal Theories 3 4.1 Natural Law . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 4.2 Legal Posi vism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 5 Judicial Review 6 5.1 Roe v. Wade . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 5.2 From natural law . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 5.3 From legal posi vism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 6 Personal claim 9 6.1 Objec ons . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 7 More Ques ons in Jurisprudence 10 1 Acknowledgements I would like to thank Prof. Vineet Sahu for offering this course on ethics and so- ciety, and thus giving me a change to go deep into this topic. I would also like 1
  2. 2. to thank T.V. Raziman for several spirited discussions on this topic, all of which helped refine my personal posi on. 2 Introduction My ini al interest in the connec on between morality and law came from the landmark judgment by the Delhi High Court legalizing homosexual rela onships between adults by reading down most of Sec on 377 of the Indian Penal Code1 . The judgment was predicated on several grounds, including the relevant sec on being “an impediment to public health” (61). However, the fundamental reason given was that the judgment infringed upon “the right to life and protec on of a person’s dignity, autonomy and privacy” (25). The court also held, quo ng from an earlier case2 , that a law infringing a fun- damental right “must sa sfy the compelling state interest test” (75). It finally held that “popular morality or public disapproval of certain acts is not a valid jus fica- on for restric on of the fundamental rights” (79), and further drew a dis nc on between “cons tu onal morality” and “popular morality”. This prompted several ques ons: • What is the difference between what the high court called “cons tu onal morality” and what it called “popular morality”? • Is there even a dis nc on between the two? • Where does democracy end and fundamental rights begin? These ques ons inspired me to look further into the rich philosophy behind law over the ages. 3 The Philosophy of Law The theory and philosophy of law is known as Jurisprudence3 . Legal theories at- tempt to answer ques ons like “What should the law be like?”, “What is the re- 1 “Naz Founda on v. NCT of Delhi”. Delhi High Court. 2009-07-02 <h p:// judgement/02-07-2009/APS02072009CW74552001.pdf>. 2 “Gobind v. State of MP”. Supreme Court of India. 1975. 3 Singer, Bryan A. “Jurisprudence”. Black’s Law Dic onary, 8th ed. West Group, 2004. 2
  3. 3. la on of law to morality?”, and considers law as a part of the wider social and poli cal context it exists in. 4 Legal Theories There are four major schools of legal thought.4 • Natural law, which holds that there are a set of rules that humans should abide by that exist independently of society, and that law should simply reflect these rules. This is the school of thought that binds law to morality the ghtest. • Legal posi vism, which holds that law has no inherent connec on to moral- ity, and that law is simply a set of “social facts”5 • Legal realism, which is the posi on that law is as it is prac ced all over a jurisdic on. • Cri cal legal studies, which considers that the law is largely “contradictory” and that the law and prior cases are largely insufficient to bind a court to a par cular decision. We will primarily be concerned with the two dominant legal theories, natural law and legal posi vism. 4.1 Natural Law As men oned above, this is the idea that there is a set of rules that exist in nature, and that a law is good if it reflects these rules. Natural law systems are generally the oldest systems of jurisprudence, and have historically closely been related with religion. (However, natural law can be founded on non-religious bases too.) 4 Ibid. 5 Soper. “Legal Posi vism”. Cambridge Dic onary of Philosophy, 2nd ed. Cambridge Univer- sity Press, 1999. 3
  4. 4. 4.1.1 Manusmṛti, or the Laws of Manu Composed somewhere between 200 BCE and 200 CE, this text deals with the crea on of the world, the source of law, and the du es of the four social varnas (classes)6 . 4.1.2 Aristotlean natural law Aristotle is o en said to be the father of natural law. He posited the existence of a “δικαίον φυσικόν” or a natural jus ce, based on his idea of virtues being the golden mean between two opposing vices7 . Aristotle counted prudence, jus ce, temperance, and for tude as the four basic virtues. 4.1.3 Christian natural law There have been several versions of this over the past two thousand years, with the most prominent one (and the current one accepted by the Roman Catholic church) being that of Saint Thomas Aquinas (c. 1225 – 7 March 1274). He fleshed out Aristotle’s theory further, calling Aristotle’s virtues cardinal virtues, revealed in nature and binding on everyone. He added three theological virtues: faith, hope, and charity, and considered them to be “supernatural”8 . 4.1.4 Islamic natural law Sharia is the body of Islamic law, and it determines fiqh, which is the term given to Islamic jurisprudence as prac ced by Islamic jurists. Sharia deals with issues like democra c par cipa on, women’s rights, and slavery. In its structure, it is generally considered to be the mediaeval system of law closest to modern con- s tu onal law9 . 6 Jones, Sir William. The Ins tutes of Hindu Law: Or, The Ordinances of Manu. Calcu a: Sewell & Debre , 1796. 7 Aristotle. Nicomachean Ethics, Book II, Chapter 6. 8 Aquinas, St. Thomas. Summa Theologica, Ques on 62, Ar cle 2. A reference is available at <h p://>. 9 Feldman, Noah. “Why Shariah”. New York Times. 2008-03-16 <h p://www.ny 2008/03/16/magazine/16Shariah-t.html>. 4
  5. 5. 4.1.5 Hobbesian natural law Thomas Hobbes (1588 – 1679) expressed that natural law is a precept found out by reason, “by which a man is forbidden to do, that, which is destruc ve of his life, or takes away the means of preserving the same; and to omit, that, by which he thinks it may be best preserved.”10 Hobbes believed that the only way this natural law could prevail was for peo- ple to submit to the sovereign. Thus by not grounding his no on of law in any par cular sense of morality, he created a “bridge” between natural law and legal posi vism. Hobbes finally laid out a set of nineteen laws in his trea se Leviathan11 . 4.1.6 Liberal natural law Hugo Gro us (1583 – 1645) is considered to be the first legal theorist to give a descrip on of law in liberal terms. He also claims that natural law would exist even if “there is no God, or that he takes no Care of human Affairs”12 , in effect completely divorcing his no on of natural law from theology. John Locke (1632 – 1704) provided a completely different no on of natural law — one that protected natural rights. In a marked contrast from Hobbes’s ver- sion, he held that legisla ve power is only legi mate if it stays within the bounds of natural law, and that natural law was limited to protec ng “life, liberty, or [property]”. In his view, a state could not “destroy, enslave, or. . . impoverish its subjects”13 . In effect, he paved the way for the thinking that led to the United States Declara on of Independence and contemporary libertarian philosophy. 4.2 Legal Positivism Legal posi vism rejects the fusion made by natural law theories of what law is and how people ought to behave. In the view of legal posi vists, laws are simply 10 Hobbes, Thomas. Leviathan. Andrew Crooke, 1651. A reference is available at <h p://>. 11 A list of these laws can be found in Chapters XIV and XV of Leviathan, or at <h p:// law#Hobbes.27 natural law>. 12 Gro us, Hugo. De jure belli ac pacis, Book I. 1625. A reference is available at <h p:// tle/1425>. 13 Locke, John. Second Trea se of Government, Chapter XI. Awnsham Churchill, 1689. A refer- ence is available at <h p://>. 5
  6. 6. rules made by human beings, and there is no inherent connec on between laws and morality. Where morality does come in is in people deciding whether to obey the laws. 4.2.1 Bentham’s view Jeremy Bentham (1748 – 1832), as part of his works proposing a u litarian phi- losophy, started off from Hobbes’s theory and further concluded that the goal of the philosophy of law was to explain what the law was in prac ce, and not to consider what it ought to be. He was also famous for being quoted for saying that all no ons of natural law were “nonsense upon s lts”14 . Bentham’s student, John Aus n, went a step further and claimed that laws were merely commands from a sovereign with absolute power, (including sanc- ons if one failed to comply), which people obeyed out of habit15 . 4.2.2 Modern legal positivism Hans Kelsen later discarded the idea of an absolute sovereign and proposed the idea of a Grundnorm (lit. basic norm) — “the fundamental rule according to which the norms of a [legal] system are to be created”16 . This Grundnorm is not neces- sarily derived from morality. Several modern legal posi vists hold that moral considera ons may indeed determine the legal validity of a norm17 . This is used to explain that there are certain vices that no legal system can have, such as rape and murder. 5 Judicial Review Now that we have been introduced to the most important theories of law, let us look at the legal prac ce underlying such landmark cases as the one that led to the reading down of Sec on 377 — the prac ce of judicial review. Judicial review 14 Sweet, William. “Bentham, Jeremy”. The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. 2009-11-06 <h p://>. 15 Aus n, John. The Providence of Jurisprudence Determined. 1832. 16 Kelsen, Hans, and Anders Wedberg. General Theory of Law and State. Clark, New Jersey: The Lawbook Exchange, Ltd., 2007. 17 Waluchow, W.J. Inclusive Legal Posi vism. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1994. 6
  7. 7. is the “power of the courts of a country to examine the ac ons of the legisla ve, execu ve, and administra ve arms of the government and to determine whether such ac ons are consistent with the cons tu on”18 , or with certain standards of reasonableness. Any ac ons found inconsistent can be declared null and void. The concept of judicial review originated in the USA, and today over a hundred modern democracies (including the US, the UK, and India) have judicial review in some form or the other19 . While the exact details might differ, the spirit is the same — it is an integral part of the system of checks and balances necessary in a democracy. The conflict between the legislature and the judiciary can be viewed as the conflict between the u litarian viewpoint, which the legislature provides, and the deontological (but not necessarily Kan an) viewpoint, which the judiciary is sup- posed to provide. The principle behind judicial review is that democra c power should not be absolute, and certain basic rights should be protected from the “tyranny of the majority”20 If the power of judicial review is used beyond what someone considers a rea- sonable limit, it is usually derogatorily termed “judicial ac vism”21 . We have already looked at the Sec on 377 judgment. Let us now look at an- other major case that involved judicial review. 5.1 Roe v. Wade This case22 was the first major decision in favour of legaliza on of abor on in the USA, and has become one of the most controversial examples of judicial review in ac on. It involved a pregnant woman, Norma L. McCorvey, who was in Texas at that me and wished to have an abor on. However, abor on was then illegal in Texas. The case ul mately went to the Supreme Court of the US. In a judgment 18 ”judicial review.” Encyclopædia Britannica. 2009. Encyclopædia Britannica Online. 2009-11- 06 <h p://>. 19 Ibid. 20 de Tocqueville, Alexis. Democracy in America, Book One, Chapter XV, Part II. Pen- guin Classics, 1835. A reference is available at <h p:// alexis/democracy/>. 21 Kmiec, Keenan D. “The Origin and Current Meanings of ’Judicial Ac vism’.” California Law Review. 2009-09-18 <h p://www.cons tu ac vism.htm>. 22 The en re judgment can be found online at <h p://>. 7
  8. 8. reached on January 22, 1973, the Court deemed abor on to be a fundamental right under the US Cons tu on, and thus struck down all state laws against abor- on. It appealed to the right to privacy as deriving from the right to personal liberty, and asserted that it is “broad enough to encompass a woman’s decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy.” (This very same jus fica on was used by the Delhi High Court to read down Sec on 377.) Roe v. Wade has been described by proponents as an example of why judicial review is necessary, and by opponents as “an improvident and extravagant ex- ercise of the power of judicial review”23 . The fallout from the law is s ll evident today24 . 5.2 From natural law Jus fying judicial review is simple from this point of view. A set of rules exists, and it is the court’s right (or even duty) to make sure that sovereign law corresponds to natural law. Since Roe v. Wade is a “liberal” judgment in that it grants more freedom to people, it can be said from liberal natural law that the right to privacy is a fundamental natural right, and that the court was right in striking down the laws that abridged this natural right. 5.3 From legal positivism Jus fying judicial review is not possible via Bentham’s or Aus n’s no on of legal posi vism (since the power of the sovereign is considered to be absolute). However, it is possible to jus fy it by Kelsen’s formula on of a Grundnorm. If a law violates the Grundnorm, it is en rely correct for the court to strike it down. The ideas enshrined in the Declara on of Independence could be legi mately called the Grundnorm of the USA. Interes ngly, it has been claimed that the Grundnorm is in prac ce not com- pletely arbitrary, but is at least par ally based on some sense of social prac ce and morality25 . The similari es between the two arguments appear to support this posi on. 23 “Doe v. Bolton”. 2009-11-06 <h p://>. 24 Several other cases, including Naz Founda on v. NCT of Delhi, refer to it as a precedent. 25 “The Pure Theory of Law”. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. 2009-11-06 <h p://>. 8
  9. 9. 6 Personal claim Now that I have laid out the facts and jus fica ons, I would like to make a personal claim in favour of liberal natural law. I think that it is self-evident that there are certain fundamental rights that humans have, such as the right to life, liberty, and property, and I think that there are no posi ve rights26 inherent in nature, though some might be added on by societal norms. 6.1 Objections There can be several objec ons raised against this claim. 6.1.1 The is-ought problem A supposed problem with any natural law theory is that it claims that natural laws exist, so people ought to follow them. The usual answer in case of natural laws is that such a law “takes its place in a scheme of prac cal reasoning whose proximate star ng point is the moral need for jus ce and peace,” which is in turn derived from the need for human well-being27 . Thus natural law theory shares its basic idea with contemporary legal posi vism, that “laws depend for their ex- istence and validity on social facts.” In the case of liberal natural law, We can further extend this argument to say that it makes minimal demands on what people ought to do. 6.1.2 Legalizing immoral positions Another objec on is that liberal natural law would legalize posi ons that large sec ons of society find immoral. I claim that this is actually a benefit and not a drawback. In the applied ethical domain, people can start off from the same moral theory, add amoral value judgements to it, and end up with opposite opin- ions. For example, one could start off by saying that killing people is wrong, and then differ on when an embryo becomes a person. 26 Posi ve rights are rights that, very roughly, require people to do something. This is contrast with nega ve rights, where people are required to not do something. 27 “Natural Law Theories”. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. 2009-11-06 <h p://>. 9
  10. 10. This has been termed as the “moral matrix” by psychologist Jonathan Haidt28 . My claim is that it is important for the law itself to be outside the moral matrix and let society as a whole come up with solu ons. If the law takes a par cular posi on, the other posi on is snuffed out. The only way to preserve choice for individuals and society as a whole is for laws to be liberal. 6.1.3 Why not legal positivism? The problem with legal posi vism is that it doesn’t guarantee that the laws are going to be liberal. While I would be fine with a set of laws where the Grundnorm is liberal, legal posi vism as a whole doesn’t guarantee that. A claim in terms of liberal natural rights guarantees that a law that violates certain basic rights is wrong and should be struck down. 7 More Questions in Jurisprudence There are several other important ques ons in applied jurisprudence that I haven’t been able to fully explore. • How should judges decide cases for which there is no controlling law? The- ories of law may a empt to answer this by appealing to a higher natural law or Grundnorm, or by leaving it to the judge’s discre on en rely, as le- gal realism does. • Is there a right and a wrong in legal disputes, or is legal reasoning basically indeterminate? This is a meta-jurispruden al ques on, and as such is one of the topics focused on in cri cal legal theory. • Is morality legally binding regardless of whether it has been enacted into a law? A (non-liberal) natural legal theorist would presumably say “yes”, while a legal posi vist would say “no”. 28 “The real difference between liberals and conserva ves: Jonathan Haidt on”. TED. 2009-08-15 <h p:// real differ.php>. 10