Law, as extension of John Locke’s natural laws, was created in support of the equality of life, liberty, and property. However, any law that deducts unjustly from natural law becomes immoral and corrupt. The justice system as a result throughout history has been modified, amended, and rejected to reflect the societal constructs of moral code. Humanity’s complex and abstract struggle of ideology and the philosophy of what is right and wrong has become a trial of intention versus result. A black and white system of justice conclusively is unfit for the gray shades of morality in determining if the intention justifies a result, and vindicates an unjust action in exchange for a just reason.
Prodigious historical accounts of doing the wrong things …show more content…
Surpassing the speed limit, for example, is an illegal action determined by law; however, surpassing the speed limit to save the life of someone by rushing them to the hospital influences the moral perspective of the illegitimate action. It becomes acceptable in this instance to break the law to save someone’s life, and additionally demonstrates how legally defined constructs do not account for all possible motives and possibilities. The intent to save someone’s life vindicates the unlawful action and is justified by the moral reasoning in relation to the illegal crime. The same logic can similarly be applied to deceitful actions or lying that can’t be justified through law. Deceit, for example, is often employed by the government to protect citizens and investigate foreign or terrorist threats. The action of lying, which can also be morally wrong, can be occasionally justified to protect someone or save lives in extreme …show more content…
For example, an airstrike to terminate terrorist regimes cannot be justified if innocent civilians are harmed as well. The citizens of Aleppo are left defenseless in the recent bombings during the fifth year of Syrian civil war. The rapid, destructive are strikes that kill innocent lives, including the lives of children, are seen as immoral actions with ethical intent. The lives of the people left in the ash are not justification for the heavy military bombings that plague the ruinous city of Aleppo. Breaking laws that furthermore protect the rights of citizens and that defend equality cannot be justified with any intent; for example, the First Amendment. Any action that infringes on the right to freedom of religion, speech, and the press is not justified by virtuous and similarly has no ethical value. The adaptation of law that upholds rights, morality, and equality is rightfully upheld in society and cannot be obstructed regardless of intent.
Laws throughout history have been amended and reconfigured to define the morality of society and protect the natural rights of citizens. Moral code, however, cannot be entirely defined by written legislature. A lawfully wrong action by an unethical law in vindicated by moral intentions. The abstraction of morality in binding laws conclusively creates an atmosphere in society where some unethical circumstances
Prodigious historical accounts of doing the wrong things …show more content…
Surpassing the speed limit, for example, is an illegal action determined by law; however, surpassing the speed limit to save the life of someone by rushing them to the hospital influences the moral perspective of the illegitimate action. It becomes acceptable in this instance to break the law to save someone’s life, and additionally demonstrates how legally defined constructs do not account for all possible motives and possibilities. The intent to save someone’s life vindicates the unlawful action and is justified by the moral reasoning in relation to the illegal crime. The same logic can similarly be applied to deceitful actions or lying that can’t be justified through law. Deceit, for example, is often employed by the government to protect citizens and investigate foreign or terrorist threats. The action of lying, which can also be morally wrong, can be occasionally justified to protect someone or save lives in extreme …show more content…
For example, an airstrike to terminate terrorist regimes cannot be justified if innocent civilians are harmed as well. The citizens of Aleppo are left defenseless in the recent bombings during the fifth year of Syrian civil war. The rapid, destructive are strikes that kill innocent lives, including the lives of children, are seen as immoral actions with ethical intent. The lives of the people left in the ash are not justification for the heavy military bombings that plague the ruinous city of Aleppo. Breaking laws that furthermore protect the rights of citizens and that defend equality cannot be justified with any intent; for example, the First Amendment. Any action that infringes on the right to freedom of religion, speech, and the press is not justified by virtuous and similarly has no ethical value. The adaptation of law that upholds rights, morality, and equality is rightfully upheld in society and cannot be obstructed regardless of intent.
Laws throughout history have been amended and reconfigured to define the morality of society and protect the natural rights of citizens. Moral code, however, cannot be entirely defined by written legislature. A lawfully wrong action by an unethical law in vindicated by moral intentions. The abstraction of morality in binding laws conclusively creates an atmosphere in society where some unethical circumstances