If I had to choose between the viewpoints of law we discussed in class I would lean towards the natural law theory. I think that morality should be incorporated into the law even if it is based on the individual. Although natural law can be considered the ideal as it is compared to what law should be, I think this is needed for the law to uphold the high standards it sets.
Legal realists have a much more cynical perspective because they neglect the law’s role and rely solely on the psycho-social factors or the morals of the judge. On the other hand, legal positivists's separability thesis does not acknowledge the fact that the laws do not account for everything it takes to make a decision.
Laws cannot always be the determining factors in a decision because they may not adequately address a problem. The law is made to be general so that morals can help to decide what is right not just what is legally right in specific situations. In such cases as abortion the law can only do so much. The following are laws concerning abortion:
“a woman and her doctor may freely decide to terminate a pregnancy during the first trimester, state governments can restrict abortion access after the first trimester with laws intended to protect the woman's health and abortions after fetal viability must be available if the woman's health or life are at risk; state governments can prohibit other abortions”
The problem with these statements is that they all imply a certain timeline for when an abortion is “okay”. However the law does not address when a fetus becomes a child which is a relevant moral inquisition. This is why I believe morals need to be a subset of the law so that law can fully sustain its purpose.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment