The
Oresteia ends up hinging on one's determination of the place and value of broad moral and ethical principles, such as the duty not to harm others, particularly when they are blood relations, in legal systems organized around social conventions, such as the sanctity of the marriage contract or the duty to uphold one's promises to the gods and vice versa. In her decision, Athene seems to rule that legal systems cannot neglect moral obligations, but they cannot grant them absolute priority either.
Compare the outcome of the
Oresteia with the the debates between natural law theorists and legal positivists.
- Does morality play an essential role in the law or is it inessential and even dangerous to subject legal decisions to moral evaluation?
- Why would it be desirable to either include or exclude morality when trying to describe the operation of legal institutions?
- What kinds of accommodation are possible when considering conflicts between moral and legal obligations?
No comments:
Post a Comment