Some theologians try to claim that their God is indeed incomprehensible. But even then, they do not escape human analogies and use terms like “legislator”, “judge”, etc. The picture that emerges from religious moral philosophy and even some secular moral philosophies is clear that, just as conventional laws require legislators, morality requires an ultimate source of morality. The law may not attempt to regulate the purely internal sphere of personal conduct; Morality can. Human or civil law is related to external acts, precisely to the extent that and because they interfere with the lawful rights or actions of others. Hence the necessary combination of law and justice. For the regulation of interpersonal relations must be based on the fundamental principle of justice: “Everyone is due”. Hence the fundamental question of what each individual is entitled to, and thus the supplementary question of human rights. Everyone deserves what they deserve.
Everyone deserves something. It is the feeling of equality before the law. The possibility of giving not only to a relative, friend, citizen or co-religionist what is due to him, but also to every human being, simply because he is a person, simply because justice requires it, is the honor of the law and jurists. If there is an expression of the unity of the human race and the equality of all men, then this expression is rightly given by the law, which cannot exclude anyone from its horizon without changing its specific identity. Even for those who see law and freedom in mutual opposition, the whole concept of law is essentially linked to that of justice. The old principle lex iniusta non est lex (an unjust law is not a law) is the basis of so many modern protests in the name of freedom. “This law is discriminatory, so it`s not fair.” But justice is a moral concept; These protests thus confirm the intrinsic link between law and morality: “There is another crucial link between virtues and law, for knowing how to apply the law is only possible even for someone who possesses the virtue of justice.” “The law must respond to `life situations.`” Very well, but not in the sense that he should take the situation as the norm. Justice must remain the norm, and sometimes the law must regain ground for justice. Law and morality are interconnected, as they both share the same goal of raising moral standards and, eventually, people`s lives. The main difference between law and morality is that law refers to the set of rules and regulations applied by the state to regulate human behavior in society, while morality refers to the ethical code of conduct for a person. In addition, penalties for violation of these penalties are applied by law, while there is no application of such penalties in morality for committing immoral acts.
Example: Anthony`s parents are very strict. They want him to maintain his 4.0 GPA during high school, so they explain to Anthony that earning A`s is the right thing to do, whereas it`s wrong to earn B, C or D. Good grades are now part of their morality. If Anthony earns less than an A, he will be grounded. His parents have jurisdiction over Anthony in their home, but if Anthony were to receive a B, he would not be breaking any state laws. Anthony`s parents also understand the importance of religion and allow him to take Christmas Day off from his studies. Thus, unlike the law, morality rules and regulations are not mandates or actions. Instead, they are beliefs and practices. Our last difference of the day is formal competence or decision-making and judgment. To keep things as simple as possible, sociologists argue that religion and morality are responsible for a person`s privacy; That is not the case with the law. If we look again at our poor alcoholic, the law cannot dictate what he does to himself. He can continue drinking until his liver gives up.
However, the morality police can call him a drunkard and exclude him from society`s embrace. To begin with, morality is defined as beliefs that relate to the differences between good and evil or good and bad behavior. Rules of morality are not mandates or orders; These are beliefs. Laws, on the other hand, are the rules that a country or community imposes on its citizens to regulate society. Laws are not optional. They must be followed. In addition, religion is a structure of faith and worship. It is a belief system based on belief in supernatural power. Moreover, morality appeared before ideal laws. Therefore, morality influenced the emergence of laws in a community or country. Therefore, social concepts such as ethics, religious teachings, etc.
directly influence the creation of moral standards in a particular community or country. Therefore, it is these social concepts that formulate morality, as opposed to the law formulated by the state. But suppose that theists cease such practical and humanistic appeals and return to basing all moral preaching on the will of God. A disturbing irony remained: there are many different gods. (2) The mere fact that religions around the world are able to promote similar moral behavior refutes the idea that only one particular God is the only “true” giver of morality. If only one of the many gods believed in is real, millions of people, though behaving morally, must do so under the influence, inspiration, or command of the FALSE GOD. Therefore, belief in the “good” God should not be very critical in terms of moral behavior. You can even stand by Cicero and profess hypocrisy and get the same result. And when you add that non-theists around the world have shown that they are just as capable of private moral behavior as theists (Buddhists offer perhaps the best example on a large scale), then belief in God turns out to be a minor issue in this whole affair. There is something about human nature that operates on a deeper level than mere theological faith, and that is what serves as a true appeal to moral behavior. As with laws, the same is true of morality: man seems quite capable of making reasonable and sensitive decisions on his own that influence behavior.
The main difference between law and morality is that law refers to the set of rules and regulations applied by the state to regulate human behavior in society, while morality refers to the ethical code of conduct for a person. Therefore, moral goods are the basis of the law, while morality is ensured by living according to the law. Morality refers to the social principles that define what is morally good and morally bad. In short, it is a person`s code of ethical conduct. The main aspect that defines this good or bad quality of action in moral terms is the intention of the person who commits this particular action. Therefore, morality deals with both external actions and internal motives for that action or event. Sociologically: Without morals, social life is almost impossible. The law is direct and crude with penalties, while morality may or may not be followed depending on the person`s choice.
However, it is this quality of the law that ensures people`s morality. So this is another difference between law and morality. Create a diagram, poster, or other type of graphic organizer that lists and defines morality, law, and religion. In addition, the law punishes those who break the law and create discrepancies for the lives of others, while there are no such coercive sanctions for those who live immorally or commit immoral acts. However, morality emphasizes that any immoral action is followed by negative consequences that the actor must one day suffer. Nevertheless, the question can be asked: “Where does God get his moral values from?” If God gets them from an even higher source, the goat hasn`t stopped and we`re back to our endless series. If they come from God, then God`s morality is invented and therefore arbitrary. If the analogy is to be used to establish God as the source of morality, because all morality needs an intelligent moral source, then unfortunately the same analogy must be used for the theist to show that if God invents morality “out of the blue,” God is just as arbitrary as people who do the same thing. As a result, we gain no advantage and are therefore no longer philosophically obligated to obey God`s arbitrary morality as we obey the morality established by our best friend or even our worst enemy.