Model essay on morality and law 1: the legal moral happiness of college students Abstract: With the rapid development of China's economy, the perfection of law is more and more humanized and moralized. The relationship between morality and law has been further explained and improved in the new period. At the same time, the inseparability of law and morality in turn helps to improve people's happy experience of life, that is, the so-called happiness has been better promoted in the gap between law and reason recently. As college students in the new era, we should take the lead in studying, understanding and abiding by the law and seek happiness in the world of morality and law.
Keywords: law and morality, happiness of college students
Abstract: With the further deepening and continuation of reform and opening up, China's economic development has increased substantially year by year, and all levels of society are constantly improving and improving. From the perspective of sociology, China is accelerating its integration into the legal society. For everyone in the future society, it is impossible to survive without laws. With the establishment of the socialist market economic system and China's accession to the WTO, all market players must follow unified rules or systems. In this highly regulated society, legal means? Will be more and more widely used in our real social relations. This means that from personal daily life behavior to the creation of great achievements, it is inseparable from certain legal knowledge or legal skills. When we judge the horizon of practice with the attitude of considering development and caring for life, we will naturally find that the necessary legal literacy has become an indispensable basic element for modern citizens, especially young students, to stand on the society.
First, let's look at the relationship between morality and law. The relationship between law and morality is a problem worthy of continuous discussion and research. As early as the slavery era in ancient Greece, Pythagoras, Heraclitus and others suggested that a few talented people should govern the country. Is this the definition of morality in the Oxford Law Guide? Morality and ethics overlap with customs, social customs, laws, habits and public opinion. Generally speaking, people can say that morality is a code of conduct accepted by society and the classes living in society. Generally speaking, the law confirms and strengthens the moral behavior generally accepted by the society. In this society, legal control cannot prove and punish those behaviors that are considered immoral. The so-called morality is not completely consistent with the accepted morality. The so-called morality is not a part of legal provisions or principled provisions, but a name that describes the power of conscience and society to control good behavior. Sometimes it is synonymous with natural law? . It can be seen that the law is not formulated by the state, but a naturally formed relationship norm between people or between people and society. However, law and morality are two levels. Law belongs to the category of system, and morality belongs to the category of social ideology. From the materialist point of view, morality is rooted in certain social material conditions, that is, the so-called principle that material determines consciousness. Engels said: all previous moral theories are, in the final analysis, the products of social and economic conditions at that time. And society is still advancing in class opposition until now, so morality is always class morality. ? This shows that morality is based on a certain economic foundation, and the morality of class society has class nature.
However, law and morality are interrelated and inseparable. All serve a certain economic foundation. Law is an effective way to spread morality, which is the evaluation standard and motive force of law and a useful supplement to law. Laws without morality are cold shackles. It will only stipulate various things that human beings should and should not do, and punish those who make mistakes according to law. Such laws are doomed to be unacceptable and recognized by the people, and will also be overthrown by the people. Similarly, only moral law is incomplete, it loses the most primitive meaning of law and does not constitute vigilance and restraint for anyone, so the state cannot govern the people according to law. Therefore, the real law does not completely abandon the category of morality, it is based on morality and uses means to improve people's understanding of morality. In this way, law and morality can complement each other.
However, a successful person should not only have good moral quality, but also have considerable legal awareness. Without the binding force of law, a person's moral quality cannot be truly realized. Only when there is law in mind, people will have scruples about being a man and will not do illegal things beyond the legal boundaries.
The law of modern society is also developing and perfecting towards humanization, and the law is no longer just reasoning without looking at the truth in the past. It is precisely because of the morality of the law that people's happiness is increasing day by day. Today, when building a well-off society in an all-round way is advocated, although the improvement of material conditions has brought many new things, at the same time, many new social problems have emerged, and people's happiness is decreasing day by day. In daily life, people have too many things to worry about. Robbery and theft are common, and some people even suffer from phobia. To some extent, this requires the state to improve relevant laws.
In a TV series "Who is in charge of my youth" I watched not long ago, the protagonist broke the law ten years ago, but concealed the truth for ten years for fear of being punished by the law. Ten years later, he could no longer bear the condemnation and uneasiness of his conscience and voluntarily surrendered to the police. He thought that there was endless jail time waiting for him, but he was finally released because of insufficient evidence. This series of cases does not tell us that the law is unfair, but only tells us that the law is humanized from the side. He committed a crime. Although he has not been punished by law, the pain and suffering he has suffered in the past ten years far exceeds that brought by law. He was morally condemned by himself and all walks of life. At this level, he experienced himself? Prison? . In this incident, the humanization and moralization of the law are perfect. As the dramatist said, the current law is also reasonable, which embodies the theme and requirements of building a harmonious society in the new era. The bottom line of law is moral self-discipline. Perhaps it is precisely because some people's moral cultivation is not enough that they need a coercive force to mediate social contradictions, and the law just plays such a coercive role. Therefore, the law is sacred and inviolable, and even called a belief to some extent. Personally, the law should be a belief. ? The generation of public legal belief is very important, and it is the key element of a country's rule of law. Because of this, Pahlman's words of wisdom? The law must be believed, otherwise it will be useless? Will it spread widely and become a truth principle that all people who advocate the rule of law believe in? ?
With the double protection of law and morality, happiness will also rise rapidly. With the interaction between law and morality, it is possible for society to have a harmonious phenomenon that every household does not have to close the door at night. Under the banner of humanization of law, people will be more sure of the correctness of the socialist banner and have full confidence in socialist modernization. When people are committed to building a beautiful era of their own, whatever they do is meaningful and they can feel happy. What is the definition of happiness? We are not saying that we must live a rich life and have money in our hands. The happiness we are talking about should rise to the spiritual level. Happiness means that people's psychology is satisfied, people are full of hopes and longings for life, and at least have the motivation to fight for a better future. This is happiness.
Finally, talk about the legal responsibility and moral obligation that college students should bear. Undoubtedly, college students are the pillars of our country's future, and the future of China will be created by these special people. Therefore, as college students, we have great courage on our shoulders. Ideological and moral cultivation is of course very important, but it is far from enough. We must also learn more legal knowledge. On the basis of abiding by the law, give full play to the fine morality handed down by the Chinese nation for thousands of years. We should learn, understand and abide by the law, and be a person with good moral quality on the track of legal system.
References: Morality and Human Happiness; Legal knowledge is the guarantee of a happy life; Morality of law; Make you more confident.
Moral Law Model 2: Does Law Need Moral Abstraction? The most heated discussion on legal and moral issues is the debate between the positivist jurist Hart and the natural jurist Fuller, which lasted for 17 years. The positivist school of law insists on the separation of law and morality, that is, the separation theory or separation proposition of law and morality, while the natural school of law advocates the inseparability of law and morality, that is, the inseparability or combination proposition of law and morality. However, this definition alone cannot reflect the realistic consciousness and attitude of both sides of the debate. This paper attempts to analyze the practical significance behind Fuller's Positivism and Loyalty to Law ―― Answer to Professor Hart.
Keywords legal moral positivism, good law and evil law
China Library Classification Number: D90 Document Identification Number: Part A Number:1009-0592 (2010) 02-001-02.
First, Hart: the focus of debate
Before Professor Hart published the far-reaching and controversial paper "Positivism and the Separation of Law and Morality", the debate between the positivist law school and the natural law school about what law will last forever began from Austin's? The legal order says? Then to Bentham, the positivist school of law always faces the criticism of the natural school of law while making different definitions of legal development. However, before Professor Hart, the debate between the two schools never developed in depth, but only fell into a superficial conceptual dispute. What does Professor Fuller think is the reason? We encountered a series of definition commands. The rule of law is, that is, the rule of law is true, but it will always be, the order of the monarch, the rules made by judges, the prediction of the future scope of state power, the behavior pattern of officials and so on. When we ask what the purpose of these defined services is, we get the answer: besides accurately describing the corresponding services, why should there be a purpose? Law? The social reality of this word, these definitions have no purpose. When we ask: but in my opinion, the law is not like this. At this time, the answer we got was: Well, that's it in my opinion. At this point, the debate must stop. ? ①
It can be seen that in the view of positivist legal scholars, there is no need to stay too long? What is the law? This purely conceptual judgment level does not need to spend too much energy on the definition of something that is actually playing a role, and problems always appear in front of us. Moreover, even if there is no in-depth discussion and debate on the definition of law, law still exists as a realistic thing that constantly plays a role, and too many metaphysical disputes are not conducive to solving practical problems.
However, due to the emergence of Professor Hart's views, the positivism school of law and the natural law school were originally unremarkable? Confrontation? This relationship has undergone a qualitative change. ? Thanks to Professor Hart's paper, this discussion has opened a new and hopeful turning point. Now it is obvious that both sides agree that a major problem is: how can we best define and serve the ideal of loyalty to the law? As something worthy of people's loyalty, law must express some human achievements; It can't be a simple power command, or a repeatable behavior pattern can be recognized in the behavior of state officials. ? (2) Professor Fuller believes that Professor Hart's thesis and his academic thoughts frankly put forward an argument that can be discussed by positivist law school and natural law school, that is, the issue of loyalty to the law. To put it more clearly, it is the question of whether an evil law is a law, whether there is a basis for the effectiveness of an evil law, and whether people have complied with the obligations of an evil law.
2. Fuller: Taking the Nazi regime as an example, criticizing positivist jurisprudence.
In all kinds of controversial articles, the best way to criticize each other's mistakes is to refute them with a clear and convincing example. Professor Fuller also adopted this method in his book, taking the tyranny of Nazi regime in Germany as an example. Because during the German fascist period, both Hitler came to power and many anti-humanity legislation passed later followed the legal procedures at that time, which was also the most widely followed in China. Professor Fuller believes that Nazi legislation was rampant at that time because it worshipped the view of positivist law on loyalty to the law. ? Whistleblower case? Is a good proof, in this case, if the legislation of Nazi period is given? The validity of correct and positive laws? Then many people who use this law to commit crimes will get justified reasons and can commit crimes. At the same time, during the whole Nazi rule, the Nazis frequently used a means that American legislators were not unaware of, that is, to formulate laws with retrospective effect to correct past legal violations. The most impressive application of this retrospective law occurred in1July 3, 934? Roma cleaning company? After that. ③
Obviously, during the Nazi period, due to the alienation of legislative power and legislative procedure, many criminal decrees were indeed produced, and countless criminal acts were triggered by these decrees, but what about these? Law? The reason why it was called law at that time and was given legal effect was not completely influenced by positivist jurisprudence as criticized by Professor Fuller, but there were deeper reasons behind it.
The rise of German Nazism has a profound philosophical foundation at first. Before the Nazi prevailed, the mainstream of German domestic philosophy was Hegel's philosophy, whose steady and practical academic thought condensed the best wisdom of the Germanic nation and made unparalleled contributions to the world. Engels once praised Hegel as Zeus on Mount Olympia. However, due to the profound social changes brought about by the rapid economic development at that time, under the influence of the surrounding environment, Hegel's philosophy gradually became unsuitable for the originally underdeveloped and increasingly impetuous German people. Therefore, Hegel's thought was finally abandoned and replaced by Schopenhauer's philosophical thought, which was unknown in Hegel's period. This is a rather radical and violent philosophy. Although Schopenhauer had died at that time, his old man didn't expect that this book, which he wrote when faced with despair many years after his death, eventually became the dominant ideology of the country. Later, Schopenhauer's thought was inherited by Nietzsche and amplified in a radical degree. Meanwhile, the rise of Germany? Conceptual method? In fact, this is a kind of legal thought that originated in Germany, but it is similar to Austin's positivist legal school in form. What happened later? Conceptual method? Most of them are regarded as the inheritance of Austin's positivist law, which also casts a shadow over positivist law. Professor Fuller clearly accepted this view when citing Nazi examples.
In fact, although the Nazi example cited by Professor Fuller is representative, its limitations are also obvious. He believes that if a good law can be widely supported, it must have a good morality worthy of admiration, so as to prevent the emergence of evil laws. Although the example of Nazi Germany really reflects the serious consequences brought by the conclusion and observance of evil laws to a great extent, as we all know, experience and history need to be understood in the context of their occurrence, which is an act taken out of context and only magnifies one aspect of its significance.
Professor Hart believes that if we insist on injecting morality into the law, it will be difficult to avoid the infiltration of evil morality into the law. Moral good and evil have historical limitations. In fact, it is difficult for us to conclude that the laws enacted during the Nazi period really completely deviated from the common moral values of the people at that time, and even atrocities such as genocide originated from the so-called? Superior race? Germans generally appreciate the value of knowledge, so that actors can avoid the anxiety of conscience. Moreover, records show that Germany was not on the verge of terror and chaos at that time, on the contrary, its national strength was on the rise. And will be known at the beginning of World War II? The rule of good law? Britain and France were pushed to the edge of Dunkirk. Because of Germany's defeat, its legislation in Nazi period became an obvious counterexample and was criticized by many natural law scholars. However, if the result of World War II ended in Germany's victory, its legislation under the Nazi regime actually played a powerful role in promoting it. This goes back to the field of positivism law school about being faithful to the legal meaning.
Therefore, Professor Fuller's view that law needs internal moral support cannot avoid the situation that evil morality is injected into law, and it is difficult to determine whether there is a universal concept of good morality. Even so, whether this kind of good morality can play a beneficial role in society is still unknown. It is also difficult to judge whether the law based on the current evil morality only helps others to abuse. Therefore, Professor Fuller's citation and demonstration of Nazi cases are flawed in the starting point. ? The ultimate reason of law is the welfare of society? (4) If the welfare here is a broader meaning as Cardoso said, it is constructive to test whether the relevant laws are worthy of loyalty based on this welfare.
Third, morality or experience.
What is worthy of recognition is that although Professor Fuller's explanation of the meaning of loyalty law from the perspective of kindness and morality has some defects, it is obvious that his attitude is? Empirical? Instead of. Natural? . In the whole article "Positivism and Loyalty to Law ―― Answering Professor Hart", we can clearly feel Professor Fuller's realistic mentality. Obviously, the academic debate between him and Professor Hart is not limited to the intellectual confrontation between concepts, but a real debate based on reality. Both want to pass, right? What is the law? What is good law? Is evil law law? The elaboration of this series of concepts can affect the operation of substantive law and maximize social welfare. This academic attitude is undoubtedly very valuable.
Professor Fuller's moral view of natural law and law has practical significance. If we reflect or construct the current legal system according to his theory, it will undoubtedly have a positive effect on the social level. But if we go further, can we implement the moral concept of natural law in a pragmatic manner? Use? Or? Explain? Undoubtedly, better results can be achieved.
Here is a domestic case to demonstrate. 1999 September 10, Shenyang, Liaoning Province promulgated the Measures for Handling Pedestrian and Motor Vehicle Road Traffic Accidents in Shenyang. The "Measures" clearly stipulate that motor vehicle drivers are not responsible for traffic accidents between motor vehicles and pedestrians due to pedestrian traffic violations, and pedestrians are fully responsible. Subsequently, more than 20 large and medium-sized cities across the country made similar regulations.
Since the introduction of the Bill, there have been constant criticisms from the legal profession. The core of the query is that the bill violates the most basic legislative principle, that is, the value rank of rights. Generally speaking, according to the constitution, people's right to life is the highest right, and the related rights of motor vehicles on the road cannot compete with it, which becomes the reason for drivers to commit crimes. If the bill is measured by the morality advocated by the natural law school, it is undoubtedly an evil law, because it violates the most fundamental natural right of human beings-the right to life. These criticisms have both realistic and moral persuasiveness, and the bill was abolished at the end of 2003 amid condemnation. Obviously, from the beginning of the bill, its fate will not have a happy ending. From the beginning to the end of this incident, it seems that there is nothing surprising, but there are some aspects worthy of reflection.
We can fully imagine the original intention of legislators when the Bill was first enacted. Very simple, it is to regulate the behavior of pedestrians crossing the road illegally. Due to the contradiction between the limited carrying capacity of roads and the uncontrolled expansion of vehicles, most of the larger cities in China are very congested. At this time, traffic laws and regulations play an extremely important role in relieving traffic pressure. It is not difficult to punish motor vehicle violations, but most pedestrians have the habit of violating regulations, and punishment is often difficult to operate. Therefore, in some cases, road congestion is caused by pedestrians not obeying traffic lights. Under such circumstances, Shenyang? Beat for nothing? The bill was first introduced, with the purpose of regulating pedestrian violations and diverting traffic. If we only look at the legislative purpose, it is difficult to directly draw the conclusion that the law is an evil law. Because after all, some individuals are not directly deprived of their normal rights, pedestrians are not an option to illegally cross the road. In fact, they weigh the cost of obeying the law and breaking the law before making an illegal decision, and their will is free. The behavior under the control of free will naturally bears corresponding consequences. The consequences here are, may be? White lump? . So, from where? Kill for nothing? Judging from the actual legislative purpose and logical structure, this law is not a pure evil law, but also has the basic characteristics of a good law, such as strict logic. After all, the law only provides a prediction result known by the parties, but it does not mean that the behavior must happen. We have more reason to believe that pedestrians will make rational choices after weighing the pros and cons and considering the results under the constraints of this law. Therefore, violations may be corrected.
However, from the introduction of the bill to its final abolition, most of the opposition voices heard came from the hierarchy, that is, the moral criticism of the so-called natural law. Few people can look at it from the perspective of practice and propose solutions to the problems. Admittedly, the law is unconstitutional, and it is also seriously inconsistent with the common sense of * * *, but after the condemnation and abolition, it seems that there is no following. In the end, no solution to the problem was put forward, and no constructive bill was introduced. In this whole process, the morality of law is only a critical weapon, and its core practical significance has not been brought into play. Therefore, it can be said that in the current environment, the criticism of legal morality only stays at the level of negation, and there is no trend towards negation of negation. This situation is very worrying.
Four. conclusion
The author does not support such things as? Beat for nothing? A bill like this does not support the expulsion of good morality from the basis and characteristics of the law, but hopes to combine the two. To support the effective operation of positive law by naturally echoing the moral characteristics of the general public's kindness and traditional psychology. As mentioned above, although it is imperative to abolish the original legislation, the problem needs to be solved urgently. Therefore, the content of the bill can be amended to replace the right to life with the loss of other rights. For example, the principle of no-fault liability for motor vehicles is stipulated. Although compensation is allowed for the victims, the official will announce their exemption and make a negative evaluation of the victims' behavior, thus making the offenders at a moral and credit disadvantage and suffering. At the same time, when laws and regulations are promulgated, legal explanations should be given to generate credibility, so that the public can believe that the two constitutions are equal and consciously abide by them, thus achieving good practical results.
In a word, the academic debate between Professor Fuller and Professor Hart is not only intellectual, but also cultural and realistic, which has a great enlightening effect on the rule of law construction in China today.
Precautions:
1, 2,3 [America] Lang? Fuller. Positivism and Loyalty to Law ―― Answer to Professor Hart. Knowledge @IdeoBook