The advantage of written laws is that they apply to everyone.
A conscience is mostly personal-and I must not think that the individual conscientious will form the law.Perhaps your conscience does not like me at all. And I do not like my conscience. That’s a mess.
The law is that what is written down in a code.In addition, there is customary law, which is right where one agrees with each other; The law as it has always been. The customary law is right before it is written down. This then strikes primitive law in all sorts of cultures, say the Germanic law, against Roman law.
In addition, there is also natural law, or right according to its own insights.The judge then speaks about matters which are not included in the code, or he is entitled to cases where he does not know the law. Lucky Luke’s ‘ The Judge ‘ gives a fine example of natural law.
Finally there is the own conscience.Sometimes this is contrary to the law. Roughly speaking, there are two aspects to the own conscience. The first is self-sermons. The second is to violate the law because it is not in accordance with your conscience. Both of course should not be according to the law.
If you put someone together because he stares at your girlfriend, then you speak yourself right and you are guilty of abuse.You can also help a refugee on the basis of your conscience, but according to the law you are a people smuggler.
In all cases, the law determines what is and is not allowed.Not because that is morally correct and just, but because that is legally correct.
The law can be changed ‘ under pressure from public opinion ‘.Thus, the law is constantly changing. A striking example is the emancipation of homosexuals. Their position has also been changed according to the law.
There are also maximum speeds for cars on the highway, while many people may be much quicker according to their own conscience.However, the law has changed so that there are maximum speeds, although sometimes they are changed again. For instance, legislation is a fairly opaque political process.
You can siton a couch .Or you have a bank account with money.
‘ The law ‘ is also 2 things:
- What is written in law books (appointments between people),
- And that which, according to Kant, are “natural laws” or inevitable things.
If you leave a plain glass out of your hands on Earth over a stone floor, he goes to thousands of shards.That legality is not ‘ because it is written ‘, but an inevitability from nature.
Your conscience is based on natural laws and human desibalities.Read lace.
This is a really philosophical question that fits in the list of different types of currents.Each one thinks differently about what is right and what is right to be belonged. Actually, there are roughly 3 major currents:
Postivisme: This is the written right.Everything that is in the law books. In his hard core, this flow still accepts the written statements of the judge. The most important thing for this current is the legibility and predictability of the laws and rules. The legal certainty and knowing what the law content and what the law means to you.
Then you have the natural right: right is more than the written rules.They are fundamental principles of law. These are not written down but everyone likes them well and agree. It is about the norms and values and right is actually good if it feels good and just for most people.
Then you have the interactionism: Right created by the interrelationships between people.It is about what has been looked at in the concrete situation for all the characteristics of the case. The main source is the judge who told how to use the right in a determined case. You first look at the situation and the relationship between people and then pass to other sources like the written right. This is purely about the circumstances of the case
Often people switch between the three main currents per situation.Also, this is of course the extreme of every current. There are often mengel forms. For this reason, I partially agree with you.
A good lawyer will never pretend that you can read a code once and then know exactly where you are.In some legal questions, it is even so that one can explicitly assume that a judge sometimes simply needs to write somewhere because the result is otherwise unsatisfactory. A well-known example is the electriciteitsarrest. Is Power a good? Well, according to civil law does not. In criminal law though. So you can steal it too. You cannot steal goods, with that the importance of the case.
With your conscience alone, you will not be there.Moreover, I can call it a case-law, which at least runs counter to my conscience. What is so, that if that reaches too far, one can argue that there is no case-law. See in this regard the Nazi judges, although of course it is also wrong on many non-moral grounds. For example, no adversarial is something you can morally underpin as a reprehensive practice-most of the time ethics are based on something else-but first of all it is just a fundamental principle of proper litigation, without which a process Bad play has been reduced.
If you only go off on your conscience, can you drive through the red light?
To some extent I did agree with it.However, it must be nuanced.
What is in the law is the result of what manifests itself when one follows his conscience and then writes out the result, so that one can measure a similar situation and better judge it.What reveals itself when one follows the conscience is different per individual and situation. This is also why there is jurisprudence.
No.Bismarck: It is good that people do not know how laws and sausages are made. According to someone who responded to QUORA. What do judges do if they have given a bad verdict. They go golfing quietly. It will be them sausage creature.