This Article is written by Tejal
Values are the driving force of law. The lawmakers when they make their laws and the judges when they implement and give a decision are not functioning in a vacuum. They are directed by the values identified in society. Morals and values are the social principles that form the matrix from which legal ideals are evolved by lawmakers or judges. Morals are more than prospective materials for the legislative law-maker. To understand the concept of morality in the Law of Torts, there needs to be an understanding of the term ‘Tort’. It comes from the Latin word tortum which essentially means twisted. The Law of tort is defined as the violation of a legal right against which there is a legal remedy at hand. The term morality is derived from the Latin word moralitas which means proper behaviour and the concept of morality is explained as the principle regarding the difference between what is right and wrong or ethical and unethical behaviour or a specific system of code of conduct and values. Tort law duties tend to follow diurnal morality, creating them in such a way that it becomes easier to put across and to self-enforce. The basis of torts started from the morality of the society and has some ethical values as its underpinnings. The objective of the law of torts is to protect society from turmoils and chaos by instituting a court in which a person can bring up a claim against another person, without calling on personal revenge.
CONCEPT OF MORALITY
The very temperament of judicial procedure importing discretion and choice are mentored by morals and values. When the system of values transform laws tend to transform with them as well. Morality is a value-infused concept that is connected to definite normative patterns which focus A on the expansion of good and diminution of evil in personal as well as social life. Therefore the concept of value is the establishment of morality. A moral act is an amalgamation of the issue that makes the act (free & rational act) and the objective that is intended. The act of morality consists of three elements – the objective, the end & the circumstance. Rational human nature is the primary rule of morality, and morality is the renovation of a recognized order of values. To position it concisely, morality is nothing but conventionality with the norm which standardizes human life: that is to say the rule of reason. Consequently, the core of morality is an individual’s approach to his/her goal. A majority of writers use the term moral and ethics as a substitution. While morals are the principles or standard of rules governing human behaviour that are applicable universally, on the other hand, ethics is a concept of idyllic forms of life fixed by the individuals for themselves. Morality depends entirely upon human conduct and ethics in contrast is about principles.
LAW AND MORALITY
The accurate areas of the relationship between morality and law can be acknowledged in the following ways:
- Law is associated to morality in the setting forth of those assets that are connected to the universal good. This does not mean that positive human law must prohibit all vices nor command all assets: rather it forbids only the failings of mankind scares the very endurance of society and authorizes those assets which can be ordered by human means for the common good.
- Law is associated to morality by the moral responsibility imposed, i.e., by the inevitability of an act in association to a necessary end – since law as the authority of practical reason essentially entails an obligation. As a result responsibility flows from the vital notion of law as an efficient way of dictate of practical reasoning. On the other hand, positive human laws obligation is not in the same manner as morality’s responsibility.
- Law is associated to morality in as much as law is suject to & cannot disagree with moral principles, i.e., ordinary moral law.
- Law is associated to morality in as much as justice is a moral conception which is worthless outside the region of morality. Essentially, justice consists in the formation of equality.
Although there are explicit areas of association between law and morality, it does not pursue that courts will reflect on moral constituents in the application of communal law. The degree of influence of moral reflection in the application of common law will be conditional upon various factors: specific influence is given to moral reflections in the development of legal rights and in the elucidation of constitutions and rulings.
Prior to tort being recognized as a legal kind in its own right, torts were acknowledged as “private wrongs.” Legal judgments and outlooks in modern tort matters discuss defendants who come with an obligation of duties to abstain from criminal conduct.
The idea of committing an immoral act carries apparent moral connotations, yet some essential aspects of tort doctrine seem to radiate doubt on whether or not tort has anything to associate with wrongful conduct. Specifically, liability in such cases often arises from bad fate as compared to immoral acts of questionable character. For instance, if someone fails to help a man who is starving or if someone is drowning, it is only a moral wrong, and therefore, no liability or obligation can come up unless it is proved that there was a legal responsibility to save the drowning person or the starving man. In another scenario, Law of torts does not completely rely on the violation of the moral duty to have a take on his/her guilt.
There can be definite moral wrongs, which can lead to damage to others but here law presents no lawful remedy; and on the divergence of it, there are various legal wrongs which cannot lead to any damage or loss to an individual, but the law, on the other hand, presents a legal cure even though there is the meagre degree of breach of private legal right. And it can also be inferred that tort law is not completely based on the idea and beliefs of morality but is purely a composite of legal and moral duties.