Slavery Case
Slavery! A very moral and ethical challenge upon the legal system’s history will always and forever express how ethics and morals are evaluated and what influences morals and ethics. It is a very delicate balancing act to assure that every law passed falls within the boundaries set forth by the U.S. Constitution. The reason it is a balancing act is, based upon Introduction to business law’s editorial board (EB), that every state has a constitution that governs that state (Editorial Board, 2012, p. 8). Even though the state their own constitution it, still must fall in line with the U.S. Constitution or it stands to be kicked out. Nevertheless, this is still a daunting task to keep within the set legal framework and run a state according to what that state feels it’s best for itself. It may appear best to allow children to be able to work longer than a set amount of hours in one state, while another may express that it is unethical to allow a child to work over a set period of time. So, it is important to set the standard with the U.S. Constitution as the guide, but that won’t always work.
As stated before, the United States Constitution is the supreme source of the law. In other words, this is where the “buck stops.” All laws have to go in conjunction with the U.S. Constitution to avoid being kicked out, so how do you accomplish that? Also, above all else, how do you assure they are ethical?
In determining the ethical value of a law, the field of jurisprudence or the study of the philosophy behind the law, is evaluated. According to text, there are three philosophies behind the field of jurisprudence. First, natural law theories suggest that there are certain fundamental truths that are universal, and that all laws must exist within the framework of these natural laws…Two, legal positivism theories suggest that laws are simply made by people, and there is no necessary connection between laws and ethical or moral principles… Three, legal realism, like positivism, recognizes that people make laws (EB, 2012, p. 10). Under natural law, Political philosopher Tomas Hobbes expresses that if laws are trusted to be created and judged man then there should equality for all man. Yet, the question arises how could slavery have existed if this concept of natural law stands? For legal positivism, the idea stands that the laws created are clear cut and concise: that the laws that exist can fully explain and determine the solution for every scenario. If this holds true then where in the constitution does it state that interracial marriages is unjust and illegal? How does it answer the question that no alcohol can be consumed during the Prohibition, but now it’s okay? Finally, legal realism is ultimately decided by a judge. Although, the judge feels that what decision he hands down is based upon the letters of the law, he still takes in to account the legal, moral and ethical values of the case. What’s to say he isn’t biased?