Another morally relevant area is that of assisted reproduction, which has been put back on the table in connection with possible human cloning. It is curious that the ethical©debate on this topic has focused on absurd assumptions such as Hitler`s mass production or the prospect of a world populated by unrecognizable twins. That is, we worry about what will happen to society, but we forget to mention what© will happen to new beings when they are born. The right to procreation of stable or stable couples© because they do not have a partner of the opposite sex is affirmed, but the fundamental right to the descent of each born is affirmed, that is, the right to be inscribed in the symbolic order of the dual male and female origin of the man©, instead of being transformed into a laboratory whim, is forgotten. I don`t think anyone has© the moral authority to plan father`s orphans or condemn another to be their own father`s twin©brother to remedy their personal emotional deficiencies. But the purpose of morality is beyond this question, for first and foremost moral codes and phrases seek to adorn people with virtues and purify them from vices. The goal of morality is to attain man`s material and spiritual happiness, the happiness that comes to man in the shadow of divine glory. The State is founded on a social contract resulting from agreements between citizens, if its legality is based on submission to the law, to a duly promulgated legal order, the concept of the rule of law arises. This state must build legitimacy, because without it it it is not possible to guarantee the support of the citizens, their stability and stability. Aristotle says that states ensure their stability through justice and the goodness of the ruler`s actions, thus legitimizing themselves and attaining higher levels of governability that law alone does not guarantee. We believe that morality supports what is good for society, because it is completely universal that all members of society are protected from these forced violations.
There are many rules, laws, and regulations that are only aimed at making the world more manageable and have nothing to do with matters of morality. This includes things like taxes, traffic laws, and many others. Let us try to ensure that legislation is as consistent as possible with the moral sensibilities of citizens, but never with the aim of replacing it or making it superfluous. Paradigmatic is, for example, the case of the death of the Tetraplã©jico Ramón Sampedro. Some of us believe that suicide is one of the inalienable prerogatives of our dignity: to condemn it absolutely© is to condemn human autonomy©. It does not take alibis of physical decomposition or unbearable pain to make it understandable to any mature consciousness, for some ailments of the soul can be much more unbearable than those of the body. And let`s ignore the fools who call „coward” what they can`t even imagine without chills. Well, only a true friend can help those who want to commit suicide so quickly and persistently, as Ramon Sampedro explained in his will, an important element of ethical©reflection of our time. It is a gesture of human brotherhood that I find admirable, whatever its criminal consequences (moreover, honest people already know that acting according to their own conscience can cause them problems). But it is a difficult gesture, a moral decision that someone must make with all the fear©of the case, and not a simple administrative procedure that can be solved by amending the penal code.
In the case of euthanasia, as in the case of abortion, I believe that such a change is desirable so as not to confuse morality excessively with the criminal, but it seems terrible to me to suppose that the issue is no longer morally problematic once the legal constraint ends. Following the thought above, this does not mean that these rules flow exclusively from morality. For example, it is immoral to keep people in slavery, but slavery has always been codified in the laws of many nations, so we doubt that it can reasonably be argued that slavery has always been good for society. What really distinguishes them is that the rule of law is dictated at a certain time, in a certain place, by the will of certain authorities. While the rule of morality results from an individual or collective awareness of the dates of science or divine revelation, the moral rule is limitless, while the rule of law is limited to the territory of the State that proclaimed it. These are immoral behaviors from a secular point of view and Christian morality that almost all claim to practice. What happens is that they also lie about their faith. If they really thought that there was a God who created heaven and hell and that breaking His commandments would give them advantages in this life, but condemn them to eternal fire in the next life, they would have different behaviors. We prefer the right to analyze and judge a decision, leaving aside the guiding criteria of morality and ethics.
Limitation of court judgments to human social behavior, the rules of law and rights referring only to social and judicial behavior. Moral rules include both individual and collective behavior, and even people`s qualities and attitudes. We share the thesis that establishes the necessary distinction between morality and law, accompanied by a number of very relevant links. In this sense, it has been said that „the distinction between law and morality should not hinder the effort to examine the relationship between the two norms in modern culture, nor the struggle for the inclusion of reasonable moral standards in the law, nor the criticism of morality criteria to valid law.”2 Let us look below at the fundamental aspects of the various theories. The relationship between morality and law represents one of the most important and complex questions in legal philosophy, especially if we take into account whether it concerns the concept of law, its application, the relationship between legality and justice, or the delicate question of legal obedience. Morality and law refer to an important part of human behavior and are broadly expressed in the same terms (duty, obligation, guilt, responsibility). It can be said that the content of the law clearly depends on current social morality, just as any social morality claims to have the forced strengthening of the law in order to achieve social efficiency.