Kant and Aristotle`s theories of moral ethics are similar when they believe that morality is based on free will and freedom of choice. They differ because he says in Kant that the free will of the individual is not based solely on his own opinions and values, but is influenced by culture and experiences; Aristotle`s theory of hedonism asserts that people`s moral values are based on the motivation of their own interests and essentially give them freedom of choice. Imagine taking a walk in your city one night. You arrive at an intersection with a traffic light. The pedestrian traffic light indicates stop, but the whole street is empty. You wait and wait before you finally decide to cross the road. There are no cars coming, and you continue your walk. Technically, what you did was illegal. But if you asked an average person if what you did was immoral, they would probably say no. This is dangerous because morality has this absolute claim to direct its own actions. Ethics gives us rules to follow unconditionally without ever questioning them: you shouldn`t steal, you should be honest, you should be loyal, and so on. But unconditionally obeying state laws is rarely a good idea. Laws are made by a parliament, and it is not a God-inspired body or any kind of higher wisdom.
The people who make our laws are fallible, they can make mistakes; Quite often they are greedy, perhaps corrupt, they can be bribed and pressured, or they serve certain interest groups. So, in the end, the laws made by these people are not necessarily worthy of being followed unconditionally. This is just one of the many mysteries about the relationship between the realms of legality and morality, but it indicates an important source of conflict and confusion. I can say that I disagree with the person in the clinical discussion who said that laws are the end of the story. There is more to it than that. So we can see that legal and moral correctness are two completely different things. There are actions that are legally right but morally wrong; there are actions that are morally just but illegal; And then there are also more or less broad areas of regulation in which legal and moral coincide. It is therefore not fair to say that, for example, abortion is morally reprehensible because it is illegal. This is a bad argument, because the law itself could be an immoral law in this case. One might, of course, believe that abortion is morally wrong (or just), but this must be justified by an argument based on ethical theories and not just on the laws of a particular place. If you believe that something you think is moral, it`s not always legal.
For example, if someone morally thinks it is acceptable to steal from other people because their moral values are low, that does not make it legal. Stealing most likely motivates self-interest, as the individual`s morale is low. It can bring them happiness and pleasure, so it`s possible that they think it`s moral. For example, if the law says you have to extradite undocumented people to the authorities, then you would have a moral obligation to do so because that is the law. The mere fact that the law is the law creates this obligation, but we might agree that this obligation can be compensated in some cases if we believe that the law itself is immoral, or if we feel that our other moral obligations outweigh our moral obligation to obey the law. Sometimes when something is legal, it is not always moral, in fact there are many things in which it is true. For example, if someone wants an abortion, they are entitled to it because it is legal. However, this does not mean that it is the right or moral thing. It depends on the values and opinions of the individual, whether he is right or not. A hedonist would do what he appreciates most, which promotes his personal interest. The dispute between legal and moral was and is currently an ongoing discussion that distinguishes the two. Legal is something that has been named, established or authorized by law and has consequences if violated.
All citizens of society must obey these laws, even if they do not necessarily appreciate them. Bad governments provide other examples. In Nazi Germany, there were all kinds of laws enacted to deprive the Jewish people of their basic human rights. Helping or even treating a Jewish citizen medically if you were a non-Jewish doctor was prohibited by law. But, of course, we would not consider such actions immoral; Quite the contrary. Here it would be morally reprehensible to follow the law. Ultimately, we are all called as individuals to decide what we think is morally right and wrong. It`s part of what makes us human that we can`t let go of that decision and let others decide for us.
Each of us must decide for ourselves which actions we want to consider morally good or bad, even if they violate the laws of the state. Legal but immoral acts are also common. For example, it is legal to look for tax loopholes and try to manipulate the system to reduce your own taxes. This can go as far as companies moving their international headquarters to unlikely locations like some Caribbean islands or Ireland, just to avoid paying regular taxes in their home (and business) countries. While such behavior is legal, it is clearly immoral. A company that earns billions of dollars from consumers in a particular country has a moral obligation to pay taxes in that country, thereby contributing to that country`s social security systems, public infrastructure, health care, schools, etc. Evading this responsibility, even if it is legal, is not morally right. The fundamental distinction between legal and moral is quite easy to identify. Most people agree that what is legal is not necessarily moral and that what is immoral should not necessarily be illegal. Hedonists like Aristotle believe that pleasure and happiness are the main factor of morality and values. Decisions are made by a hedonist to provide personal pleasure and the satisfaction of achieving something. Decisions that are valued and implemented do not harm others, but at the same time give joy to an individual.