AGOSILA, MAUREEN THERESE G.

2004003916

ISSUES ON LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS

Professor: Fr. Pablo Tiong, OP

1. How would you account for the fact that some issues may be legal in
some nations while being illegal in other nations?

Some issues are legal in some nations and illegal in another because
each nation have different set of customs, values, and beliefs. Humans
are social creatures. We learn our behavior from our ancestors and from
the society.

For instance, in the Philippines, marrying another during the

subsistence of a first marriage as well as same sex marriage are illegal
because Philippines is generally a Catholic country. However, in
Muslim countries, polygyny (having more than one wife) is allowed
provided that it is availed only by the oppressed or the orphans among
women, if justice can be done by marrying more than one. Otherwise,
the Koran suggests monogamy as the only acceptable marriage bond in
Islam.

In South Africa, all polygamous marriages entered into in accordance

with the provisions of the Recognition of Customary Marriages Act are
legal, which means that a man can marry several wives, but a woman
cannot have multiple husbands (polyandry). Interestingly, a person
married under its Civil Union Act which allows same-sex couples to
marry, may not enter into marriage with a second partner until the
existing marriage is dissolved. Thus, only men are allowed to marry
more than one spouse of the opposite sex at the same time.

2. Explain the respective nuances and the differences between the concept
of legality (based on civil law) and the concept of morality (based on
natural moral law)?

The concept of legality based on civil law are “man-made” as it is

defined by a statute and common law (“positive law”), and does not
necessarily reflect the natural law. An action is legal if it does not violate
any of the written laws. On the other hand, the concept of morality
 based on natural moral law encompasses that our civil laws should be
based on morality, ethics, and what is inherently correct. Morality is a
body of principles that defines what is good and bad conduct.

For instance, we were thought by our parents and teachers of what is

morally correct and wrong like it is wrong to steal, kill, cheat, and lie.
Then, later in life, we learn that it is illegal, but not necessarily immoral,
to beat the red light, not pay taxes, issue a worthless check, carry an
unlicensed firearm, or post on social media malicious accusations
against another person. These acts become illegal because there is a law
punishing them.

3. Why is civil law (legality) country-specific whereas morality (being

based on natural moral law) is considered universal?

Civil law is country-specific because it is passed by the legislative body

that creates laws for its own country that are applicable within its
jurisdiction and/or over its citizens and residents.

Morality is considered universal because humans have an innate ability

to discern which is good and bad regardless of our nationality and
geographical location. Individuals in a society have specific beliefs, but
they also share collective values.

4. Despite glaring disparity in some issues, explain how the universal

concept of morality (based on human nature and natural moral law, as
reflected substantially in the UN Universal Declaration of Human
Rights) leads to similarities and working harmony among the vast
number of provisions of different country-specific civil laws?

As earlier stated, humans are social creatures. Values are a culture’s

standard for discerning what is good and just in society. They are
deeply ingrained and critical for transmitting and teaching a culture’s
beliefs. On the other hand, beliefs are the tenets that people hold to be
true. Hence, the legislators create bills based also on the values and
beliefs that are existing in their country.

5. Explain how the dictum, “my right to extend may hand ends where the
nose of my neighbor begins,” reflects a valid moral and ethical principle
that balances the concepts of human rights and human duties (thus the
dictum can be rephrased as: “my right to extend may hand ends where
my duty to respect the nose of my neighbor begins”).

The dictum “my right to extend may hand ends where the nose of my
neighbor begins” balances the concepts of human rights and human
duties by limiting the exercise of our rights up to the extent that we do
not violate other’s rights simply because they also have their own rights.
In other words, we should not abuse the exercise of our rights.