��������������������� ���������������������� ���������������������� ���������������������� �����

� � � ���� ��� � ���� � �� � � ���� ��� � ���� � �� � � ���� ��� � ���� � �� � � ���� ��� � ���� � �

������� � � � ���� ����������� � � � ���� ����������� � � � ���� ����������� � � � ���� ����

���� �� ����� ��� � ����� �� ����� ��� � ����� �� ����� ��� � ����� �� ����� ��� � �

��������������������

Author: Siddhant Jaiswal Student: Dr. RML National Law University Address: Sec- D1, LDA Colony, Kanpur Road Scheme, Lucknow – 226012 Uttar Pradesh, India Mobile No: 9453320428 Email id: siddhantjaiswal15@gmail.com

Co- Author: Akriti Student: Dr. RML National Law University Address: Sec- D1, LDA Colony, Kanpur Road Scheme, Lucknow – 226012 Uttar Pradesh, India Mobile No: 9559204191 Email id: akriti7891@gmail.com

WHAT IS LAW?

Laws are rules of conduct, approved by legislatures that guide human behavior in any society. They

codify ethical expectations & keep changing when new evils emerge. But laws cannot cover all ethical

expectations of society. Based on society’s ethics, laws are created and enforced by governments to

mediate in our relationships with each other. Laws are made by governments in order to protect its

citizens.1

WHAT IS ETHICS?

The word ethics comes from the Greek word “ethikos”, meaning character. There is a similar term that

prevails in and many times considered synonym of ethics, is “morality”. But in essence these are quite

different concept .the word morality has been derived from the Latin root ‘moralist” which means

behavior. Ethico-moral actions thus pertain to set of actions engineered by the characters and expressed

through behaviors.Ethics is a set of standards, or a code, or value system, worked out from human

reason and experience, by which free human actions are determined as ultimately right or wrong, good

or evil.2 If acting agrees with these standards, it is ethical, otherwise unethical.

1. PRINCIPLES OF PERSONAL ETHICS.

Personal ethics might also be called morality, since they reflect general expectations of any person in

any society, acting in any capacity. These are the principles we try to instill in our children and expect

of one another without needing to articulate the expectation or formulize it in any way.

Principles of personal ethics include:

• Concern for the well being of others

• Respect for the autonomy of others

1http://www.hks.harvard.edu/m-rcbg/CSRI/publications/workingpaper_19_michael.pdf 2http://ansteadsue.tripod.com/ethics.htm

• Trustworthiness & honesty

• Willing compliance with the law

• Basic justice: being fair

• Refusing to take unfair advantage

• Benevolence: doing good

• Preventing harm

2. PRINCIPLES OF PROFESSIONAL ETHICS

Individuals acting in a professional capacity take on an additional burden of ethical responsibility. For

example: professional associations have codes of ethics that prescribe required behavior within the

context of a professional practice such as medicine, law, accounting or engineering. These written

codes provide rules of contact & standards of behavior based on the principles of professional ethics,

which include:

• Confidentiality

• Impartiality

• objectivity

• Openness; full disclosure

• Due diligence/duty of care

• Fidelity to professional responsibilities

• Avoiding potential or apparent conflict of interest

LAW AND ETHICS

Law is a code of conduct which the authority in power prescribes for society. It basically differs

from ethics in its option to use force if and when necessary and by the fact that it is backed by

power. Laws are, by and large, fair and moral. But it is not easy to accept that laws can be the

foundations of ethics, or even that laws can ensure ethical behaviour.

There are many situations in life, where just following the law does not make one ethical. For

example, if your next door neighbour has just today lost their only son in a motorcycle accident,

just when you wanted to celebrate the birthday of your only son with gaiety, music, guests,

enjoyment and much merry making, there is no law to prohibit you from doing so. If you decide

not to, it is because of the dictates of your conscience, not because of the dictates of the law. Your

conscience, your ethical value system and your principles forbids you to rejoice when some one

else nearby is in sorrow. The law has no role to play in such a situation.3

Moreover, not all laws have moral choice. There are many laws which do not involve any

ethicality questions - for example, we are required to walk on the left hand side of the road. This is

done to ensure traffic control and the traffic discipline, but a question of ethics is not involved

here.

Again, all moral and ethical actions do not involve the law. For example, it is ethical to love and

respect your parents, but there is no law for it, except when they are deliberately mistreated by

their children. Law represents the minimum standards of behaviour expected from people. Merely

following the law, does not make one ethical.

Another aspect of the legal system is that it prohibits us of certain actions. It also spells out the

negative consequences of our not following the law - that is legal punishment. However, ethical

behaviourencourages us to do certain things and explains the benefits, i.e., the positive aspects of

these ethical behaviour. For example, the law tells us not to steal, not to kill, but ethics tells us to

3http://danedgeofreason.com/2007/04/morality.html

do good, speak the truth, help others in distress. Thus there is a positive aspect inherent in ethical

behaviour, whereas the law is more concerned about negative behaviour.

Yet another aspect of the law is that ethics precedes the action, the law follows it. Ethics tells us

what we should strive to develop in ourselves (high moral standards), on the other hand, law tends to

be more concerned with the consequences of the negative action - what punishment would follow,

who is guilty and how shall justice be done.

Moreover, the law is a universally accepted, published document, whereas ethics do be not yet

have a universally accepted, consistent and published concept - it is abstract, culture specific and

left to the individual for interpretation and action.

Again, the law clearly specifies what action would be taken against a person if he or she violates the

provisions of the legal system. But, in case of ethics, there is no specific outcome of an unethical

action. What would be the consequences of an unethical action is not very clear, not always the

same and not universally accepted. An unethical action may have many repercussions and

widespread consequences.

Some Laws have nothing to do with morality because they do not involve serious matters. These

include parking laws, dress codes and other laws covering similar matters.

Other laws may even violate our moral standards so that they are actually contrary to morality. In

USA pre-Civil War slavery laws, for example, required the Whites to treat slaves like property,

and the laws of Nazi Germany required anti-Semitic behaviour.4 The laws of Saudi Arabia require

that businesses discriminate against women and Jews in ways that most people would say are

clearly immoral. Thus, it is clear that ethics is not simply following the law.

This does not mean, of course, that ethics has nothing to do with following the law. Our moral

standards' are sometimes incorporated into the law, when enough of us feel that a moral standard

should be enforced by the pressures of a legal system. In contrast, laws are sometimes criticized

and eliminated when it becomes clear that they blatantly violate our moral standards. Morality, 4 http://hubpages.com/hub/is-monogamy-morally-correct

therefore, has shaped and influenced many of the laws we have.

Moreover, most ethicists agree that all citizens have a moral obligation to obey the law so long as

the law does not require clearly unjust behaviour. This means that, in most cases, it is immoral to

break the law. Tragically, the obligation to obey the law can create terrible conflicts when the law

requires something that the business person believes is immoral. In such cases, a person will be

faced with a conflict between the obligation to obey the law and the obligation to obey his or her

conscience.

Perhaps the easiest way to think about the relationship between business ethics and the law is in

terms of a Venn diagram. If we think of the law as reflecting society's minimum norms and standards

of business conduct, we can see that there is a great deal of overlap between what's legal and what's

ethical. Generally speaking, most people believe that law-abiding behaviour is also ethical behaviour.

But there are many standards of conduct agreed upon by society that are not codified in law. For

example, conflicts of interests may not be illegal, but they are generally considered to be unethical in

our society and are commonly covered in codes of ethics. So, the domain of ethics includes the legal

domain but extends beyond it to include the ethical standards and issues that the law does not

address.5

Law Ethics

Over lap areas

5http://www.thepublicmanager.org/articles/docs/kishore.pdf

Finally there are times when you might encounter a law that you believe is unethical. For example, not so

long ago racial discrimination was legal in the United States. Therefore, the legal and ethical domains

certainly overlap to a large degree, but not completely. It is conceivable to think of something as being

legal and unethical, or unethical but not covered by law.

LAW AND MORALITY

Morality concerns how one ought to live one’s life, and ethics refers to the codes of conduct governing

social interactions. To live morally or ethically is to adhere to standards of right conduct, to act well, to be a

good person. Law is also a code of conduct. Ethics, morality, and law constrain what individuals may do, but

in different ways. That an act is immoral or unethical is for many people sufficient reason not to commit it.

For others, only the threat of legal punishment is sufficient. Laws are enforced by punishment

or damage awards, executed after a judicial determination according to procedures laid out by an

authoritative governing body. Moral laws or principles have no similar enforcement mechanism. The

relation between morality and law is complex and a matter of considerable disagreement.6 To what extent do

or should they coincide? Some have argued that law properly targets immoral or unethical conduct. For

example, in 1977 the United States enacted the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, making illegal the bribery of

foreign officials. Recently the United States has urged other nations to follow suit. But many resist the view

that government should use law to coerce people into being moral, and argue that law and morality must be

separate and distinct; if we believe abortions are immoral, it does not necessarily follow that they should be

illegal.

Natural law theorists regard law and morality as connected; law is not simply whatever legislatures enact in

statutes. If what is called a law fails to meet the features that all morally proper laws should have, then it is

called law only by mistake, and has no authority. 6http://www.niehs.nih.gov/research/resources/bioethics/whatis/

There seems to be quite a strong connection between law and morality. Although people sometimes say "you

shouldn't legislate morality", they presumably don't really mean this - why would we outlaw rape and

murder if they weren't wrong? Instead, I suppose they mean that people shouldn't impose their personal

moral views (especially regarding sexuality) upon others. I would agree with that sentiment, though my

reason is precisely because I think legislation should be morally informed, and the "moral views" in question

are entirely misled.

As a quick aside: it is unfortunate that the word "morality" has become associated with conservative values,

because the obvious invalidity of those values to many people tarnishes their attitude towards morality as a

whole. And that is a damn shame. When conservative groups advocate bigotry masquerading as "family

values", we need to recognise the injustice of this, and instead stand up for what is right. But I digress - this

isn't intended as a post about howliberals need to reclaim the moral high ground.

So we accept that there is a connection between law and morality, but what sort of connection is it? Their

domains are clearly not entirely identical - for example, it may be wrong to lie to your parents, but it

certainly is no business of the law. Perhaps the best way to explain this is to acknowledge that the law is an

extremely blunt tool, and so will be of no help when dealing with minor or subtle moral issues. we

understand law and morality in terms of belief-desire psychological theory. That theory claims that any

human action can be explained solely in terms of the beliefs and desires of the agent. For example, if I turn

on a heater, this may be because I desire to be warm, and I believe that turning on the heater will achieve this

end. To apply this to our current topic, consider how society can influence the actions of its members.

BELIEF-DESIRE PSYCHOLOGICAL THEORY

This theory can be used to explain the relation/connection between Law and Ethics& Morality7. According

to belief-desire psychology, there are two broad options:

• Change someone's beliefs

• Change their desires.

� Morality, by this understanding, corresponds to the latter option. That is, morality is a

system of socialisation whereby society instills in its members the desire to act in certain

ways. The society that we live in instills in us many habits and characteristics. For

example: All children are taught by their parents that they should not steal anything,

should respect elders, etc. There are many things that are considered good, moral and

ethical and its members are expected to behave in that particular way. Society establishes

some standards for its members. It is believed by the society that a person who maintains

such standards is a noble person. As such, a person following such standards commands

respect in the society. This instills in the members of the society to go along with the

norms set by the society.8

� The other method of influence is to alter people's beliefs about how best to fulfill their

desires. Society also tells its members as to how to fulfill their desires. It lays down what

are the correct ways for fulfilling a desire. For example: a society considers it moral and

ethical to earn money by correct means. But many a times people do not follow with these

norms set out by the society. They start acquiring money through wrong means like

smuggling or theft or extortion, etc. These modes of getting money are considered

immoral and unethical by the society and hence some force is needed to stop these

immoral and unethical acts. This is where Law comes in. Its role (according to this

7http://www.philosophyetc.net/2004/08/law-morality.html 8http://www.cygneis.com/ethics/moralist.htm

interpretation) is to serve as a deterrent for those who, for whatever reason, fail to be

bound by morality and ethics. It achieves this through the threat of punishment, i.e. by

instilling in citizens the belief that breaking the law is not in their own best interests - they

could get caught and sent to jail, which would surely thwart many of their other desires.

So by this view, law and morality are just two sides of the same coin - namely, that of

socialisation. Morality seeks to influence our behaviour by way of our desires, whereas

law is the 'back-up' option, and targets our beliefs.9

DUTY AND RESPECT FOR MORAL LAW

What is singular about motivation by duty is that it consists of bare respect for lawfulness. What

naturally comes to mind is this: Duties are created by rules or laws of some sort. For instance, the

bylaws of a club lay down duties for its officers. City and state laws establish the duties of citizens.

Thus, if we do something because it is our ‘civic’ duty, or our duty ‘as a boy scout’ or ‘a good

American’, our motivation is respect for the code that makes it our duty. Thinking we are duty bound

is simply respecting certain laws pertaining to us.

However intuitive, this cannot be all of the meaning. For one thing, as with laws of the old South and

the Nuremberg laws of Nazi Germany, the laws to which these types of ‘actions from duty’ conform

may be morally despicable. Respect for such laws could hardly be thought valuable. For another, our

motive in conforming our actions to civic and other laws is never unconditional respect. We also

have an eye toward doing our part in maintaining civil or social order, toward punishments or loss of

standing and reputation in violating such laws, and other outcomes of lawful behavior. Indeed, we

respect these laws to the degree, but only to the degree, that they do not violate values, laws or

principles we hold more dear. Yet acting from duty that we are not at all motivated by a prospective

9http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/kant-hume-morality/

outcome or some other extrinsic feature of our conduct. We are motivated by the mere conformity of

our will to law as such.

It is, presumably, this: Motivation by duty is motivation by our respect for whatever law it is that

makes our action a duty. But we can rationally ‘opt out’ of our membership in the city, state, club or

any other social arrangement and its laws — for instance, by quitting the club or expatriating. Those

laws only apply to us given we don't rationally decide to opt out, given the opportunity. Our respect

for the laws guiding us is qualified, in the sense that the thought that the law gives us a duty is

compelling only if there is no law we respect more that conflicts with it: My respect for the laws of

my club guides my action only insofar as those laws do not require me to violate city ordinances. But

my respect for city ordinance guides me only insofar as they do not require me to violate federal law.

And so on.

Eventually, however, we will come to laws that apply to us simply as members of the ‘club’ of

rational agents, so to speak, as beings who are capable of guiding their own behavior on the basis of

directives, principles and laws of rationality. We cannot choose to lay aside our ‘membership’ in the

category of such beings, or at least it is unclear what the status of such a choice would be. So,

suppose that there is some law prescribing what any rational agent must do. Then we have an idea of

a duty that we cannot rationally opt out of. When we do something because it is our moral duty, we

are motivated by the thought that, insofar as we are rational beings, we must act only as this

fundamental law of (practical) reason prescribes, a law that would prescribe how any rational being

in our circumstances should act. Whatever else such a law might be, it is, in virtue of being a

principle of reason, true of all rational agents.Respect for such a law is thus not qualified: my respect

for the laws of my club, city, constitution or religion guides in practical affairs only insofar as they

do not require me to violate laws laid down by practical reason, but respect for the deliverances of

my own reason does not depend on whether it requires me to violate the former sorts of laws. In this

case, it is respect for (rational) lawfulness as such guides me.

The forgoing line of argument reveals a distinctive aspect of this approach: the account of the content

of moral requirements and the nature of moral reasoning is based on the analysis of the unique force

moral considerations have as reasons to act. The force of moral requirements as reasons is that we

cannot ignore them no matter how circumstances might conspire against any other consideration.

Since they retain their reason-giving force under any circumstance, they have universal validity. So,

whatever else may be said of moral requirements, their content is universal. Only a universal law

could be the content of a requirement that has the reason-giving force of morality. This brings us to a

preliminary formulation of the CI: ‘We ought never to act except in such a way that I could also will

that my maxim should become a universal law’. This is the principle which motivates a good will,

and which is held to be the fundamental principle of all of morality.

RELATIONSHIPBETWEEN LAW, ETHICS AND MORALITY

Ethics as “inquiry and into the nature and grounds of morality” and morality as “moral judgments, standards

and rules of conduct”. Law are rules and principles developed through ethics and apply in situations

involving morality. Ethics and morality cover a wider scope when compared to law because law only

regulates particular aspects of ethics and morality. The limited scope of law in considering the issue of good

or bad or right and wrong is exemplified by the existence of the concepts of law and equity in the resolution

of cases. The consideration of equity usually occurs in instances when law insufficiently distinguishes the

acceptability of an action subject to litigation or provides a resolution to the case deemed consistent with the

code of ethics and morality judgments commonly accepted in a particular society. However, law is based on

ethics and morality determined through societal context and translated into enforceable rules with

corresponding penalties. Ethics and morality then translate into law with the intention of creating a basis for

encouraging people to opt for what is good or right instead of merely relying upon every individual’s value

judgments or conscience.10

Ethics and morality also differ since ethics involves the consideration of reasons underlying existing

principles or values while morality constitutes cognitive judgments of the individual regarding right or

wrong. This means that ethics consider principles in the decision on right and wrong while morality is the

result of the cognitive processing of ethical principles that law is needed if the moral virtues described in the

Ethics are to be nurtured. (The law can contribute as well to the development of the intellectual virtues by

promoting the conditions that they require.)

Law is needed both to help habituate citizens to virtuous actions and to help maintain the salutary habits they

acquire. These needs can be recognized even by those who are aware that the virtues generally fostered by

law are not the highest. The opinions one may have about the good, the true, and the beautiful are a

secondary concern of most laws. Still, it is well to keep in mind Aristotle's counsel that one who is "to listen

intelligently to lectures about what is noble and just must have been brought up in good habits." For proper

habituation, laws can be most useful, if not indispensable.

It is almost impossible for any regime that takes itself, and is to be taken, seriously not to shape its citizens

with respect to morality. To deny that legislation of morality can or should take place does not eliminate

such legislation; it merely conceals it, perhaps distorts it, and otherwise confuses and misleads rulers and

ruled alike.

Not only is law needed to secure justice among men, but law helps define or establish what precisely is fair

in various circumstances. A concern for fairness and trust is reflected, for example, in a community's

provision for a currency.

10http://www.preservearticles.com/201106248502/relation-between-law-and-morality-or-ethics.html

It should be added here that not only is morality somewhat dependent on law, but also that the law itself is to

a considerable extent dependent on morality. A properly trained, morally alert citizen-body tends to be

appalled by the lawbreaker.There is a critical reciprocity between law and morality. Reciprocity, we recall

from the Ethics, can be vital to justice as a particular virtue.11

We have been looking primarily at the direct dependence of morality on law. This dependence may be seen

to be indirect as well.The exercise of most virtues requires a stable community, one in which one's body and

life as well as property are fairly secure––and, of course, the law is essential here. To become or to remain a

civilized human being usually requires a sound community––that is, one in which the law plays a

considerable part.That the family is not only defined by the law, but also is empowered and in many ways

supported and reinforced by law, should be evident to us. Laws of property, marriage, child care, inheritance,

and taxation readily come to mind as very much affecting how families, constituted and privileged as they

are by law, conduct themselves.

LAWS CODIFIED BASED ON ETHICS AND MORALITY

In Indian Legal framework there are many laws which have been codified based on the ethics and morality

held by the society. Laws are made to regulate the behavior of the society. But while making laws it is also

kept in mind as to what are the ethics and morals held by the society as a law which is against the societal

morals and ethics can be expected to deliver in the society.12 For example: a law which is accepted by the

society in the western countries cannot be applied here as the culture, ethics and morality of both the society

are outrightly different from each other. Also, in order to preserve the society from getting disintegrated it is

important that the societal ethics and morals should be preserved and enforced. For this Law is needed.

Many laws have been formed in order to cater to the needs of the society in terms of the ethics and morals of 11http://www.wku.edu/~jan.garrett/320/320lawmo.htm 12http://www.csufresno.edu/Philosophy/documents/HromasCUPR1-2.pdf

the society. Another important fact is that the legislators while making a law have to take into account the

views of the society in respect of ethics and morality as they cannot possibly thwart it completely as then it

might result in the rejection of the law by the society and the law would ultimately fail to deliver the basic

purpose for which it was formed. Letsanalyse some of the Laws formed in reference of ethics and morality

of the society.

LAWS AGAINST DISCRIMINATION

The root meaning of the term DISCRIMINATE is to distinguish one object from another. A morally neutral

and not necessarily wrongful activity. However in modern usage, the term is not morally neutral: it is usually

intended to refer to the wrongful art of distinguishing illicitly among people not on the basis of individual

merit but on the basis of prejudice or some other invidious or morally reprehensible attitude.

Why is it wrong to Discriminate?

The arguments mustered against discrimination generally fall into two groups

a) Utilitarian arguments, which claim that discrimination leads to an inefficient use of human resources

b) rights arguments, which claims that discriminations violates basic human rights

Utilitarian arguments

The standard utilitarian arguments against racial and sexual discrimination are based on the idea that

societies productivity will be optimized to the extent that jobs are awarded on the basis of competency or

merit. Different jobs, the arguments goes, requires different skills and personality traits if they are to be

carried out in as productive a manner as possible. Furthermore, different peoples have different skills and

personality traits if they are to be carried out ion as productive a manner as possible. Furthermore, different

people have different skills and personality traits. Consequently, to ensure that jobs are maximally

productive, they must be assigned to those individuals whose skills and personality traits qualify them as the

most competent for the job. Insofar as jobs are assigned to individuals on the basis of other criteria unrelated

to competency, productivity must necessarily decline13. Discriminating among job applicants on the basis of

race, sex, religion, caste or other characteristics unrelated to job performances necessarily inefficient and,

therefore, contrary to utilitarian principles.

RIGHT ARGUMENTS

According to the rights arguments discrimination is wrong because it violates a persons basic moral rights.

To be treated as a free person equal to any other person, and that all individual have a correlative moral duty

to treat each individual as a free and equal person. Discriminatory practices violate the principle in two

ways. First, discrimination is based on the belief that one group is inferior to other group: that Blacks, for

example are less competent or less worthy of respect than whites or perhaps that women are less competent

or worthy of respect than men. Racial and sexual discrimination for instance may be based on stereotypes

that see low caste people as “lazy” or “shiftless” and see women as “emotional” and “weak”. Such degrading

stereotypes under mine the self-esteem of those groups against whom the stereotypes are directed and

thereby violate their right to be treated as equals. Second, discrimination places the members of groups that

are discriminated against in lower social and economic positions. Women have fewer job opportunities and

are given lower salaries. Again, the right to be treated as a free and equal person is violated.

So the basic line of argument is that it is considered immoral and unethical by the society that there should

be any sort of discrimination. Hence many laws have been codified against discrimination keeping in mind

the societal behavior in respect of discrimination. Thus Ethics and morality do affect the codification of

Laws.

13http://www.slideshare.net/ajithsrc/new-1-3685486

LAWS AGAINST CORRUPTION

The dictionary defines corruption as an inducement to wrong by bribery or other unlawful means: a

departure from what is pure(Moral) and correct(Ethical). The public officials commonly apply the term to

self-benefiting conduct and others dedicated to public service. Corruption has not only widespread

everywhere; it has innumerable forms and dimensions. These activities are considered unethical and immoral

by the society.

Ex: the milk seller who adulterates milk; the grocer who uses false weights; the contractor who does shady

job of road building and the engineer who puts the seal of approval on it; industrialists and businessmen

controlling political power and party machines for their selfish motives –all these are corrupt.

Corruption is a complex phenomenon and various factors and forces have conspired to cause it and spread it

everywhere. The major causes responsible for corruption are the following:

o Economic insecurity: the poor people become corrupt in the hope of becoming rich. The rich

indulge in it for fear of losing what they have.

o High rate of income tax: since the tax rates are high in India even the honest people are often

tempted to escape from it by making false returns of their property and income. Many of the officers

in the income tax are also equally corrupt and they thrive on bribery.

o Meager salary being paid to the government servants: the govt employees who draws poor salary

expect tips and bribes even for doing their regular or routine duties

o Emergence of new sources of wealth and power: unholy understanding between the businessmen

and the politicians always encourage corruption

o The system of democracy: all political parties spend crores of rupees on each election the money

comes from the big businessmen and industrialist who have their own vested interests in financing

the election. They supply money to the party elections in the form of black money. This in turn gives

them license, a ‘moral’ justification for accumulating unaccounted money in different forms

o The very presence of black money: this money is obtained by various ways namely tax evasion

smuggling speculation in shares receiving fee in cash without showing them in accounts etc…

o Social and economic modernization: “the get –rich quick” motivation inspires a large number of

people both at the top and bottom of the society to become corrupt.

PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION

All these factors cited above are in a way the outcome of corruption. And the society considers it highly

immoral and unethical that its members should accept bribe for doing work or they do any work wrongfully.

Hence societal ethics and morals wanted to eradicate it. Corruption, which has gone deep into our social life,

cannot be removed very easily. In fact, it can only be reduced or minimized, and can hardly be stopped

altogether.Even for minimizing this problem, both preventive and penalizing measures will have to be taken.

Preventive action must include administrative, legal, social, economic and educative measures.

Henceforth keeping this thing in mind, the legislators brought out a law for the prevention of corruption.

Thus in a way, the law against corruption was the effect of societal ethics and morality.

CONCLUSION

Nowadays, a cluster of laws are being formed very fast and people do argue that it has nothing to do with the

ethics and morality of society. But this is not true as if it would have been so then then there would have

been no difference between the laws of different nations across the globe. A law in UK would have been

applicable in India without amendments. But this does not happen because the basic requirement of law is

that it must be in coherence of the culture, ethics and morals of the country. Law is basically created by the

State to protect its citizens. So it is necessary to take into consideration the thinking i.e. their ethics and

morals of the citizens so that it could cater to the needs of the citizens.

Any Law which flagrantly abuses the Ethics, beliefs and morals of the society is likely to be outrightly

rejected by them Hence the basic purpose of the Law would not be fulfilled. Many would argue that there are

many laws which half the society supports and half does not. Still in this case, both sides have their slightly

different beliefs so ultimately it boils down to the fact that almost all laws are somewhere related with the

Ethics and morality.

Law, Ethics and Morality have an intrinsic relationship between them which is generally not in the forefront

but stays behind the curtain. But the most important fact is that they cannot be separated from each other.