Why Is Euthanasia Morally Wrong

Rules exist in many contexts, not just in the case of legal rules or even moral rules. A rule is something that determines the way in which we behave, whether because we submit ourselves to it voluntarily, as would be the case with moral rules, or because it is enforceable in some general way, as would be the case with laws.
Many rules are neither morally binding, nor do they ultimately have the force of law attached to them. Nevertheless, they are necessary and generally adhered to because of the context in which they operate. Rules might also come about through custom or practice, and involve the disapproval of the community rather than any legal sanction if such a rule is broken. The bills of exchange act 1882 in effect did little more
than to put into statutory form the practices which merchants had willingly followed over many centuries.
Hart however insists that rules should be distinguished from mere habit or practice. He suggests that the defining characteristic of a rule is its enforceability. Rules are generally obeyed for one of three reasons.
1. Because they carry a sense of moral obligation this can be seen in relation to crime where most offences particularly those committed against the person, are seen as morally religious codes. The basic justification for the HOL decision in Shaw V DPP 1962 was that the judges are the ultimate guardians of our morals and have a duty to act against immoral behavior.
2. Because the rule is reasonable and relevant parliament is said to be legislatively supreme but even parliamentary law may have to be abandoned if it is seen as too irrelevant or too unfair. The classic example of this was “Poll Tax” in the 1980’s.
3. Because a penalty may be imposed if the rule is broken. This explains why people obey rules that they disagree with, such as when compulsory seat-belt wearing was introduced.

Morality is generally to do with beliefs, so may be affected by religion. We all have a moral code of some kind which defines what we think is and is not acceptable behavior. Morally can differ from culture to culture and from individual to individual, although some behavior is universally unacceptable. In inevitably morality has an impact on law, particularly the criminal law. Very often it concerns behaviour a sexual nature and leads to controversy.

Often morality finds it roots in religion. The bible provides a moral code for Christian communities both in the very basic and strict rules of the Ten Commandments, and in the more advanced socially aware teachings of Christ. The Koran provides a very extensive moral code for Muslims.
A good example of this is adultery. This is against the moral code for both Christians and Muslims, but is not considered a crime in Christian countries. In fact, in England it is merely evidence of an irretrievable breakdown of a marriage sufficient to permit one party to the marriage a divorce. However, in some Muslim countries, though not all, it is against the criminal law and attaches criminal penalties.
In England and Wales there has been a move away from religious beliefs and the way that the law has developed reflects this.
Abortion was first legalized in 1967, yet it would be fair to say that most people still believe it is morally wrong. Whiles English law clings to the idea that euthanasia is unacceptable there is clear call for its legalisation in recent cases such as R v DPP 2001, and even doctors have shown a moral acceptance of its need in instances of terminally ill patients suffering dreadful pain ad in R v Cox 1992 and R v Arthur 1981. Again many groups believe that this immoral as it denies the sanctity of human
life.

One of they key problems with morality is that while many moral views coincide there are also many that differ wildly. It is almost impossible to find a single set of moral values that would be acceptable to all the members of a modern society. The views of different societies and even within a society can vary significantly on difficult ethical can vary significantly on difficult ethical issues such as euthanasia, pornography, prostitution, the use of drugs and body piercing cause great controversy.
Dishonesty they are many interpretations as there are individuals.
This can clearly be seen in the lack of a positive definition of dishonesty in s2 Theft Act 1968. Ghosh 1982. Morals also clearly change and develop. Views on homosexuality have dramatically altered since the trial of Oscar Wilde, and now the argument is more over whether or not gay couples should be able to legally parent children, than whether or not their sexual activities are acceptable or legal.

Despite the fact that law develops from a shared morality, there are nevertheless some very significant differences between the two.
Morality develops over a long period of time, while it is possible for law to be introduced instantly. Oscar Wilde was ruined and imprisoned over his rights to a sexual relationship as heterosexual couples. Law can be altered deliberately by legislation this means that behaviour which was against the law can be de-criminalised overnight.

Both law and morality are said to be normative. This means that they both dictate the way in which people are expected to behave. Moral viewpoints can clearly have an enormous influence on the making of laws, and some people argue that the criminal law represents a common moral
position.
The moral standards of a community are recognized as having a significant influence on the development of law, but in complex societies, morality and law are never likely to be such murder and robbery will also be against the law, but in other matters, there may not be any meaningful consensus. The law may appear to be based on moral positions but ones not accepted by everyone. The obvious example to return to is the legalisation of abortion under the Abortion Act 1967.
A major debate is whether law and morality should reflect each other exactly. The idea of natural law is that the two should coincide and that there is a divine source for the law. Taken to the extreme, the supporters of natural law would say that legal rules of a country are in contrast to the moral laws; the legal rules should be disobeyed. Positivists, on the other hand, hold that if legal rules have been enacted by the correct procedures, then those legal rules must be obeyed, even if they are not liked and are in conflict and morality.