Introduction

It is evident that both law and morality serve to channel our behaviour, the good and
bads all of which are pre-determined by these two distinctive bodies; law and morality. In the
modern world, law and morality are almost universally held to be unrelated fields and, where
the term "legal ethics" is used, it is taken to refer to the professional honesty of lawyers or
judges, but has nothing to do with the possible truth and false of particular laws themselves.
This is a consequence of the loss of the sense of any "truth" about man, and of the
banishment of the idea of the natural law. It undermines any sense of true human rights,
leaves the individual defenceless against unjust law s, and opens the way to different forms
of totalitarianism. This should be easy enough to see for a person open to the truth; but
many people's minds have set into superficial ways of thinking, and they will not react unless
they have been led on, step by step, to deeper reflection and awareness
The Relationship Between Law And Morality
Let me first briefly describe what it means by law and morality. "Law ", according to the
Encyclopedia Britannica, "refers to the specialized form of social control familiar in modern,
secular, politically organized societies". The law is the body of rules that we term legal, that
is, the rules that are determined and enforced by the state and that are intended to channel
behaviour and to resolve certain adverse events. The establishment of legal rules will refer
to the process by which the rules are created and be made public. For example, a law
against littering in a park might be considered by the government, passed by its council, and
then declared in written form and posted on signs in the park. The purpose of human law is
the common good more than the good of individuals. It is to establish a certain order, so as
to protect social living. Without law, there is no society. The first form of culture is law. Its
effectiveness means that barbarism has been overcome: men have always been civilized
this way for ages.
Morality, on the other hand, is associated with certain distinctive psychological and
social norms. It comes about in part through a complex process of socialization, learning,
and norms. Without an interior sense of a moral order, there can be little respect for the law;
for this can only come from feeling oneself bound from within to observe the law. Here we
note that the almost universal modern concept of law as a system of rules created by the
state which ensures its application through a system of courts and a legit power leaves the
law without any interior appeal or authority, except insofar as one may recognize the need
for some minimum of common rules. It also exposes the individual to the tendency to regard
the law as purely external imposition to be evaded, if one can, whenever it is considered

personally inconvenient. The purpose of morality is to ensure the uprightness of individual

conscience that the law cannot force a conscience to be upright. Yet religious morality is not
individualistic as it leads one into community.
Law and Morality do not coincide in meaning, though there should be a necessary
interdependence between them. Moral law distinguishes right and wrong in human actions. It
is aimed above all at personal improvement and ultimately at salvation. While, political-civil
law is aimed at making it possible for people to live together in community: in justice, peace,
and freedom. Its concern is not directly supernatural, although in creating the conditions for
true justice and truly human behaviour, it indirectly favours it. Human civilization is not
possible without law and morality, standing in right relationship because unity goes deeper
and is stronger against potential divisions when people have common values to look up to:
shared truth, patriotism, religious faith and so on.
Both law and morality imply human freedom. Clearly, without freedom one cannot
speak of morality. But the same holds for law, for if it were automatically and not freely
obeyed, men would be mere robots. Law is not a simple indication of what happens, such as
the law of physics; it is an admonition to free persons about what they are required to do if
they wish to live freely and responsibly in society; and it normally carries with it a sanction or
punishment to be imposed on whoever is shown to have acted against given norms of
conduct. Just law, properly understood, appeals to freedom.
Nevertheless one of the most generalized liberal ideas is that law is by nature the
enemy of freedom. In this view, law and freedom were seen as "two opposed poles, law
having the effect of limitation and imposing itself on freedom with the force of obligation.
Freedom and law faced each other as two proprietors in dispute over the field of human
actions. The moralists commonly said, "Law governs this act, freedom governs that one..."
The moralists ere traditionally the representatives of the moral law, and their mission was to
show to conscience how to apply it in a particular situation. Today we witness a strong
tendency to invert the roles; the moralists now regard themselves as defenders of freedom
and of personal conscience.
Let us now consider the range of behaviour that is regulated both by morality and by
law. This area covers most acts that are criminal: murder, rape, robbery, fraud, and like acts
are not only crimes but also generally are said to be immoral. Additionally, many torts,
including most acts of negligence, many breaches of contract, and many violations of
regulation (such as intentionally dumping a toxic waste into the river) are not only illegal but
also are considered immoral. Therefore, we need to take into account that the existence of
moral beliefs should itself influence the design of the law, given that moral beliefs constitute

tastes the satisfaction of which raises individuals welfare. The primary reasons are that
there is no single entity that governs both morality and the law, and that the various forces
that determine morality (such as parents, religious figures, peers, teachers) and the law
(such as politicians, judges) do not necessarily desire to maximize social welfare.
Thus, altogether, my conclusion is that for most of the acts that society has chosen to
control through the law and through morality, the use of moral incentives alone would not
function well. I believe many acts that are in the domain controlled by both law and morality;
these acts fit under the head of some general moral rule that society has good reason to
establish.
The Establishment of Law (Against Murder)
A crime, considered as a legal category, is an act punishable by the state. For conduct
to be considered criminal in this legal sense, it must be something more than the violation of
group morality or custom. A person's conduct may deviate from some social norm and be
regarded as eccentric, bad manners, highly improper, or even downright immoral, but it is
not criminal conduct in the legal aspect unless it is also a deviation from the criminal code
established and enforceable by the state.
Murder, as defined at common law, is the killing of a human being with "malice
aforethought," which is a term of art, as the words are not given their normal meaning. Intent
to kill generally constitutes malice aforethought, although this state of mind is also said to be
present when an unintentional killing occurs in the commission of a felony.' On the other
hand malice aforethought is held to be absent when one intentionally kills as a result of "hot
blood" produced by legal provocation. The punishment for murder, according to the common
law, was death.
Formation of Law in Malaysia
Malaysia practices parliamentary democracy under

the administration of a

constitutional monarchy with His Majesty Yang Di-Pertuan Agong as The Head of The State.
Constitution was drafted by providing conditions for the experience of this system. One of
the conditions of parliamentary democracy is the separation of powers into three parts in the
government, the Legislative, Judicial and Administrative or Executive.
In Malaysia system of government, Parliament has the power to enact laws. Because
of that, the Federal Assembly can also be mended as the Parliament. Legislative power is
granted in accordance with Article 44 of the Federal Constitution of the Yang Di-Pertuan

Agong, the Senate and the House of Representatives. Both Houses in the Parliament play
an important role in the legislative process.
In Malaysia, a Bill may be enacted upon by a law-making procedure. Duties in
legislation, which is located in the legislature, include the duty to amend the constitution,
approve the new law, repealing the old law and new laws and verifying it progress. All these
processes occur in the legislature according to the prescribed legal procedure in which the
Yang Di-Pertuan Agong will approve the bill after it been tabled and debated in the House of
Representatives and the Senate. As a general rule, the Parliament has power to make laws
for the whole of the Federation or any part. Federal Parliament has jurisdiction over many
important matters such as finance, commerce and industry, education, defence and foreign
affairs.
The House, which a Bill is originated, shall send it to the other House once the Bill has
been passed. After the other Houses passed the Bill, it must then be presented to the Yang
di-Pertuan Agong for his assent under the Article 66(3) of the Federal Constitution.
A Bill goes through several stages of "Reading", in both the Houses of Parliament. At
the First Reading stage, only the long title will be read. This is a formality when the Bill is first
introduced to the House. The most important stage is the Second Reading. The contents of
the Bill are debated at length and discussed by all members of the House. After that the Bill
goes through a Committee Stage. The committees are normally the Committee of the whole
House as opposed to special select committees. Special technical details of the Bill may be
discussed at this stage. Finally, the Bill is returned to the House for its Third Reading. Again
this is a formality.
Under the Article 66(4) of the Federal Constitution, the Yang di-Pertuan Agong must
assent to the Bill by causing the Public Seal to be affixed thereto. This must be done within
30 days from the date a Bill is being presented to him. The nation Constitution provides that
a
Bill will become law at the expiration of the 30 days period specified in the like manner
as if he had assented thereto, should the Yang di-Pertuan Agong, for whatever reason, fails
to give his assent to the Bill within the specified period.
A Bill assented by the Yang di-Pertuan shall become Law. However, no laws shall
come into force until it has been gazetted or published under the Article 66(5) of the Federal
Constitution.
Law of Murder

In the country, first-degree murder is defined as an unlawful killing that is both willful
and premeditated, meaning that it was committed after planning or "lying in wait" for the
victim. For example, A conflict arises between two persons, Ali and Abu. Three days later, Ali
waits behind a tree near Abu's front door. When Abu comes out of the house, Ali shoots and
kills him.
Most states also adhere to a legal concept known as the "felony murder rule," under
which a person commits first-degree murder if any death (even an accidental one) results
from the commission of certain violent felonies -- such as arson, burglary, kidnapping, rape,
and robbery.
For example, Ali and Abu rob Victor's liquor store, but as they are fleeing, Alif shoots
and kills Ali. Under the felony murder rule, Abu can be charged with first-degree murder for
Ali's death even though neither of the robbers actually did the killing.
State laws categorizing murders into first, second and possibly third degrees generally
require that first degree murders include three basic elements: willfulness, deliberation and
premeditation. Some states also require "malice aforethought" as an element, though sates
differ as to how malice must be shown and whether this is a separate requirement from
willful, deliberate and premeditated taking of human life. Most states also enumerate certain
kinds of killings as first degree murders without need to prove intent, deliberation and
premeditation.
State laws often categorize specific types of killings as first degree. In these cases, the
typical elements of specific intent to kill, deliberation and premeditation may not be required.
These often include: the killing of a child by use of unreasonable force; certain killings
committed in a pattern of domestic abuse; the murder of law a law enforcement officer, and
homicides occurring in the commission of other crimes such as arson, rape, robbery or other
violent crimes. Many states also categorize certain methods of killing as murder in the first
degree. These include intentional poisonings, murders resulting from imprisonment or torture
and murders in which the killer "laid in wait" for or ambushed the victim.
Discussion
If murder is taken as immoral killing, then it's a pretty trivial thing. If it's unlawful killing,
then we have to open to the possibility that it may be moral to kill someone unlawfully,
especially if the laws are bad.
Let's try to justify some killings as morally wrong. It's not much of a stretch: most
people think some killings are justified. All we need is to explain why some are wrong, or why

murder is prima facie wrong. Take utilitarianism: we must optimise happiness. Well, not hard
to see how some murders are wrong. Some murders cause more pain than they create
pleasure. In fact, we might want to say here that killing human beings is prima facie wrong,
because it seems common sense that usually, killing brings more pain than it saves. As for
animals, many utilitarians say that killing animals is wrong, since they can feel pleasure and
pain. However, many would also add that animals typically have 'lower' pleasures and pains
(explaining higher and lower pleasures has been an issue for long and there are multiple
answers possible; going into them would detract from the main argument, so I will abstain).
This would mean that it's also prima facie wrong to kill animals, but that it would be easier to
justify killing one, say because you need food, since the pleasure you take from them, and
the pains you cause, are not as great as the pleasure you gain and pain you avoid by killing
it and eating it.
Now let's take Kantian deontology. The categorical imperative is a base requirement
on how one should act to act morally. There are many formulations of Kant's categorical
imperative, but the most relevant one is the second one. (Although the first one might also
work) "Act in such a way that you treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the
person of any other, never merely as a means to an end, but always at the same time as an
end." Killing, because it annihilates the possibility of the other person to meet its own goals,
is a way of treating someone as a means to an end rather than as an end in themselves.
Humans are rational beings, and as such deserve to be respected, and have the pursuit of
their own ends respected. Kant would deny that animals are rational beings, so animals do
not deserve this moral consideration. That doesn't mean you should just start killing dogs;
there may be more to it than just this intrinsic value of rationality, for instance instrumental
value might be a concern. However, this does create a clear distinction between killing
humans (morally impermissible) and killing animals (possibly permissible).
Virtue ethics focuses instead on certain traits of characters, which are found between
two extremes. Cowardice is a bad character trait, so is rashness, but courage - the
appropriate balance between cowardice and rashness - is a virtue. There are many virtues,
and we must act in ways that embody those virtues.
Those killings which are justified are those that do not go against those virtues:
protecting your family from bandits, perhaps. On the other hand, killing your boss because of
envy does not embody virtues. Since most killings are not virtuous, we can say that killing is
usually wrong.
Conclusion

As a conclusion, we should further explore the implications of this relationship between

moral and legal patterns. There is a marked distinction between law and morality. Let's
summarize it.
(1) The first point of difference is that laws are enforced by the state whereas canons
of morality are followed at the call of institution. If one disobeys the commands of law or
violates the laws, he is liable to be punished by the state but if one fails to observe the
scruples of morality, he is not liable to be awarded physical punishment.
(2) The existence of laws that serve to defend basic values--such as laws against
murder, rape, malicious defamation of character, fraud, bribery, and so on. --prove that the
two can work together.
(3) There are many things which are not illegal according to law but are unacceptable
to morality. For example, telling lies, showing disgrace to others, feeling greedy, being
ungrateful and not helping the poor, are not against the spirit of law.
(4) Law can be a public expression of morality which codifies in a public way the basic
principles of conduct which a society accepts. In that way it can guide the educators of the
next generation by giving them a clear outline of the values society wants taught to its
children.

References
Ahmad Mohamed Ibrahim. 2000. The Administration of Islamic Law in Malaysia. IKIM: Kuala
Lumpur.

Alexander, Richard D. 1987. The Biology of Moral Systems. Hawthorne, NY: Aldine de
Gruyter.

Dictionary of Moral Theology. Ed. by Pietro Palazzini. Trans. by Henry J. Yannone (London:
Burns & Oates, 1962).

Law. (2015) In Incylopedia Britannica. Retrieved from http://global.britannica.com/topic/law

[29 February 2016]

Shaika Zakaria. Sumber-sumber maklumat mengenai undang-undang Malaysia.7 Kekal

Abadi 7 (1988).

Vander Meer, Patricia Fravel. One click to Criminal Justice. 26 Online (Weston,Conn.) 48
(2002).
Library
Literature
and
Information
Science
<http://vnweb.hwwilsonweb.com/hww/shared/shared_main.jhtml;jsessionid=KBPDD
5ER5ZDMLQA3DILSFGGADUNGIIV0?_requestid=50864>

Tun Mohamed Salleh Abas. 1984. Selected Aarticle and Speeches on Constitution, Law and
Judgment. Malaysian Law Publishers: Kuala Lumpur.

Wan Arfah Hamzah and Ramy Bulan. 2002. An Introduction to the Malaysian Legal System.
Fajar Bakti Sdn Bhd: Shah Alam.