The problem of the relationship between law and morality lies in finding the necessary elements to distinguish the moral law, not to confuse the two concepts, to establish a clear distinction between them, but divided, without separating the law radically moral. In line with this we will first examine the distinguishing features between law and default, then we will discuss the connections between law and morality.
Law and morality are normative orders that regulate human behaviour, as a human, that is as free human activity. Therefore, both can be considered encompassed within the broad field of ethics, in order regulating human behaviour, referred to the possibility of actions not in the physical or empirical, but the value of the permissibility of them. However, between law and morality are important differences.
The law provides for human actions according to their social perspective, from the point of view of its relevance or social importance. The moral basis of wing covers primarily the personal dimension to its value and its personal meaning. In this regard remains good distinction between good man and good citizen (Aristotle), but this does not mean in any way that morality is not interested in social action. The difference of perspective or point of view.
However, the importance of this first feature of the law lies in highlighting the limits of the law in the sense that there are matters that are subject to regulation by the moral and the other hand, the law does not must intervene to belong to the realm of purely private morality and lack of social relevance. For this area the law must simply recognise and guarantee the individual a zone of freedom within which to move smoothly, without interference from others n the public authorities.
It is also often mentioned as the distinguishing feature of most external law compared with the highest moral inferiority. This what is stressed is the greater interest of the law by external actions, while morality is primarily interested in the inner side thereof. The law admits to being met with any encouragement, while the moral mind also how the action is the reason for the action.
It was also noted as a hallmark of the law regarding the moral of typicality. This is not referring to the person considered as a whole, but as certain legal positions concerned that the law regulates the generic form and can be found at different times anyone (domestic, foreign, buyer, defendant, etc.). Thus, the dimension of the person who operates a law is not considered as a whole person himself, but called the subject of law, which is the only person considered in its social dimension, in particular, as found in legal and social situations.
Arguably, the law also differs from the moral (at least the personal moral and religious) that the moral of these dimensions is intractable. Their compliance can not be imposed by force, since it involves primarily an inner attitude, a mood of the subject.
The moral duties and obligations imposed. The law imposes duties, but also attributes such as individual rights and claims the lose correlative legal duties. Each legal duty that the law imposes on a person has its counterpart on the right of another to enforce that obligation.
Social morality, however, is much closer to law. Like the law refers to the social behaviour of the individual in their dealings with others and with the community. Also, and as expressed through social practices, is also equipped with external pressure, hence, to differentiate it from becoming law to use the criterion of institutionalisation.
The need to distinguish the moral law does not mean that there are no connections between one another.
Even when interpreting the legal duty as something specific and different from the simple moral duty, the question of the basis of a legal duty to involve moral considerations. Faced with authors for whom the ground of obedience laws wings in the strength lies in the existence of coercion, others argue that obedience laws rests on the acceptance of its recipient, this is about their belief about the validity of mandatory legal rules. This is not an individual recognition, but general, it is not the recognition of legal norms, but the recognition by the most fundamental legal principles.
Faced with these two positions can be said that both factors, the strength and consensus, actually influence obedience to the law.