Le correlazioni tra moralità e genealogia del diritto

The correlations between morality and the genealogy of law


Liana Malkhasyan*


The correlations between morality and the genealogy of law**


Italian title:Le correlazioni tra moralità e genealogia del diritto

DOI: 10.26350/18277942_000149


Sommario: 1. Introduction. 2. Materials and methods. 3. Results. 3.1. Law and morality as separate components, their norms, difference, and similarities.  3.2. The historical aspect of the relationship between the genealogy of law and morality. 4. Discussion. 5. Conclusions.


1. Introduction


The problem of the relationship between morality and the genealogy of law has existed since ancient civilizations when people learned to compare these aspects in order to restore order and stability in creating an ideal society that adheres to clear rules and has a common point of view regarding morality, which is also observed in the world of today, where people with new rights try to keep their own moral standards for their own comfort. The research problem lies in the presence of quite different opinions about the interaction of morality and law, which prevents a clear definition of the relationship between these aspects at the moment, as well as the separation of opinions about morality and law: it is necessary to follow only morality, leaving rights or the so-called “evil” or “morally wrong” inside; renunciation of morality from law, since law can function independently, obeying only its absolute principles.

The "genealogy" framework refers to tracing the descent and historical transmission of ideas and conceptual frameworks over time. When applied to law, a genealogical study aims to map out the origins of legal concepts and institutions, seeking to uncover the power relations and struggles that shaped their development.

Consideration of this topic was touched upon by ancient philosophers, but so far this problem has not been solved, since over time people, morality and rights have the ability to change themselves, their forms, and principles, which makes the study of the relationship between law and morality problematic. This topic was previously interesting to other researchers who were able to draw some conclusions regarding this problem.

The examination of the relationship between morality and the genealogy of law has a long tradition in philosophy. The question of the nature of ethical norms and their connection to legislation dates back at least to the work of ancient Greek thinkers, primarily Plato[1] and his teachings on justice. In the Republic, Plato argued that "justice" is a cardinal virtue for both the individual and the polis.

Later influential figures such as Aristotle, Thomas Aquinas, and Enlightenment philosophers continued to develop this key theme in ethical and legal thought. In particular, Immanuel Kant[2] in his Critique of Practical Reason outlined the concept of the categorical imperative - the supreme moral law which, he argued, just legal systems should conform to. To provide background, the genealogical study of law traces the historical origins and development of legal concepts. Prominent genealogists like Friedrich Nietzsche[3] asserted that the foundational history of morality and justice has been dominated by power relations rather than impartial truth.

Ø. Kvalnes[4] in his scientific work studied the concept of morality, as well as its interaction with other aspects of human life, including law, where the author described that morality was not used in its pure form, but has always been in interaction with other areas. This study is crucial for our research because it underscores that morality is not isolated but rather constantly interacts with other societal aspects. Kvalnes' insights help us understand that legal frameworks are often intertwined with moral considerations, challenging the notion of law as a purely autonomous domain. This perspective is essential for our exploration of the genealogy of law and its moral underpinnings.

In her article, T. Sheplyakova[5] also sticks to the theory that law in the world of today has a mixed form, as it interacts with other aspects of social life, including moral norms, beliefs, stereotypes, etc., which in the overall picture can affect the interpretation and the final value of a particular right. This aligns with our study's objective to examine the dynamic nature of law and its susceptibility to societal values and ethics. Her analysis contributes to our understanding of how contemporary legal rights are interpreted and valued, a key element in comprehending the evolving nature of law and morality.

P. Barmash[6] in his research work studied the features of the laws of Hammurabi, where he noted the special features of the rights of the ancient world, which to some extent are important in modern society. His work sheds light on the foundational elements of legal systems and their historical evolution, which is a cornerstone of our research. By understanding the characteristics of ancient laws, we can trace their influence on modern legal principles and appreciate their significance in contemporary society.

The relationship between law and religious context was studied by E. Benveniste[7], highlighting the fact that each nation can interpret the concept of law in its own way in accordance with its personal characteristics of life, society, traditions, and legislative norms. R. McKay and H. Whitehouse[8] studied the aspect of the interaction of morality and religion, and also studied the features of their relationship, where they pointed out the origin of such concepts as law, morality, and other social phenomena from religion, which already connects all aspects of social life with it.

The main purpose of the article is to study the features of law and morality as separate components, their differences, and similarities, as well as to study the historical aspect of their interaction with each other. The novelty of the scientific article lies in the need of determining the modern framework for the interaction of the genealogy of law and morality, as well as the study of historical facts regarding both aspects in order to translate their relationship in ancient times into the contemporary world. The practical application of the article may be useful for a more in-depth study of the origin of the interaction of concepts, their relationship in modern conditions, as well as the study of the features of the interaction of law with the public and personal morality of a person.


2. Materials and Methods


The research on the relationship between morality and the genealogy of law delved into how these elements manifest and interact in society, including their norms. It covered the historical aspect by exploring various perspectives of philosophers and scientists from past times. The study involved examining the features of law and morality's origin and development, starting from ancient civilizations like Rome, Babylon, and Athens, and tracing their evolution to the present day.

The methods used in the study were comprehensive. The historical approach provided insights into the formation and promotion of law and morality over time. The chronological perspective helped in understanding the transition and improvement in the interaction between morality and law across different eras, highlighting the conditions under which these changes occurred. An analytical approach was applied to dissect the characteristics and norms of morality and law both as separate entities and as interacting components. This involved analyzing their relationship and how they influence each other.

To conclude the relationship between the genealogy of law and morality, it is necessary first and foremost to study these aspects separately, to better understand their meaning, and also to evaluate their similarities and differences. Next, their interaction with each other and connections arising between them was studied, which will make it possible to fully consider the interaction of morality and law in reality. Moreover, the study of the historical aspect of concepts and their interaction can clearly show how the relationship between law and morality has changed over the centuries in the conditions of society and its characteristics.

The article was divided into 2 parts for a better and structured study of the problem, as well as for a better understanding of this topic, namely: the study of law and morality, their norms, as well as highlighting their different and similar features during their interaction with each other; the historical aspect of the emergence and development of the interaction and correlation of the genealogy of law and morality from the time of ancient civilizations to the present.

3. Results


3.1. The historical aspect of the relationship between the genealogy of law and morality


Legal and moral norms agree that their main task can be considered the impact on the behavior of people and society, which could already be observed in the laws of ancient civilizations. One of the most ancient laws to start with is the Laws of Hammurabi in Babylon, which dates back to the first half of the 2nd millennium B.C. This scripture had a set of rights, a legal code and a list of sanctions, regarding the actions that were seen among the inhabitants of Babylon. There were no requirements, prohibitions and clear actions that the population had to obey, the entire text of the Laws of Hammurabi had moral and legal significance. Among the main topics covered were property transactions, violations of property rights, matrimonial and family relations, sexual relations, court, murder, and land use. Of all these components, the most significant were the family, trade and exchange, which were the most important aspects of a stable life and culture in Babylon. It is also worth noting that the Laws do not address the topics of civic obligations (the rights and laws that the people of the country must comply with). Regarding punishments, the Hammurabi Laws clearly state what the violator of the law will have to do after committing incorrect actions, where monetary compensation was considered a punishment (mainly used in solving family problems and laws violated in their course), self-mutilation (if the essence of the deed is not too serious in relation to the complete violation of laws) or death (in the case of a criminal offense, namely theft, lying, violence, flight, robbery, etc.)[9].

In the era of antiquity, in the Ancient Greek idea of law and morality, the concepts of justice and the public good dominated. During the existence of the Ancient Greek civilization, from about the 7th century B.C. until the 5th century B.C., there were Draco Laws, Solon Laws and Lycurgus Laws[10]. Until modern times, not all of these laws remained intact, but still there is some information regarding their content: The Laws of Draco were extremely cruel, and among the surviving parts were laws against murder[11]; The laws of Lycurgus are a set of rules that were aimed at delivering luxury to people; Solon's laws are called laws against poverty. In a general vision, these laws were aimed at increasing social and property inequality, since in ancient times wealth and poverty were despised in society. The acceptable norm of material wealth in Athens was the average income and its stability, while in Sparta the inhabitants preferred to imitate poverty, which then could be compensated by moral values[12]. Thus, in those days it was believed that if a person was rich, they were automatically deprived of moral values, and those who lived in poverty or with an average income were more obsessed with obtaining moral benefits.

In ancient Rome, the Laws of the 12 Tables, which were written 451-450 B.C., were considered the first set of rules, but the original records were lost in the 13th century, and after their revision, they became part of the Justinian Digesta (also known as the Digest or Pandects). This comprehensive codification of Roman law forms a vital bridge between classical Greco-Roman jurisprudence and modern civil law tradition. The most influential component within Justinian's Corpus was the Digesta, comprising over 1,000 Latin extracts and legal commentaries compiled from the judgements of renowned earlier Roman jurists like Ulpian, Paulus and Papinian. By including their diverse rulings and disputations, this monumental work embodied prior debates over the philosophical basis for property rights, matters of intention and negligence, legitimacy of coercion, and guideline judgements on issues ranging from defamation to paternal power[13].

Scholars have noted the significant infusion of Stoic philosophy within Roman legal reasoning at the time, a school emphasizing the concept of natural law and adherence to universal principles of justice independent of temporal authorities. However, Justinian's compilers also incorporated earlier Roman traditions of harsh paternalism and strident public morality laws alongside such ethical constructs.

Here, the laws were already more legal in nature and contained laws that related to sale, property, disputes, court, and inheritance, and it was also indicated about such forms of punishment as a fine and talion (this meant that the offender could be forgiven in case of reconciliation with the victim, or the offender will be punished by their own methods). It was also about the possible death penalty in case of lying, theft, damage to property, causing serious harm to people, as well as when writing disgraceful songs. The laws of the 12 Tables already had a more civil character, which meant that citizens had to obey state norms and laws. In these Laws, a man was considered exemplary – a family man who has his own house, land, the sorcerer of the family, a skilled defender, an active participant in civil life, and his family should also consider him the head, which it was necessary to listen to and listen firstly to him. After the incidents of the end of the 2nd century B.C. and until the last quarter of the 1st century B.C. the Romans had problems in the sociopolitical aspect due to the events of the civil war, after which the Laws of the 12 Tables changed their original form. In a pivotal era from the late 2nd to the late 1st century BC, Rome witnessed transformative events: the Gracchus brothers' socio-economic reforms, Sulla's autocratic reign and reforms, the destabilizing Catilinarian conspiracies, escalating rivalry and civil war instigated by Caesar, Pompey, and Crassus, and finally, the Roman Republic's fall post-Caesar's assassination, leading to Octavian's imperial consolidation. These events significantly shaped Roman law and governance.

Following the norms of law and morality, they were re-formulated in the Digests, where honesty, respect, and equality were considered the main concepts and norms[14].

It can be noted that with each century, when separate states began to form, people more and more began to obey the rights and laws established by their state, less and less using more moral standards. But at the same time, some almost identical norms and rights of people regarding morality have reached the world of today, which are still quite important in modern society.


3.2. Law and morality as separate components, their norms, difference, and similarities


The law plays a special role in the regulation of the social system since it appeared[15]. The relative independence of rights, as well as other social norms, is nevertheless presented in a complex and under conditions of close interconnection with other aspects that regulate society. With the help of legal norms, it is possible to regulate society, its behavior, actions, and features of life, which is certainly important for maintaining order, respect, and other aspects[16]. It is worth noting that to live with clearly established rights is not only to understand and accept the essence of life situations, to make and follow certain decisions of the country, based on social norms, it is also justified to act from the point of view of society and spirituality. A similar statement can be seen in ethical postulates, religious writings, as well as in law itself, where the requirements of life, rationality, and the nature of law as such are considered[17].

Morality is a system of certain norms and principles that arise after the need to harmonize the interests of members of society with each other and in social groups, countries, classes, or in society as a whole, which is aimed at regulating people's behavior, considering the presence of the concepts of good and evil, traditions, upbringing, public opinion, and their own convictions. With the help of morality, the behavior of an individual person and the interests of society are correlated, problems and contradictions between them are solved, and interpersonal communication can also be regulated. Morality is considered in almost all aspects of life, including law, economics, politics, and more[18].

Table 1 provides a comparative analysis highlighting the common features between law and morality. The table delineates parallel structures, enforcement mechanisms, adaptability, consequences, and guidance shared by both domains. It succinctly captures how these two foundational elements of society intersect and interact, offering a clearer understanding of their intertwined nature and collective impact on human behavior and societal norms.


Table 1. Common Features of Law and Morality



Description in Law

Description in Morality

Shared Significance

Normative Structure

Laws as formal rules governing behavior.

Moral principles guiding personal conduct.

Both establish standards for acceptable behavior in society.

Authority and Enforcement

Legal authority upheld by state and judicial systems.

Moral authority often reinforced by societal norms and cultural practices.

Both rely on a form of authority for their effectiveness and adherence.


Laws evolve with societal changes and judicial interpretations.

Moral values adapt to cultural shifts and philosophical developments.

Both are dynamic, reflecting changes in society over time.


Legal violations result in sanctions or penalties.

Breaching moral codes often leads to social condemnation or guilt.

Both have mechanisms to address non-compliance, emphasizing accountability.

Guidance for Action

Laws provide a clear framework for what is legally permissible.

Morality offers guidelines for what is ethically right.

Both guide individuals in making decisions and actions within societal contexts.


It is important to note that when considering law and morality as separate aspects, and in the case of their comparison, one can often notice the manifestation of ambiguities in discussions on this topic due to the lack of some resolution between concepts. Indeed, law and morality have differences shown in Table 2, but there is also a side where both concepts are closely related to each other. This ratio can be seen as unity, difference and interaction of these aspects in society, social group, country, or in a particular person[19].


Table 2. Differences between the norms of law and norms of morality[20],[21]



Norms of law

Norms of morality

Methods of establishment and formation, sources

State or with its permission


Shape difference

There is only one form within the state

Various forms and views of society

Punishment for breaking the rules

Mandatory response of the state and the application of sanctions, in accordance with established norms

There are no specific forms of punishment, but there is a social impact (remark, rejection, reprimand, censure, etc.)

Methods of communicating to members of the society

Publication in official sources

Recognized in society over time

Protection methods

Protected at the levels of the state

Protected by public opinion

The content and nature of the regulation of relations

From the point of view of an individual state

From the point of view of society


It is also worth noting that the division between law and morality can be carried out according to a number of specific criteria (Table 3). Thus, it can be seen that these aspects have quite obvious differences, but nevertheless, they are often used together to obtain a greater balance and stable behavior of individuals in society, which has a fruitful effect on their lives. This can be traced in the specifics of the construction and introduction of new laws, which are also based on the moral standards of people since without considering this aspect, the established law or law at the legislative level can lead to the appearance of opponents of the established law, riots and other features that demonstrate disagreement to some decision by the state9.


Table 3. Division of law and morality according to criteria[22],[23]





Behind the origin

Appears in the process of interaction between people in the form of norms that tend to be repeated in society, protected by the state and having an official binding character for all

Appears gradually in the process of social life, considering the perception by people of special forms of good and evil, justice, honor, respect, have an unofficial character and the possibility of transmission to future generations

Beyond the scope of regulation

Regulates exclusively those areas of human life that relate to their life within a particular country, as well as having a common meaning for all people

Regulates almost all areas of life that are not subject to special control (by the government), having individual significance for each person or group of people separately (affecting such areas as love, mutual understanding, friendship, unconditional help, etc.)

Behind the form of expression

They have a formal appearance, are recorded in legislation, regulations, decrees, instructions, etc.

They do not have officially fixed norms, they are present in religious scriptures, traditions, customs, and other cultural aspects of society

Beyond the level of detail

They have full details, and clarification about the necessary and prohibited behavior of people, which is implemented with the help of legal regulation by the state

They do not have a specific specification of the characteristics of human behavior, acting as the formation of the desired impersonal behavior

Behind the means of enforcement and the specifics of sanctions

Protected and guaranteed by coercive force on the part of the state

Adherence to the norms established by society is ensured by internal beliefs, public opinion and its influence, as well as stereotypes


It is also important to point out that adhering to the rules of law is a moral obligation of every person, which is determined by the moral and legal culture of the surrounding society[24]. There are other common features that unite these two concepts and identify them, including:

  1. Regulation of human relations as an integral generic subject of regulation.
  2. Special rules of human behavior in society of a general nature, which are often turned towards a large group of people, and not just towards a specific person.
  3. Necessary to establish general order in the camp, social relations and communication.
  4. Often, they have a common meaning and content, in the case of fixing the norms of law with moral norms.
  5. They have a single spiritual nature and justice.
  6. They participate in the approval of a compromise between individuals, groups of people or society, creating stability and balance in society relations.
  7. They have their own norms, establish and form the boundaries of permissible behavior and actions of people, and also refer to the means of manifesting justice.
  8. They are considered universal criteria for society as criteria for assessing the behavior of individuals or groups of people in all spheres of society.

It is also important to emphasize that in the interaction of these aspects there are certain conflicts that can confuse and complicate the interpretation of specific situations in people's lives. This applies to medicine (transplantation of organs and body parts, abortion, artificial insemination, testing of medical products on volunteers, voluntary acceleration of the death of a terminally ill patient), religion (the presence of many different faiths with their own characteristics, laws, moral standards and attitudes that may contradict attitudes of other faiths), as well as imprisoned or convicted people (features of determining punishment or its absence for an activity committed by a person, deviation from the norms established by law, or violation of the moral norms of society)[25].

Creating a connection between law and morality and taking into account their inseparability, one may encounter the presence of two specific and directly opposite views, where on the one hand there is a protection of moral interest, which repels some rights in the form of “hidden evil”, and on the other hand, on the contrary, objects to the connection morality with the law in the direction of the latter, highlighting the legislative norms as a separate independent subject, which is characterized by specific principles of its own[26]. In accordance with these points of view, it can be said that in the first, law negatively affects morality, and in the second, there is no need to use moral norms in the formation of law.


4. Discussion


Many aspects of religion, morality, law as a socially normative unity is discovered and clarified through researching the processes of their historical origin. Modern science is quite capable, relying on the achievements of ancient history, demography, anthropology, especially social, archeology, as well as some natural sciences, to restore and make sense of the possibility of scientific understanding of the historical origin of normative-regulatory systems on the basis that it was formed so early and entered life so unnoticed, leaving no visible, material traces in history, that it is, in fact, impossible to approach the sources of its origin[27]. Morality – justly writes Ø. Kvalnes, stands out from the initial, non-separate normative regulation as a special sphere of relations in the late tribal society, passing a long history of formation and development in pre-class and class societies1. Religion and law also take a similar path. On this historical highway, humanity encountered the most diverse and surprisingly diverse options for cultural development. This is the case when, instead of the initial syncretic social and normative sphere, as a result of the development of the latter, religious-moral and religious-legal systems are established, within which separate types of social norms are quite visible, but act together, supporting each other and creating a strong and stable normative symbiosis, which can be preserved and survive for millennia. An example of this can be served by the surviving Jewish, Hindu and younger Islamic religion moral legal systems.

Beyond the direct lineage of European civil law from Roman antecedents, scholars have explored the continuity of moral-jurisprudential models within other faith traditions over successive epochs. These include the rich spiritual legal heritage found in Judaism, multiple Hindu denominations, and more recently, Islamic schools of religious governance.

The exploration of moral-jurisprudential models within various religious traditions offers a comprehensive understanding of how these systems have influenced legal frameworks beyond the direct lineage of European civil law from Roman antecedents. This examination delves into the enduring legal traditions of Judaism, Hinduism, and Islam, each embodying unique spiritual and ethical principles that have shaped societal governance.

In Rabbinic Judaism, the Halakha legal system, as codified within the Talmudic corpus, reflects an intricate fusion of ritual commandments and ethical imperatives. This system has its roots in Mosaic law and encompasses a wide array of duties towards God, humanity, and self. Remarkably, it has adapted over centuries, maintaining its relevance from the times of medieval diasporas to contemporary Jewish communities. Halakha represents a living tradition, constantly interpreting and reinterpreting ancient texts to meet modern challenges, thus ensuring the continuity of Jewish moral and legal thought[28].

Similarly, Hindu jurisprudence, deeply embedded in the scriptures, represents the convergence of Dharma's moral guidance with jurisprudential principles. This complex system has upheld a vision of divine natural order and right conduct across various castes, emphasizing truthfulness in personal and societal affairs. Despite numerous regime changes and the passage of millennia, these principles have remained a cornerstone of social harmony in Hindu societies. The resilience of Hindu law demonstrates its flexibility and its capacity to balance traditional values with contemporary needs[29].

Islamic legal frameworks, particularly in the Sunni and Shia branches, emerged after the 7th century CE and represent a fusion of Arab customs, Quranic teachings, and the Hadiths of Prophet Muhammad. These frameworks have played a pivotal role in shaping civic and state functions under successive caliphates and continue to be influential in the Near East. The Islamic legal system is characterized by its comprehensive approach to managing adherence, duties, and punishments within the Muslim community, highlighting the role of religious law in governance and societal regulation[30].

The study of these religious legal orders, rooted in deep theological traditions, offers insights into how cultural specificities contribute to the development of enduring moral-jurisprudential paradigms. These systems, while distinct from Roman law, have similarly left an indelible mark on modern justice systems, exemplifying how metaphysical and ethical visions can be channeled into effective governance structures. Such analysis not only enriches our understanding of legal history but also underscores the diversity and adaptability of law as a reflection of human civilization's evolving moral and spiritual landscape.

The fact that the concept of morality cannot be a starting point for the solution of this problem stems from the obvious statement that the line of the historical development of morality was not isolated from the beginning; it was not separated from the evolution of the entire social and normative culture of the society. From this, essentially, the methodological requirement arises to consider the development of the well-known normative-regulatory systems, morality, and law as a single, more or less synchronized historical process[31].

Here it is necessary to mention another very controversial and doubtful scheme, which is often found in the literature. It is meant the propositions according to which morality is the ancient mode of human conduct that it originates earlier than the law, which is nothing other than the origin of the state than some departure from morality. According to R. McKay and H. Whitehouse, a variant of this scheme is the theory according to which morality, law, and many other social phenomena arose from religion, especially the theory of E. Durkheim, which is considered as the supporting structure of human culture5.

The foundations of all normative-regulatory systems are present in an obvious or hidden form even among economically and politically weakly developed peoples such as among the African tribes studied by ethnographers, whose social organization and way of life corresponded to, say, the culture of the upper rock. The point is that they transfer, and reflect the views and standards developed during the research of the modern normative-regulatory systems in the socio normative practice of the ancient society. T. Sheplyakova claimed that law and morality coincided or were close, because legal norms were endowed not only with external coercion and relied not only on the system of punishments, but also represented imperatives that also had religious and moral content2.

Where the right cannot yet rely on a sufficiently strong political authority, religious and moral means are widely used for empowerment[32]. However, not only the practical side of the matter is important, but also, there is a special “gravitational force” between the normative-regulatory systems, which expresses the society's aspiration to be united and derives from human traditions and accumulated cultural experience. Analyzing the Old Babylonian laws of Hammurabi (19th century BC), P. Barmash notes that the laws contain both religious and educational elements3. The analysis of the written sources of ancient law, starting from the laws of the XII Tables of the ancient Homeoean (5th century B.C.) up to the truth of the book of judgments of Salikyaev (5th-6th century A.D.), shows a relatively high degree of independence of legal instructions from religious and moral requirements, the clear direction of legal regulation towards the formal (formal) moments of people's behavior. In essence, these legal acts already enable legal debate without frequent references to religious or moral authorities or without any references at all.

In the case of ancient Egyptian, ancient Indian, ancient Jewish and many other written legal monuments, such a thing is impossible to even imagine. That is why the early separation of the legal beginning of the religious-moral context should not be understood as a universal pattern of the genealogy of normative-regulatory systems, because it is most likely a certain feature of individual ancient cultures, an expression of the special conditions of their existence. E. Benveniste, a well-known specialist in Indo-European philology, notes that the words for law are unique to each language, but “the main ones are related to the common Indo-European lexicon and may indicate a legal specialization arising from the Indo-European settlement”4. This thesis has a revolutionary significance for jurisprudence; it leads to a “legal specialization” that existed at least two thousand years B.C. Today, relying on the knowledge reflecting the millennial cultural experience of the relevant systems, characterize morality as a separate and independent phenomenon, different from religion, law and other social regulators[33].

Summarizing the results of the study and the opinions of scientists on the relationship between morality and law, the presence of many different opinions and variations in the relationship between the genealogy of law and morality lead to the same number of different assessments and judgments on the part of society and each person, which makes it almost impossible to single out specific details in the aspect of the interaction of morality and law, to which all people without exception can obey. Further development of this topic can be continued through a more in-depth study of the interaction of morality, law and religion and the correlation of their basic rules and approaches, as well as their interpretation in society. Moreover, the topic can be studied in terms of specific examples of the genealogy of law and morality, identifying all possible influences on society, as well as highlighting possible steps to improve situations that are not entirely positive. In addition, it is worth separately studying the features of the relationship between law, public and personal morality, which is a rather complicated topic in the modern world, since each person tries to defend their point of view of morality, broadcasting it to the formation of society.


5. Conclusions


Assuming the results of the study, regardless of the fact that law and morality are quite different concepts, morality still has an impact on the content and functioning of law through the prism of lawmaking, law enforcement and law education. Due to the presence of requirements in the morality of society, the presence of morality in the rights of the same society appears, and the requirements of law have common features with the requirements of morality, which brings these two concepts together.

A law that does not meet the requirements of morality is viewed negatively, condemned, and rejected by society. Since the time of Ancient Rome, Athens, and the guardian of South America, it has already been ingrained that the position of morality in society affected the various forms of application of law. Thus, the greater the level of moral awareness in a society is considered, the easier it is for the same society to be subject to and obey the rules of law established by them or by the government. It is worth noting that rights often support moral norms, but if they are not maintained, rights automatically lose their strength and significance, after which they have appropriate consequences.

Thus, it can be said for sure that law closely interacts with morality, characterized by common features, while having some completely opposite characteristics. Further development of the topic can be carried out through a deeper study of the common features of the sciences and the possible use of other concepts along with them in various areas of human life. In addition, one can explore specific examples of the interaction between the genealogy of law and morality, highlighting the positive and negative aspects of their interaction, as well as finding various options for improving the situation in order to obtain a more appropriate form of law, considering all moral norms.


Abstract: The relevance of the studied topic lies in the research of morality and genealogy, the problem of their relationship to each other in the historical context and the present, as well as their special norms, which are still important in the world of today. The purpose of the article is to study the genealogy of law and morality as separate concepts, their norms, and their relationship with each other, as well as their historical features of development and coming to an actual form of interaction. Major methods encompass textual analysis of Treatises, annotation of legal shifts and disputes, plus conceptual ethical reasoning and comparative study of schisms within and between Western, Near Eastern and broader traditions. Tensions persist surrounding whose morality becomes legally binding, how policies affirm or suppress difference, and what occurs at pressure points between ambiguous ethical truth claims versus positivist rules. By evaluating historical dynamics, junctions and moral-practical conflicts behind current legal philosophies and normative tools, insights into tackling bias, gaps and grievances across diverse 21st century societies may emerge through culturally pluralistic approaches.


Key Words: religion, social norms, human relations, Ancient Rome, Babylon, Ancient Athens.



* Institute of Philosophy,Sociology and Law of the National Academy of Sciences of the Republic of Armenia, Republic of Armenia(L.Malkhasyan.85@gmail.com).

**Il contributo è stato sottoposto a double blind peer review.

[1] PLATO, The Republic. New York: Basic Books, 2016.

[2] I. KANT, Critique of Practical Reason. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2015.

[3] NIETZSCHE, F. On the Genealogy of Morality. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007.

[4]Ø. KVALNES, Moral Reasoning at Work. Rethinking Ethics in Organizations, Cham: Springer, 2019.

[5]T. SHEPLYAKOVA, Laments, remedies, rights: Nietzsche’s genealogy of morality through the prism of Roman law, Ratio Juris, 35(3) (2022), 290-309.

[6]P.  BARMASH, The Laws of Hammurabi, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2020.

[7]E. BENVENISTE, Dictionary of Indo-European concepts and society, Chicago: Hau Books, 2016.

[8]R. MCKAY - H. WHITEHOUSE, Religion and morality, Psychological Bulletin, 141(2) (2015), 447-473.

[9]D.P. WRIGHT, Inventing God's Law: How the Covenant Code of the Bible Used and Revised the Laws of Hammurabi, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013.

[10]D. BOUCHER, Classical Natural Law and the Law of Nations: The Greeks and the Romans, in: The Limits of Ethics in International Relations: Natural Law, Natural Rights, and Human Rights in Transition, 2009, 19-42, Oxford: Oxford University Press.

[11] L. SPYTSKA, Psychological profile and prerequisites for the formation of the killer’s personality, Social and Legal Studios, 6(1) (2023), 41-48.

[12]L.PIPOYAN, The Art of Ancient Greece and Ancient Rome, Yerevan: YSU Publishing House, 2016.

[13]M. MARIN - M. BOTINĂ, Legal Rules in Ancient Rome between Law, Morality and Religion. International Journal of Multidisciplinary Research, 5(2) (2020), 16-23.

[14]Ancient Rome and Early Christianity, 500 B.C.-A.D. 500, 2018. https://www.cusd200.org/cms/lib/IL01001538/Centricity/Domain/267/_files/World_Civ_Chapter_6.pdf. (Accessed 15.08.2023).

[15] T. SHYNKAR, "Restriction of the Right to Information in the Interests of National Security: The Problem of Justification," in Social and Legal Studios, 6(1) (2023), pp. 56-62.

[16] O. BRYSKOVSKA, A. ZILINSKYI, V. AHMADOV, "Prerequisites for the effectiveness of interrogation of victims of robbery attacks on citizens’ homes with the use of weapons," Scientific Journal of the National Academy of Internal Affairs, 28(1) (2023), pp. 68-77.

[17]F. J. AYALA, The Difference of Being Human: Morality, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 107(2) (2010), 9015-9022.

[18]C. KOVACHEFF - S. SCHWARTZ - Y. INBAR - M. FEINBERG, The problem with morality: ompeding progress and increasing divides, Social Issues and Policy Review, 12(1) (2018), 218-257.

[19]E. ALISTAR, The relation between law and morality, RAIS Conference Proceedings, 12 (2019), 358-360.

[20]The Rule of Law, Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 2016. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/rule-of-law/. (Accessed 17.08.2023).

[21]S. OETER, Conflicting norms, values, and interests: A perspective from Legal Academia, Ethics & International Affairs, 33(1) (2019), 57-66.

[22]W. J. WALICHOW, Legality, Morality, and the Guiding Function of Law, in: M.H. Kramer, C. Grant, B. Colburn, A. Hatzistavrou (Eds.), The Legacy of H.L.A. Hart: Legal, Political, and Moral Philosophy, 2008, 85-98. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

[23]A. FAGGION, Law and moral justification, Kriterion, 61(145) (2020), 55-72.

[24]K. GOROBETS, The international rule of law and the idea of normative authority, Hague Journal on the Rule of Law, 12 (2020), 227-249.

[25]A. CARMI - R. NUNES, Bioethics, Medical Ethics and Health Law, Porto: WMA Cooperating Centre, 2022.

[26]J.O. CATTON, Attention, literature and education, Christchurch: University of Canterbury, 2019.

[27] O. ZOZULIAK, I. MYRONENKO, Yu. PARUTA, I. HLAVACH-KHOMYN, "Protection of inviolability of property," Social and Legal Studios, 6(3) (2023), pp. 232-238.

[28] L.H. FELDMAN, Jewish Law and Legal Theory, in The Oxford Handbook of Judaism and Law, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2015.

[29] W. MENSKI, Hindu Law: Beyond Tradition and Modernity, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003.

[30] J.A. MAKDISI, Islamic Property Law: Cases and Materials for Comparative Analysis with the Common Law, Durham: Carolina Academic Press, 2005.

[31]N. ELLEMERS - J. TOORN - Y.  PAUNOV - T. LEEUWEN, The psychology of morality: A review and analysis of empirical studies published from 1940 through 2017, Personality and Social Psychology Review, 23(2) (2019), 332-366.

[32] L. SPYTSKA, "Historical-retrospective and legal analysis of the conditions, values and consequences of the Constitution of Pylyp Orlyk," Foreign Affairs, 33(1) (2023), pp. 32-38.

[33]T. FRANKEL – T.BRAUN, Law and culture, Boston University Law Review Online, 101 (2021), 157-176.

Liana Malkhasyan

7 Malkhasyan.pdf

    [acquista_oltre_giacenza] => 1
    [codice_fiscale_obbligatorio] => 1
    [coming_soon] => 0
    [disabilita_inserimento_ordini_backend] => 0
    [fattura_obbligatoria] => 1
    [fuori_servizio] => 0
    [has_login] => 1
    [has_messaggi_ordine] => 1
    [has_registrazione] => 1
    [homepage_genere] => 0
    [insert_partecipanti_corso] => 0
    [is_ordine_modificabile] => 1
    [moderazione_commenti] => 0
    [mostra_commenti_articoli] => 0
    [mostra_commenti_libri] => 0
    [multispedizione] => 0
    [pagamento_disattivo] => 0
    [reminder_carrello] => 0
    [sconto_tipologia_utente] => carrello
    [seleziona_metodo_pagamento] => 1
    [seleziona_metodo_spedizione] => 1

Inserire il codice per attivare il servizio.