The Moral Nature of Positive Law: A Question of Moral Requisite
The Moral Nature of Positive Law: A Question of Moral Requisite Tiffany Dawson
The United States of America has a unique system by which legislation can be put forth. Despite having a single specified legislative branch, Congress, the government is capable of affecting legislation through all three branches of the government; executive, legislative, and judicial. For example, the employment of executive orders, such as Executive Order 13224, which forbids businesses to make transactions with “persons who commit, threaten to commit, or support terrorism,” set forth and enforces a new conduct for businesses to ascribe to. Similarly Congress can pass pieces of legislation that can become federal law, such as the Violence Against Women Act, which provides 1.6 billion dollars for the investigation and prosecution of violent crimes acted against women. The Supreme Court is capable of affecting legislation and creating precedence, for example: Buck v. Bell ruled in favor of a law that allowed for compulsory sterilization for those who were considered unfit; including the mentally retarded. This court case was considered a cornerstone for negative eugenics. These three examples each elicit a different response within individuals; Executive Order 13224, and the Violence Against Women Act both create a very different response than the example of Buck v. Bell. This is likely because the idea that American businesses should not exchange with anti-American terrorists is generally agreeable, and the protection of women against violent crimes is also agreeable, however, the compulsory sterilization of the mentally retarded seems of a different nature of legislation than the others. Why is it that this effect on legislation via the judicial branch provokes such a different tone within individuals? This provocation causes inspection into the nature of the laws. Why are the first two examples easier to accept than the Supreme Court case? The difference is the moral nature of the law, and the immediate response of inquiry into whether or not the decision is morally right. Subsequently, the question now remains as to whether or not the government legislates morality, and if it does, whose morality does it legislate for? These questions are important to answer because legislation affects all aspects of American society. Therefore, if the government acts as an agent of enforcement for morality, then the citizens have the right not only to know whose morality these pieces of legislation are enforcing, but they also have the right to participate in a forum of public scrutiny of the laws. This idea seems foreign, because there is an ongoing assumption within the United States that the government is amoral; that it does not legislate morality, and that when it does create a law that respects a certain moral principle, it has made a mistake in its legislative process. This idea, however, is mistaken, because each court case decision, piece of legislation and executive order respects a certain moral or ethic. There is a moral requisite for the enforcement of rules in the form of laws, that is to say, that positive law is moral in nature, and that it is impossible for the government to legislate without legislating some ethic or moral principle. To explain this assertion, the following questions must be answred: 1. What is morality? What are ethics? 2. Does the government create legislation that respects certain morals and ethics? 3. Whose morals or ethics do these pieces of legislation respect? 4. What are the consequences of morally or ethically respected legislation?
What is morality? What are ethics? In his essay “Bocheński on Morality and Ethics,” Czesław Porębski argues that everyone should accept Józef Maria Bocheński’s (a Polish logician and philosopher) “self-interpretation” of the delineation of morals and ethics, because of his epistemic authority and the popularity of his works. In this essay, Porębski articulates exactly what this delineation is, and breaks it down into three categories: morals, ethics, and religious morality, of which we will only examine the first two. He starts first with ethics, which Bocheński defines as “a normative science concerned with human conduct.” Ethics is an inquiry into reality, but normatively speaking; because it defines the object in which it is studying, but also what that object should or ought to be like. Most importantly ethics, by Bocheński’s understanding, is a “science of human conduct” because it is concerned only with the actions between two humans that is a result of conscious decision(s) by “the free will of man.” Ethics is primarily concerned with analyzing, but not moralizing the shoulds and oughts of man’s actions. Bocheński thoroughly separates ethics and morality, asserting that while ethics can be a science, morality cannot be in any case. He explains that morality consists of two absolute imperatives: those that are evident, and those that follow the evident; the normative nature of which dictate that morality cannot be scientific. An example of this would be inquiring into whether a man stabbing another man for no apparent reason is a right or wrong thing to do. The evident absolute imperative would be “Yes, it is wrong,” qualifying that it must be, and the one that follows would be the question “Why?” which answer must also be true. But because of the “relative moral question” it is impossible to answer these questions without declarative normative statements. It is concluded then, that ethics is a scientific inquiry into human conduct, insofar as it pertains to conscious willed decisions by human beings and what they ought to be, and morality is a normative inquiry into reality insofar as it pertains to what is truly wrong and truly right and why. In the article “Morality and Democracy” Emile Boutroux gives a slightly different definition, explaining that “morality is the science of the form that is fitting to give to human life so that it may realize the human idea as perfectly as possible.” This is a combination of Bocheński’s definition of morality and ethics. Boutroux calls morality a science, and addresses it as Bocheński addresses ethics when he uses the word “fitting,” which is the category of oughts and shoulds, rather than truths. Though Boutroux still addresses morality as an autonomous and certain entity, which is similar to Bocheński ascribing to morality certain truth. These definitions of morality and ethics, though differing from each other, are very similar to the definition given by dictionaries themselves. The Merriam-Webster dictionary defines morality (or morals) as: “of or relating to principles of right and wrong in behavior,” and ethics: as “a theory or system of moral values.” For the purposes of answering the questions herein addressed, morals will hereby be defined as “truly right and truly wrong principles” and ethics will be “the moral principles by which men ought to conduct themselves.” Does the government create legislation that respects certain morals and ethics? In his essay “Genealogy of Morality and Law,” José Antonio Marina claims that positive law (or governmental law) is the articulation and enforcement of principles of justice. Governmental legislation is an attempt to “analyse, select, justify the values which human coexistence is based on and which are useful as criteria to solve personal and social conflicts.” Marina argues that the subordination of law to morality in the legislation process is wrong, and that morality should be subordinate to law through the implementation of an ethics-focused legislation process. He finds this to be difficult, because he recognizes the very moral nature of law, and describes this “paradox of law” as the law needing morality, yet not allowing itself to submit to morality. Instead the law should focus on the ethical principles to which all human beings live, or respectively should live by. In either case, Marina recognizes that the law is intertwined with morality and ethics, though finds himself that the focus during legislation should be on ethical principles and not moral convictions. Agreeing with Marina on the idea that the government does create morally or ethically respected legislation, though differing on how this occurs, is Emile Boutroux. The renowned 19th century French philosopher delineates how it is that the government legislates morality in one essay “Morality and Democracy.” Boutroux’s idea is drastically different than Marina’s however, because he finds that the government only legislates morality insofar as it works to attribute and ascribe to man his rights. He defines these “rights” as whatever men find necessary for and from their existence. It is from then that the government seeks to discern what rights men have, and which hold supremacy over others. This brings to legislatures moral and ethical questions: “Does man have a right to liberty? To what extent? Is it a right to be able to abort a fetus? Is it a right to walk around naked in public? Is the right to safety and security from men exposing themselves in public more important than the right to expose oneself?” Rights as they stand are fundamentally moral rights, and by consequence the existence of legislation necessitates the legislating of morality; as it ascribes to one man the right to free speech, but another man no such right. Boutroux further shows how rights are by nature moral. In this essay he discusses one such case: equality among men. He explains that man by nature is not made equal; some are stronger, some are smarter, some are faster, some are more artistic, some are vocal, some are witty, and some are not. He explains that the push to make legislation that casts all men as equals, is “fine and just” but that “it is neither implied … nor imposed by nature.” Instead it is a “dictate of conscience” and a “strictly moral point of view.” It is these moral points of view that men form the idea of rights, and then the government enforces them or does not; and by this nature legislate morality. Though Marina and Boutroux both make excellent points, and both concede that the government necessarily legislates morality, they both limit it to one particular type of moral or ethic; justice for Marina, and rights for Boutroux. The truth is that the government is at all times legislating for morality and ethics. To prove this, we will examine pieces of legislation, court decisions, and the Constitution, and put each one up to a scrutiny test to identify its moral or ethical foundation. Let us take some of the examples listed previously and some additional examples; Executive Order 13224, Violence Against Women Act, Tarasoff v. Regents of the University of California, and a selection of amendments to the Constitution. As we examine these, it is important to keep at the forefront of our minds the definitions we established earlier of morals and ethics. Morals are defined as “truly right and truly wrong principles” and ethics are “the moral principles by which men ought to conduct themselves.” Executive Order 13224, as mentioned earlier, forbids businesses to make transactions with “persons who commit, threaten to commit, or support terrorism.” One must first recognize that this law regulates the conduct of business and individuals, to then ask the question “Why?” The answer lies in the definition of ethics: “The moral principles by which men ought to conduct themselves.” The executive order is an ideal; a piece of legislation to improve the conduct of businesses and individuals to how they “ought” to be. Men ought to not have dealings that benefit terrorists, especially terrorists who stand against their own nation. That is the ethic that this executive order respects. Now, the only delineation is to discover what moral principle the order respects. There are a few possibilities, but with some small amount of scrutiny, we can reasonably establish the fundamental principle. The possibilities on the first layer are: 1. Terrorists are bad, and therefore should be punished. 2. American businesses should benefit America only. 3. American businesses must stand against those who stand against America. 4. America’s safety is important; therefore America should not help anti-American terrorists. Each one of these possibilities has tiers of information, but let us examine the most likely possibility out of the answers given: 4. America’s safety is important; therefore America should not help anti-American terrorists. That is the first tier of the moral principle; but it can be broken down into even simpler terms. All moral principles established in law can be reduced to two categories: Nation, People, and Ethics can be reduced to two categories: Rights, and Duty; a particular piece of legislation could have multiple of these. These four categories each hold their place in theoretic practice, since no scientific measure can prove whether or not a man has a right or duty, to people or the nation. This executive order establishes that America’s safety is important, and subsequently no American should aid individuals or groups that threaten to bring harm to the U.S. The safety of America addressed here, has to do with the value of human life; and notably those who live in the U.S. At first glance this would put the moral principle under “People,” but with its particular focus on American people we can put this into a sub-category “Nation > (People). This law also holds an ethic: “America should not help anti-American terrorists” is a normative claim which affirms a duty of Americans. It is by this claim that the government legislated the “ought to” ethic. The moral principle is “The safety of American residents is important” and the ethic is “Individuals and businesses in America should not help anti-American terrorists.” Now that we have established how we analyze these laws, it should be easier and faster to identify the morals and ethics within each law. Let us take now the Violence Against Women Act. The Violence Against Women Act provides 1.6 billion dollars for the investigation and prosecution of violent crimes acted against women. This time, instead of listing the possible morals principles, it should be easier to discover them at first analysis. Is the moral principle against criminals or for women? The moral principle is that women should protected and that they should be safe. This forces the law to be placed into the “People” category, and the ethic is that “Funding for the protection of women ought to be a priority.” This analysis becomes more difficult when we take the case Tarasoff v. Regents of the University of California, because in this case there is an explicit weighing of moral priority, whereas in other types of law the weighing of morals is implicit. In the case, a mental health professional was told by a patient that he wanted to murder a woman. The mental health professional reported him to the campus police, and they held him for twenty-four hours and released him. At some point in the near future the patient murdered the woman who he claimed he wanted to murder. The victim’s parents filed suit against the individuals who had worked in the mental-health field at the college, and claimed that they had a duty to tell them or their daughter that the man had desired to kill her. The Supreme Court of California ruled in their favor. The reason this case is difficult, is because it established one type of duty over another type of duty. Mental-Health professionals have a duty to keep patients confessions private under doctor-patient confidentiality. The reason for this is that without total confidence in their doctors, patients will not tell them the truth about what they are suffering with, and therefore cannot receive the proper treatment. The moral behind this is that people’s mental health and safety are important (category: People), and the ethic behind this is that people ought to receive the most effective mental-health care they can for the purposes of becoming healthy (Category: Right). However, this case explained that this moral and ethic are secondary to what the court ruled. The court held that it was the duty of mental-health professionals to protect those individuals who are threatened by a patient with bodily harm. Now, let us decipher the moral and ethic within this ruling. The moral of this ruling is that immediate protection of human life is more important than confidence in confession to mental-health professionals (category: People) and the ethic is that Health-care professions ought to inform individuals who are threatened by their patients in order to protect them (category: Duty). But this is still a special case, because it establishes priorities within the categories. This ruling is to protect people who are threatened, over people who are mentally ill, and it rules duty of health care professionals over right of the mentally ill to receive the most effective health care. From this case it should now be understood how complex the delineation of morals and ethics can be when establishing law. The most interesting discussion comes in the Constitution. A wide and large claim in the United States is that the Constitution is not moral in nature; that it is an amoral (in the sense that it does not establish a national morality), it is instead a non-respective foundation for the nation. This claim however is anything but correct. The Constitution is by nature moral, as is all of positive law. To prove this we will examine a selection of amendments to the Constitution and use the established method of analysis to delineate the morals and ethics behind each amendment. We will examine the 4th, 8th, and 16th amendments to the Constitution. The fourth amendment prohibits unwarranted searches and seizures, and set the requirement for warrants based on probable cause. At first glance this may appear simply a regulation on government power, but it has just as much a moral and ethical foundation as any of the other examples we have previously examined. The moral behind this amendment is that it is important for individuals to be protected from government tyranny (category: People), and the ethic behind the amendment is that individuals have a right not to be put under government tyranny that ought to be protected (category: Right). The eighth amendment prohibits cruel and unusual punishment and excessive fines and bails. The moral is that fairness is important in the criminal justice system (category: People), and the ethic is that individuals have a right to fairness that ought to be protected (category: Right). The explicit and implicit weighing of moral priorities that was mentioned earlier will become clearer as examined the sixteenth amendment. The sixteenth amendment to the Constitution allows the federal government to collect income tax. The moral here is that in order for the nation to function as best as possible it is important that the government has revenue (category: Nation), and the ethic is that individuals have a duty to provide for the common weal that ought to be paid via income (category: Duty). But consider the tradeoff in this amendment, the moral that revenue is best for the nation, overcomes the moral that protecting individual’s money is important, and the duty that men ought to pay the government, overcomes their right to appreciate the fruits of their labor. In every piece of law there is an ethic or moral, and in every legislated ethic or moral there is an implicit or explicit weighing of priorities. Whose morals or ethics do these pieces of legislation respect? Returning to scholars opinions, Boutroux articulated whose morality and ethics is respected in legislation: “We shall thus regard as true units the groups formed of closely united individuals… political or professional groups… and the people will be the whole of the groups.” To Boutroux, the morality is that ultimately of the people. This, in his view, is only reconciled in democracies, such as the United States. It is in a democracy that individuals form groups, but their foundational characteristic is the sum of individuals within that group. Subsequently, when legislation is created with some respected moral or ethic, it is the consequence of the branded moral or ethic of the individuals within the group. However, he finds these groups to have “unequal parts, proportioned to their respective importance,” which he defines in the terms of classes. He then concludes that it is not simply individuals, but certain classes of individuals, that are respected through legislation. He is sure to conceive that it is not individual morality, insofar as it respects one man alone, but it is a group of individuals in one or another class, and therefore it is not respective of all of society. Yet, he ascertains that despite this conclusion, any type of morally or ethically based law “cannot concern any but individuals,” so although each individual law only respects one or another class, it effects men on an individual basis. A widely contrasting viewpoint is given by scholar A. K. Rogers, who wrote “Principles of Moral Legislation.” In this journal article he depicts a legislative body that is far from simply individuals, and laws that respect no individual class in particular. Instead he articulates that the state is a separate entity from the individuals and classes within society, and consequently cannot respect them fairly in legislation. Instead of making laws that respect the morality of certain men or groups, the laws make the moral decision “for him” [Emphasis added]. He gives the example of laws that forbid the consumption of alcohol for those under twenty-one, and explains how this may very well be the morality of all men and groups in the nation, because the moral is that children should not consume potentially dangerous intoxicants, however the government has widely surpassed the morality of the society and individuals in this theme during the prohibition. Though it is the common morality that children should not consume potentially dangerous substances, it is not the common morality that no man should consume potentially dangerous intoxicants. However, since the prohibition occurred, though later was repealed, it becomes evident that the government sometimes legislates morality irrespective of individuals or groups in society, and is consequently an autonomous legislative being. This, one can see, is a complete contrast from Boutroux’s view, in that while Boutroux finds the government legislates according to individual morality respective of certain classes, Rogers finds that the government legislates morals irrespective of individuals or groups; it is an autonomous entity that sometimes succeeds in reflecting the morality of certain groups or individuals, but primarily does not. Another conclusion is driven by W.R. Sorley in his article “The Morality of nations.” Sorely, more similar to Rogers than Boutrox, concludes that the nation as an entity (meaning the state) has its own moral interest, completely irrespective of society entirely. The state may ask men to lay down their lives in battle for the good of the nation, which is a national moral, “but the state has no such personal life to lay down.” Instead the “national morality differs from individual morals in this respect, that a nation’s first duty may be said to be to itself.” By this he explains that the first duty is to the nation itself; that is, the national interest/morality, and not to any individual or societal morality. However, the nation has a second duty to individuals and groups in society, but however puts its own morality as supreme to that of these groups and individuals. In this way his view is more similar to Rogers, who finds the state an autonomous being, but also accepts that the state has some obligation (though subjugated) to individuals and groups. However he finds despite this secondary obligation, “the laws of national morality cannot be identified with those of private morality.” I will make a claim different from each of these scholars. The morality that is legislated corresponds to the loudest or largest group in the United States (and it should be noted that this type of morally-respected legislation only comes through democracy). To defend this claim, let us examine a few of the great moral leaps the United States has made in its two-hundred and thirty-seven years as a nation. The abolition of slavery is an excellent example of this. During the constitutional convention the issue of slavery was a puck that was passed to a future point in history. From 1787 until the thirteenth amendment was in effect in December of 1865, notable but not substantial progress was made in slavery’s abolition. Nearly all progress between those years, and the actual ratification of the thirteenth amendment was the product of the abolitionist movement. Arguably, without that movement the progress made between 1787 and 1865 and the final abolition of slavery would not have occurred. Another example is how the movement for equal rights under the law for women gained substantial progress after the establishment of activist groups. It was less than one-hundred years ago that women in the United States gained the right of suffrage. Large groups of “Yankees,” “Quakers,” and Norwegian American women rose up to fight for their right and the right of women to vote. The suffragists held rallies, conventions, joined the “Social Gospel” movement, and gained media attention. It was this push that allowed for their moral affirmations to become actualized. Though these are two prominent examples, thousands of others could be listed. The movement for child labor laws, Occupy Wall Street, the recent civil-libertarian movement (including the pro-legalization of marijuana movement), pro-life movements, pro-choice movements, equal rights for gays and lesbians movement, and the list goes on. All of these movements have effected policy, law, governance, and culture. It is activism that leads to an individual’s voice in government, and their morals respected in legislation. This should eliminate the fear for individuals to say “I want the government to legislate my morality.” The truth of the matter is that the government does legislate morality, and that any normal functioning individual would want their moral principles represented in law. It is an ongoing battle in government for which group at which time gets their morality established in law, and I would argue that every group and every view should be fighting fervently to assure that their moral principles succeed. This point will be further examined in proceeding discussion. What are the consequences of morally or ethically respected legislation? The consequences of this morally and ethically respected legislation is obvious by Sorely’s viewpoint. The government that puts its own interests first enslaves individuals to a morality that is not their own. It is “not national self-sacrifice at all, but a sacrifice of others.” The consequence is injury to the individuals, and benefit to the state. He does not offer a solution to this issue, but he concedes that it is triumphant and unfortunate. Rogers, similarly, describes the consequences as the forbiddance of individual desires, and the usurpation by some autonomous morality on private morality. He differs, however, in his claim that there is a solution, and that the only protection from this usurpation is “caution, and for some principle of distinction which does not leave any injury to others a proper ground for legislation.” Boutroux explains that the problem of morals that do not respect individuals from a class arises from a lack of scrutiny to laws. This occurs because “the ground for the attribution to oneself of any particular right… is not always asked, or rather is answered too abruptly.” The consequence is moral laws that are irrespective of the morals of the classes to which the law pertains. The solution is merely public scrutiny, and private scrutiny and discussion throughout the legislative process. This appears to be a great compromise between the former two thinkers, that yes, the government does legislate morality, that it does have an obligation to respect the morality of the individuals or groups within the society, and that it sometimes fails in this respect. But despite that, the solution would be public and private scrutiny, and an open discussion on the morals and ethics respected in legislation. Boutroux and Sorely are both correct on this matter, but they fail to see the most obvious conclusion. The consequence of morally respected legislation is exactly what has been seen since the beginning of the United States. As the United States currently stands, with its current laws and principles, is exactly the consequence of morally respected legislation. To elaborate, it is the consequence of the government respecting the morality of the groups that it has, in the order that it has. It is not a tragedy, not by a longshot; in many ways, it is a benefit. Keeping a man from murder because the law holds that murder is wrong is a benefit. The establishment within law that murder is wrong is a moral principle, remember the definition as given previously: morals are “truly right and truly wrong principles.” The establishment within law that children working sixteen hours a day in a sweatshop is wrong is a moral principle, and a good one! This is the consequence of the government legislating morality. The establishment within law that women and African Americans should be treated as equal, that corporate executives should not steal client’s money, that women should be protected from abuse, that criminals should receive justice, are all moral principles, and good ones! This again, is the consequence of the government legislating morality. The tragedy only comes when the government does not legislate according to what is right (this, of course, presupposes that there is a definitive right and wrong, which will not be herein discussed, however asserted as truth). The government has the capability of legislating a wrong moral value, as we can see in the continuance of slavery, in old torture tactics, in Buck v. Bell, Nagasaki, the Japanese American Internment, etc. This is why activism is important in the legislation process. However, it would be impossible to assert that all government legislation of morality is wrong, since the very nature of positive law (governmental law) is moral. It is a presupposition; a prerequisite. It has established the exact nation that is seen today, with its benefits, and faults, morals rights, and moral wrongs. Proposal Remember Tarasoff v. Regents of the University of California, and the conflict between which moral and ethic was more important? This process of decision is undergone in virtually every legislative outlet, which should encourage individuals to participate in the analysis of morals within the legislative process. Imagine if every news station, every paper, and every political organization and lobbyist group began to participate in the discussion of moral priorities during the legislation process. Where do you already see this occurring? The abortion conflict has already caught onto this activism. The pro-choice activists claim “the right to do with my body what I want is most important,” a moral normative claim, and the pro-life activists claim “a child’s right to life is more important than that,” also a moral normative claim. Both groups cannot have their moral principle established in law, but rather their moral principles weigh over each other, just as the discussion in Tarasoff. This is an example of how the moral-nature of positive law is implicitly understood and engaged in by everyone, they simply call it something else. A pro-choicer can yell at a pro-lifer “you are trying to legislate morality,” when the truth is that the pro-choicer is just as interested in legislating morality, simply with a different moral principle as the one of foremost importance. It is absolutely essential that individuals begin to engage in discussions of morals and ethics within the legislative process. It gives them power to influence the results. Once a law is established it respects one group’s morality or another’s, and it should interest everyone to have their moral principles established not only as correct, but also as foremost to others. The government functions in law by trading off one moral value for another depending on which moral appears more important, and it is the function of activist organizations and individuals to provide information and influence legislators that their moral principles are most important. Imagine if in 1973 the Supreme Court ruled that a child’s right to life was supreme to a mother’s right to choose. This was the weighing of moral principles by the Supreme Court, which ruled the latter moral principle was more important than the former. Through this activism and engagement in the discussion of morality and politics, legislation is put up to the eye of public scrutiny, which will allow for more informed and sophisticated pieces of law. It does no good for the nation if a law is passed, which respects a moral and ethic, without the discussion of which moral and which ethic, and without the weighing of supremacy in morals. Those involved in the legislative process ought to engage in these types of discussions, and ought to promote public scrutiny, in order to maintain proper representation in the law. Conclusion This discussion provided evidences for the claim that the government legislates morality, asserted that activist groups and large sects of society are most likely to have their moral principles put into legislation, that the consequences of morally-respected legislation produced the current United States; with all of its benefits and faults, and that individuals should seek to promote their moral values in legislation. These claims are responses to questions and inquiry about the nature of governmental law, and the true role of United States’ citizens in the legislative process. The government legislates moral principles and ethics in every court decision, executive order, and piece of legislation, and citizens ought to promote their moral principles and establish them as true and just under the law, throughout the legislative process. For full paper including footnotes please contact me.
Bibliography: An Encyclopedia Britannica Company, "Merriam-Webster." Accessed February 16, 2013. http://www.merriam-webster.com/. Boutroux, Emile. "Morality and Democrachy." The North American Review. 1. no. 4 (1891): 166-176. http://www.jstor.org/stable/25120798 (accessed February 16, 2013). Cornell University Law School, "Buck v. Bell." Accessed March 03, 2013. http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0274_0200_ZO.html. History.com, "The Fight for Women's Suffrage." Accessed March 17, 2013. http://www.history.com/topics/the-fight-for-womens-suffrage. Marina, José Antonio . "Genealogy of Morality and Law."Ethical Theory and Moral Practice. 3. no. 3 (2000): 303-325. http://www.jstor.org/stable/27504145 (accessed February 16, 2013). NITA, "Abortion Activist Organizations and Training." Accessed March 10, 2013. http://nita.org/Shop?gclid=CICQ6qykhbYCFQ-znQodHRsA7Q Porębski, Czesław. "Bocheński on Morality and Ethics."Studies in East European Thought. 55. no. 4 (2003): 378-400. http://www.jstor.org/stable/20099854 (accessed February 16, 2013). Rogers, A. K. "Principles of Moral Legislation."International Journal of Ethics. 29. no. 4 (1919): 466-480. http://www.jstor.org/stable/2377363 (accessed February 16, 2013). Sorley, W. R. "The Morality of Nations." International Journal of Ethics. 1. no. 4 (1891): 427-446. http://www.jstor.org/stable/2375489 (accessed February 16, 2013). Stanford University, "Tarasoff v. Regents of University of California , 17 Cal.3d 425." Accessed March 08, 2013. http://www.stanford.edu/group/psylawseminar/Tarsoff I.htm. Stewart, James Brewer. History.com, "Abolitionist Movement." Last modified 1991. Accessed March 10, 2013. http://www.history.com/topics/abolitionist-movement. The United States Department of Justice, "The Office on Violence Against Women (OVW)." Accessed March 03, 2013. http://www.ovw.usdoj.gov/overview.htm. United States Government Archives, "Constitution of the United States." Accessed March 08, 2013. http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution.html. United States Federal Government, "EXECUTIVE ORDER 13224." Accessed March 03, 2013. http://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/sanctions/Programs/Documents/terror.pdf.