PLURALISM OF MORALITY INHERENT REQUIREMENTS INTERPRETATION IN LAW ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITY

Abstract

The research focuses on the basic theoretical and practical aspects of legal norms enforcement in terms of pluralism of interpretation of inherent requirements of law enforcer’s morality. The analysis of morality as a society social regulator has been provided through the prism of its social differentiation. Moreover, moral principles of the person depend on the level of needs (under A. Maslow’s pyramid of needs) where a person`s activity is directed. Although, a person’s ability to meet the requirements of a certain level depends more or less on the person’s age, intellectual level, their residential area, religion, financial standing and their role in working process organization etc. The factors under consideration in terms of the formation of individual’s moral consciousness depends are the following: social background, national and cultural traditions, certain conditions of personality formation (family, school, the closest environment), urbanization, individual and social experience (including professional– e.g. the difference between moral assessments of local court judges and the Supreme Court of Ukrainian Justices), the sphere of activity, religiousness, influence of public opinion and mass media, age factors, differences in needs and interests etc. In Ukraine, there are a lot of law enforcement subjects providing a moral assessment in their activity. Some of these subjects’ powers intersect each other so that in some cases they pass different (even opposite) decisions concerning the same object of moral assessment. The practice of Ukrainian legislation application is analyzed in terms of differences in the application of the same legal norm because of a different understanding of morality requirements. The pluralism of morality requirements understanding during law enforcement by the bodies of state power belonging to the same sphere has been demonstrated. For this purpose, the judicial practice has been analyzed as well. The position of the courts as to what should be considered as immoral offense while applying the legal norm which foresees dismissing of an employee because of committing the immoral offense inconsistent with work continuance is established to be different. Some of the judicial decisions in the analyzed cases are based on the fact whether the participation of a pedagogical worker in a fight is an immoral offense. Different views of judges on this issue caused different material law norm enforcement. It has been justified that the understanding of morality during law applying in socially heterogeneous society can be expressed in two ways: law enforcers on the same hierarchy level apply the legal norm differently that specifies the necessity of case circumstances for moral assessment on the basis of their different understanding of the morality requirements; law enforcement subject within own competence cancels the law enforcing act of another law enforcement subject, being guided by another understanding of morality requirements (for example a court repeals the law enforcement act of another body or court of the higher instance repeals the decision of the lower instance court).