RESULTS OF SOCIOLOGICAL RESEARCH CONCERNING SOME PROBLEMS FROM THE BORDERLINE OF LAW AND MORALITY
The present article, which is based entirely on the author’s own research, presents a thesis about the different nature of legal and moral knowledge as acquired through reflection upon one’s own or other people’s personal experience, and that gained by means of systematically applied psychological and sociological techniques. Knowledge of the reflectional type can be partially true providing it is in agreement with the ethical sense of a given social group, whereas knowledge gained by the systematic method may be entirely false if the investigation techniques used are faulty.
Having discussed similar general objections the author then sums up the results of some empirical research. Following, are the general hypotheses to follow the conclusion of one of the investigations mentioned. Rigorism in ethical attitudes is greater in proportion as the individual and social knowledge is less; and conversely, tolerance in such matters is greater the wider the scope of knowledge in that field. Factors such as education, engagement in some kind of social work, qualified as opposed to unqualified type of work in the case of physical workers, all act as factors broadening the scope of that knowledge. A general sense of well-being increases tolerance, whereas the opposite tends to rigorism. Indications to that effect are provided by a study of the effect of age, civil status, sense of insecurity and general adjustment for life.
The article concludes with some analytical remarks concerning the methodological benefits and risks arising from the introduction of psycho-sociological techniques into law and morality research.