This consideration tries to answer the question if and to what extent is the moral argumentation legitimately admissible, necessary and desirable in the rule of law state. According to the author, the execution of legal profession is connected with the obligation to use moral argumentation in all situations in which the nature of thinkable field of argumentation allows it. He tries both to determine these situations in details and to stipulate acceptable rational criteria for the moral judgment reasoning form the point of view of elimination of arbitrariness (rule of law principles). He comes out from the fact that if the morality in the law is deprived of its significance, the idea of law itself is denied. The author also supports the relevant points of his attitude to the resolution of given answer by reference to the constitutionally enshrined values and principles (Art. 1 par. 1 of the CR Constitution, Art. 1 of the Charter of Human Rights and Basic Freedoms).
Financed by the National Centre for Research and Development under grant No. SP/I/1/77065/10 by the strategic scientific research and experimental development program:
SYNAT - “Interdisciplinary System for Interactive Scientific and Scientific-Technical Information”.