Law and Morality

The close and inseparable ties between law and morality date back to the time of Greek philosophers.  The dilemma following its conflicting principles can be identified in the Greek tragedy 'Antigone', in which we realize that ones morals do not always collaborate with the law. However a clear distinction between the two came about in the Hart-Devlin debate following the publishing of the Wolfenden report of 1957, which sought to legalize prostitution and homosexuality on the basis that it wasn't the law's business on what an individual's personal morals were. Therefore they were to be decriminalized on the basis of:

1. Freedom of choice
2. Privacy of morality

However after the publication of this report, professor H.L.A Hart and Lord Devlin who both had very different and contradicting opinions on the relationship between law and morality, initiated a debate in pieces of writing which subsequently came to be called the Hart-Devlin debate.

Lord Devlin took a very conservative stance stating that law and morality were one and the same. He believed that establishing a distinction between the two was the "paved toad to tranny. " He reiterated that shared morality was absolutely essential for the preservation of society and that nothing was off limits to the law. He opined that if there was no common morality, moral bonds loosened and society would disintegrate, imploding rather than succumbing to external pressures. Therefore while he believed that privacy should be respected, he concluded that the law had the right to interfere in the personal lives of people to protect morality and society.

Professor Hart on the other hand believed that law and morality should exist independent of each other and opined that if one's actions did not harm society, they should be allowed to do as they pleased, reiterating John Stuart Mill's 'harm principle' which states that "the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community against his will, is to prevent harm to others." He pointed out that no-one really knew what was "right" or "wrong" and therefore no-one should be allowed to enforce their morals on other people. He believed that this would adversely affect pluralism and diversity and would result in populism, as the the powerful would be the ones dictating the behaviour of society. Furthermore since morals constantly evolved, he pointed out that it would be un-practical to constantly amend laws to keep up with morality.

Hart takes a very individualistic stance which is less invasive into the private's live's of people, which is why this writer believes that Hart's idea of how law should work, despite clashing with religion and culture, allows people of society to develop and coexist in harmony. By imposing one's morals on another it restricts freedom and is a tyranny of those in power. However at the same time this writer concedes that Lord Devlin's approach protects religions, cultures and societies.

In conclusion it can be stated that the relationship between law and morality is a very close one, and at times is very difficult to distinguish between the two as each cannot exist without the other.

Image: http://kidswithoutgod.com/teens/learn/humanist-morality/