Consider the Extent to Which Law Does and Should Enforce Morality

1027 Words5 Pages
There is a vast difference between morality and law. In general, law means a rule of being or of conduct, established by an authority able to enforce its will; a controlling regulation; the mode or order according to which an agent or a power acts.On the other hand,morality means the shared values and beliefs of a society or a section of a society. Law and morals are both normative. They specify what must or ought to be done and mark the boundaries between acceptable and unacceptable conduct. Lord Devlin who has adapted the authoritarian’s point of view believes that morality and law should overlap.He argued that society rests upon,indeed depends upon , a shared morality that can be legally defended in the same way as society may defend itself from subversive action such as terrorism.Moreover,legal rules should reflect moral rules.This viewpoint is supported by Aristotle and Sir Thomas Aquinas. Aristotle's Nicomachean Ethics addresses the issue of morality and its role in law. According to Aristotle, the law shapes our habits and our minds and teaches us right from wrong. In this sense, Aristotle agrees that the state must legislate morality in order to make its citizens good. Devlin’s theory is that a recognised morality is essential to society’s existence. Individual liberty and freedom should be limited in order to protect the fabric of society. Devlin stated that society may use the law to preserve morality in the same way that it uses law to safeguard anything else that is essential to its existence. The theory is based on an objective morality, a common morality shared by all in society.Example of an existing law, which illustrates this theory, is the defence of consent in non-fatal offences, R v Brown & Others.However law is concerned with minimum not maximum standards. Consent is an example of this. There are certain downsides to the authoritarian
Open Document