• Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

Examine the relationship between law and morals. Consider the extent to which the law should promote moral values.

Free essay example:

Examine the relationship between law and morals. Consider the extent to which the law should promote moral values.

   Law and morals are two seemingly different concepts yet sometimes can be inextricably linked. There have been many debates, throughout history, as to whether laws are based on morals or morals derive from the law. There is obvious distinction between the two with issues such as car tax, but where is the line drawn with, for example, the sixth commandment ‘thou shalt not kill’? This was obviously a moral issue before it became law.

  Professor Hart proposed in his 1963 book ‘The Concept of Law’ that the law is divided into primary rules and secondary rules. Primary rules, are bound closely with morals and are those which the basic of societies require in order to survive. However as society becomes more complex there creates a need for secondary rules which can be wholly detached from morals.

   To understand the relationship between the issues of law and morality, first the concept of each has to be appreciated. In his book ‘The Province of Jurisprudence’ in the 17th Century, John Austin held that ‘The law is different from other rules because it was the command of a sovereign body which the state could enforce by means of punishment.’ Although this is true for criminal law, if you commit a criminal offence you could go to prison, there are large areas which fall outside of this definition for example civil law. Civil law can set out conditions for things we may wish to do but are not compelled to do such as marriage.

  Developing the idea of law, Professor Dworkin suggested that law contains not only rules but a set of legal principles on which all laws are based (yet could these ‘principles’ have moral foundations?) Rules operate on an all or nothing matter whereas the legal principles will act as guidelines, not dictating the outcome and allowing for varying circumstances. For example a boy kills his father, the rule is that he should not inherit from his crime but what if he had acted out of self defence, should this rule still apply? The resulting decision in a case can vary even when the case is relatively similar, Dwroking believed that this was the legal principles allowing for some flexibility in the law.

   To appreciate the notion of morality, we must look first at the bases of each religion as this is where the idea of morality for different social/religious groups was originally cited e.g. the Bible, the Torah and the Quran. Morals, unlike the law, are voluntary beliefs on how people ‘ought’ to behave and what individuals think is ‘right’ and ‘wrong’ behaviour. Although there is no punishment for not accepting these beliefs, there may be an informal type of enforcement by which people may try and persuade or even rebuke people that don't follow ‘the trend’, possible resulting in complete social breakdown.

  Morality differs from person to person, from one social group to another and changes with time. For example attitudes towards single parents used to be very negative whereas nowadays it seems commonplace. On the other hand laws can be changed relatively quickly, not taking several hundreds or sometimes even thousands of years to develop.

   There are many contradicting ideas as to the relationship of law and morality and many contradicting cases and practices. St Thomas Aquinas a religious scholar believed that divine law from God should take precedence, seemingly the ten commandments or peoples morals deriving from their religion. He thought people should disregard the law which is at odds with this natural code, unless doing so would lead to social unrest.

   Sometimes a change in the law can bring about a change in moral attitudes and sometimes it is the other way around. For example, before the case of R v R in 1991, it was legal for a man to rape his wife since she was legally seen as being almost the property of the husband via the marriage agreement. Morally, this view had been long outdated but the law was slow in catching up.

   However the Wolfenden Report of 1957 influenced the law on homosexuality and prostitution and, in some ways, brought about a change in peoples attitudes towards homosexuality. The report considered the contentious issue of the law getting involved in the private lives of individuals and perhaps therefore imposing on individuals practices and beliefs - their morals. Its purpose was to consider the law in relation to homosexual acts and prostitution and the way these cases were handled in court.

  Homosexual acts had been prohibited by the Buggery Act 1533 and was only partly revised by the Offences Against the Person Act 1861, which removed the death penalty. This legal view was supported by a large number of people who believed homosexuality was immoral, it must be noted that this moral standpoint was not unanimous.

 The committee took three years to come to a general consensus and to make 3 recommendations. Their consensus was ‘ The function of the criminal law is to preserve public order and decency and to protect the civilisation from what is offensive of injurious…’ it continued ‘It is not in our view the function of the law to intervene in the private life of citizens, or to seek to enforce any pattern of behaviour, further than is necessary to carry out the purpose that we have outlined.’

  Although the recommendations did not actually become law until quite a few years later, the committee said society and the law should respect ‘individual freedom in matters of private morality’ and stressed it was neither condoning nor condemning homosexual acts. This highlights the ‘live and let live’ attitude that is common today.

  However, ultimately the report said that matters of private morality or immorality  was ‘not the laws business’ and Archbishop Fisher added ‘ There is a sacred realm of privacy into which the law should not intrude. This is a principle of the upmost importance for the preservation of human freedom, self respect and self preservation.’  Professor Hart also agreed with this, stating that legal enforcement of a moral code was unnecessary (because a pluralist society won’t suddenly disintegrate), undesirable (as it would prevent development of morality), and in fact morally unacceptable (as it interferes with individual liberty).

  Lord Devlin on the other hand disputed this. This became known as the Hart v Devlin Debate. Devlin believed that moral behaviour could be ‘improved’ by using the power of law and moral behaviours disputed by the majority should be made illegal, even when it involves no harm to others. Yet who is to say which individuals morals are ‘right’ and who’s are ‘wrong’?

   In conclusion, the law cannot possible maintain a fairness if it promotes moral values. Regarding peoples beliefs, there are no right and wrong answers, in fact it would be ‘immoral’ to judge one another on what other people perceive to be right/good. Who’s moral code would the law turn to? This was highlighted in the case of Gillick v West Norfolk AHA where Mrs Gillick, a mother of a large catholic family, found it unacceptable that her under 16 year old daughters received contraceptive advice and devices. She believed that by the nature of its immorality, this should be illegal. Some saw this as immoral (encouraging underage sex) whilst others felt that it was moral (as underage sex would occur anyway, but the measures would prevent unwanted pregnancies). The question for the law was which moral viewpoint it would support, the House of Lords ruled 3-2 against Mrs Gillick, but stated that they acted due to what was legal under the relevant statutes, rather than because of moral arguments.

    How can we tell people what they should believe in and think? By doing this, the law would have a low level of support and in turn would be harder to enforce. Furthermore the law seeks to enforce behaviour, if the law has strong connections to morals and those morals change over time, so must the law, to adapt and allow for these views. And also, the issue of euthanasia. Some people firmly disagree with it yet others do not. The courts have tried not set precedents as each case can be radically different for example the case of Miss B, the High Court decided she had the right to  refuse continuing medical intervention to save her life, while in the case of Pretty v DPP, Dianne Pretty was refused permission for euthanasia by both UK courts and the European Court of Human Rights.

This student written piece of work is one of many that can be found in our AS and A Level Machinery of Justice section.

Not the one? Search for your essay title...
  • Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

Related AS and A Level Law Skills and Knowledge Essays

See our best essays

Related AS and A Level Machinery of Justice essays

  1. Marked by a teacher

    ‘Trial by jury is outdated, expensive and ineffective in ensuring justice’ Analyse arguments for ...

    4 star(s)

    Indeed, it can be said that: 'To seek a specially composed jury for certain cases suggests that the ordinary random jury is not able to perform its task in the required way' (Davies et al, 1998:212). Jury trial, for many years, has been called 'the cornerstone' of the British system

  2. Critically analyse the relationship between law and justice.

    any exercising proceedings in Parliament, leading some to believe that Parliament and it's ministers can disregard the Convention. The act also states that courts have to interpret legislation in a way that is compatible with the convention, meaning that judges have interpreted Acts in an exceedingly wide manner.

  1. Law and Morality. Within the justice system there is a genuine relationship between law ...

    This is perhaps why it is so hard to legislate based on morals as opinions vary and by basing laws on one opinion may lead to a public cry out. It appears that morals advance quicker than laws; it is obvious that the law undergoes changes to adapt and reflect to the moral views of society.

  2. The European Court of Justice ensures that European law is applied throughout the member ...

    courts; it can take a panoramic view of the whole of European law, compare the legislation as it is written in different member states languages, and it is experienced in the purposive approach to interpretation for which European legislation was designed.

  1. The Death Penalty in Canada. There are many issues surrounding the rebirth of ...

    international law, but since 1983 there have been 60 mentally ill persons executedxx. While the number may be low, it also may be inaccurate. It is estimated that of all those on death row, 5-10% have some form of mental illness.

  2. Generally, one would assume that the whole purpose of law is to promote justice. ...

    Thus, the law in a philosophy view would promote justice. Followers of this idea would include Professor LL Fuller, Lord Devlin or against it like Lord Hart who link the idea of justice to that of morality (R v. Reeves 1964).

  1. Law and Morals

    Salmond has illustrated the relationship between law and morals as intersecting circles. This also gives way to parts of the two circles being untouched by the other; they only overlap on point of agreement. For example, several areas of criminal law such as murder, theft and r**e are both legally and morally wrong.

  2. Arguing in Favour of the Death Penalty

    to build more not to mention the cost of staffing and upkeep. With jail sentences, it does not seem to deter people from committing violent crimes, most of the time anyway, so at least with the death penalty there is some hope to try and prevent heinous crimes from occurring again.

  • Over 160,000 pieces
    of student written work
  • Annotated by
    experienced teachers
  • Ideas and feedback to
    improve your own work