LAW AND MORALITY
Relationship Between Law And Morality
Law and Morality are two systems that govern the way humans behave. Law is
a body of rules and regulations that all people are mandatorily obligated to
adhere to. Morals, on the other hand, refer to general principles or standards of
behavior that define human conduct within society but are not compulsory to be
followed. The relationship between law and morality is a complicated one and
has evolved over the years and their respective paths cross each other.
History
In ancient times, when legal regulations were still at a very nascent stage, there
was no particular distinction between law and morals. In India, Dharma was
considered as a combination of law and morality. Hindu law was primarily
derived from the Vedas and Smritis which represented the of the moral of the
society. Later on, Mimansa put forth certain principles which categorically
distinguished between obligatory rules to be followed and considered as law,
and certain recommendatory rules based on morality. In the middle age period,
the Bible was considered as the major factor that influenced the legal
regulations.
As the human civilization grew and the concept of State matured, morally
correct ideals were picked up which were given the form of laws, rules and
regulations. Therefore, the law finds its origin and is based on the values that
float amongst the people, creating a similarity between the two concepts, i.e.
law and morality.
Difference Between Law And Morality
Law and morality are interdependent to an extent and have many similarities but
there are certain factors based on which the two concepts can be differentiated:
1. Law is derived from an external source which means that it is obtained
through rules and regulations. Morality emerges from internal sources,
i.e. it comes from the individual mind of a person.
2. Law treats all people in the same manner and doesn’t change from person
to person but morality is a subjective concept.
3. Morality has influenced the creation of laws but rarely have laws
influenced morality.
4. Disobedience of the law leads to punishment but there are no
repercussions of doing anything morally wrong as long as they are legal.
5. Laws lay down mandatory behaviour that is expected out of the people
who are governed under the said law. However, morality does not lay
down strict guidelines of how one should behave but is a more personal
concept.
Philosophical Alternatives
There are broadly two theories that have aided in the evolution of law which is
legal positivism and natural law theory.
According to the natural law theory, any grossly unjust law, thereby violating
standards of morals, is not a law at all. This means that law and morality are
deeply connected. Legal theorists who were in support of the natural law theory
were Augustine, Aquinas, Lon Fuller, and more.
Legal positivism on the other hand states that the legal body exists devoid of
any norms of morals. That being said, this theory does not entirely deny the
influence of morals on laws. The theory follows the view that all laws, rules and
regulations are man-made and thereby advocate the separation of laws and
morals. Legal theorists who advocate for legal positivism include John Austin
and H. L. A Hart.
Hart-Fuller Debate On Law And Morality
A debate, published in the Harvard Law Review in 1958, between Lon Fuller
and H. L. A Hart is one of the most interesting exchanges of ideas and opinions
between intriguing interdependency of law and morality which highlights the
difference in opinions in the positivist and natural law philosophy.
Lon Fuller
Fuller was a naturalist who believed that there exists a strong connection
between law and morals. According to him, all legal norms are based on moral
norms. In simplest terms, no law can be deemed as valid if it does not pass the
test of morality. Fuller categorized morality into two aspects:
i) Morality of aspiration, and
ii) Morality of duty.
The former is concerned with moral norms to be followed by a person for their
best interest. The latter is relevant for smooth functioning of society by laying
standards that people must follow. Fuller elaborated 2 more concepts:
a) “Internal morality of law” which deals with the procedure of framing
laws and
b) “External morality of law” which is more about the essence of law which
is used to make decisions.
H.L.A. Hart was a positivist and was of the opinion that while there may be a
close relationship between law and morality, the two are most definitely not
interdependent. According to him, a clear distinction needs to be made between
what law should be and what it ought to be.
Hart brought in the problem of penumbra which refers to determining meaning
where the law is ambiguous. Fuller in opposition to this stated that in situations
where the law is uncertain, the judges make decisions based on morality,
basically from what ought to be. To this Hart responded by saying that
determining what ought to be must be understood from a legal sense, and not
from a moral one.
The law has primary rules and secondary rules. Primary rules impose certain
regulations on the citizens and secondary rules provide power to the State to
make and implement these rules. This means that the law doesn’t have to align
with moral standards. Despite making a clear demarcation between law and
morality, he also believed that the two are bound to intersect at some point.
Dudley and Stephen case
R v Dudley and Stephens (1884) is perhaps the most famous case that dealt
with law and morality, in which four men were stranded in a boat, in the middle
of the sea, far away from land. The men had no way of contacting any person
and were stuck in the boat without any food and water. After torturing
themselves for seven days without food and water, the captain, Thomas Dudley,
suggested an immoral solution that one of the four men would have to sacrifice
his life so that the others could survive. While Edward Stephens agreed, Ned
Brooks refused. Richard Parker, the cabin boy was not consulted. Eventually,
the boy was killed by Dudley and Stephen following which the three men fed on
the boy’s flesh.
When the men were rescued, the two men were tried for committing the grave
offence of murder. While prima facie a crime was committed, however, the plea
of the accused was, at that moment, the accused were morally right for saving
their lives and so be acquitted. However, a clear distinction was made between
law and morality and it was observed that personal inconvenience or an attempt
to save your life by killing another cannot be used as a justification.
