what should be Law’s attitude unto the accomplishment of the moralstandards.Once this has been reached, we shall discuss some judicial cases andsentences that present interest for us due to a clash between morality, lawenforcement and harm prevention.
Morality as an unifying bond
The disintegration thesis is strongly associated with a relativist conception of morality, Hart says. Then, according to this it could be said that due to thisrelativity, morality is prone to change from society to society. Thus, moralitywould act as a linking element amongst the members of that society and it isthis unifying, cohesive power what really matters, not the “
” of themorality itself. As Lord Devlin (one of the main defenders of the theory of disintegration) points out: “
What is important is not the quality of the creedbut the strength of the belief in it. The enemy of society is not error but indifference
” (Devlin: 114)According to him, maintaining morality is necessary to prevent thedisintegration of a society. But this leads to a question which is to what extentshould law try to keep society apart from changes? What if these changesare natural? Lord Devlin’s arguments face several major flaws in this point, ashe states that if society is not kept together through morality, bonds betweenits members will be weakened, leading to is destruction. “
There isdisintegration when no common morality is observed and history shows that the loosening of moral bonds if often the first stage of disintegration.
” (Devlin:168)By stating this argument Lord Devlin commits two big mistakes. The first oneis that he gives a biased vision of history: It is true that something similar towhat he defends happened to certain societies and peoples, but he does notchoose –intentionally or not- to recall that the opposite thing happened inmany other cases for example, in the societal shift from an old feudal societyto a new one.