At first there seems to be no distinction between law and morality.

There are passages in

ancient Greek writers, for example, which seem to suggest that the good person is the one who
will do what is lawful. It is the lawgivers, in these early societies, who determine what is right
and wrong.
But it is not long before thoughtful people recognize the difference between what is actually
legal, or legally right according to the political authorities and what should be legal. What should
be legal roughly corresponds to what is really right or just, that is, what we would call morally
right. We find, for instance, the distinction between what is legally or conventionally right and
what is naturally (or as we would say today morally) right.
Sometimes this is expressed as an opposition between what the gods command (i.e., what is
morally right) and what the political authorities command (i.e., what is legally right). This is
dramatically illustrated in Sophocles' tragedy Antigone, in which the heroine defies the decree of
the king (the source of "legal right" in the circumstances) and buries her brothers (an act the
audience would assume was morally right).
The contrast between what the state demands and what the gods demand is not the only way
that this legal v. moral distinction is expressed. We find it also in the important Greek
philosophers, who frequently discuss the distinction in terms of appearance and reality, or
between what superficially seems or appears to be the case and what a thorough rational
investigation reveals.
Plato, for example, holds that knowledge of what is just or moral, and the ability to distinguish
true justice or morality from what is merely apparently just depends on the full development and
use of human reason. According to Plato, there is a very close connection between true justice
or morality and human well-being or flourishing. Legal and political arrangements that depart too
far from true justice should, if possible, be replaced by arrangements that better promote justice
and thus well-being.
Ethics, therefore, has claimed a right to criticize legal arrangements and recommend changes to
them. Many debates about the law, when they are not merely debates about how legal
precedent mechanically applies in a particular situation, are also ethical debates.
Let's summarize the relationship between morality and law.
(1) The existence of unjust laws (such as those enforcing slavery) proves that morality and law
are not identical and do not coincide.
(2) The existence of laws that serve to defend basic values--such as laws against murder, rape,
malicious defamation of character, fraud, bribery, etc. --prove that the two can work together.
(3) Laws can state what overt offenses count as wrong and therefore punishable. Although law
courts do not always ignore a person's intention or state of mind, the law cannot normally
govern, at least not in a direct way, what is in your heart (your desires). Because often morality
passes judgment on a person's intentions and character, it has a different scope than the law.

(4) Laws govern conduct at least partly through fear of punishment. Morality, when it is
internalized, when it has become habit-like or second nature, governs conduct without
compulsion. The virtuous person does the appropriate thing because it is the fine or noble thing
to do.
(5) Morality can influence the law in the sense that it can provide the reason for making whole
groups of immoral actions illegal.
(6) Law can be a public expression of morality which codifies in a public way the basic principles
of conduct which a society accepts. In that way it can guide the educators of the next generation
by giving them a clear outline of the values society wants taught to its children.

Law is a system of rules that are enforced through social institutions to govern behaviour.[2] Laws can
be made by a collective legislature or by a single legislator, resulting in statutes, by the executive
through decrees and regulations, or by judges through binding precedent, normally in common
law jurisdictions. Private individuals can create legally binding contracts, including arbitration
agreements that may elect to accept alternative arbitration to the normal court process. The
formation of laws themselves may be influenced by a constitution, written or tacit, and
the rights encoded therein. The law shapes politics, economics, history andsociety in various ways
and serves as a mediator of relations between people.
A general distinction can be made between (a) civil law jurisdictions (including Catholic canon
law and socialist law), in which the legislature or other central body codifies and consolidates their
laws, and (b) common law systems, where judge-made precedent is accepted as binding law.
Historically, religious laws played a significant role even in settling of secular matters, which is still
the case in some religious communities, particularly Jewish, and some countries, particularly Islamic.
Islamic Sharia law is the world's most widely used religious law.[3]
The adjudication of the law is generally divided into two main areas referred to as (i) Criminal law
and (ii) Civil law. Criminal law deals with conduct that is considered harmful to social order and in
which the guilty party may be imprisoned or fined. Civil law (not to be confused with civil law
jurisdictions above) deals with the resolution of lawsuits (disputes) between individuals or
organizations. These resolutions seek to provide a legal remedy (often monetary damages) to the
winning litigant. Under civil law, the following specialties, among others, exist: Contract law regulates
everything from buying a bus ticket to trading on derivatives markets. Property lawregulates the
transfer and title of personal property and real property. Trust law applies to assets held for
investment and financial security. Tort law allows claims for compensation if a person's property
is harmed. Constitutional law provides a framework for the creation of law, the protection of human

rights and the election of political representatives. Administrative law governs what executive branch
agencies may and may not do, procedures that they must follow to do it, and judicial review when a
member of the public is harmed by an agency action. International law governs affairs between
sovereign states in activities ranging from trade to military action. To implement and enforce the law
and provide services to the public by public servants, a government's bureaucracy, military, and
police are vital. While all these organs of the state are creatures created and bound by law, an
independent legal profession and a vibrant civil society inform and support their progress.
Law provides a rich source of scholarly inquiry into legal history, philosophy, economic
analysis and sociology. Law also raises important and complex issues concerning equality, fairness,
and justice. There is an old saying that 'all are equal before the law', although Jonathan Swift argued
that 'Laws are like cobwebs, which may catch small flies, but let wasps and hornets break through.'
In 1894, the author Anatole France said sarcastically, "In its majestic equality, the law forbids rich
and poor alike to sleep under bridges, beg in the streets, and steal loaves of bread." [4] Writing in 350
BC, the Greek philosopher Aristotle declared, "The rule of law is better than the rule of any
individual."[5] Mikhail Bakuninsaid: "All law has for its object to confirm and exalt into a system the
exploitation of the workers by a ruling class".[6] Cicero said "more law, less justice".[7] Marxist doctrine
asserts that law will not be required once the state has withered away.[8]
The law of Malaysia is mainly based on the common law legal system. This was a direct result of
the colonisation of Malaya, Sarawak, and North Borneo by Britain between the early 19th century to
1960s. The supreme law of the landthe Constitution of Malaysiasets out the legal framework
and rights of Malaysian citizens.
Federal laws enacted by the Parliament of Malaysia apply throughout the country. There are
also state laws enacted by the State Legislative Assemblies which applies in the particular state. The
constitution of Malaysia also provides for a unique dual justice systemthe secular laws (criminal
and civil) and sharia laws.
he laws of Malaysia can be divided into two types of lawswritten law and unwritten law. Written
laws are laws which have been enacted in the constitution or in legislations. Unwritten laws are laws
which are not contained in any statutes and can be found in case decisions. This is known as
the common law or case law. In situations where there is no law governing a particular
circumstance, Malaysian case law may apply. If there is no Malaysian case law, English case law
can be applied. There are instances where Australian, Indian, and Singaporean cases are used as
persuasive authorities.

The Sultan Abdul Samad Buildingused to house the apex courts of Malaysia.

The application of English law or common law is specified in statutes. Section 5 of Criminal
Procedure Code states that English law shall be applied in cases where no specific legislation has
been enacted. Similarly, in context of civil law, Sections 3 and 5 of Civil Law Act allows for application
of English common law, equity rules, and statutes in Malaysian civil cases where no specific laws
have been made. In 2007, Chief Justice of Malaysia, Ahmad Fairuz Abdul Halim questioned need to
resort to English common law despite Malaysia having already been independent for 50 years[3] and
proposed to replace it with Islamic law jurisprudence or sharia law.[2] However, Malaysian Bar
Council responded by saying that common law is part of Malaysian legal system and that is no basis
to replace it.[4] Court appeals to Privy Council in England have already been abolished in 1985.
The principle of stare decisis also applies in Malaysian law. This means that any decisions by a court
higher in the hierarchy will be binding upon the lower courts.
Law is an enactment made by the state. It is backed by physical coercion. Its breach is punishable by
the courts. It represents the will of the state and realizes its purpose.
Laws reflect the political, social and economic relationships in the society. It determines rights and
duties of the citizens towards one another and towards the state.
It is through law that the government fulfils its promises to the people. It reflects the sociological
need of society.
Law and morality are intimately related to each other. Laws are generally based on the moral
principles of society. Both regulate the conduct of the individual in society.
They influence each other to a great extent. Laws, to be effective, must represent the moral ideas of
the people. But good laws sometimes serve to rouse the moral conscience of the people and create
and maintain such conditions as may encourage the growth of morality.
Laws regarding prohibition and spread of primary education are examples of this nature.Morality
cannot, as a matter of fact, be divorced from politics. The ultimate end of a state is the promotion of
general welfare and moral perfection of man.

It is the duty of the state to formulate such laws as will elevate the moral standard of the people. The
laws of a state thus conform to the prevailing standard of morality. Earlier writers on Political
Science never made any distinction between law and morality.
Plato's Republic is as good a treatise on politics as on ethics. In ancient India, the term Dharma
connoted both law and morality. Law, it is pointed out, is not merely the command of the sovereign,
it represents the idea of right or wrong based on the prevalent morality of the people.
Moreover, obedience to law depends upon the active support of the moral sentiments of the people.
Laws which are not supported by the moral conscience of the people are liable to become dead
letters.
For example laws regarding Prohibition in India have not succeeded on account of the fact that full
moral conscience of the people has not been aroused in favor of such laws.
As Green put it, "In attempting to enforce an unpopular law, a government may be doing more harm
than good by creating and spreading the habit of disobedience to law. The total cost of such an
attempt may well be greater than the social gain."
Although law and morality arc interdependent yet they differ from each other in their content,
definiteness and sanction.
Some points of distinction between law and morality may be brought out as follows:

Law:
1. Law regulates and controls the external human conduct. It is not concerned with inner motives. A
person may be having an evil intention in his or her mind but law does not care for it.
Law will move into action only when this evil intention is translated into action and some harm is
actually done to another person.
2. Law is universal in a particular society. All the individuals are equally subjected to it. It does not
change from man to man.
3. Political laws are precise and definite as there is a regular organ in every state for the formulation
of laws.
4. Law is framed and enforced by a determinate political authority. It enjoys the sanction of the state.
Disobedience of law is generally followed by physical punishment.
The fear of punishment acts as a deterrent to the breach of political law.
5. Law falls within the purview of a subject known as Jurisprudence.

Morality:
1. Morality regulates and controls both the inner motives and the external actions. It is concerned
with the whole life of man.
The province of law is thus limited as compared with that of morality because law is simply
concerned with external actions and docs not take into its fold the inner motives.
Morality condemns a person if he or she has some evil intentions but laws are not applicable unless
these intentions are manifested externally.
2. Morality is variable. It changes from man to man and from age to age. Every man has his own
moral principles.
3. Moral laws lack precision and definiteness as there is no authority to make and enforce them.
4. Morality is neither framed nor enforced by any political authority. It does not enjoy the support of
the state. Breach of moral principles is not accompanied by any physical punishment.
The only check against the breach of morality is social condemnation or individual conscience.
'Moral actions are a matter of choice of inner conscience of the individual, laws are a matter of
compulsion'.
5. Morality is studied under a separate branch of knowledge known as Ethics.
We may conclude the discussion in the words of Gilchrist, "The individual moral life manifests itself
in manifold ways. The state is the supreme condition of the individual moral life, for without the
state no moral life is possible.
The state, therefore, regulates other organizations in the common interest. The state, however, has a
direct function in relation to morality."

Points to Remember
Laws may be defined as external rules of human conduct backed by the sovereign political authority.
Law and morality are intimately related to each other.
Laws are generally based on the moral principles of a particular society. Some points of distinction
may be brought out as follows:
(a) Laws regulate external human conduct whereas morality mainly regulates internal conduct.
(b) Laws are universal; morality is variable.

(c) Laws are definite and precise while morality is variable.

(d) Laws are upheld by the coercive power of the state; morality simply enjoys the support of public
opinion or individual conscience.
(e) Laws are studied under Jurisprudence but morality is studied under Ethics.

Discuss the Relationship between law and

morals. Consider how far the law seeks to
uphold and promote moral values.

Level: AS and A Level

Subject: Religious Studies & Philosophy
Topic: Philosophy & Ethics
Word count: 2092
Save
Laura Wing

Law Homework

Discuss the Relationship between law and morals. Consider how far the law seeks
to uphold and promote moral values.

Total marks = 30.

The relationship between law and morality is not an easy one. Moral rules and legal rules
have some similarities: like all rules, according to Hart, they share a general (though not
necessarily universal) habit of obedience within the society to which they apply, and
a critical reflexive attitude (a sense of oughtness). Moral rules and legal rules are
certainly not the same: there are some legal rules that are not moral rules and vice versa. In
some cases the moral view and the legal view overlap, this will be discussed later.
There are several differences between law and morality. Firstly, in general, the law applies to
everyone in society whereas morals are more of a personal opinion and can apply to
individual groups of people. For example, the practice of Christianity and other
denominations holds many moral views and lessons such as thou shalt not commit
adultery but this is not a law and does not bind society as a whole.
The law is laid down in statute and enforced by the judiciary and police whereas moral rules
are difficult to find an absolute and are enforced through social pressure and supported by
an appeal to respect them.
Another comparison between law and morality is that moral rules are not subject to
deliberate creation or change. Moral views in religious groups have been created over
thousands of years and overall they remain the same to this day. Moral views held by the
majority of society however, change gradually over time; an example of this is drink driving.

This makes it incredibly difficult to resolve disagreements to moral views. In contrast, legal
rules can be changed by enactment and even the date of the change can be fixed to a
certain date. Disagreements as to the content of legal rules can be resolved by references to
the statutes.
Over the past thirty years there has been a considered development over societies view on
drink driving. In the past it was considered to be acceptable for someone to spend an
evening in a pub, consuming alcohol and then driving home. These days, society frowns on
those who drive under the influence of alcohol and consider it morally wrong. This example
is slightly different to the previous one however, as there has now been laws set down to try
and prevent people from drink driving. This is therefore an example of the influence of
societies moral views on the creation of law.

A central debate is whether law should attempt to shape morality of whether it should stay
on the sidelines. The Hart v Devlin (1957) debate was trying to answer this very question.
Devlin believed that the law should reflect morality and said society has the right to punish
any act that offends against its shared morality, but that it should exercise this right only
sparingly. In particular, individual privacy should be respected wherever possible. He
recognised that some immoral acts might be tolerated. Hart on the other hand, thought that
there is little or no shared morality in the modern pluralist society beyond his minimum
content for the protection of persons and property and there is no freedom if we can do
only these acts that others approve of. Hart doubted whether suffering by punishment added
to the wrong of immorality could ever make a right.
The key views of the link between law and morals are illustrated in the liberal view, the
liberal influence on law, the conservative view, the conservative view on law and Natural
law.
The liberal position essentially involves the protection of minority views. The liberals would
say that the protection of minority views leads to the overall benefit of all. The liberal view is
more possibly associated with the left of the political spectrum represented by the Labour
Party and the Liberal Democrats. The political and moral movements in society are often
reflected in legal change. A good example of this can be seen in legislation that prohibited
and controlled private sexual behaviour. TheWolfenden Committee on Homosexual
Offences and Prostitution explored and made recommendations on important areas of adult
life. The Committee argued that the law should not interfere with private behaviour unless it
corrupted or injured others. This harm no others principle has several problems. It did not
say what harm is, it did not say who others were and should you use law to prevent harm
in all cases? For example, adultery and suicide: both would cause harm to others, however
the law will say nothing about the behaviour. Also, the subjective language of the report
meant that those who had their own moral and legal agenda easily manipulated its findings.
The laws on prostitution are still very restrictive and often heavily penalise the prostitute and

are light on the client. In terms of homosexual rights, it is only in the past few years that the
law began to reflect equality between homosexual and heterosexual citizens.
The conservative view on the Wolfenden Committee was Lord Devlin. He believed that the
law should have a direct input into the moral life of its citizens. The conservative influence
on law was seen in some of the legislation during Margaret Thatchers leadership in the
eighties. The most important yet controversial influence was known as Clause 28 and
prohibited the promotion of homosexual lifestyles as normal family life.
For many religious groups, moral rules are to be found in the scriptures and traditions of
their religion and the teachings of respected figures in the past. The Catholic Church and
non-religious people tend to look to the so-called natural law as a guide. For example,
Catholics look at the natural consequences of sexual intercourse is conception: if this is what
is in nature, this is what should be, and anything that interferes with this natural process is
contrary to morality.
Realists see moral assertions as inherently true or inherently false. There may be
uncertainty and argument about their truth but they have an eternal truth or falsity
independent of changes in society.
Relativists argue that moral truths may change from time to time and from place to place.
Three hundred years ago it was morally acceptable for a husband to beat his wife if she
misbehaved. In fact, he would have been failing his duty if he did not. Such a thing would be
clearly immoral today.
Whether we are relativists or realists we must decide what the moral rules are, morality
itself may or may not change but the public understanding of morality certainly does. We
take it for granted now that all human beings are entitled to the same human rights, but
only two hundred years ago the prevailing morality of Western Europe and America was that
black people were less than human.
Unless we accept the inherent existence of moral views, it makes no sense to criticise as
immoral anything that anyone else does.
There are some long-established rules that are legal rules as well as moral ones and were
probably adopted as part of common law as much for moral as for practical reasons. For
example, thou shalt not kill finds its legal expression in the common law offence of murder
and the moral rule against stealing coincides with the legal prohibition of theft, another very
ancient crime even though now codified.
Nearly all western countries prohibit the practice of euthanasia, thereby giving effect to the
supposed moral rule that deliberately killing another human being is wrong even when that

other has consented to or asked for the killing. Some of these countries (excluding the
United Kingdom) have no qualms about killing criminals who have not consented to the
killing, but the moral exception justifying capital punishment is not easy to identify and is
open to debate.
An example of a case illustrating laws on debatable moral issues is that of Pretty v DPP
(2002). This fairly recent case is an example of a case on euthanasia and the views both
morally and legally. Mrs. Pretty had contracted motor neurone disease and was confined to a
wheel chair. She required no direct medical intervention to keep her alive but did receive
pain-killing drugs to ease the considerable discomfort she found herself in. She had great
difficulty in talking, eating and sleeping. She was concerned that her husband would be
convicted of a serious offence if he helped her to end her life and therefore sought
permission of the court for euthanasia. The courts in the United Kingdom reluctantly refused
her request, as did the European Court of Human Rights. The Netherlands, in 2001, enacted
a law making euthanasia lawful in certain circumstances. For this to apply, the patient must
be suffering continuous, unbearable and incurable pain, must be of sound mind and must
voluntarily and persistently have been asked to be killed. In the case of R v Pretty she may
well have qualified for euthanasia had she been in the Netherlands.
Some moral rules have been given effect by statute. The moral censure of those who deal in
pornography is given legal effect by the Obscene Publications Act 1959. This makes it
illegal to possess any obscene material with a view to its sale or other publication. An
example of this put into action is in the case of Shaw v DPP (1961). In this case the
defendant had published a booklet of the names, addresses, photographs and other details
of prostitutes and was charged with conspiracy to corrupt public morals. The House of Lords
later upheld his conviction.
Also, the widespread condemnation of incest (seen by many people as morally wrong even
when both parties are adult and consenting) led to it being criminalised by the Punishment
of Incest Act 1908.
Another example of moral rules being given effect by statute is the moral views on racism.
The moral rule of discrimination based on a persons colour is seen as being morally wrong.
The Race Relations Act 1966 brought in the creation of new offences of inciting racial
hatred and a new tort of unlawful racial discrimination and setting up of a Race Relations
Board to combat unfair practices.

In conclusion, law and morality have an interesting general relationship in the sense
that moral views over time have a significant influence on the creation and
enactment of legislature. Law and morals do however have distinctive differences.
Where moral rules change gradually over time, legal rules can change almost
instantly by the enactment of new laws. Some types of rules require that we do

something, others that we do not. Criminal laws are predominantly the do not
type. Negative rules in that they prohibit certain activities because they offend
dominant values within a group, or because they are simply an affront to basic
social existence. How dominant must a value be before it is wrong to go against it?
With so many conflicting moralities in our multicultural society, which of them when
transgressed leads to sanctions? Rape is seen as morally wrong and is a crime,
however adultery is morally wrong, and in the eyes of certain religious groups is a
worse transgression, but it is not a crime.
Societys attitudes to specific areas of crime demonstrate that we have a collective
morality, more diverging than converging to any conclusion. If there is a close
alliance between crime and moral sentiment, and if we acknowledge that the
association is a healthy one, it seems clear-cut in acts that are a menace to the
system we support and the rules we are set to serve. The morality or immorality of
acts such as murder, rape and theft did not change over night, but their legal nature
did. The test of a crime against immorality is an ongoing one. Many summary
offences are crimes but the question of are they immoral is not so straight forward.
When adultery is compared to having a faulty break light on a car or the license disk
is on the wrong side of a car windscreen the test of morality becomes less helpful.
Although it is seen that adultery is the worst act in this case, only the car driver
would actually be committing an illegal offence.
Therefore, although the law is continuously seeking to uphold and promote moral
values it remains a continuous battle to find a balance between the legal
applications and moral views in such a diverse pluralist society