What is law?

Definition of law is a rule of conduct developed by government or society over a certain territory.
Law follows certain practices and customs in order to deal with crime, business, social relationships,
property, finance, etc. The Law is controlled and enforced by the controlling authority. Let us explore
the various definitions of law by different authors in detail.

There are broadly five definitions of Business Law. Let’s walk through each of them briefly.

1. Natural School 

In the natural school of thought, a court of justice decides all the laws. There are two main parts of
this definition. One, to actually understand a certain law, an individual must be aware of its purpose.
Two, to comprehend the true nature of law, one must consult the courts and not the legislature.

2. Positivistic Definition of Law

John Austin’s law definition states “Law is the aggregate set of rules set by a man as politically
superior, or sovereign to men, as political subjects.” Thus, this definition defines law as a set of
rules to be followed by everyone,  regardless of their stature.

Hans Kelsen created the ‘pure theory of law’. Kelsen states that law is a ‘normative science’. In
Kelson’s law definition, the law does not seek to describe what must occur, but rather only defines
certain rules to abide by.

3. Historical Law Definition

Friedrich Karl Von Savigny gave the historical law definition. His law definition states the
following theories.
  Law is a matter of unconscious and organic growth.

 The nature of law is not universal. Just like language, it varies with people and age.

 Custom not only precedes legislation but it is superior to it. Law should always conform to
the popular consciousness because of customs.

 Law has its source in the common consciousness (Volkgeist) of the people.

 The legislation is the last stage of lawmaking, and, therefore, the lawyer or the jurist is
more important than the legislator.

Sociological Definition of Law

Leon Duguit states that law as “essentially and exclusively as a social fact.”

Rudolph Von Ihering’s law definition. – “The form of the guarantee of conditions of life of
society, assured by State’s power of  constraint.”

This definition has three important parts. One, the law is a means of social control. Two, the law
is to serve the purposes of the society. Three, law due to its nature, is coercive.

Roscoe Pound studied the term law and thus came up with his own law definition. He considered
the law to be predominantly a tool of social engineering.

Where conflicting pulls of political philosophy, economic interests, and ethical values constantly
struggled for recognition.

Against a background of history, tradition and legal technique. Social wants are satisfied by law
acting which is acting as a social institution.
5.Realist Definition of Law

Realist law definition describes the law in terms of judicial processes. 

Oliver Wendell Holmes stated – “Law is a statement of  the circumstances in which public force
will be brought to bear upon through courts.”

According to Benjamin Nathan Cardozo who stated “A principle or rule of conduct so established

as to justify a prediction with reasonable certainty that it will be enforced by the courts if its
authority is challenged, is a principle or rule of law.”

As the above law definitions state, human behaviour in the society is controlled with the help of
law. It aids in the cooperation between members of a society. Law also helps to avoid any potential
conflict of interest and also helps to resolve them.

What is morality

Morality (from Latin: moralis, lit. 'manner, character, proper behavior') is the differentiation

of intentions, decisions and actions between those that are distinguished as proper and those that
are improper. 

Morality can be a body of standards or principles derived from a code of conduct from a

particular philosophy, religion or culture, or it can derive from a standard that a person believes
should be universal.Morality may also be specifically synonymous with "goodness" or
"rightness".

Moral philosophy includes metaethics, which studies abstract issues such as

moral ontology and moral epistemology, and normative ethics, which studies more concrete
systems of moral decision-making such as deontological ethics and consequentialism. An
example of normative ethical philosophy is the Golden Rule, which states that: "One should treat
others as one would like others to treat oneself."

Immorality is the active opposition to morality (i.e. opposition to that which is good or right),
while amorality is variously defined as an unawareness of, indifference toward, or disbelief in
any particular set of moral standards or principles

The concept of Morality has been widely discussed by moral philosophers and has definitely
received a good amount of attention over the decades. Morality has been studied and dealt with
extensively by different philosophers using different approaches with the sole intention of
acquiring a better insight into what Morality is? And perhaps considering the attention that it has
received one might think that the work on Morality has been completed. But to think so, one is
only committing a big mistake. In spite of the enormous effort directed towards it, the vastness of
this subject matter and the increase in newer moral issues in today‟s generation, such as the
moral issues related to health care, media, computer, bioethics, business, environment, etc., each
of them having their own sets of issues to be debated from the moral perspective, and also
keeping in mind the future challenges, there is no end to the study of Morality. In fact, due to the
rise of moral problems in various aspects of life and the demand for its application all the more,
it is but the beginning of an even more critical study into Morality. To critically analyse and
bring forth a reasonable solution to any given moral problem is to have a comprehensive
knowledge and clear understanding on Morality itself first. Therefore, though the subject on
Morality is vast it is necessary to at least outline the general concept of what Morality is by
firstly defining the necessary key terms concerning Morality followed by the various definitions
on Morality, Moral Philosophy, Ethics, also explain the use of the word „Ethic‟ as „Moral
philosophy‟ and why „Ethics‟ is at times simply used as another word for „Morality‟. Further, it
is also important to outline the scope of Moral Philosophy, the nature of morality, the two major
approaches to the study of Morality, its standards, its factors and its categories.
Relation between law and morality

Law and morality can be understood as concepts, but any attempt made to define them becomes
difficult. Laws are concerned with legal rights and duties which are protected and enforced by
the State. They are backed by sanction, and therefore if one disobeys the laws of the State, they
are liable to be punished. Morality categorizes human behavior as good or bad. The cannons of
morality however are based on moral duties and obligations. If one does not adhere to the
standards of morality that is prescribed, he cannot be held legally liable. However, morality
involves incentives of sorts. When we do the right thing, we experience virtue and enjoy praise
and when we do the wrong thing, we suffer guilt and disapprobation. Both, law and morality
channel human behavior.
While morality is concerned with regulating both the internal and external conduct of men, law
is concerned only with regulating the external affairs of men. Time and again, we have been
perturbed by the connection that exists between law and morality. While it can be said that, law
brings within itself some reflection of public morality, it is also true that certain things may not
be illegal according to law, but maybe unacceptable to morality. Therefore, we are often
intrigued with questions about whether or not morality should be enforced by law or whether
laws would still be binding if they do not reflect moral principles or whether it is morally
justified disobeying bad laws?

. Prof Hart‟s view on Law and Morality

Prof HLA Hart was a legal positivist and a critical moral philosopher. As a legal positivist, he
states that it is not necessary that laws have to necessarily satisfy certain demands of morality.
While acknowledging the close relationship that exists between law and morality, he does not
believe them to be inter-dependant on each other. He states that the existence of law cannot be
judged by its merits or demerits. A law happens to exist, irrespective of our likes or dislike.
Whether the law confirms to a set of minimum moral standards is not a pre-requisite for
existence of a legal system. It is not essential that a legal system must exhibit some conformity
with morality. Laws simply do not cease to exist on the ground of moral criticisms.
Unlike the other legal positivists, Hart does not deny that the development of law has been
profoundly influenced by morality. Hart acknowledges that law and morals are bound to intersect
at some point. Therefore, it becomes necessary to distinguish between what law is and what law
ought to be. According to Hart, legal interpreters should display the truthfulness or veracity
about law, by concentrating on what it says rather than focusing on the aspect on what one
wishes it to be said.
Hart says that the essence of law consists of two different kinds of rules, i.e. the primary and
secondary rules. Primary rules are the duty imposing rules that have legal sanction which
imposes certain duties on the citizens. Secondary rules are the power-conferring rules that
prescribe the manner in which the primary rules are to be recognized, changed and adjudicated.
Secondary rules can be said to be rules about primary rules. Together the primary & secondary
rules form the heart of the legal system. And, the principle of justice or the rule of recognition is
the ultimate rule that binds the legal system as a coherent whole.
Hart acknowledges the problem that might occur due to lack of precision in the words used in
language of a statute, which he refers to as the core of the law. Not all cases might exactly fall
within the core of the law. Sometimes standard instances of the words may not be sufficient to
give proper effect to the law. Prof Hart calls these as the problems of the penumbra. It then
becomes necessary that the meaning of the words in a statute is decided first while applying legal
rules to the facts of the case. Hart believes that the problems of the penumbra can be easily
solved by way of judicial interpretation. In solving the problems of the penumbra, Hart talks
about the necessary intersection between law and morals. The criterion which at times, makes a
decision sound in such cases is when a moral judgment is made about what the law ought to be,
and in such circumstances, morals can be of an influential factor in deciding cases in penumbra.