All about law and morality

Introduction

The world around us is a smorgasbord of different beliefs, values, rules, and norms, all of which
lay down how one should behave in society. It is imperative to create distinctions between all of
these to avoid confusion and ambiguity. Two such conflicts which are often talked about
together are law and morality. Laws are formal rules that govern how we behave as members of
a society that specify what we must do and what we must not do. These are implemented by the
state and judiciary to create a basic and enforceable standard of behaviour for the welfare of
society. Morality on the other hand refers to an informal framework of values, principles, beliefs,
customs, and ways of living. Morals are not legally enforceable but there is societal pressure to
abide by the same.

This article aims to discuss at length the relationship between law and morality, along with the
evolution of these two concepts with time and the difficulty in applying these concepts
collectively to modern-day problems.

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. Initially, the two were considered equivalent
but with time and progressiveness, it is highlighted that the two are different concepts, but with
certain inter-dependency between them.

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 law and
morality. Hindu law, for example, was primarily derived from the Vedas and Smritis which were
essentially values of the people. However, with time, Mimansa put forth certain principles which
categorically distinguished between obligatory rules which are rules that are mandatory to be
followed and are considered as law, and recommendatory rules which are suggested because
they are good if they are followed and would amount to morality. Even in the middle age period,
the Bible was considered as the major factor which influenced the legal regulations. Eventually,
with time and new philosophies, the idea that there is a difference between these two concepts
emerged.

Morality as the basis of law

Throughout history, no clear distinction has been made between law and morality. By virtue of a
lack of distinction, all laws found their origin from what was considered morally correct by the
people in a society. Eventually, the state picked up what was morally correct and gave it the
form of laws or 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. For example, it is morally wrong to kill someone or to rape someone. This value
has taken the form of a law. Morality may with time have been distinguished with laws, but it
remains an integral part of legal development. Law essentially involves certain basic principles
such as the principle of fairness and equality, and these principles are derived from ethics and
morals.

Morality test of law

The entire purpose of the existence of laws is to ensure justice in society and do what is best for
the welfare of all the people. Since the principle of justice is well under the ambit of morality,
many jurists are of the opinion that there must not be any contradiction between law and
morality. Any law which does not abide by moral standards should be removed and whether a
law is right or wrong can be evaluated based on whether it is in consonance with moral values.

Morality as ends of law

As stated before, the end goal of enacting laws is to maintain a society that is based on
principles of justice, fairness, and equality. The entire purpose of having certain moral standards
is also to maintain some sort of order in the society which would lead to fewer conflicts. This
shows that more or less, the purpose of both these phenomena is the same. It is believed by
jurists that if the law is to stay involved in the lives of people, then it cannot ignore morals. If
there is a law that is against moral standards, people may be hesitant to obey it which will
create further conflicts within the society.

Difference between law and morality

Law and morality may be interdependent to an extent and have certain similarities such as the
same goals, but there are certain factors based on which the two concepts can be differentiated:
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.
Law treats all people in the same manner and doesn’t change from person to person but
morality is a subjective concept.
Morality has influenced the creation of laws but morality existed in society since even before
legal implications were discussed.
Disobedience of the law leads to punishment but there are no repercussions of doing anything
morally wrong.
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.

Hart-Fuller debate on law and morality

The Hart-Fuller debate is one of the most interesting exchanges of ideas and opinions between
Lon Fuller and H. L. A Hart on the intriguing interdependency between law and morality. This
was published in the Harvard Law Review in 1958 and essentially highlighted the difference in
opinions in the positivist and natural law philosophy. To understand the points put forth by both
these ideologists, it is important to analyze their beliefs and the reasoning behind them
separately.
H. L. A Hart
Hart is a positivist and is thereby of the opinion that while there may be a close relationship
between law and morality, the two are most definitely not interdependent. That being said, Hart
does believe that law has been heavily influenced by the morals that prevail within the society.
According to him, a clear distinction needs to be made between what law should be and what it
ought to be. This is where 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. Essentially, interpretation of the law cannot come
from outside of the legal world.

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 believes that the two are bound to intersect at
some point.

Lon Fuller
Fuller is a naturalist who believed that there exists a strong necessary 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 which is based on ethical
ideas that people have. Fuller has further categorized morality into two aspects; Morality of
aspiration and morality of duty. The former is concerned with moral norms that are followed by a
person for their individual best interest. The latter on the other hand is more relevant to the
smooth functioning of society by prescribing standards that all people must follow. Fuller also
elaborated on two concepts which are “Internal morality of law” which deals with the procedure
of framing laws and “External morality of law” which is more about the essence of law which is
used to make decisions.