Essay on Analysis Of Devlin 's Interpretation Of Legal Moralism

1204 Words Dec 4th, 2014 5 Pages
Law and morality have been a debate for many people throughout centuries and finding how they interconnect and whether they should at all. Some theorists such as John Stuart Mill, believe that morality has nothing to do with law and that harm to others is the only valid reason to limit someone’s freedom. Others believe that morality is something that cannot be separate from law because protecting those just from harm is insufficient. There are other things that the law protects besides just harm such as speed limits, marriage, and more. Those such as Devlin and Dworkin both believe that morality is a part of law but have different judgments of the way morality for a society should be chosen. In this essay I will evaluate Devlin’s interpretation of legal moralism, while questioning his way of linking society and morality and his use of the reasonable man as a determination of what is immoral. Also I will examine Dworkin’s opposing views. I will argue societies have the authority to limit freedoms when the immoral act is harming of others or there is a justification that such immoral act is damaging to society.
Devlin argues that a society cannot survive without morality and that without public morality that society will disintegrate. Society for Devlin is a community of shared beliefs. He believes this community has the authority to enforce shared moral beliefs because it is what holds a society together. Invisible bonds of common thought and shared beliefs are the things…

Related Documents