Separation Of Morality

Ever since the development of the justice system, there have been debates as to whether morality and ethical beliefs affects the way in which the legal system operates and how judgments are made. It has been argued by the likes of John Austin that law and morality are completely separate and never intertwine. However, there are contrasting views, stated particularly by natural law theorists, which suggest that legal judgments are never made in isolation of morality. This essay will evaluate the views of a variety of legal theories, focusing predominantly on two important distinctive arguments and eventually arrive at the conclusion that law and morality can never be two absolutely separable concepts.

One key theory to this interesting and …show more content…
Hart believed that some countries’ legal systems “explicitly incorporate principles of justice or substantive moral values” (The concept of Law) , although this is controversial as the general principles of legal positivism suggest that law and morality are separable. Whilst Hart does not argue that law and morality are entirely connected, he does suggest that there are situations in which citizens follow the law as a result of their ethical beliefs and not because they are following the rules set out by a sovereign. One of Hart’s most compelling arguments against Austin’s is the one which explains the difference between being obliged to follow rules and being obligated to follow them. Austin implies that people are obliged to obey the law out of fear. However, Hart proposes the idea that many people are obligated to follow the law and not because they are scared of the consequences but because they feel that it’s just something they should do. An example of this, is that of giving money to a homeless person. We do not do this because it is required of us to do so, nor are we in fear of punishment if we do not. We do this, however, because we feel obligated to do so. Therefore, although Hart is not saying that there is an obvious connection between law and morality and as a legal positivist he feels that there are legal decisions made …show more content…
Brown was about a group of homosexual men engaging in consensual sadomasochistic sex. It was held that the men were criminally liable for actual bodily harm, regardless of the consent as harm was caused. However, it could be argued that this case was not determined as a matter of law, but instead, the judges used their own moral beliefs about homosexual sex and sadomasochism in order to reach their judgment that the actions were wrong. Despite this, its argued that judges should not let their morality affect the way they address a legal