Analysis Of Devlin's Lens

Decent Essays
In the core of his ideas, Devlin presents a sense of common morality amongst the common people of the society. That common morality, Devlin claims, should be considered when applying the law on the citizens of the community, in other words, laws should be based on moral values of the society, thus moral incompetence should be considered as harm towards the society as a whole. On the other hand, Miller claims that the law should only intervene in a citizen’s life when actual physical harm is being done to another person, and when it comes to moral issues, each person has the freedom to consider what is moral and immoral to him and act upon that in his private life. In my opinion, the law should only interfere when actions carry physical harm …show more content…
Miller also claims that morality, whether right or wrong in the eyes of the society is a free choice, for example someone can choose to open up a pornography store. If we were to consider this from Miller’s point of view, this person is harming no one, thus should not be stopped or prosecuted for doing so. On the other hand, from Devlin’s perspective, such acts effect the society as whole, the society is being harmed indirectly, for example this person who is selling pornography material is advertising such immoral material and making its access much easier, thus influencing the society’s moral values. However, it is still a matter of personal liberty, because the person who is going in the pornography store is intending to do so, and if the store is acting by the law, no one under the legal age will be allowed to go in the store, thus not breaking any defined laws, regardless of its effects on general moral values. And this was proven in the case of (Case story) where (Conclusion). Thus, we can conclude that in some cases, what might seem immoral and dangerous towards the society, could be completely legal and should not be stopped just because some people think it is …show more content…
The common moral values are what the average person believes is right or wrong. Thus, Devlin points out that these values should be considered whenever the law is being implemented on citizens. It may sound logical or at least carries a bit of sense. However, the idea of right or wrong is far more complicated and broader than what the average person might think. For example, it was wrong back in the dark ages to deny that the world is flat. If someone was to claim the earth is round or anything else but flat was punished by death, because that would be against what the church believed, thus against the common beliefs of the people. Even though no one was harmed. If we were to take that to our time, it would seem very odd for someone to be interfered with just because the common people don’t think what someone is doing is right. After all, who are we to decide what is right or wrong. In some cases, we cannot decide what is right or wrong in the smallest issues in our daily lives. The idea of a harm based law seems far more logical to our world today, because we cannot decide what is right or wrong, but we know that anything that causes harm to another party is wrong, that is why I believe the laws should be based on harm criteria and not moral judgments. One example I would like to bring up is a poll done by Angus Reid Public Opinion (Citation). The polls were performed in USA, Canada

Related Documents

  • Decent Essays

    This is because it is based on what the reasonable man finds acceptable for a community to tolerate. With this theory of how morality comes about would allow prejudice and disdain to run our society. Dworkin argues a different way of determining what is immoral for society and believes that emotion is not the way to run our society. Justification beyond what is acceptable for the community is how Dworkin argues how deciding what immorality is should come about. These justifications cannot come from prejudice.…

    • 1204 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    I personally agree with Dworkin’s believe that whenever the law wrongly treats a person, they have the right to civil disobedience. It’s doesn’t always have to be about justice solely, but also about other core values such as security, transparency, privacy and so on that motivates people to civil disobedience. However, I also agree with Rawls that no harm should be brought to a just and efficient society. When there is a just and efficient social institution, assuming majorities are treated equally and social development is efficient, the majority should be satisfied with the legal system. And if a government could perform their role in protecting people’s right, no harm should occur to such a society.…

    • 912 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    Subjectivity Of Morality

    • 1833 Words
    • 8 Pages

    Morality can exist in a world without God because of the objectivity of morals even through different time periods and cultures maintains, and genuinely good morality may easily come from non-religious motives. Certain immoral practices have been permissible in the past due to societal and cultural changes, but they are nonetheless still immoral. Morality does not simply follow clear cut rules, and historically immoral actions have happened egregiously. Ultimately, utilitarianism is what governs morality. To continue to sustain all of humanity and to even further individual success, correct moral judgment is key moving forward.…

    • 1833 Words
    • 8 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    Disobedience In Society

    • 1172 Words
    • 5 Pages

    This paper defends the right of citizens to consciously disobey laws in their society, after examination. People have a right to form idiosyncratic beliefs through their own conscience and rationality. Individuals should demonstrate the values they believe are worth losing their life, liberty, and property, through their actions. The actions they choose should not cause irreversible damage. People, compelled to act must do so regardless of the justness of their society.…

    • 1172 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    Although, this is true in the sense that it is important to have a legislative and executive governing branch that does determine societies’ morals by enforcing laws. It is also important to have a judicial law that can interpret them when needed. For example, it is unlawful and wrong to murder. However, if it is to protect yourself or family, there is a moral reasoning to do it. Therefore, there is no way an act can be universally morally right or…

    • 789 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    Regardless of this, people still possess different interpretations of what is just and unjust, thus not everyone can be satisfied with the laws. Nonetheless, creating just laws is the primary objective of the state, because this ensures that the rules of society are mandated ethically with regards to citizen rights. On the contrary, unjust laws wrongfully harms citizen rights and contradict the purpose of laws to benefit and protect citizens’.…

    • 1105 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    In order for a community to prosper as a whole the laws must be just and moral. Epictetus is saying the people should change their mindset and outlook on the law, but if they keep changing themselves then the person is being unfair to themselves. King states “Any law that uplifts human personality is just. Any law that degrades human personality is unjust” (Letter from Birmingham Jail). That statement alone creates an objection to Epictetus saying that a person should change their outlook on a law.…

    • 1414 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    Brennan, Warren – PHI220 DL01 – Short Paper 1 Utilitarianism, as presented by Shafer-Landau, is an interesting ethical theory in that it presents the idea that at times it is immoral to act in a manner that we’ve been taught is moral. I will argue that Act Utilitarianism is a sound ethical theory and that it’s precepts are utilized in modern society despite many public figures making pronouncements against this behavior. Act Utilitarianism is sound because it allows its supporters to resolve conflicts that other ethical theories struggle with. It also fits within the norms of recognized moral behavior on a day to day basis while being based upon the idea of treating every individual’s well-being equally. In his writings, Shafer-Landau, explains…

    • 825 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    But what does that mean. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy discusses moral responsibility as a warranted societal response to a when a person performs or fails to perform a morally significant action. In our society we have agreed on codified laws which we have agreed, as a society, are morally significant. We have also agreed on punishments or responses when a person breaks one or more of the laws. If we, as a society agree in punishment for breaking laws, then we, as a society must believe in free will.…

    • 2102 Words
    • 9 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    Because of lawyers important role in society it would not be right for lawyers to use a different or internal moral basis if it conflicts with society morals which is why the code is present in the first place. Obviously there are grey areas and parts of the law that these codes do not cover when a lawyer may have to use their own moral judgment however, they should align it to be in-keeping with society and ethical morals of the justice system. Is the debate about positivism and natural law of any relevance today? I think the debate about positivism and natural law is still of relevance today. Even though a positivist view of law is more in line with the trend in many developed countries.…

    • 1259 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Decent Essays

Related Topics