When it comes to a government justifying one’s morals, no one can ever give a concise answer on what is moral and what is not. There is right or wrong way to answer this, which also leaves the following questions up for grabs. Can society justifiably interfere with an individual's choices only to prevent harm to others or to the individual him or herself? Lord Patrick Devlin, a British judge that served from 1948-1969, he advocated the principle known as Legal Moralism. Legal Moralism is the “interference with the liberty of a normal adult is sometimes justified to enforce social morality” (Rosati,Lecture 6.1., 1:30). This idea was a reaction to The Wolfenden Report; an advocation to decriminalization of homosexuality, prostitution, etc.
…show more content…
Hart claims that through the conservation thesis, there is more plausibility to the normative claim that the majority has a right to maintain the moral environment. Than that over the disintegration theory. When looking at both of these concepts over I came to the conclusion that I agree with Hart and his idea of the conservation thesis and think that it is true . Simply because while I do believe that having morals is an essential part of a person, people are raised differently. People also have free will, which means they can do whatever they want, whether that is lying, stealing, cheating etc. The disintegration thesis seems impossible to achieve, no one will ever not lie,it is just something that is bound to happen. Since we are humans and we have the freedom to choose. Some of these decisions are not going to be based on morals. Which according to Devlin will cause a society to fall apart. However, there is no real evidence that this is the sole reason why societies have fallen apart throughout history. In fact we still look back at how society’s failed to figure out how and why they fell apart. While I do believe that morals have to be part of a society, I do not believe that they are the "cement of society", that’s stated in the disintegration theory. Therefore, I do believe that Hart's response to Devlin is satisfactory and that conservative theory is
Hart claims that through the conservation thesis, there is more plausibility to the normative claim that the majority has a right to maintain the moral environment. Than that over the disintegration theory. When looking at both of these concepts over I came to the conclusion that I agree with Hart and his idea of the conservation thesis and think that it is true . Simply because while I do believe that having morals is an essential part of a person, people are raised differently. People also have free will, which means they can do whatever they want, whether that is lying, stealing, cheating etc. The disintegration thesis seems impossible to achieve, no one will ever not lie,it is just something that is bound to happen. Since we are humans and we have the freedom to choose. Some of these decisions are not going to be based on morals. Which according to Devlin will cause a society to fall apart. However, there is no real evidence that this is the sole reason why societies have fallen apart throughout history. In fact we still look back at how society’s failed to figure out how and why they fell apart. While I do believe that morals have to be part of a society, I do not believe that they are the "cement of society", that’s stated in the disintegration theory. Therefore, I do believe that Hart's response to Devlin is satisfactory and that conservative theory is