Morality and legality are different terms, which stem from a similar concept of judgment on the basis of violation or adherence to certain norms and values. Hart’s views are based on distinguishing moral values from laws because morality cannot be fully reliable. Devlin suggests that these two systems should reflect each other and be unified, where a value is backed by legislation. Legal realism is centered on revealing the major flaws of laws and jurisprudence. Considering the imperfect aspect of both morality and legality, it is evident that laws should not reflect moral values, and these notions must be separable.
In order to fully understand the key distinctions between legality and morality, it is important to overview various notions on the topic. The Hart-Devlin debate is a critical aspect of evaluating pragmatism and idealism. Devlin’s views are based on the idea that any highly immoral behavior should be condemned on a legal basis in both public and private life, which meant that there needs to be a collective judgment. Hart’s perspective promotes legal positivism and pragmatism, where laws do not necessarily support morality regardless of they had overlapping areas. In other words, Devlin insisted on the inseparability of morality and law, whereas Hart encouraged distinction.
The main strength of Devlin’s philosophy is the fact that essential moral values are highly important to manifest through laws. For example, murder, theft, or torture are some of the most immoral acts, which must be prohibited by law through severe consequences. However, the weakness is the overreliance on populism, which can disenfranchise and subjugate minority groups, such as homosexuals or transgender people. Therefore, the argument that society is fully entitled to defend a shared moral structure is not convincing when these practices lead to social failures, such as segregation. This flaw stems from morality itself because the set of values is built by society. In the case of Hart’s philosophy, strength is the provision of equality for all groups. The main weakness is that a fully legal positivistic system might design immoral laws by abusing the separability of these two elements.
It is important to note that natural law theories are comprised of two major components. These are natural laws of morality and the natural rule of positive law, where the latter addresses legality or illegality. Legal positivism does not agree with the second aspect of the concept because it states that laws are mere rules imposed by certain individuals, such as kings or legislators. They do not necessarily reflect the moral values of society, and thus, they need to be separated. However, the natural law is based on goodness for people, which is righteous in itself, and therefore, laws promoting morality make them inseparable.
One should be aware that there are different schools of thought in regards to the core nature of laws. Wendell Holmes initiated the concept of legal realism, which argued that legislations on their own are inherently subjective, and judges cannot make accurate applications on the basis of a situation. In other words, the approach attempts to make jurisprudence rely solely on empirical evidence and built around its applicability rather than depending on judges for their capability for interpretation.
Moral systems have inherent issues that make them unreliable as a reflection of legality. Morality or ethics is a set of historically defined norms and views expressed in the actions and actions of people. They regulate their relationship with each other, to society, the state, a particular class, social group, supported by personal conviction, tradition, upbringing, and the strength of public opinion. From this and other definitions, it is clear that moral consciousness covers the broadest range of social relations, practically all socially significant ties. In terms of development, the distinction between ethical and legal norms is not difficult to draw. Moral standards, reflecting social life, are formed spontaneously, imperceptibly, gradually in the very public consciousness of a certain social group, class, nation, or society as a whole.
Based on the given analytical assessment, it is possible to conclude that although essential moral values are critical, they can easily lead to populism and oppression. In addition, legal realism shows that legislations on their own cannot be fully immune from flaws, such as inapplicability or misinterpretation. Therefore, laws do not necessarily reflect morality, which means that they should not be inseparable. In other words, the unification of these ideas can only be discussed if laws and jurisprudence become a perfect system that cannot be abused by outside influences. However, the unreliable nature of both rules and moral procedures leads to the fact that they need to be distinct.
In conclusion, morality and legality are different terms that possess a wide range of overlapping areas. Devlin’s ideas revolve around unifying laws and moral values, where they both become reflections of each other. However, Hart’s claims are centered on the separability of these notions due to major risks of populism and oppression, which shows the weaknesses of morality. In addition, legal realism indicates that legislations on their own have a number of limitations. Therefore, these two imperfect systems should not be inseparable, which means that they must be distinct.
Reference List
Owen, S. et al., Foundations of Criminal Justice, 3rd edn., Oxford, England, Oxford University Press, 2019.