How Does The Law Reflect A Moral Vision

The extent to which the law should reflect a moral vision even when this involves an interference with the rights of individuals who might disagree with that vision has been debated for centuries by lawyers, philosophers and theorists. This issue has been contested in particular by legal positivists and naturalists as well as liberal and conservative commentators. The extent to which the law should reflect a moral vision is also impacted by culture, as Western and Eastern cultures have very different perspectives on the matters of law and morality. In reality, there is no definite answer to this moral dilemma, however one can explore the different views and attitudes of commentators, philosophers and indeed societies of different cultures to

From the positivist perspective an immoral law is not denied its quality as law simply on that account. Natural law theories, being more concerned with the contents of the law and seeking to evaluate human law in the light of higher sources or aspirations, more readily lend themselves to a consideration of the morality of the law. From this perspective, human law is expected to conform to those standards and the law should be influenced by moral considerations.

In other words, from a positive perspective, the law should not be influenced by moral vision at all, and from a naturalist perspective the law would allow morality to be influence the law.

In a question of which moral vision is ‘better’, it can be argued from a naturalist outlook that the law would aspire to conform with the moral vision that reflects the common good of the society in which it is being used.

Law reflecting moral vision is a theme that has been explored from a libertarian view by John Stuart Mill and Herbert Lionel Adolphus Hart. According to Mill, ‘the sole end for which mankind are warranted, individually or collectively, in interfering with the liberty of action of any of their number is self protection.’ The 19th century philosopher believed that the right to individual freedom is

Hart’s argument for the report of the Wolfenden Committee (a committee that recommended the legalisation of homosexual activities and prostitution in the UK) was largely based on Mill’s theories. It was Hart’s view that society cannot be identified with a particular set of views on morality. Hart acknowledged the difference between morality and public decency, showing his true libertarianism by rejecting the notion that conduct might be prohibited on the ground that mere knowledge of its occurrence might shock or offend others: ‘Recognition of individual liberty as a value involves, as a minimum, acceptance of the principle that the individuality may do what he wants, even if others are distressed when they learn what it is he does – unless of course, there are other good grounds for forbidding it.’ The libertarian views of Mill and Hart have been reflected in a series of court decisions recently such as the legalisation of abortion in the USA in Roe v Wade, suicide and homosexual conduct and marriage in Ireland. The trend towards libertarianism in recent years shows a desire on behalf of western societies for the law to reflect on a lesser extent moral visions when this involves an interference with the rights of individuals who might disagree with that