INTRODUCTION:

The distinction between morals and law can be formulated very simply. Morality furnishes
the criterion for the proper evaluation of our interests; law marks out of limits within which
they ought to be confined. - Korkunov

TITLE:

Relation between law and morality

THEME:

All laws, regardless of their content or their intent, arise from a system of values, from a
belief that some things are right and other things are wrong, the rule of law is necessary to a
civil society, and just a rule of law requires adherence to a strict moral code, the relation
between law and morality is still a debateable issue for example,

The existence of unjust laws such as those enforcing slavery proves that morality and law are
not identical and do not coincide. The existence of laws that serve to defend basic values such
as laws against murder,rape,malicious defamation of character ,fraud, bribery etc prove that
law and morality can work together.

The doctrine linked with law and morality:

If there is any doctrine or theory linked with legal positivism then it is the separation of law
and morality. The main aim of jurisprudential positivists was to bring out the fact that law
does not include any moral bearings. But the classical natural law thinkers and theorists like
Lon Fuller and Ronald Dworkin has opposed this positivist views. In H.L.A Hart's original
1958 article on the 'Positivism and the Separation of Law and Morals', he argued that
positivism is a theory of the nature of law, and not a theory of how legal practioners ought to
reason or judges ought to choose or citizens ought to act. Legal positivism in fact includes
just 'the conflict that there is no fundamental link in the between of law and morality.' Hart in
this way makes plans to a solitary centre positivist legal thought believed that 'it is no sense
an important truth that laws duplicate or fulfil certain requests of morality

WHAT IS MORALITY?

The idea of morality changes from persons heart and values of society, consequently, what
morality intends to me, may not be to the other. According to me It is exceptionally
specialized to make a law on a moment when there is conflict of opinion and morality which
continuously varies from individual to individual, in any case, morality can't be in every law
or statute. In the event that something is improper does not unavoidably makes it unlawful
and vice versa. This makes distinction between the law and morality.

As per the sources of Hindu Law like Shrutis, Smritis and Vedas, there was no difference
between law and morality. Ancient times speaks that both had the same importance. It is
obvious that both law and morality serve to channel the conduct of and person but Austin
came with an argument that law has nothing to do with morals. He said, Command of the
sovereign is law and law is the subject matter of jurisprudence and not morals. Law and
morality both are regulating or normative in nature and the main difference in the middle of
law and morality is that law is coercive while morality is definitely not. Before getting into
the main theory its important to find out that what law and morality actually mean

LAW: These are the principles and regulations which has sanctions of the state and
enforceability on its back. Rule that everyone must follow is regulations where an individual
needs to submit himself to the will of the state or society. Infringement of any law might
bring a misfortune or diminishment in the property or private detention of the blamed. The
main object of the law is to protect and maintain order and smooth working in the general
public. It is tying in nature which must be appropriate to all sets of individuals

MORALITY: An individuals inner soul is his morality. It is best to control conduct

exclusively on the ground of morality. As law is coercive in nature, one individual takes after
the legitimate rules because of fear of outcomes of not following after, as discipline but rather
when a man takes after the principles

Relation between law and morality :

What is the relation between law and morality is the essential question therefore the essential
relation between law and morality is Relation between law and morality can be traced in
following ways:

A) Morality as basis of law (former Concept)

B) Morality as basis of law where law acknowledges the morality for making it (Present
Concept).1

C) The existence of unjust laws comprehensively proves that the morality and law are not
identical and both dont coincide.

D) The existence of laws that help to defend the basic values--such as laws against murder,
rape, fraud, bribery, etc -prove that both can work together.

1 http://www.internationalseminar.org/
E) Laws can state what unconcealed, clear, open offenses count as wrong and therefore
punishable. Although law courts do not always ignore a person's intention or state of mind,
the law cannot normally govern, at least not in a direct way, what is in your heart Because
often morality passes judgment on a person's intentions and character, it has a different scope
than the law.

F) Laws govern at least partly through a fear of punishment. Morality, when it is internalized,
when it has become habit-like or second nature, governs conduct without compulsion. The
virtuous person does the appropriate thing because it is the fine or noble thing to do.

G) Morality can influence the law in the sense that it can provide the reason for making
whole groups of immoral actions illegal.

H) Law can be a public expression of morality which codifies in a public way the basic
principles of conduct which a society accepts. In that way it can guide the educators of the
next generation by giving them a clear outline of the values society wants taught to its
children.2

Justifications about the morality of murder : (Queen v. Dudley and Stephens)

Numerous principles are shared for both law and morality like homicide, burglary, decoity
and theft are a portion them, is against law and also morality. In Queen v. Dudly and
Stephens3 , three sailors and a kid were thrown away in the tempest on the high oceans in an
open vessel. They had no food and drinking water in the boat. Keeping in mind the end goal
to spare themselves from specific death the same number of days had gone without food, they
killed the kid their question was whether murder can be justified by necessity and
excuse/justification is an exception for it Lord Hale gave an example that suppose there is a
person A who threatens to kill B and B taking a knife stabs A to to death then it is a self
defence but in this case the small boy was never threatening to kill others and it cant be left
under excuse/justification another example was suppose A is threaten by B to kill C and if A
kills C he cant be left and he says for he ought rather to die himself than killing a innocent
person so you cant take another persons life but Lord Bacon was completely opposite to
this statement he was just opposite to hale he said its ok if you kill other person for survival

2 http://people.wku.edu/jan.garrett/320/320lawmo.htm

3 1 14 QBD 273
when you are in a emergency danger state but in the end jury gave an exceptional decision
that CJ Colerige observed: Was it more necessary to kill him than one of the grown up men?
The answer must be No. The bench of five judges held, no man has a right to take
anothers life to save his own. However, it cannot be said that morals are the basis of legal
rules.

Roscoe pound on law and morality:

In modern times, there is a distinction between law and morality. Roscoe Pound states that
as to application of moral and legal precepts respectively, it is said that moral principles are
of individual and relative application; they must be applied in reference to circumstances and
individuals, whereas legal rules are of general and absolute application.

The morality relies on the inner voice or will of the person. An act of moral for a person
might be indecent for the other and moral values form the character of a person. As well as
can be expected be taken of marriage in Hindus and Muslims. In Hindus, one and only
marriage is considered as holy and plural marriage is a sin and in Muslims, they are permitted
to wed four ladies at one purpose of time. Law is worried with the general public by and large
and not with the wishes of the individual person.

RESPONSIBILITY OF CIVIL AUTHORITIES TOWARDS PUBLIC MORAL ORDER

such of those responsibilities do exist , although some people would deny it. Because there is
a public moral order just as there is a private one.
everyone have to accept that the governments and laws must be directed towards providing a
healthy environment which does not harm or contaminate anyones physical state. It is
becoming more than appropriate to appeal to "ecology" to help people reflect that a persons
interior state can also be contaminated and needs a non-contaminated and non-exploitative
moral environment.

Lord Devlin wrote:-

"Society means a community of ideas; without shared ideas on politics morals and ethics, no
society can exist. Each one of us has ideas about what is good and what is evil; they cannot
be kept private from the society in which we live. If men and women try to create a society in
which there is no fundamental agreement about good and evil they will fail; if, having based
it on common agreement, the agreement goes, the society will disintegrate.
"For society is not something that is kept together physically; it is held by the invisible bonds
of common thought. If the bonds were too far relaxed. The members would drift apart. A
common morality is part of the bondage. The bondage is part of the price of society; and
mankind, which needs society, must pay its price ".

ANOTHER DEBATABLE ISSUE IS THAT SHOULD LAW AND MORALITY BE

INTERTWINED?

Hart and fuller arguments :

The researcher would like to answer this by comparing H.L.A Hart and Lon Fuller debates in
law and morality Hart was an English jurist who worked as Professor at Oxford. He
defends positivist school of jurisprudence. This round of debate on separation of law
and morals was started by Prof Hart. Lon Fuller was an American jurist and worked as a
professor at Harvard. He defends the Natural law principles of jurisprudence .For Hart what
law is must be separated from the question that whether it is moral or just while for Lon fuller
who is a natural law theorist argues that law and morality cannot be precisely distinguished
and therefore he says that Nazi laws were a false description of what they were and they were
just tools of arbitrary and tyrannical regime

At last, the researcher would like to finish up and support the argument of H.L.A. Hart that
law and equality is separate or different. In the event that law must be acknowledged by
individuals it ought to adjust to the conduct guidelines that individuals want. These principles
are chosen to a great extent by morals. Prof Fuller is not totally wrong, when he criticizes the
positivist way to deal with law. He has a point while attacking the strict positivist
methodology, which was obvious during the Nazi wars trials, where the choosing powers
were with the strange paradox of having a monstrous law in one hand, while on the hand, was
the resistance, that the same law was great law in the times of the Reich. What's more, to this
point, Prof Fuller's doesn't appear to be just voice against the evident imperfection with the
positivist perspective, as Radbruch, himself a positivist, agrees with Fuller's perspective in
the trials. Prof Hart was of the conclusion that integrity of the law must be maintained while.
Prof Fuller contends that law itself can't be characterized inside of set parameters and
henceforth it is fidelity of law which should be saved. Fidelity would include morality thus
one needs to see law and moral as one, in this context. In ordinary practice it would be wise
for any person to keep a moralistic post while following up on laws, because as Fuller later
tells that, not all circumstances might fall inside of the "centre" zones of the law. There are
some unchartered waters too, which he calls, the 'penumbra'. Also, the 'standard examples'
may not be "standard" all things considered, an in such cases, it will be judicious to take a
gander at the goal of the whole procurement. So it is impractical to independent law from
ethics. No law can be exceptionally exact on the grounds that each word has diverse
implications and distinctive shades of implications. Assist no law can imagine a wide range
of circumstance it needs to handle to accomplish the craved conduct. So if all else fails in
regards to the importance of law one needs to take a gander at the ethical qualities in addition
to other things. The important thing to note though, is that these are only two theories of law
and its relation to morality, and yet it already creates some big questions as to what exactly
law is. Further I will be analysing deeply hart and fuller debates and the morality of murder in
case of necessity.
REFERENCES:

1. H.L.A. Hart, Positivism and the Separation of Law and Morals, 71 Harv.L.Rev.616
(1958)
2. Lon L. Fuller, Positivism and Fidelity to Law -A Reply to Professor Hart, 71 Harv. L.
Rev. 658 (1958)
3. Law and Morality in a Changing Society (http://www.jstor.org/stable/824884)
4. Law and Morality in the Perspective of Legal Realism
(http://www.jstor.org/stable/1120094)
5. The Conception of Morality in Jurisprudence (http://www.jstor.org/stable/2176104)