The Legal Enforcement of Moral Values

The legal enforcement of moral values involves using the law to impose standards of right and wrong on society. The relationship between law and morality is controversial because people in a pluralist society may have very different views about what behaviour is morally acceptable. The debate is particularly associated with Lord Devlin, who argued that the law can enforce shared moral standards to protect society, and H.L.A. Hart, who argued that individual freedom should generally be protected and that immorality alone is not sufficient justification for criminalising behaviour. Understanding the legal enforcement of moral values is important for A-Level Law students because it raises fundamental questions about the purpose of criminal law, individual autonomy and the limits of state intervention.

This topic appears in:

• AQA A-Level Law | Component 1: The Nature of Law and the English Legal System | Topic 3: Law and Morality
• OCR A-Level Law | Component 3: The Nature of Law and Human Rights | Component 4: The Nature of Law and the Law of Contract | Topic 2: Law and Morality 

Definitions

• Legal Enforcement of Morality: The use of law to impose moral standards and regulate behaviour considered morally right or wrong.
• Public Morality: Moral standards and values that are widely held within society.
• Individual Autonomy: The principle that individuals should generally be free to make their own choices about their lives and behaviour.
• Moral Paternalism: The use of law to restrict a person's freedom for the purpose of protecting them from their own harmful choices.
• Harm Principle: The principle that restricting individual freedom is generally justified where behaviour causes or risks causing harm to others.

Key Features

Devlin and the Enforcement of Morality

Lord Devlin argued that the law should be able to enforce shared moral standards to protect society and maintain social cohesion. He believed that society has a common morality and that conduct which seriously threatens this shared morality can justify legal intervention, even where there is no direct physical harm to another person. Devlin therefore rejected the idea that the criminal law should only be concerned with preventing physical harm. His approach can be seen in Shaw v DPP, where the House of Lords upheld the use of the common law offence of conspiracy to corrupt public morals, supporting the idea that courts have a role in protecting public morality.

Hart and Individual Freedom

H.L.A. Hart took a different approach and argued that individual freedom should generally be protected from unnecessary state interference. Hart rejected the idea that immorality alone should automatically justify criminalising behaviour. Instead, there should be a stronger justification for legal intervention, particularly where conduct causes harm to others. This approach places greater importance on individual autonomy and is particularly relevant in a pluralist society where people have different moral beliefs. Hart's argument suggests that the state should not impose the moral beliefs of the majority on individuals simply because their behaviour is considered immoral.

The Conflict Between Morality and Autonomy

The debate between Devlin and Hart creates a conflict between protecting society's moral standards and protecting individual freedom. R v Brown demonstrates this conflict because the defendants voluntarily participated in consensual acts of violence for sexual gratification, but the House of Lords held that consent was not a defence. The decision can be supported on the basis that the law should protect individuals from harmful violence, but it can also be criticised for interfering with private consensual behaviour. The case therefore illustrates the difficulty of deciding when moral concerns provide sufficient justification for restricting individual autonomy.

Evaluation

Advantages

• Protects Society: Enforcing widely accepted moral standards can protect society from behaviour considered seriously harmful or damaging to social values.
• Maintains Social Standards: Legal enforcement can reinforce standards of behaviour that are considered important for maintaining social order and cohesion.
• Reflects Public Morality: Allowing morality to influence the law can ensure that legal rules reflect the values and expectations of society rather than being completely disconnected from social attitudes.

Disadvantages

• Restricts Individual Freedom: Enforcing morality can interfere with individual autonomy by preventing people from engaging in behaviour that does not necessarily harm others.
• Risks Majority Oppression: In a pluralist society, enforcing the morality of the majority can impose one group's values on minority groups with different beliefs.
• Moral Standards Change: Moral values are not fixed and can change over time, meaning laws based on prevailing moral attitudes may become outdated or unjust.

Summary

• The legal enforcement of moral values involves using law to impose standards of right and wrong.
• Devlin argued that law can enforce shared morality to protect society and maintain social cohesion.
• Hart argued that individual freedom should generally be protected and that immorality alone is not enough to justify criminalisation.
• Shaw v DPP supports the enforcement of public morality, while R v Brown demonstrates the conflict between morality, harm and individual autonomy.
• The central debate is whether protecting society's moral standards justifies restricting individual freedom.