In jurisprudence, the relationship between law and morals is a fundamental debate concerning whether a law's validity depends on its ethical content or merely its formal source.
1. Key Conceptual Differences
While both systems regulate human conduct, they differ in several ways:
- Source & Authority: Law is derived from external authorities like legislatures and courts, whereas morality stems from internal sources like individual conscience, religion, or social values.
- Enforcement: Laws are backed by coercive state sanctions (fines, imprisonment). Morality is voluntary, enforced only by social pressure or personal guilt.
- Focus: Law primarily judges outward actions and consequences, while morality prioritises the underlying motive and internal resolve.
2. Major Schools of Thought
- Natural Law School: Proponents like Thomas Aquinas and Lon Fuller argue that law and morality are deeply connected. They believe an unjust law—one that violates universal moral principles—is "not a law at all" (lex iniusta non est lex).
- Legal Positivism: Jurists like John Austin and H.L.A. Hart maintain that law and morality are distinct. A law's validity is based on its source (e.g., a sovereign's command), regardless of its moral merit.
3. Iconic Jurisprudential Debates
- Hart-Fuller Debate: Centred on the validity of Nazi laws. Hart argued they were legally valid but morally reprehensible; Fuller contended they were non-laws because they lacked "internal morality" (principles like clarity and consistency).
- Hart-Devlin Debate: Sparked by the Wolfenden Report on decriminalising homosexuality. Lord Devlin argued that law must enforce a "shared morality" to prevent societal collapse. Hart countered that the law should only interfere to prevent harm to others, protecting individual liberty.
4. Modern Evolution: Constitutional vs. Social Morality
Modern courts often distinguish between "social morality" (what the majority thinks is right) and "constitutional morality" (values like equality and dignity found in the Constitution).
- Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India (2018): The Indian Supreme Court decriminalised consensual same-sex relations. The court held that constitutional morality must prevail over social morality. Even if a majority of society considers something "immoral," it cannot be criminalised if it violates fundamental rights like equality and privacy.
- Joseph Shine v. Union of India (2018): The court struck down the law criminalising adultery. It ruled that the law cannot enforce private sexual morality if doing so treats women as property and violates their individual autonomy.
- S. Khushboo v. Kanniammal (2010): The court quashed criminal cases against an actor for her remarks on pre-marital sex, stating that mere moral disapproval is not a crime and social morality cannot be used to silence lawful expression.