morality due to the fact Fuller named these eight principles the ‘inner morality of law’. Professor Hart argued that Fuller was, in fact, not justified in calling his principles a morality and accused Fuller of confusing efficacy (how effective the legislative system is) with morality.
The Complex Relationship between Law and Morality Claudia Caisley
Law is not a term that is easy to define and there are a plethora of opinions, theories and possible definitions which try to encompass what the law really is. The most important of these being the theories of legal positivism and natural law. Positivists believe that if a law is made by the power of the state (for example, an elected parliament), regardless of what that law actually is, everyone must abide by it. On the contrary, natural lawyers oppose this and lend their argument to the relationship between law and morality, saying that the validity of a law depends on its compatibility with a higher, moral authority (this can be anything from God to the unwritten moral code which society follows every day). Morality is thankfully simpler to define: a custom, habit or usage that is determined by man’s will rather than by law. An example of natural law can be seen in the explanation of divine law, one of the four types of law that Thomas Aquinas (a 13th century Catholic philosopher) wrote about in his most famous work ‘Summa Theologica’. He wrote that Divine law is concerned with the standards men must meet in order to attain salvation, revealed to mankind by inspiration or revelation (for example the Ten Commandments contained in the Bible). This type of law clearly illustrates the moral laws man should be following for his own good. Furthermore, human law is derived from natural law and is a result of a process familiar to us today: applying the principles contained within natural law to particular circumstances. Lon Fuller (professor of jurisprudence) is a renowned natural lawyer who rejected the argument of legal positivism, believing that law has a higher authority than that of sovereign authority. Fuller also views law as intended to serve a purpose (in his case, ‘achieving social order’), and, in order to fulfil this purpose, laws must satisfy eight particular principles. This closely links law and
Onto a slightly more interesting topic: the relationship between law and morality. This is something I had never really considered or taken any notice of before, however, after researching and reading about the topic, I realised the conflict (and also the alignment) between law and morality is much more commonplace than we think. Law and morality heavily influence each other, and changes in either can influence the other. I will write more about this further on, including common examples. Legal and moral rules have shared characteristics, the most obvious of these being that both are concerned with setting standards which are essential for governing the behaviour of individuals in our society. When driving, the law states we must all drive on the left in order to avoid unnecessary death or injury, whilst it is our morals which guide us to let ambulances pass for exactly the same reason, saving lives. It is here that law and morality are seen to be completely in line and concerned with the same purpose. Law and morality also employ similar language as they both determine right from wrong and state duties, obligations and responsibilities that one must fulfil. An obvious example being that it is both a parent’s legal and moral duty to care for their child. Law and morality are shown to have a very close relationship when they constantly overlap. A great way to illustrate this is using the Ten Commandments, which continue to serve as a moral code for many today. But, aspects of it are also highlighted in the law: ‘thou shalt not kill’ is reflected in the common law on murder, and ‘thou shalt not steal’ is contained within ss1-6 of the Theft Act of 1968. Lastly, although not directly reflected in the law, ‘Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour’, can be seen in developments of areas of the law like defamation (tort law). Sometimes, legal rules are out of kilter with morality, often making them more difficult to justify. This can be observed in cases of strict liability, which the law imputes to situations it considers to be inherently dangerous. For example, although not a breach of moral code,
18
