Author(s): Midhat Azam and Aoun Ullah Khan
Paper Details: Volume 3, Issue 4
Citation: IJLSSS 3(4) 59
Page No: 803 – 810
ABSTRACT
For hundreds of years, scholars have been thinking about how law and morality connect with each other. They have been studying how legal systems usually mirror the ethical values that society holds. This connection brings up important questions about how much laws should match moral beliefs.
Throughout history, law and morality have been closely connected. But in the 1800s and early 1900s, a new idea called legal positivism emerged. This approach emphasized separating law from morality. Thinkers like Jeremy Bentham and John Austin argued that laws are valid only because of their proper procedures and structure. According to this thinking, laws can be legally acceptable even when they don’t meet moral expectations.
In contrast, natural law theory, supported by Thomas Aquinas, suggests that laws should be based on moral principles that are naturally part of human nature or come from divine sources. According to this viewpoint, laws that go against basic moral principles are seen as invalid and wrong.
INTRODUCTION
In American legal philosophy, Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes stands out as the primary proponent of completely separating law from moral considerations. During a memorable speech to law students, Justice Holmes proposed that students could develop a clearer comprehension of legal principles by adopting the perspective of a “bad man,” which would help them distinguish between legal and moral frameworks. Holmes intended this approach to foster understanding of law’s boundaries and substance by stressing that moral principles should not be identified with legal content, since morality lacks objective foundation and moral language within legal contexts loses its ethical significance.[1]
In other discussions examining law’s origins, Holmes contended that society’s moral perspectives (evolving social standards) serve as law’s fundamental source. He dismissed natural law theory and characterized morality as “an incomplete set of social assumptions conveyed through emotional language.” His definition of law canters on “a description of situations where governmental power will be applied to individuals through judicial systems.”[2]
This analysis will examine how law and morality relate as concepts, identify particular aspects of their connection, and assess the consequences of this relationship.
THE IDEA OF LAW
Laws serve as fundamental components of any society, functioning as vital instruments for achieving governmental objectives, with all legislation directed toward promoting the collective welfare, essentially fulfilling the purpose for which communities are established.
Across various societies, this purpose typically involves creating conditions where individuals can experience complete and meaningful lives. Therefore, the immediate collective benefit that a state provides is order and tranquillity, whereas the ultimate collective benefit represents the cultivation of rational living for the entire community, ensuring that every person has the chance to pursue reasoned thought toward personal development. It is important to recognize that collective welfare does not outweigh individual welfare in terms of quantity, but instead distinguishes itself through its qualitative nature—meaning that shared benefits can be distributed among many, whereas personal benefits cannot be similarly shared.[3]
The concept of “law” is intricate and encompasses numerous categories, yet these intricacies require careful categorization, and such categorizations serve as the threads of comprehension that navigate through the maze of human relationships. The essential nature of law, in its broad application, is captured in the traditional definition: “Law represents a rational directive for the collective benefit, established by one who holds responsibility for the community and made known to all.”
Since different forms of law vary in their underlying causes, it becomes evident that the word “law” applies analogically rather than uniformly to its various types: eternal, natural, divine, and positive law. In other words, the term law encompasses multiple interpretations that share fundamental similarities in meaning rather than possessing a single, identical definition, as their origins and practical uses differ significantly.
IDEA OF MORALITY
Morality can be understood as a system of organization, focusing on human behaviours that relate to one another and serve specific purposes. The notion of worth (or goodness) forms the foundation of any ethical framework, as this concept of worth stands as a fundamental element among our practical ideas, representing the highest principle within its category.
The worth of something depends mainly on how complete it is and how it functions, meaning the full realization of its distinctive characteristics and the achievement of its unique excellence. Therefore, the concept of worth serves as the starting point for ethics. Something appears desirable as a goal precisely because it possesses goodness, and this goal represents the shape that something takes when it comes into contact with desire or longing.
A moral act consists of both the agent who performs it (acting rationally and freely) and the target it seeks (the objective goods and values that emerge from this behaviour). From an objective standpoint, three components form a moral act: the object, the purpose, and the surrounding conditions.
The moral quality of an act stems from how well it aligns with established standards. Since humans possess Divine Intelligence imprinted within their hearts through fundamental principles that guide their actions and measure their goals, human reason serves as the immediate standard while eternal law functions as the final authority. Consequently, rational human nature establishes the standard for morality, and morality represents the process of converting a recognized system of values into action.
INTERSECTIONALITY OF LAW AND MORALITY
Stealing money constitutes a criminal offense under the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita of 2023,[4] making it both illegal and subject to penalties. Yet when circumstances tell a deeper story such as when someone steals out of urgent necessity to feed a starving sibling, the matter gains additional layers of complexity. Though the action stays legally wrong, the driving force behind it reveals its intricate nature.
These scenarios create conflicts between legal requirements and moral considerations. When legal standards take priority, the person may encounter monetary penalties or jail time. On the other hand, should the judge examine the deed through the lens of the person’s intention to care for their family, ethical factors might shape the verdict.[5]
The responsibility falls to the judge to examine all circumstances and reach a decision. It deserves mention that ethical principles frequently influence how laws are understood and applied, with morality serving as a cornerstone of international legal frameworks as well.
The connection between law and morality can be examined through multiple perspectives
Morality as law’s foundation: In historical contexts, legal systems emerged from moral frameworks such as Dharma in ancient Indian civilization, where moral compliance served as the measure for legal legitimacy. Nevertheless, as governmental structures developed, statutory laws gradually separated from their ethical foundations.
Morality as law’s standard: Across different eras, legal systems were anticipated to correspond with ethical standards. When laws strayed from these standards, they encountered criticism, especially during the 17th and 18th centuries when legislation that opposed natural law threatened social stability.
Morality as law’s purpose: Law focuses on delivering justice for legal violations, while morality concentrates on defining ethical boundaries between right and wrong, thereby addressing social disputes. Although they serve different functions, law and morality frequently overlap as they work toward comparable goals.[6]
DISTINGUISHING THE CONNECTION BETWEEN LAW AND MORALITY
Although law and morality share certain similarities, their distinctions become most apparent when examining positive law:
The creation, implementation, and judicial interpretation of laws within governmental systems stands in contrast to the willing compliance with moral principles by individuals or communities. Breaking a legal statute results in official sanctions, while violating moral standards may cause social rejection but carries no legal consequences unless those standards become formally incorporated into legislation.
Morality assesses both inner motivations and outward behaviors, yet law focuses predominantly on observable actions. For example, while moral judgment might consider the wrongness of being ungrateful, legal systems concentrate exclusively on the actual deed, such as stealing.
Legal requirements can differ from moral expectations. Behaviors viewed as morally wrong, such as marital infidelity, might not constitute criminal offenses within the legal framework.
Laws operate uniformly within their respective territories, whereas moral values fluctuate across cultures. Actions considered morally unacceptable in one community may be tolerated in another, highlighting law’s universal application versus morality’s cultural dependence.
Legal decisions, including cases like S. Khushboo v. Kanniammal[7] and T.A. Quereshi v. CIT,[8] demonstrate the subjective character of societal morality and illustrate the separation between legal and moral considerations.
The case of R v. Dudley and Stephens[9] exemplifies the sharp division between legal and moral perspectives. Although the defendants’ decision to kill for survival raised moral questions, the court ruled their actions violated established legal principles.
To summarize, despite sharing some common ground, law and morality constitute separate concepts with different sources, implementations, and outcomes.
The Rule of Law serves as a fundamental principle in democratic societies such as India, where governmental power originates from citizens and remains subordinate to constitutional authority. A.V. Dicey established this doctrine, which encompasses three core elements:
- Constitutional supremacy: The Constitution holds ultimate authority, rendering any conflicting legislation void. Legal provisions bind everyone equally, requiring universal compliance with established rules.
- Equal treatment under law: Guaranteeing that all persons face identical legal authority and benefit from consistent principles of fair justice.
- Judicial constitutional interpretation or the dominance of legal principles: In some countries without codified constitutions, courts apply laws according to established legal doctrines, especially when handling complicated matters.
PRACTICAL EXAMPLES
Two legal areas demonstrate the connection between law and morality:
- Inheritance Rights After Homicide
When someone kills another person and stands to inherit their property, courts without statutory guidance have reached three different conclusions:
- The killer receives full title to the property
- No title transfers to the killer
- Legal title transfers but the killer must hold it in trust for rightful beneficiaries
Courts allowing title transfer rely on inheritance laws and constitutional protections against property forfeiture for crimes. However, as noted in Deem v. Milliken,[10] constitutional issues disappear if no title actually transfers.
Courts denying title transfer argue that inheritance statutes don’t override the common law principle preventing criminals from profiting from their crimes, avoiding constitutional conflicts entirely.
The constructive trust approach applies equitable principles, forcing wrongdoers to hold property for the benefit of those they harmed.
These cases involve regulating harmful actions for society’s benefit, justice concepts, and practical reasoning. While law clearly prohibits murder as a moral failing, determining specific legal consequences depends on how courts interpret justice through practical reasoning and their view of judicial objectivity.
- Affirmative Duties in Tort Law
The second example involves distinguishing between positive actions, negative actions, and situations requiring affirmative duties. Tort law often bases affirmative duties on a benefit principle – duties arise when someone enters relationships expecting advantages.
Legal responsibilities attach to important social relationships requiring protection through legal rights and obligations. A key factor is whether the relationship benefits the person receiving duties.
Courts increasingly expand liability for failures to act by identifying affirmative duties, shifting focus from actual conduct to required conduct. Distinguishing between permanent morality and changing social norms, courts tend to treat moral duties related to public welfare as legal obligations with corresponding liability.
CONCLUSION
Throughout history, India’s diverse cultural and religious landscape has been shaped by principles such as Dharma and Hukum. Nevertheless, morality has become increasingly important in modern legal discussions. Although it has long influenced how laws are created, evaluated, and directed, there is now a need for more thorough moral analysis. Balancing moral perspectives with constitutional frameworks is crucial, with constitutional morality taking precedence in judicial decisions.
This study finds that although moral values may have influenced legal development, the authority of law must remain above individual or group moral beliefs. Legal systems should support both public and constitutional morality, resolving any disagreements by favoring constitutional principles to demonstrate social advancement. India’s progress should correspond with changing social values instead of moving backward because of obsolete perspectives.
[1] AMAR KUMAR PANDEY, The Intersection of Law and Morality: A Philosophical Journey, Legal Service India (last visited Aug. 15, 2025), https://www.legalserviceindia.com/legal/article-15977-the-intersection-of-law-and-morality-a-philosophical-journey.html
[2] LAWS PULSE, Law and Morality, https://lawspulse.com/law-and-morality/ (last visited Aug. 15, 2025).
[3] Calvin W. L. Ho & See Muah Lee, Law and Morality, in Encyclopaedia of Global Bioethics 1738–47 (2015), https://www.researchgate.net/publication/354118572_LAW_AND_MORALITY (last visited Aug. 15, 2025).
[4] Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, No. 45, Acts of Parliament, 2023 (India).
[5] 2. Arthur Scheller Jr., Law and Morality, 36 Marq. L. Rev. 319 (1953), https://scholarship.law.marquette.edu/mulr/vol36/iss3/12.
[6] Uzma Abbas, An Analysis of Morality and the Law, International Journal of Law, Justice and Jurisprudence, 4(1):236–39 (2024), https://www.lawjournal.info/article/113/4-1-44-656.pdf
[7] Supreme Court of India, Civil — S. Khushboo v. Kanniammal & Anr., (2010) 5 SCC 600; AIR 2010 SC 3196
[8] Supreme Court of India, Civil — Dr. T. A. Quereshi v. Commissioner of Income Tax, (2006) 287 ITR 547 (SC)
[9] Queen’s Bench Division (England) — R v. Dudley and Stephens, 14 Q.B.D. 273 (1884)
[10] Deem v. Millikin, 6 Ohio Cir. Ct. 357 (1892) (affirmed, 53 Ohio St. (N.S.) 668 (1895)).