Morality is believed to have existed since the beginning of the human species. However, it is widely accepted that religion has cemented morality as an essential social construct. Thanks to common religions, it became common for people to adhere to norms of behavior that had serious consequences. Thus, religion and morality have been passed down from generation to generation and place, and although they have been different for different people, morality has become a central element of society. For social cohesion to exist in a society, Hart argued that it is not necessary for the law to impose a single « homogeneous web » of morality on its people, as Devlin had claimed. Indeed, to live in a state of freedom, we must be allowed to choose our own moral systems. The law should not impose a way of life on people, a way of life that denies them completely harmless and consensual acts in private. As Hart argued in his book Liberty, Law and Moral, privacy is not a matter of law or society. As society evolves and opinions change, so does what is considered moral. If you look back in history, there are many examples of laws that were clearly immoral by today`s standards.
Among other things, the United States stole Native American land, enslaved blacks, and discriminated against homosexuals. As society becomes more informed and open, citizens demand that their laws reflect their new definition of what is moral. While not everyone agrees with the decisions, changing the laws is a big step toward changing general social views. The amendment to the law provides the company with the new definition of what is acceptable. Law and morality interact with each other and often cause each other`s change. Ultimately, when laws are unjust or outdated, people must stand up and fight for what is right. Before reflecting on what is at stake between positivism and non-positivism, Murphy distinguished the question of the boundary between law and morality from two other questions. Positivists and non-positivists may agree that there are no possible legal documents that would allow judges to decide all cases in a completely mechanical way. Although the positivist insists that the judge make the law rather than interpret it if the legal documents are vague, proponents of both views must consider (1) how legal documents should be designed, i.e.
whether these documents should be more or less determined, and (2) why judges decide cases, if the legal documents are vague. Murphy suggested that both of these issues should be resolved taking into account the appropriate institutional role of the judiciary, although efficiency considerations are also relevant. Although this first hypothesis – the need for a legislator – does not solve the problem it was supposed to solve, the second hypothesis – that the source of moral values must be outside of man – actually prevents us from finding the answer. The second hypothesis is based on the superficial awareness that laws seem to be imposed on us from outside. And it follows that there must be an external imposition of morality. But what is so often forgotten is that these human laws that seem to be imposed from the outside are, at least in the Western world, in fact the product of a democratic process. These are the laws of the governed. And if it is possible for people to make laws and impose those laws on themselves, then it is possible to do the same with morality.
As in law, so in morality; The governed are capable of governing. Law and morality are extrinsically linked and have been used interchangeably since ancient times. However, we can find differences between law and morality, taking into account several main factors. In addition, the law punishes those who break the law and create discrepancies for the lives of others, while there are no such coercive sanctions for those who live immorally or commit immoral acts. However, morality emphasizes that any immoral action is followed by negative consequences that the actor must one day suffer. In addition, another difference between law and morality is that laws create the constitution of a country, whereas in morality there is no direct link with the constitution.