Luther And Dworkin Essay

John Stuart Mill, Patrick Devlin, H.L.A Hart, and Ronald Dworkin each provide varying views on what constitutes morality and what the role of society/the law should be in protecting morality. The discussion of these four philosophers provides insight into this debate, as each philosopher provides a different perspective. For example, Mill being a utilitarian gives him a unique view. I will discuss Mill, Devlin, Hart, and Dworkin and compare their views in order to gain a better understanding of what constitutes morality and how far should society and the law be permitted to interact with morality.

Mill’s harm principle states that the law can only coerce its citizens to act differently, if the action in question is harming others. If an individual's

Hart states that there is no empirical evidence to support that society would disintegrate and become a Hobbesian state of nature, if morality was not enforced by the law. He asserts that when you press supporters of the disintegration thesis for evidence that society would revert back to a Hobbesian state, their response is much more like the conservative thesis: that the society will not look the same. For example, if homosexuality were allowed in Kansas, then that society will lose its distinction because it would not really look like Kansas anymore it would be more like San Francisco. There is no evidence that Kansas would disintegrate and its society would regress to a Hobbesian state. This illustrates Hart’s point that there is no empirical evidence to support the disintegration thesis, rather supporters of this thesis give reasons that support the conservative thesis, not empirical evidence to support that society would disintegrate without the enforcement of morality. He contends that it is not the disintegration thesis if society just loses its distinction, thus justifying his claim that there is no empirical evidence for the disintegration