Devlin's Disintegration Thesis VS HLA Hart's Harm Principle

The Case for Morality: Devlin’s Disintegration Thesis v. H. L. A. Hart’s Harm Principle
Name
Institution

It is commonly argued that prostitution, homosexuality and publication of pornography as immoral. Lawyers have been having a problem deciding whether the act should be made a law or the moral and immoral thinking of people should be allowed to manage these acts. In response to this, different people have given out their views on how to go with the acts. They both try to prove whether immoral acts should be decriminalized or the centrally. Both of them contradict each other in their point of view. Each one for them has his own basic ideas on the immoral and moral debate.
Devlin first responded to the disintegration thesis in 1959 where his argument was based on two main points. The first point he argued that the state has the power to legislate morality to defend itself against behaviors that may disintegrate the society or its institutions.
“It is not possible to set theoretical confines to the power of the State to legislate against wickedness. It is not possible to resolve in advance exceptions to the universal rule or to define rigid areas of morality into which the law is in no circumstances to be allowed to enter. Society is entitled by means of its laws to look after itself from dangers, whether from within or without” (Devlin, 1965, p. 36, qtd in Laster, 2001, p. 149).
Devlin strongly believes that the state has a role to play as moral instructor and the criminal law is its proper instruction technique. Devlin also argues that the societies may become more tolerant of immorality with time and this may lead to their disintegration. The existence of solid external morals helps maintain a healthy society. Devlin also argues that legislators have the duty of ensuring healthy standards within the society. This mainly by restricting the immoral acts by use of laid out laws in their states. With time, Devlin argues that the society becomes uncertain about these standards. Devlin defined a society as a “community of idea including ideas about morality”. By his definition, he proved that a society could not exist if shared ideas on morals, ethics and politics are not available. Due to the above explanation, a society can use the law to preserve the morals since it uses the law to preserve other things that threatens their existence. This justifies why the law should be used to preserve the morals and ethics pertaining a certain society. The use of the law to preserve the morals not only allows the morally upright acts but also help to hold the society together.
Devlin bases his argument on the use of the law to legislate morality. The law according to him exists to protect the society from any code of behavior that may seem to threaten their existence in the state. Devlin’s argument holds by use of “reasonable man” who is able to reason between the wrong and ...