The legal enforcement of morality | OCR A-Level Law
For Specification H418
OCR A-Level Law | Free Revision Notes
Estimated study time: 55 minutes
The legal enforcement of morality A-Level Law revision examines whether moral standards should become legally enforceable rules. OCR specifically requires knowledge of the legal enforcement of moral values and of issues where law and morality have clashed in the courts. This builds on law and morals [Law and morals], morality in a pluralist society [Morality in a pluralist society] and natural law and legal positivism [Natural law and legal positivism]. The key challenge is deciding when moral concern justifies legal intervention and when individual choice should remain outside legal control.
Learning Objectives 🎯
By the end of this revision page, you should be able to:
Explain why the law may enforce moral values.
Explain how moral values can become legally enforceable through common law or legislation.
Examine areas in which law and morality have clashed in the courts.
Apply relevant OCR examples to debates about legal enforcement.
Analyse arguments supporting the legal enforcement of morality.
Analyse arguments against using law to enforce disputed moral standards.
Revision Notes 📚
What is the legal enforcement of morality?
The legal enforcement of morality occurs where the legal system uses enforceable legal rules to regulate conduct because values concerning right and wrong are considered relevant.
The concept therefore involves an overlap between:
law, which creates enforceable legal rules;
morality, which concerns standards of right and wrong.
OCR expressly requires students to understand both the legal enforcement of moral values and situations in which morality and law have clashed in the courts.
This is different from simply observing that law and morality sometimes overlap.
The deeper question is:
Should the power of the legal system be used to enforce a particular moral standard?
From a moral value to a legal rule
A moral view does not become legally enforceable simply because people believe strongly that it is correct.
For a moral value to be enforced through law, it must be reflected in an enforceable legal rule.
OCR assessment material recognises examples of moral values being enforced through:
human rights law;
common law;
statute law.
This means morality may influence law, but legal enforcement depends upon recognised legal processes.
For example:
moral concern → legal debate → legislation or judicial development → enforceable rule
Once the rule becomes law, its legal authority comes from its place within the legal system rather than simply from the moral opinion which may have influenced it.
Why might law enforce morality?
There are several reasons why legal rules may reflect and enforce moral values.
Protecting people from conduct regarded as harmful
One argument is that law may legitimately prohibit conduct where it causes or risks serious harm.
This can create a substantial overlap between moral judgement and legal regulation.
A society may morally condemn particular harmful conduct and also make that conduct legally prohibited.
In such circumstances, legal enforcement has a practical purpose. The law does not merely announce that conduct is morally wrong, it attaches formal legal consequences to it.
Protecting values regarded as important to society
Some arguments for legal enforcement go further than preventing direct harm.
OCR's mark schemes recognise the later argument associated with Devlin that law may uphold a common morality because shared morality helps hold society together.
The full theory belongs in the Devlin-Hart debate [The Devlin-Hart debate], but the basic argument is important here:
If certain moral standards are fundamental to the way society functions, supporters of enforcement may argue that law is justified in protecting them.
This gives morality a wider social role.
Law can express social standards
Legal rules may also communicate standards of acceptable behaviour.
Making conduct unlawful can signal that the legal system regards the conduct as sufficiently serious to justify formal control.
This links the legal enforcement of morality with the later study of law as social control [Law as social control].
Law can therefore influence behaviour not only because sanctions may follow, but because formal legal rules can help shape expectations about conduct.
Protecting rights and interests
OCR's sample mark scheme expressly identifies human rights as an area in which law may enforce moral values.
Rights-based legal rules may embody values concerning matters such as:
individual protection;
liberty;
equality;
dignity;
freedom.
The important Nature of Law point is not that every human-rights rule has one universally accepted moral basis.
Rather, rights provide an example of legal rules protecting values which can also be understood in moral terms.
Parliament may turn moral concerns into statute law
Moral concerns can influence debates about legislation.
OCR recognises statutory examples of the legal enforcement of morality and also identifies controversial laws made by Parliament as relevant evidence in Nature of Law essays.
However, Parliament faces a problem.
In a pluralist society, moral disagreement may mean that:
one group demands prohibition;
another demands individual freedom;
another supports limited regulation.
Parliament must eventually establish a legal position even though moral disagreement may remain.
Judges may also confront moral questions
Law and morality can clash especially clearly in court cases.
Judges are required to reach legal decisions even where the issue contains difficult or controversial moral questions.
OCR's 2022 mark scheme expressly identifies several areas in which law and morality may clash in the courts:
outraging public decency;
cannabis for medical use;
assisted suicide;
the death penalty;
body modification;
sadomasochism and consent;
necessity and homicide.
OCR identifies cases including:
R v Brown;
Wilson;
Inglis;
Gilderdale;
Pretty;
Nicklinson;
Re A.
These examples demonstrate that the courts cannot always separate legal reasoning completely from morally controversial questions.
Consent as a clash between law and morality
The limits of consent provide one of OCR's clearest examples of tension between law and morality.
OCR examiner material specifically identifies Brown and Wilson as useful cases for discussing limitations on consent and moral tensions.
You have already studied the substantive legal rules in consent [Consent].
For this Nature of Law topic, the important question is different:
How far should adults be legally free to consent to conduct which other people regard as morally objectionable?
This produces a conflict between two competing values:
protecting people and enforcing limits on conduct;
respecting personal choice and autonomy.
R v Brown
OCR expressly identifies R v Brown as a relevant example in discussions involving sadomasochism, consent and moral conflict.
Its value in a Nature of Law essay is that it allows you to consider whether the criminal law should place limits on consensual behaviour because of wider concerns about acceptable conduct.
Do not merely retell the case.
The analytical point is:
The case illustrates how a court may have to determine the legal limits of consent where the conduct itself produces strong and competing moral reactions.
Wilson
OCR examiner reports pair Wilson with Brown when discussing moral disagreement over the limitations placed on consent.
Using the cases together is especially useful because they demonstrate that questions about consent, bodily autonomy and legal intervention can produce difficult distinctions.
For this lesson, the strongest use is:
Brown and Wilson → consent → competing views about autonomy and legal protection → difficulty deciding when morality should be enforced through criminal law.
That is much more useful than simply naming both cases.
Body modification and morality
OCR also expressly identifies body modification as an area where morality and law may clash.
The issue again raises the tension between:
personal autonomy;
legal limits on what a person may consent to;
wider social or moral concerns.
This demonstrates a central problem with moral enforcement.
If an adult willingly chooses particular conduct, should the law intervene because the conduct is regarded as morally unacceptable?
The answer is not self-evident, which is precisely why the issue is useful for evaluation.
Assisted suicide and morality
OCR identifies assisted suicide as another major area of moral controversy, together with cases such as Pretty and Nicklinson.
The moral clash can be framed through competing arguments concerning:
personal autonomy;
protection of life;
vulnerability;
the limits of legal choice.
The purpose of these cases in a Nature of Law essay is not simply to reproduce their detailed legal rules.
They illustrate that courts may be asked to decide legal questions where there are profound disagreements about what the morally correct outcome should be.
Pretty and Nicklinson
OCR identifies both Pretty and Nicklinson as examples relevant to morally controversial questions surrounding assisted suicide.
These authorities can support analysis such as:
Argument for legal restriction: Law may need to protect important interests and vulnerable people even where an individual seeks greater autonomy.
Argument against legal restriction: Strong legal controls may restrict deeply personal choices which some believe should belong to the individual.
The moral disagreement does not disappear because a court reaches a legal decision.
That is a crucial feature of pluralism.
Necessity, homicide and Re A
OCR also identifies necessity and homicide, including Re A, as an area in which law and morality can clash.
The 2023 examiner report describes Re A as an example involving significant moral challenges which candidates successfully used in Nature of Law essays.
For this lesson, Re A demonstrates a wider principle:
Courts may face circumstances in which every available outcome raises serious moral concerns, but the court must nevertheless reach a legal conclusion.
This shows why saying that judges simply "apply law and ignore morality" can be too simplistic in morally difficult cases.
Outraging public decency
OCR identifies outraging public decency as another area where morality and law can interact.
Its sample human-rights mark scheme specifically recognises the common-law offence and the authority of Gibson and Sylveire.
This provides a particularly direct example of law regulating conduct connected with public standards of decency.
It also creates obvious evaluative questions:
Who determines what counts as unacceptable public behaviour?
Do standards of decency change over time?
Can one moral standard fairly represent a pluralist society?
These questions demonstrate why moral enforcement may be both useful and controversial.
Human rights and the protection of morals
For students studying the human-rights option, OCR materials provide another clear connection.
For example, Article 10(2) permits restrictions upon freedom of expression for specified reasons including the protection of health or morals.
This directly demonstrates that moral considerations can appear within legal rules governing rights.
However, it also demonstrates the need for balance.
Freedom of expression itself represents an important protected interest.
Therefore the law may need to balance:
individual freedom ↔ protection of morals
rather than simply allowing one to defeat the other automatically.
Why legal enforcement can be attractive
There are several arguments supporting the use of law to enforce moral standards.
1. Law can protect people
Some moral rules concern conduct capable of harming others. Legal prohibition can provide stronger protection than moral criticism alone.
2. Law can protect important shared interests
Some supporters argue that a society depends upon certain shared values and that law may legitimately reinforce them.
3. Legal rules provide stronger enforcement
Moral disapproval is informal.
Law can provide:
enforceable duties;
criminal liability;
civil liability;
formal sanctions or remedies.
This makes law a much stronger mechanism of control.
4. Law can reflect important social values
Legal rules may express values which society considers sufficiently important to protect formally.
5. Law may provide clearer boundaries
A moral rule may be disputed or uncertain.
An enforceable legal rule can establish a definite legal position even where people continue to disagree morally.
Arguments against the legal enforcement of morality
There are equally important objections.
Pluralism makes morality difficult to identify
Perhaps the strongest objection is the one studied in morality in a pluralist society [Morality in a pluralist society].
Pluralist societies contain many different moral standards.
OCR's assessment materials recognise that this diversity makes it very difficult or impossible for law to satisfy everyone.
If morality is disputed, the question becomes:
Whose morality should law enforce?
A majority moral view does not necessarily represent every member of society.
Enforcement may restrict autonomy
A second objection concerns personal autonomy.
Some people argue that adults should generally be free to make their own choices, particularly where the conduct concerns their private lives.
OCR's mark schemes associate this emphasis on autonomy with Hart's position in the later Devlin-Hart debate.
This creates a strong evaluative contrast:
Enforcement argument: law protects moral values.
Autonomy argument: law risks imposing one group's morality upon another person's choices.
Moral views change
Another problem is that morality is not fixed.
OCR repeatedly recognises that moral values change over time and that law may struggle to keep pace.
The marital-rape example is expressly identified in OCR mark schemes as evidence of changing morality, with the legal position changing in 1991.
This creates an important warning:
A law designed to enforce one generation's moral values may later appear outdated.
Legal change can be slower than moral change
OCR mark schemes state that morality may move more quickly than law.
This can create a gap between:
prevailing moral attitudes;
existing legal rules.
Therefore, even if the aim is for law to reflect morality, the legal system may struggle to identify and enforce the current moral position.
Judges may not represent the full range of moral views
OCR's 2022 mark scheme expressly allows evaluation of judges making moral decisions from a narrow social background, together with criticism that the judiciary may be "out of touch".
This creates a challenge where courts develop common law in morally controversial cases.
If society is pluralist, judges cannot easily claim that their own moral view represents "society's morality".
This does not mean judges should never decide morally controversial cases. They have no choice where such disputes come before them.
The evaluative concern is whether courts are the best institution for determining contested moral standards.
Parliament also faces problems
Parliament may appear better placed to make controversial moral choices because legislation goes through a political law-making process.
However, OCR mark schemes recognise that politicians may avoid controversial issues which could divide society or affect voting behaviour.
OCR also identifies Private Members' Bills as relevant to debate about controversial moral legislation.
So neither courts nor Parliament completely escape the problems created by moral disagreement.
Legal enforcement can produce inconsistency
Morally controversial cases can also generate arguments about consistency.
If different situations involving personal autonomy or consent receive different legal treatment, critics may argue that moral assumptions are influencing where legal boundaries are drawn.
OCR's examiner report specifically identifies Brown and Wilson as useful examples where candidates analysed limitations on consent.
The analytical question is not simply:
"Were the cases decided differently?"
It is:
What do the cases show about the difficulty of deciding when legal intervention into consensual conduct is morally justified?
Law can enforce morality without creating moral agreement
An important distinction is that legal enforcement is not the same as moral consensus.
Parliament or the courts may establish a clear legal rule.
Everyone is then subject to that legal rule.
But people may continue to disagree about whether the rule is morally correct.
Therefore:
Law can settle the legal question while leaving the moral question disputed.
This distinction is vital in a pluralist society.
Legal prohibition is stronger than moral criticism
Once morality is legally enforced, the consequences become more serious.
A moral rule may result in:
criticism;
disapproval;
social pressure.
A legal rule can result in formal legal consequences.
This is why the decision to enforce morality requires justification.
The question is no longer merely:
"Is this conduct morally wrong?"
It becomes:
"Is it sufficiently important for the state to impose a legal rule controlling it?"
Natural law and enforcement
Your knowledge of natural law and legal positivism [Natural law and legal positivism] can help analyse enforcement.
Natural-law approaches emphasise a strong relationship between legal rules and moral principles.
This can support the argument that law ought to reflect important moral standards.
However, the pluralist problem remains:
Which moral principles should be legally enforced?
Natural law therefore provides a reason to take morality seriously, but does not remove every difficulty involved in turning morality into enforceable rules.
Legal positivism and enforcement
Positivism helps keep another distinction clear.
A law can be legally valid even if its moral justification is disputed.
This means the following are separate questions:
Does the law currently enforce this moral position?
Should the law enforce this moral position?
The second question is evaluative and cannot be answered merely by showing that a legal rule already exists.
Should morality alone justify legal intervention?
This is one of the biggest evaluation questions in the topic.
Consider two possible approaches.
Position A: moral wrongness can justify law
If behaviour undermines important social values, supporters may argue that law is justified in prohibiting it even beyond immediately identifiable harm.
Position B: moral wrongness alone is insufficient
Opponents may argue that moral disapproval should not automatically become legal prohibition, particularly where:
people disagree about the morality;
conduct is private;
adults freely choose the conduct;
enforcement would significantly restrict autonomy.
The full theoretical dispute between these positions is developed in the Devlin-Hart debate [The Devlin-Hart debate].
Courts of law or courts of morality?
OCR directly examined this question in 2022:
"The courts of England and Wales are courts of law, not courts of morality."
Candidates were asked to discuss the challenges judges face in separating the two.
The wording captures the central tension perfectly.
Judges must decide cases according to law.
However, some legal disputes involve:
moral concepts;
socially controversial conduct;
changing moral attitudes;
competing values.
Therefore, law and morality may be distinguishable in theory but difficult to separate completely in practice.
Judges cannot simply decide according to personal morality
Although moral considerations may arise, judges are not given a general power to decide cases according to their own personal beliefs.
They operate through recognised legal methods such as:
statutory interpretation;
judicial precedent;
application of existing legal rules.
This is crucial.
A Nature of Law answer should not suggest that a judge can ignore legal authority whenever they personally disagree with it morally.
But moral choices may still appear within legal reasoning
At the same time, some cases require judges to apply legal rules to circumstances where competing moral considerations are unavoidable.
OCR's selected examples, including Brown, Wilson and Re A, are useful precisely because they reveal that difficulty.
The issue is therefore not:
law OR morality
but often:
how legal reasoning operates when the legal question itself contains competing moral values.
A comparison of the arguments
Arguments for legal enforcement | Arguments against legal enforcement |
Can protect people from harmful conduct | Moral disagreement makes the correct standard difficult to identify |
Can protect important social values | May impose majority values on minorities |
Gives moral standards formal legal force | Can restrict individual autonomy |
Can provide clear legal boundaries | Morality may change faster than law |
May reinforce values regarded as socially important | Judges may be criticised as unrepresentative or out of touch |
Can help shape standards of behaviour | Politicians may avoid controversial moral issues |
Can protect rights and interests | Legal enforcement does not create moral consensus |
A strong essay should not simply copy this table.
Use two or three arguments on each side and develop them with legal examples.
How to analyse a court case involving morality
Use this structure:
1. Identify the legal issue
What enforceable legal rule is the court applying?
2. Identify the moral conflict
Which values are competing?
For example:
protection ↔ autonomy;
public morality ↔ private choice;
protection of life ↔ individual choice.
3. Explain the court's role
The judge must reach a legal decision despite the moral disagreement.
4. Evaluate enforcement
Ask whether legal intervention is justified.
5. Consider the opposite view
Would non-intervention protect autonomy or create unacceptable risks?
6. Link back to the question
Explain what the example demonstrates about whether law should enforce morality.
Example analytical chain using consent
A strong Nature of Law paragraph could develop like this:
The law may enforce moral values by limiting individual choice where wider interests are considered important. The restrictions on consent illustrated by Brown provide an example of legal intervention in morally controversial private conduct. This may be defended because the criminal law can protect people and establish limits on behaviour considered sufficiently serious. However, in a pluralist society there may be disagreement over whether consensual adult behaviour should be regulated at all. The comparison with Wilson can therefore support an argument that the boundary between legitimate protection and excessive moral interference is difficult to draw.
The key is the reasoning, not the number of case names.
Example analytical chain using assisted suicide
Another argument could be:
Assisted suicide demonstrates why morality can be difficult to keep separate from law. OCR identifies Pretty and Nicklinson as relevant examples of this controversy. Arguments for legal restrictions may emphasise protection of life and vulnerable individuals, whereas arguments against strict enforcement may emphasise autonomy over deeply personal decisions. The legal system must establish one position despite the absence of universal moral agreement. This demonstrates both the necessity and difficulty of using law to regulate disputed moral questions.
Is enforcement more justified where there is harm?
A useful evaluative distinction is between:
enforcing morality because conduct harms others;
enforcing morality simply because conduct is considered immoral.
The first may appear easier to justify because legal intervention has a protective purpose.
The second is more controversial because it raises the possibility that law is enforcing moral conformity rather than preventing harm.
This distinction prepares you for the competing arguments in the next lesson.
The problem of moral certainty
Legal enforcement works most comfortably where society broadly agrees both that:
particular conduct is seriously wrong;
law should regulate it.
The problem becomes much greater where moral opinion is divided.
Pluralism therefore weakens the argument:
"This is immoral, therefore it should be illegal."
The missing step is:
Why should this particular moral view be backed by the coercive power of law?
That question should sit at the centre of your evaluation.
The legal enforcement of morality and changing law
Moral attitudes can influence legal change, but change may not be immediate.
OCR's Nature of Law material recognises the example that marital rape was not criminalised until 1991 and also recognises changes in gay rights as examples of developing moral values.
These examples demonstrate that:
law can change as attitudes develop;
morality may influence law;
the legal system can lag behind changing values.
This creates arguments both for and against enforcement.
For: law should be capable of responding when moral attitudes reveal a need for reform.
Against: if morality continually changes, tying legal prohibition too closely to current moral opinion risks creating outdated rules.
Overall judgement
The legal enforcement of morality is difficult because morality and law perform different functions.
There are strong arguments for enforcement where moral concerns are linked with:
protection from harm;
protection of rights;
important social interests.
However, enforcement becomes more controversial where it:
imposes disputed moral values;
restricts consensual private choices;
relies upon a supposed moral consensus which does not exist.
A balanced view is therefore that the key question is not whether law ever enforces morality, because OCR examples clearly show that it does.
The harder question is:
How far should it do so?
That is the issue developed fully in the Devlin-Hart debate [The Devlin-Hart debate].
Key Words 🔑
Key word | Student-friendly definition | How it may be used in an exam |
Legal enforcement of morality | The use of enforceable legal rules to protect or impose standards connected with moral values. | Use when discussing whether moral concerns justify legal intervention. |
Autonomy | The ability of individuals to make choices for themselves. | Use as an argument against excessive legal interference with private choices. |
Moral consensus | Substantial agreement about what is morally right or wrong. | Analyse whether a pluralist society has sufficient agreement to justify enforcement. |
Pluralism | The existence of diverse moral standards and values within society. | Use to challenge claims that law can simply enforce one shared morality. |
Common morality | The idea that society possesses shared moral values which law may seek to protect. | Use when introducing arguments supporting legal enforcement and the later Devlin-Hart debate. |
Hints from the Examiner Reports 💡
Examiner hint: Use legal cases to demonstrate the moral problem, not just as names. OCR's 2022 report states that cases are most effective when they underpin a legal concept or analytical point.
Examiner hint: Do not reproduce a prepared morality essay. The 2022 report found that the strongest Nature of Law responses adapted their knowledge to the precise angle of the question.
Examiner hint: Keep the institution in the question at the centre of your answer. When OCR asked about judges and morality in 2022, discussion of laws made by Parliament gained no credit unless it was connected back to the challenges faced by judges.
Examiner hint: Use examples from the areas of law you have actually studied. OCR found that lengthy theoretical discussions with little connection to the full course were unlikely to move beyond Level 2.
Examiner hint: Brown, Wilson and Re A are particularly useful synoptic examples. The 2023 report praised candidates who used limitations on consent and morally challenging cases to develop balanced arguments about law and morality.
Examiner hint: Balance matters. OCR's reports consistently identify stronger essays as those which develop competing arguments before reaching a reasoned conclusion.
Common Mistakes ⚠️
Mistake: Assuming that anything immoral should automatically be illegal
Why this is incorrect: OCR requires a distinction between moral standards and enforceable legal rules. Moral disapproval alone does not establish that legal enforcement is justified.
How to improve: Explain why legal intervention is needed, for example because of harm, rights or another important interest.
Mistake: Assuming that the law never enforces morality
Why this is incorrect: OCR expressly requires the legal enforcement of moral values and recognises human-rights, common-law and statutory examples.
How to improve: Distinguish between asking whether law does enforce morality and whether it should do so.
Mistake: Saying there is one agreed morality in society
Why this is incorrect: OCR requires knowledge of pluralism and the diversity of moral values.
How to improve: Always consider whether the moral standard being enforced is actually shared across society.
Mistake: Using Brown or Wilson only as criminal-law cases
Why this is incorrect: In a Nature of Law answer, the cases need to demonstrate a wider concept.
How to improve: Use them to analyse the tension between consent, autonomy, protection and legal enforcement.
Mistake: Writing detailed case facts without explaining the moral clash
Why this is incorrect: Description gains less than developed analysis.
How to improve: After each case, explicitly state: "This demonstrates..." and connect the example to the justification or difficulty of enforcing morality.
Mistake: Assuming judges can decide according to whatever they personally believe is morally right
Why this is incorrect: Judges remain bound by recognised legal methods, authority and the scope of their judicial role.
How to improve: Explain that moral controversy may arise within legal reasoning, but courts remain courts of law.
Mistake: Ignoring autonomy
Why this is incorrect: One major objection to moral enforcement is that it can interfere with people's ability to make their own decisions.
How to improve: Balance protection or common morality against individual autonomy, particularly in cases involving consent or private choices.
Mistake: Fully explaining Hart and Devlin in this lesson
Why this is incorrect: Their competing arguments are the specific focus of the next lesson.
How to improve: Use common morality and autonomy as introductory arguments here, then develop the full theories in the Devlin-Hart debate [The Devlin-Hart debate].
Exam-Style Questions ✍️
Question 1
Define the legal enforcement of morality. (2 marks)
Question 2
Identify two areas recognised by OCR in which law and morality may clash. (2 marks)
Question 3
Explain one reason why law may enforce a moral value. (4 marks)
Question 4
Explain why pluralism creates a difficulty for the legal enforcement of morality. (4 marks)
Question 5
Explain how Brown and Wilson can be used to illustrate a clash between law and morality. (6 marks)
Question 6
A legislature proposes to prohibit private conduct between consenting adults solely because many members of society regard the conduct as immoral.
Analyse one argument for and one argument against using law in this way. (8 marks)
Question 7
Explain why morally controversial cases can create difficulties for judges even though courts are required to decide cases according to law. (8 marks)
Question 8
'The law should enforce moral values whenever society strongly disapproves of particular conduct.'
Discuss the extent to which you agree with this statement. (20 marks)
Use examples from your full course of study.
Answers and Indicative Mark Scheme
Question 1
Award up to 2 marks for:
identifying the use of legal rules to enforce or protect moral values, 1 mark
recognising that those values are backed by formal legal enforceability, 1 mark
Question 2
Award 1 mark each for any two areas identified by OCR, including:
outraging public decency;
cannabis for medical use;
assisted suicide;
the death penalty;
body modification;
sadomasochism and consent;
necessity and homicide.
Total: 2 marks
Question 3
Award up to 4 marks for one developed reason, for example:
the law may protect individuals from harmful conduct;
moral criticism alone does not create enforceable protection;
law can attach formal consequences to prohibited conduct;
legal enforcement can therefore protect an interest regarded as sufficiently important.
Alternative developed arguments concerning shared values, rights or social standards should also receive credit.
Question 4
Award up to 4 marks for explaining that:
pluralism means society contains different moral values;
people may therefore disagree about whether particular conduct is wrong;
there may be no single morality for law to enforce;
enforcement can therefore impose one group's moral position upon people who hold a different view.
Question 5
Award up to 6 marks for explaining that:
OCR identifies Brown and Wilson as relevant examples involving limitations on consent;
consent raises questions about individual autonomy;
the law may place limits upon what people can consent to;
supporters of intervention can emphasise protection and legitimate legal limits;
opponents can argue that adults should have greater control over private choices;
the cases can therefore illustrate the difficulty of determining how far law should enforce moral standards.
Question 6
Award up to 8 marks.
Argument for enforcement:
Credit analysis such as:
law may protect values regarded as fundamental;
supporters may argue that morality contributes to social cohesion;
legal rules provide stronger control than informal moral criticism.
Argument against enforcement:
Credit analysis such as:
the facts concern consenting adults and therefore raise autonomy;
moral disapproval does not necessarily establish harm;
pluralism means the majority's moral view may not be universally accepted;
legal intervention may impose one group's morality on another.
A supported comparative judgement is required for the highest marks.
Question 7
Award up to 8 marks for developed explanation including:
judges are required to reach legal decisions;
existing legal rules and judicial methods must be applied;
some cases nevertheless involve deeply disputed moral questions;
OCR identifies areas including consent, assisted suicide and necessity;
Brown, Wilson and Re A can illustrate moral tensions;
judges cannot identify a simple universal morality in a pluralist society;
changing moral views can add to the difficulty;
judges may therefore face criticism whether they favour legal protection, individual autonomy or another competing value.
Question 8
20 marks: AO1 8 marks, AO3 12 marks
Indicative content may include:
Knowledge and understanding:
distinction between law and morality;
legal enforcement of moral values;
examples of enforcement through common law, statute law and human-rights law;
pluralism and moral consensus;
natural law and legal positivism where relevant;
controversial areas recognised by OCR;
consent and cases such as Brown and Wilson;
assisted suicide, including Pretty and Nicklinson;
necessity and homicide, including Re A;
outraging public decency;
changing morality;
introductory reference to common morality and personal autonomy.
Arguments supporting legal enforcement:
law can protect people from harmful conduct;
moral standards may reflect important social interests;
formal legal enforcement is more effective than moral criticism alone;
law may protect rights and values regarded as fundamental;
clear legal rules can establish boundaries despite moral disagreement;
shared morality may contribute to social cohesion.
Arguments opposing legal enforcement:
strong disapproval does not necessarily amount to a sufficient reason for legal prohibition;
pluralism makes it difficult to identify one moral standard;
enforcement may restrict personal autonomy;
majority opinion may be imposed upon minorities;
moral standards change over time;
law may lag behind moral developments;
judges may be criticised as unrepresentative or out of touch;
legal enforcement does not itself produce moral consensus.
Application of authority:
Strong responses may use Brown and Wilson to analyse consent and autonomy, Re A to illustrate difficult moral choices faced by courts, or Pretty and Nicklinson when discussing assisted suicide. OCR expressly identifies these as relevant areas and cases in law-and-morality evaluation.
Judgement:
A strong conclusion should distinguish strong moral disapproval from a sufficient justification for legal coercion.
The law clearly does enforce moral values in some circumstances. However, the existence of pluralism means that disapproval alone is an uncertain foundation for prohibition. Legal enforcement is easier to justify where it protects individuals, rights or important social interests, and more difficult to justify where it merely imposes contested moral beliefs upon private autonomous choices.
This question is the foundation for the competing theoretical answers considered next in the Devlin-Hart debate [The Devlin-Hart debate].
Comments