Morality in a pluralist society | OCR A-Level Law

For Specification H418

OCR A-Level Law | Free Revision Notes

Estimated study time: 50 minutes

Morality in a pluralist society A-Level Law revision examines what happens when people within the same society hold different views about right and wrong. OCR specifically requires knowledge of the diversity of moral views in a pluralist society and identifies pluralism as a key factor shaping society's approach to morality. This builds directly on law and morals [Law and morals] and prepares you for debates about natural law and legal positivism [Natural law and legal positivism] and whether the law should enforce particular moral values.

Learning Objectives 🎯

By the end of this revision page, you should be able to:

• Define pluralism in the context of law and morality.

• Explain why a pluralist society contains diverse moral views.

• Explain why reaching a moral consensus can be difficult.

• Analyse how changing moral views create difficulties for the law.

• Analyse how pluralism affects the relationship between law and morality.

• Apply pluralism to relevant areas of law studied elsewhere in OCR H418.

Revision Notes 📚

What is pluralism?

For OCR A-Level Law, pluralism can be understood as the existence of a range of different moral standards and values within the same society.

OCR mark schemes describe pluralist societies as containing a wide range of moral standards and values, making it difficult or even impossible for the law to satisfy everyone.

Pluralism therefore starts with a simple idea:

People living within the same society do not necessarily agree about what is morally right and wrong.

That disagreement matters to law because the legal system must create, interpret and enforce legal rules which apply across a society containing these different views.

Pluralism and moral diversity

Moral diversity means that different people or groups may hold different moral values.

OCR expressly requires students to understand:

• the diversity of moral views in a pluralist society;

• pluralism as a key factor shaping society's approach to morality.

This means that morality should not be treated as though society necessarily has one single, universally accepted moral code.

Instead, there may be:

• agreement on some moral questions;

• disagreement on others;

• changing attitudes over time;

• strong differences over controversial legal issues.

This makes the relationship between law and morality more complicated than simply saying:

"The law should reflect society's morals."

The obvious question is:

Which morals?

What is a moral consensus?

A moral consensus exists where there is substantial agreement about a moral issue.

The OCR 2023 examination directly tested the difficulty of achieving a moral consensus in a multicultural society reflecting diverse views.

Pluralism makes consensus more difficult because different sections of society may reach different conclusions about the same behaviour.

For example, a legal issue may involve competing views such as:

• one group believing that conduct should be prohibited;

• another believing that individuals should be free to choose;

• another supporting legal regulation but disagreeing about how far it should go.

The law nevertheless needs to determine what the legal position will be.

Pluralism does not mean complete disagreement

Be careful not to exaggerate the concept.

A pluralist society does not necessarily mean that everybody disagrees about everything.

Pluralism means that a variety of moral standards and values exists.

There may still be significant moral agreement in some areas.

The difficulty arises where the legal system deals with an issue on which substantial disagreement exists.

Therefore, a more precise statement is:

Pluralism makes a single moral consensus harder to identify, particularly on controversial issues.

Why are moral views relevant to law?

You already know from law and morals [Law and morals] that law and morality are different but can overlap.

Legal rules may address behaviour which is also subject to moral judgement.

The legal system may therefore face pressure to:

• reflect moral attitudes;

• respond to changing moral views;

• protect individuals whose moral views differ from the majority;

• decide whether particular moral values should become legally enforceable.

Pluralism complicates every one of these questions.

The central problem for law in a pluralist society

The central difficulty can be expressed as follows:

1. Law creates rules applying across society.

2. Society contains people with different moral values.

3. A controversial legal rule may therefore reflect some moral views but conflict with others.

4. It can consequently be difficult for law to satisfy everyone.

OCR's sample assessment material explicitly recognises this problem, describing the range of standards within a plural society as making it very difficult or impossible for the law to please everyone.

This is one of the strongest AO3 points you can make in a Nature of Law essay.

Law cannot simply follow "public morality"

Saying that law should follow public morality sounds straightforward until pluralism is considered.

If society contains competing moral views, there may be no single "public morality" which can easily be translated into law.

This raises several questions:

• Does the majority view determine the law?

• Should minorities be protected from majority moral opinion?

• Should lawmakers avoid moral questions where society is divided?

• Should individuals generally be free to make their own moral choices?

• When, if ever, should the law impose a particular moral standard?

These questions prepare you directly for the legal enforcement of morality [The legal enforcement of morality] and the Devlin-Hart debate [The Devlin-Hart debate].

Pluralism and changing morality

Pluralism concerns not only differences between people, but also the fact that moral attitudes can change over time.

OCR's mark schemes expressly identify changing morality as relevant to this topic and recognise that law may struggle to keep pace with changing moral views.

This creates another difficulty for the relationship between law and morality.

A legal rule may reflect moral attitudes at one point in time, while attitudes later change.

Therefore:

law and morality do not necessarily develop at the same speed.

Morality may change faster than law

OCR mark schemes expressly recognise the argument that morality may move faster than law, leaving the legal system struggling to keep up with changes in society.

This can happen because changing a legal rule normally requires a recognised legal process.

For example:

• Parliament may need to legislate;

• an appropriate case may need to reach the courts;

• judges must operate within the doctrine of precedent;

• legal reform may be influenced by political and social pressures.

Moral attitudes, by contrast, do not require a Bill to pass through Parliament before they can change.

This creates a possible time lag between moral change and legal change.

An OCR example: marital rape

OCR mark schemes use the development of the law concerning marital rape as an example of changing morality, noting that marital rape was not treated as a crime until 1991.

The example can be used to illustrate the broader principle that:

• moral attitudes can develop;

• the legal system may subsequently change;

• law and morality therefore have a changing relationship.

For this lesson, the important point is the relationship between moral change and legal development, rather than learning additional detail outside the OCR material.

Another OCR example: changing gay rights

OCR's 2023 mark scheme identifies changes in the law relating to gay rights as another example of changing moral values.

Again, you should use this at the level required for the Nature of Law topic.

It illustrates that:

• attitudes within society can change;

• law can adapt in response to social and moral development;

• disagreement may continue even after legal change occurs.

This demonstrates why pluralism is important when analysing both the changing nature of morality and the changing nature of law.

Legal change does not create moral consensus

A crucial analytical point is that changing the law does not necessarily end moral disagreement.

Parliament may enact a legal rule, or courts may develop the law, but individuals can continue to hold different moral opinions about the issue.

Therefore:

law can settle the legal position without settling the moral debate.

This is one of the clearest ways of explaining the distinction between legal and moral rules.

Legal rules require a legal answer.

Moral questions may continue to produce multiple competing answers.

Moral change does not automatically change the law

The opposite is also true.

Even where moral opinion changes, the legal rule does not automatically change with it.

Legal change must occur through recognised legal mechanisms.

You can connect this with:

• parliamentary law making [Legislative stages];

• judicial precedent [The doctrine of precedent];

• law reform [Influences on Parliament].

This demonstrates how pluralism connects the Nature of Law topic with law-making material studied elsewhere in OCR H418.

Pluralism and Parliament

Pluralism can create difficulties for Parliament when a proposed law concerns a controversial moral question.

OCR mark schemes recognise the argument that politicians may be reluctant to pass controversial laws which divide society and potentially affect the way people vote.

This gives an important link between morality and parliamentary law making.

Why can controversial moral questions be difficult politically?

If society is divided:

• supporting one position may satisfy one group;

• the same decision may alienate another group;

• avoiding the issue may delay legal change;

• legal reform can therefore become politically difficult.

Pluralism may consequently affect not just what law says, but how willing lawmakers are to intervene.

Private Members' Bills and controversial issues

OCR mark schemes also identify Private Members' Bills as relevant to discussion of controversial moral legislation.

You have previously studied types of Bill [Types of Bill].

For Nature of Law, the useful analytical connection is that politically sensitive moral issues can create challenges for the ordinary political law-making process.

However, do not let an answer turn into a detailed explanation of parliamentary procedure.

The central focus must remain:

How does moral disagreement in a pluralist society affect law making?

Pluralism and judges

Pluralism can also create difficulties where judges must decide cases involving moral controversy.

OCR mark schemes recognise:

• difficulties faced by judges in reaching a moral consensus;

• difficulties in keeping law up to date with society;

• arguments that judges may be criticised as being "out of touch";

• concern about judges making moral decisions where the judiciary comes from a comparatively narrow social background.

This creates a significant problem.

Which moral view should a judge use?

Suppose a case raises a question on which society is morally divided.

The judge cannot simply ask:

"What does society believe?"

In a pluralist society there may be several competing answers.

This creates tension between:

• applying existing legal rules;

• developing the common law;

• responding to changing attitudes;

• avoiding the imposition of a judge's personal morality.

This is why pluralism can make the relationship between law and morality particularly difficult within judge-made law.

OCR case examples of moral controversy

OCR's assessment materials identify cases including:

• R v Brown;

• Wilson;

• Re A;

as examples which can be used in discussions about controversial moral issues.

The 2023 examiner report specifically noted that successful students used familiar cases such as Brown, Wilson and Re A to develop arguments about moral tension within a multicultural society.

At this stage, you should use cases you already know from the substantive course to illustrate moral disagreement, rather than introducing new areas of law.

R v Brown and Wilson

Both cases can be drawn from your prior study of consent.

For this Nature of Law topic, the important point is not to reproduce the complete rules of consent.

Instead, these authorities can help demonstrate that:

• legal decisions may concern conduct about which moral views differ;

• courts must nevertheless reach a legal decision;

• the resulting law may itself be debated on moral grounds.

That is the synoptic connection OCR wants you to develop.

Re A

OCR also identifies Re A as an example of a morally challenging case.

Again, its purpose within a pluralism essay is to demonstrate the difficulty faced by courts when legal problems involve competing moral considerations.

The strongest answer does not merely state the case name.

Use the structure:

example → moral tension → difficulty for the law → link to pluralism

Pluralism and controversial areas of law

OCR mark schemes identify a range of areas in which law and morality may produce disagreement, including debates around:

• sexuality and consent;

• drug legalisation;

• assisted suicide.

These are useful because they demonstrate that different people may arrive at different moral conclusions even when considering the same factual issue.

However, you do not need to turn this lesson into detailed revision of every controversial legal issue.

The testable principle is:

pluralist societies contain different moral standards, making it difficult for law to reflect a single moral view.

Pluralism and human rights

Pluralism also helps explain why the legal protection of rights can matter.

OCR identifies pluralism as one of the underpinning principles of human rights law for students taking H418/03.

This connection is useful because human rights can involve balancing the interests and freedoms of individuals who hold different beliefs and values.

For students taking the human-rights option, this can later provide a useful synoptic link to principles of human rights law [Principles of human rights law].

You do not need detailed human-rights rules for this lesson.

Does pluralism weaken the connection between law and morality?

Pluralism can weaken the idea that law simply reflects a single shared morality.

If society contains competing moral standards:

• some laws may reflect majority values;

• some may protect individual freedom despite moral objections;

• some may involve compromises between competing views;

• some moral disagreements may remain unresolved.

Therefore, the relationship between law and morality becomes more complex.

A useful conclusion is:

Pluralism does not mean morality is irrelevant to law. It means there may be no single morality for law simply to enforce.

Does pluralism make law more important?

Pluralism can also produce the opposite argument.

Because people disagree morally, a formal legal system may become particularly important.

Law can provide a clear legal position even where moral consensus is impossible.

For example:

• individuals may disagree about whether conduct is morally acceptable;

• the legal system can nevertheless determine whether the conduct is lawful.

This reinforces the distinction from law and morals [Law and morals]:

law can provide legal certainty despite continuing moral disagreement.

Does law have to please everyone?

No.

OCR assessment materials expressly recognise that in a pluralist society it may be very difficult or impossible for the law to please everyone.

This is a powerful analytical point.

The purpose of law cannot realistically be understood simply as producing rules with which every individual morally agrees.

Instead, the legal system must operate despite disagreement.

This creates the deeper question developed in later lessons:

On what basis should law decide between competing moral positions?

Pluralism and individual autonomy

One possible response to moral diversity is to place greater emphasis on individual autonomy, allowing people freedom to make their own choices where possible.

OCR's mark schemes connect this idea with Hart's approach in the later Devlin-Hart debate, while Devlin is associated with protecting a common morality.

You will examine those arguments fully later.

For now, recognise why pluralism creates the debate:

• If there is one shared morality, enforcing it may appear easier to justify.

• If morality is diverse, enforcing one view may restrict those who reasonably hold another.

That tension sits at the heart of the relationship between law and morality.

Pluralism and the idea of common morality

Pluralism also raises a challenge for the idea of common morality.

If society contains widely differing standards, it becomes difficult to identify a single moral code that represents everyone.

This does not prove that no shared values exist.

However, it makes claims about "society's morality" more difficult to support.

This issue becomes central in the Devlin-Hart debate [The Devlin-Hart debate].

Advantages of recognising pluralism

Recognising pluralism can improve legal analysis because it avoids pretending that controversial moral questions have one universally accepted answer.

It encourages lawmakers and courts to recognise:

• competing viewpoints;

• different interests;

• moral change;

• the possibility of disagreement even after law is settled.

This can produce more sophisticated legal debate.

Problems created by pluralism

Pluralism can also create serious challenges.

Difficulty identifying public morality

There may be no obvious single moral view for law to follow.

Difficulty producing consensus

Different groups may support conflicting outcomes.

Difficulty keeping law current

Changing values may develop more quickly than formal law.

Political difficulty

Controversial moral issues may divide voters and lawmakers.

Judicial difficulty

Judges must decide cases even where wider society remains morally divided.

Continuing disagreement after legal reform

Legal change settles the legal position but may leave the moral controversy intact.

These points are particularly useful for AO3.

Law as a compromise between competing moral views

In some situations, law may effectively operate as a compromise between different positions.

This does not mean everyone agrees with the outcome.

Rather, the legal system establishes one legal position despite moral disagreement.

The effectiveness of that approach can then be evaluated.

Ask:

• Does the law protect different viewpoints?

• Does it impose one moral standard?

• Has it responded to changes in society?

• Is the resulting legal rule still controversial?

These questions turn description of pluralism into analysis.

How pluralism affects the relationship between law and morality

The effects can be summarised as follows:

Effect of pluralism	Impact on law and morality
Different moral standards exist	Law cannot assume one universally accepted morality
Moral views change over time	Law may need to adapt
Moral change can occur quickly	Legal rules may lag behind changing attitudes
Controversial issues divide society	Lawmakers may face political difficulty
Judges decide morally difficult cases	Courts may face criticism whichever approach they take
Law eventually changes	Moral disagreement may still continue
Consensus is difficult	The legal system must often operate without universal moral agreement

Applying pluralism in an examination

When an essay refers to diversity, multiculturalism or moral consensus, use a structured method.

Step 1: Define pluralism

Explain that society contains different moral standards and values.

Step 2: Identify the problem

Explain that this makes it difficult to identify one common morality.

Step 3: Link to law

Show why lawmakers or judges must nevertheless establish a legal position.

Step 4: Use a relevant OCR example

Examples supported by OCR assessment material include changing gay rights, marital rape, Brown, Wilson and Re A.

Step 5: Analyse

Explain what the example demonstrates about moral diversity or moral change.

Step 6: Counter

Consider whether law can still provide certainty or adapt despite moral disagreement.

This final stage is what transforms knowledge into evaluation.

A model analytical chain

A strong point might work like this:

Pluralism means different groups hold different moral standards. Therefore, it may be difficult for Parliament to identify a moral position that reflects the whole of society. Controversial legislation may satisfy some groups while being strongly opposed by others. This can make reform politically difficult and may cause law to lag behind changing social attitudes. However, the absence of universal moral agreement does not prevent Parliament from establishing a clear legal rule. Therefore, pluralism complicates the relationship between law and morality but does not prevent legal regulation.

That is the level of reasoning you should aim for in a 20-mark response.

Key Words 🔑

Key word	Student-friendly definition	How it may be used in an exam
Pluralism	The existence of a range of different moral standards and values within the same society.	Use to explain why law cannot always rely upon one universally accepted moral view.
Moral diversity	The presence of different views about what is right and wrong.	Use when explaining disagreement over controversial legal issues.
Moral consensus	Substantial agreement about a moral value or issue.	Analyse why consensus can be difficult to achieve in a pluralist society.
Moral values	Standards used to judge behaviour as right or wrong.	Use when explaining how different sections of society may approach the same issue differently.
Autonomy	The idea of individuals having freedom to make choices for themselves.	Use when developing the later debate about how law should respond to competing moral views.

Hints from the Examiner Reports 💡

Examiner hint: Keep multiculturalism and moral diversity at the centre of the answer. OCR's 2023 examiner report found that the most successful responses maintained a clear focus on the multicultural context throughout, rather than reproducing a general prepared essay on law and morality.

Examiner hint: Explain the challenge created by pluralism before moving to examples. Stronger 2023 responses began by explaining what a multicultural society meant and why diverse views created difficulties for the law.

Examiner hint: Use cases to develop the pluralism argument. OCR praised students who used Brown, Wilson and Re A to illustrate moral tensions rather than simply listing authorities.

Examiner hint: Adapt your knowledge to the precise wording. The 2023 report found that pre-rehearsed essays which were not adapted to the focus on multiculturalism scored less highly than responsive, balanced answers.

Examiner hint: Strong answers combine theory with legal examples. OCR found that the most successful responses used both relevant legal theorists and appropriate cases to construct their arguments. You will develop the relevant theories in the next lessons, so do not merely name them without explaining them.

Examiner hint: Remember the time-lag argument. OCR's mark schemes expressly recognise that moral views may change faster than the law, creating difficulties for the legal system in keeping up with society.

Common Mistakes ⚠️

Mistake: Saying pluralism means that nobody agrees about anything

Why this is incorrect: Pluralism means that society contains a range of moral standards and values. It does not require complete disagreement on every issue.

How to improve: Explain that pluralism makes universal moral consensus more difficult, particularly on controversial questions.

Mistake: Referring to "society's morals" as though there is always one shared view

Why this is incorrect: This ignores the precise issue OCR requires you to understand, the diversity of moral views within a pluralist society.

How to improve: Ask whether different sections of society may reasonably hold different moral positions.

Mistake: Assuming the majority moral view automatically becomes law

Why this is incorrect: Moral opinion and legal status are different. Legal change must occur through recognised legal processes.

How to improve: Distinguish moral influence from legal change.

Mistake: Assuming legal change ends the moral debate

Why this is incorrect: A legal rule settles the legal position, but people may continue to disagree about whether that rule is morally justified.

How to improve: Remember: legal certainty can exist alongside moral disagreement.

Mistake: Listing controversial issues without explaining pluralism

Why this is incorrect: Naming assisted suicide, consent or another controversial issue does not itself demonstrate understanding.

How to improve: After every example, explain how it demonstrates different moral standards, changing morality or difficulty reaching consensus.

Mistake: Turning the answer into a general law and morality essay

Why this is incorrect: OCR's 2023 examiner report specifically found that pre-prepared answers lost effectiveness where they did not maintain the required multicultural and pluralist focus.

How to improve: Use words such as pluralism, moral diversity, consensus and changing moral views throughout your analysis.

Mistake: Jumping ahead to Hart and Devlin without explaining pluralism first

Why this is incorrect: The theories are useful only when they answer the question. Simply naming theorists does not explain why moral diversity creates difficulty for law.

How to improve: Establish the pluralism problem first. Then, where appropriate, use legal theory to analyse possible responses.

Exam-Style Questions ✍️

Question 1

Define pluralism in the context of law and morality. (2 marks)

Question 2

Explain what is meant by moral consensus. (2 marks)

Question 3

Explain why a pluralist society may find it difficult to reach a moral consensus. (4 marks)

Question 4

Explain how changing moral views can create difficulties for the legal system. (4 marks)

Question 5

A proposed legal reform concerns behaviour on which there are strongly divided moral views. One group argues that the conduct should be prohibited, while another argues that individuals should be free to make their own choices.

Explain how this situation illustrates pluralism. (6 marks)

Question 6

Explain two ways in which pluralism may affect Parliament or the courts when developing law. (6 marks)

Question 7

A student states:

"If Parliament changes the law, there is no longer any moral disagreement because everyone must follow the new rule."

Analyse this statement. (8 marks)

Question 8

'In a pluralist society, it is impossible for law to reflect everyone's moral values.'

Discuss the extent to which you agree with this statement. (20 marks)

Use examples from your full course of study where appropriate.

Answers and Indicative Mark Scheme

Question 1

Award up to 2 marks for:

• identifying that pluralism involves different or diverse moral standards and values, 1 mark

• recognising that those different standards exist within the same society, 1 mark

Question 2

Award up to 2 marks for:

• identifying consensus as agreement, 1 mark

• explaining that moral consensus involves substantial agreement about a moral issue or value, 1 mark

Question 3

Award up to 4 marks for explaining that:

• pluralist societies contain different moral standards;

• different sections of society may therefore judge the same behaviour differently;

• controversial issues can produce competing moral positions;

• this makes a single moral view representing the whole of society difficult to identify.

Question 4

Award up to 4 marks for explaining that:

• moral attitudes can develop over time;

• law does not automatically change when moral opinion changes;

• legal change must occur through recognised legal processes;

• law may therefore lag behind changing moral views.

Question 5

Award up to 6 marks for:

• identifying the existence of competing moral views, 1 mark

• recognising that both groups are part of the same society, 1 mark

• explaining that one supports legal prohibition, 1 mark

• while the other values individual freedom, 1 mark

• linking this disagreement to difficulty identifying a common morality, 1 mark

• concluding that the scenario therefore illustrates moral diversity within a pluralist society, 1 mark

Question 6

Award up to 6 marks for two developed effects.

Indicative content could include:

Parliament

• controversial moral questions can divide society;

• politicians may face difficulty choosing between competing moral positions;

• legal reform may therefore be politically difficult or delayed.

Courts

• judges may decide cases involving issues on which no moral consensus exists;

• judges must still reach legal decisions;

• the judiciary may be criticised as out of touch or as imposing particular moral views.

Changing morality

• moral opinion may develop faster than law;

• both Parliament and courts may therefore face pressure to update legal rules.

Full marks require two effects to be explained, not merely identified.

Question 7

Award up to 8 marks for analysis including:

• Parliament can establish or change the legal rule;

• the rule will determine the legal position;

• legal status and moral judgement are nevertheless different;

• individuals can continue to regard the legal rule as morally right or wrong;

• different groups may therefore continue to hold competing moral views;

• law can create legal certainty without creating moral consensus;

• pluralism means moral disagreement can continue after legal reform;

• reaching a supported conclusion that the statement wrongly treats legal obedience and moral agreement as the same thing.

Question 8

20 marks: AO1 8 marks, AO3 12 marks

Indicative content may include:

Knowledge and understanding:

• meaning of pluralism;

• diversity of moral standards and values;

• meaning and difficulty of moral consensus;

• distinction between law and morality;

• overlap and divergence between legal and moral rules;

• changing morality;

• the possibility that moral views develop more rapidly than law;

• examples supported by OCR materials such as changes concerning gay rights or marital rape;

• relevant examples from substantive areas, including Brown, Wilson or Re A where appropriately explained;

• parliamentary and judicial responses to controversial moral questions.

Analysis and evaluation:

Arguments supporting the statement could include:

• pluralism means society contains competing moral standards;

• a law reflecting one moral position may conflict with another;

• controversial issues can therefore make universal satisfaction impossible;

• Parliament may find morally divisive reforms politically difficult;

• judges may have difficulty identifying what "society's morality" actually requires;

• moral views can continue to differ even after the legal position is settled;

• changing morality may create a gap between social attitudes and existing law.

Arguments qualifying the statement could include:

• pluralism does not mean disagreement on every moral issue;

• some moral values may still command broad agreement;

• the legal system does not necessarily need universal moral approval before creating rules;

• law can provide legal certainty even where moral disagreement remains;

• Parliament and courts are capable of adapting law as society changes;

• pluralism may make law's task more difficult without making effective legal regulation impossible.

A strong conclusion should distinguish between reflecting everyone's moral values and creating workable law for a morally diverse society.

The strongest judgement may be that pluralism makes it unrealistic for law to reflect every moral view simultaneously, particularly on controversial questions. However, this does not make law ineffective. Instead, pluralism explains why the relationship between law and morality involves compromise, changing legal rules, protection of competing interests and continuing moral disagreement.

OCR's 2023 examination and examiner report make this distinction especially important: the strongest answers remained focused on how multiculturalism and diverse moral values create challenges for the legal system, rather than simply reproducing general material about morality.