Consider, for example, the laws that simply defend basic values, for example, the prevention of murder or rape, where law and morality work in tandem in all but the extreme cases.
In other cases, where it is not as clear, such as speeding offences or petty theft, there is likely to be a degree of moral judgment in the way that the judiciary interprets and punishes the appropriate crime.
If the two are to be deemed intertwined, it is not possible for theorists to consider one without the other as the issues and arguments are so strongly interrelated.
However, the position is not as straightforward as the early day philosophers may have believed.
The main argument advanced is for the fact that not all laws have the same ultimate effect.
For example, whilst one set of laws may place limits on an individual’s actions and what individuals within society (or a section of society) can undertake, other laws may offer rights without corresponding obligations.
At the centre of this book is the legal positivism approach which states that there is no automatic link between law and morality (or indeed between law and coercion).
He does, however, raise the question as to whether all legal rules could potentially be seen as either moral commands or coercive orders, but that to form this universal link in relation to all laws would be misleading, as it would suggest a degree of uniformity across all laws which may, in reality, perform very different functions.
You can view samples of our professional work here.
Any opinions, findings, conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of Law Teacher. Their area of jurisprudence requires an in-depth and intimate study of both the theory and the philosophy of law which, in turn, requires an acute understanding of the way in which the legal system works and the reasoning that is displayed by all entities within the system.