Hart-Devlin Debate
Share
The Hart-Devlin debate is a famous philosophical discussion in the field of jurisprudence (the study of law) that took place in the 1950s and 1960s between two prominent legal scholars, H.L.A. Hart and Patrick Devlin. The debate centred around the relationship between law and morality, and the role of the state in regulating private behaviour.
Hart and Devlin held different views on the extent to which the state should regulate private behaviour. Hart was a legal positivist, which means he believed that the law is a set of rules created by human beings, and that the law can be separated from morality. According to Hart, the state should only regulate behaviour that is harmful to others or that interferes with the basic rights of individuals.
In contrast, Devlin argued that the state has a legitimate interest in regulating private behaviour that threatens the moral fabric of society. He believed that the state has a duty to promote a common morality, and that this requires it to regulate behaviour that is seen as morally offensive to the majority of people.
The debate between Hart and Devlin focused on two central questions. The first was whether the state has a legitimate interest in regulating private behaviour. Hart argued that the state should only regulate behaviour that is harmful to others or that interferes with the basic rights of individuals. Devlin, on the other hand, believed that the state has a duty to promote a common morality, and that this requires it to regulate behaviour that is seen as morally offensive to the majority of people.
The second question was the relationship between law and morality. Hart argued that the law can be separated from morality, and that the state should only regulate behaviour that is harmful to others. Devlin, however, believed that the law and morality are intertwined, and that the state has a legitimate interest in regulating behaviour that is seen as morally offensive to the majority of people.
The Hart-Devlin debate remains an important and influential discussion in the field of jurisprudence. While there is no clear consensus on these issues, the debate has helped to shape our understanding of the relationship between law and morality, and the role of the state in regulating private behaviour.
Hart and Devlin held different views on the extent to which the state should regulate private behaviour. Hart was a legal positivist, which means he believed that the law is a set of rules created by human beings, and that the law can be separated from morality. According to Hart, the state should only regulate behaviour that is harmful to others or that interferes with the basic rights of individuals.
In contrast, Devlin argued that the state has a legitimate interest in regulating private behaviour that threatens the moral fabric of society. He believed that the state has a duty to promote a common morality, and that this requires it to regulate behaviour that is seen as morally offensive to the majority of people.
The debate between Hart and Devlin focused on two central questions. The first was whether the state has a legitimate interest in regulating private behaviour. Hart argued that the state should only regulate behaviour that is harmful to others or that interferes with the basic rights of individuals. Devlin, on the other hand, believed that the state has a duty to promote a common morality, and that this requires it to regulate behaviour that is seen as morally offensive to the majority of people.
The second question was the relationship between law and morality. Hart argued that the law can be separated from morality, and that the state should only regulate behaviour that is harmful to others. Devlin, however, believed that the law and morality are intertwined, and that the state has a legitimate interest in regulating behaviour that is seen as morally offensive to the majority of people.
The Hart-Devlin debate remains an important and influential discussion in the field of jurisprudence. While there is no clear consensus on these issues, the debate has helped to shape our understanding of the relationship between law and morality, and the role of the state in regulating private behaviour.
