The Security Vs. Freedom

955 Words4 Pages
7. Security VS Freedom Devlin constructs the argument that there should be no limitation to the preservation of morality, just as there are none in the prevention of treason, since both are imperative to a society. This assumes that the state should have unlimited power when it comes to preventing acts against the society. The debate between security and freedom however, shows that this is not an undisputed fact. Without picking a side, it is still evident that just because something is perceived as being mandatory for a society’s continuation, it does not ostensibly indicate that it should be automatically accepted. In fact, it could be the case that certain societies should be left to disintegrate in the first place. 8. Cultural Relativism and Maintaining a Society Devlin’s legal moralism seems to suggest that as long as a society shares a common view in morality, it is right in defending it. A problem arises however, when one considers the fact that different societies can hold drastically opposing views. Certain societies may even possess morality so abhorrent that it should not be upheld (e.g. cannibalistic tribes). Devlin 's account of legal moralism “implies that a corrupt and immoral society has as much right to perpetuate itself as a decent society, provided it is able to integrate the society” (Stanton-Ife, “The Limits of Law”). This is view should be intuitively rejected. Furthermore, the idea that the morality (and its validity) of each society is derived from

More about The Security Vs. Freedom

Open Document