LAW, COERCION AND MORALITY: INTRODUCTORY ESSAY TO THE SUBJECT MATTER

                

                   Law, coercion and morality are inter-related and connected concepts or principles that are operational in every modern day Legal Society. These concepts, even if related and connected still have their peculiar meanings, functional understandings and mode of operation in any society. These concepts are all to an extent vague on first sight, and cannot be understood extensively without in-depth analysis of the concepts. These concepts or principles all have dictionary meanings, but in a legal setting, the dictionary meanings would not suffice.

In simple and lay man terms, Laws are rules made by a body vested with power, to regulate the activities and dealings of people in a society. This definition has many loop holes, and its mentions are all very questionable and debateable. Coercion on the other hand can be defined as the use of force to make or compel people to obey a Law, dictate or command. Morality on the other hand can be defined as the way of doing things according to moral dictates or moral standards. Simply put, it is the way of doing things in a moral way. This definition too has loop holes, and therefore cannot suffice. For example, what is the standard of morality? On what basis is morality enforced and other questions of that sort cannot be answered by this definition. To that effect, it is only right to say that these concepts (especially Law and Morality), do not have a pin point definition, but can be defined or described based on the particular context in which it is operating or viewed. To better understand these concepts, they have to be individually analysed.

Law

                    In a vast sense, the term Law may be defined as rule or action that regulates people or activities. For the purpose of this venture, Law in the concrete or narrow sense would be considered. Many scholars over the years have put in considerable effort into trying to give a generally accepted legal definition of Law, but this principle is too complex and vast for it to have a particular or singular meaning. No wonder Niki Tobi acclaimed that “Law is a large town, which is impossible of a meaningful definition as to scope and context.

Here are some definitions of Law by some scholars and philosophers;

• John Austin: he defined Law as “a rule laid down for the guidance of an intelligent being by an intelligent being having power over him”, and “a body of rules fixed and enforced by a sovereign political authority”
• Professor H.L.A. Hart: “a system of rules, a union of primary and secondary rules.
• Maxist theory of Law generally sees or describes Law as a tool of oppression used by capitalists to control the preliterate.
• Natural law: (Plato and Aristotle) defined it thus “as embodiment of reason, whether in the individual or the community.
  
  

We can see from the above, that different scholars and philosophers come up with different definitions and meanings as to what Law is, but a peculiar and uniform principle we can deduce from all the definitions, is that Law is a rule. It is only when these rules involve the idea of obligation that they become Law. If rules merely represent the notions of good and bad behaviour, they are Moral principles. Even though this is the situation, Law is most effective when it conforms to the moral feelings of the members of the community.

Law does not have a general meaning and opinion in every society or community. Every society has what it considers as Law or not. In some societies, moral principles have the full force of Law, and are thus the Laws of that society. In others, the Laws may appear to be moral, or draw their influence from morals, but they are in sense not morals, they are on their own Laws.        

Generally speaking, the concept Law would mean different things to different people. In one view, it is seen as being derived from the will of an omnipotent authority, while in the other instance it suggests that it arises by divine or natural growth, and therefore superior to the dictate of any human sovereign (man-made Laws). Other schoolists consider Law(s) to what can be deduced from mere reasoning, and everyone is guided and ruled by his own conscience, and whenever there is a dispute between individuals, they suggest that individuals should be judged on the objective view of what a normal person in their situation would do, and judge the case; contrary to the view that peoples conduct should be tested against the written down Law(s), and whatever the Law says should be followed.

According to T.O. Elias, “the Law of a given community is the body of rules which are recognised as obligatory by its members”. This definition of T.O. Elias opins that Law is not necessarily what is given by a supreme ruler or Law making body, but in real sense Law is what the people in a community obligatorily see and consider as Law. Law does not operate in a vacuum, it operates in a society, and so good Laws must reflect the general belief and notion of the people it is ruling. Niki Tobi, a Nigerian Jurist also acclaimed the fact that there is no pinpoint definition as to what Law is, as any definition given would reflect the prejudices, believes and emotional state of the definer, at the time of giving the definition. Despite saying thus, he still went on to give a definition of Law as “a body of rules accepted by a people as binding, in terms of sanction, but which may not always or invariably have the element of force or sanction upon breach. This definition also to an extent supports what T.O. Elias said; that Laws are only actually what the people consider as Laws, and therefore binding on them.

Law in its natural sense is meant to regulate the activities of people, as well as give guidelines for living, but this definitely cannot be achieved to the latter, little wonder there are sanctions put in place, to punish Law breakers. The community who want to be governed by certain binding principles, know for a fact that not everyone would always obey the Law (deliberately or not), that is why they also gave the Legislature or law makers the powers to also create sanctions in the event of the breach of any Law. These sanctions are created to deter people from breaking the Law, and to ensure obedience. Even before the emergence of the Roman Empire, coercion was a tool used in many communities to enforce obedience of Laws, and to superior authorities, even though it is argued by many scholars that force (coercion) should not be a tool in enforcing Laws. They are of the belief that if it is the people that give the Law makers the power to make Laws to govern them freely, then when the Laws are made why would they now be forced to obey them; since they gave the Legislature the powers freely, any Law made by them should also be obeyed freely by the citizens. They believe strongly that force should not be a tool in enforcing and ensuring obedience of Laws.

In general, it is safe to say that;

• There is no pinpoint as to the definition of Law, all definitions may go well to fulfil the purpose it was given for a particular situation or happening, but it definitely cannot be used as the singular and ultimate definition of Law.
• Different individuals, communities and societies have different influences and reasoning’s as to what Law is. Some consider it as what God says (Divine Law), some consider Law(s) to be what exists in nature, even though not written down can be found through reasoning. Others are of the opinion that Laws are what the Legislature or sovereign give and call Laws.  While other schools believe in obligatory rulership; meaning that Laws are what the ruled consider as binding on them. 
• Laws are rules. Despite the standpoint of every scholar or school, the meeting point of all their views is that Laws are rules. Whether they are emerging from God, are found in nature or are given by a superior body, they are all still rules for guiding human behaviour, and regulating human conduct.
• Coercion is used as a tool to enforce Law. Despite the arguments against the use of coercion to enforce obedience, coercion still remains for the main time, an irremovable part of any modern day Legal system. Since all the members of the society would not voluntarily obey all Laws, they are in some instances forced to obey them.
• Morality and the Law agree and disagree. Before, it was thought that all Laws are moral, and therefore morality is operating with the Law. Now, with the social and political changing dynamic of the world, it can be seen that Laws are now made to (to an extent) suit the general taste of the people, even though the Law being made is not moral.

References

1. H.L.A. Hart’s “The Concept of Law”
2. Sixth Form Law; Article on “Explaining the terms Law and Morality or Justice
3. A Legal Dictionary, Adapted to the constitution and Laws of the United States by John Bouvier
4. www.cormacburke.co.ke “Law, Morality and Justice”
5. People.wku.edu article on “Basic observations on Law and Morality”
6. Introduction to Nigerian Legal System by J.O. Asein (2005)

 Author: Dada Damilola Gideon

Edited by Okediya P.O

For more information and appointment, contact: 08118865060; 09079118467
For adverts and promotions, contact:08118865060; 09079118467
We also specialize in writing articles, reports, essays, research works and autobiographies for various organizations.
Tweet @lincolnlaw_web