Autonomy, neutrality, and moral indifference of law in the context of socialised law

Abstract

According to the concept of moral neutrality/autonomy of law, law-making motivated by the belief that some ways of life are better than others is not allowable. This concept also establishes a need for such justification of the proposed law that it could not be considered as an indication of preferences of one morality over another. The article is an attempt to look at the moral neutrality/autonomy of law from a socio-legal perspective, emphasising the ideal of socialised law, that is the law that is actually and voluntarily (without the need for ‘external’ coercive enforcement) observed by its addressees. The concept of moral indifference of law (a situation in which law regulates the behaviour that is not simultaneously regulated by morality) is helpful in this argumentation. The article shows that the moral neutrality/autonomy of law is highly problematic; for example it is not focused on the question to whose and which morality should the legislator be neutral, or whether it is even possible for the legislator to have this characteristic of objectivity. An emphasis is placed on the problem that neutral motives do not always result in neutral law. This justifies the opinion that moral neutrality/autonomy of law seems to merely create the impression of a solution to a problem, while it actually generates more problems. Attempts to put this concept into practice can in fact lead to manipulation in the legislative process and formation of questionable, unofficial norms of law-making and justification of law. Assuming that any law can be seen by its addressees as oppressive, the best way to counteract such negative opinions of the law (and their possible negative consequences) is the pursuit for a socialised law. However, the realisation of this idea also faces a number of difficulties.