________________________________________________________

NATIONAL LAW INSTITUTE UNIVERSITY

KERWA DAM ROAD
BHOPAL
________________________________________________________

_________________________________________
TRIMESTER: IV TRIMESTER
SESSION: 2018 – 2019
SUBJECT:
POLITICAL SCIENCE - II
________________________________________________________

A PROJECT PAPER ON:

“RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN LAW AND

MORALITY”
________________________________________________________

SUBMITTED TO: SUBMITTED BY:

DR. RAKA ARYA AAYUSH CHOUDHARY
ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR ROLL NO. - 2017BALLB106
 ACKNOWLEDGMENT

First of all, I would like to thank the National Law Institute University for the infrastructure
provided, such as well-equipped Gyan Mandir library, to the students for assistance in their
research for the project work. I would like to thank the supporting officials of the Gyan
Mandir Library for their support in the search for the appropriate books, magazines and
journals.

I am also very grateful to my Political Science Professor, Dr. Raka Arya for
providing me with this opportunity to research on this topic and complete my project. I would
also like to thank her for her extremely valuable suggestions, which supported me in
completing this project.
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

ACKNOWLEDGMENT............................................................................................................ 2

OBJECTIVES ............................................................................................................................ 4

INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................................... 5

 LEGAL POSITIVISM: -................................................................................................. 5

 NATURAL LAW SCHOOL: - ....................................................................................... 6

CONCEPT OF LAW ................................................................................................................. 7

CONCEPT OF MORALITY ..................................................................................................... 8

Relation & Distinction Between Law & Morality ..................................................................... 9

 Difference between Law and Morality ......................................................................... 10

 Relationship Between Law And Morality .................................................................... 11

 HOW LAW IS INFLUENCED BY MORALITY- ...................................................... 12

 IS LAW RESPONSIBLE FOR ENFORCEMENT OF MORALITY? ........................ 13

 Should a law be made to enforcemoral standards? ....................................................... 13

REVIEW OF LITERATURE .................................................................................................. 15

CONCLUSION ........................................................................................................................ 17

BIBLIOGRAPHY .................................................................................................................... 19
 OBJECTIVES

1. To exactly understand that what is Law and what are the Functions and Purpose of Law?

2. To study the concept of Morality and the relation of Morality with our Behaviour and our
Conscience.

3. To understand the relation and distinction between Law and Morality.

4. To understand the H.L.A Hart’s Concept of Law and Critiques of Hart.

 INTRODUCTION

Law and morality are too vague to understand. It must be added here that the notions of law
and justice can't be captured and presented before us within a few sentences. These notions
are too vast that even words are not sufficient to define them. Many jurists from the ancient
Greek period to the modern and even the post-modern era have attempted numerously to
define these concepts, but have failed. One of the reasons may be that the roots of these
concepts lie somewhere within the human psyche, which is extremely random and versatile.
Well it is required to describe the tenets of the two main schools of law.1

 LEGAL POSITIVISM: -

The start of the nineteenth century may be regarded as the beginning of the positivist
movement. The term positivism has many meanings, which are tabulated by Professor H.L.A.
Hart as follows:
1. Laws are commands. This meaning is associated with the two founders of British
Positivism, Bentham and his disciple John Austin,
2. The analysis of legal concepts is:
 worth pursuing
 distinct from sociological and historical inquiries,
 distinct from critical evaluation,
3. Decisions can be deduced logically from the predetermined rules without recourse to
social aims, policy and morality,
4. Moral judgments cannot be established or defended by rational argument, evidence or
proof,
5. The law as it is actually laid down, positivism, has to be kept separate from the law
that ought to be.
The positive law school has its main pillars as, Jermy Bentham, John Austin, Prof. H.L.A.
Hart, Kelson. Actually positivism has grown out of the ashes of renascence in Europe. It is
hence a liberal thought or a liberal ideology whose main aim is to bring positive reforms in
the society through the instrument of state and not through the clergy. What positivism

1 Positivism and separation of law and morals (1957-58) 71 Harvard Law Review.
represents is the intellectual reaction against naturalism and a love of order and precision.
After having a brief idea of legal positivism, we should move to the Natural Law school.

 NATURAL LAW SCHOOL: -

The term "natural law". like positivism, has been variously applied by different people at
different times.

1. Ideas which guide legal development and administration.

2. A basic moral quality in law which prevents a total separation of the "is" from the
"ought".
3. The method of discovering perfect law.
4. The content of perfect law deducible by reason.
5. The conditions sine quibus non for the existence of law.

Natural law school dominated till the nineteenth century, beginning from the ancient Greek
period. Natural law school discussed what law is etc., but never discussed law as an empirical
formula, and never made strict separation between what law is and what law ought to be.
Natural law thinkers while talking of law talk about law made by man's mind consciously, as
opposed to law made as a result of morality lacking conscious element. Natural law thinking
is one form or other is pervasive and is encountered in various contexts. Values, for instance,
as pointed out, play an indispensable part in the development and day to day administration
of law. In a different sphere natural law theory has tried to meet the paramount needs of
successive ages through history, and an account has been given of the ways in which it
supported power or freedom from power according to the social need of the time. Further
natural law school offers an indirect help with two contemporary problems, namely, the
abuse of power and the abuse of liberty.

Positivism on the other hand, by seeking to insulate legal theory from such considerations
refuses to give battle where battle is needed perhaps wisely, perhaps to its own discredit,
depending on the point of view. The Natural law thinkers have always considered the
principles of morality as higher law and they look at man-made law contempt and ridicule.
Law and morality have always been at loggerheads with each other. The positivists led by
Bentham and Austin deliberately keep justice and morality out of the purview of legal
system. Their formalistic attitude is concerned with law as it is and not law as it ought to be.
They emphasize law from the point of source and implementation. So, the natural law system
depends upon the standards and yardsticks of morality to formulate any law, whereas the
positivist system of law depends upon the conscious and deliberate attempt of law making.

CONCEPT OF LAW

Law, in its widest sense, means and involves a uniformity of behavior, a constancy of
happenings or a cause of events, rules of action, whether in the phenomena of nature or
in the ways rational human beings. In its general sense law means an order of the
universe, of events, of things or actions. In its judicial sense law means an order of the
universe, of events, of things or actions. In its judicial sense, law means a body of rules
of conduct, action or behavior of person, made and enforced by the State. It expresses a
rule of human action.
The different meanings of the word ‘law’ may be classified as follows:
1. Law means justice, morality, reason, order, righteousness etc., from the point of
view of society;
2. Law means Statutes, Acts, rules, regulations, orders, ordinances, etc. from the point
of view of society;
3. Law means titles, written laws, judicial precedents and customs as
evidence of law. Generally, the term law is used to mean three things:
First, it is used to mean ‘legal order’. It represents the regime of adjusting relations, and
ordering conduct by the systematic application of the force of organized political
society.2
The term "law" itself is complex and subject to many distinctions, but complexities
necessitate distinctions and distinctions are the strings of understanding winding through the
labyrinth of human affairs. All of the characteristics of law, in its generic sense, are contained
in the classic definition: "Law is an ordination of reason for the common good by him who
has care of the community and promulgated.' 3 Because the types of law differ in their
casuality, it can be seen that the term "law" is predicated analogously and not univocally of
the types of law :3 eternal, natural, divine and positive; i.e., the term law is used in a variety
of meanings having an essential similarity of meanings and not as having one meaning only,

2
DR. AHMAD MASUM, DEFINITION OF LAW JURISPRUDENCE
3
M. T. ADLER, A Question About Law in ESSAY IN THOMISM.
because the sources and applications differ. The natural law,16 in the order of the common
good, prescribes the end of justice and the jus gentuim'7 which (approximates international
law) prescribes the means of justice-but both constitute the end and means in a universal ense
and hence there exists a need for a norm or law on the particular and practical order of
concrete acts: the positive law. Thus positive law declares and supplements 8 natural law by
more definite determinations and its chief function is to implement natural law in different
civilizations and cultures. However, positive law is subject to error because it treats the
contingent rather than the necessary; and therefore, since the matter of positive law is mostly
determination and hence -opinion, positive law may, per accidens, be contrary to the common
good, yet, per se, it is directed to the common good.

CONCEPT OF MORALITY

Morality may be equated with order and has as its object human actions that are ordered to
one another and to some end. The idea of value (good or end) is the crux of any moral system
since the concept of value is a primary concept in the order of our practical concepts, i.e.,

ultimate in its genus.4 The value of anything rests primarily in its perfection and in its act, i.e.,
in the full development of its peculiar nature and the attainment of its own peculiar
perfection. Hence the concept of value is the beginning of morality, a thing takes on the
appearance of an end because it is good and the end is the form which a thing assumes

when it enters into relation with an appetite. Therefore, the reason why an object becomes the
object of an appetite lies in its goodness and value,5 and every appetite is directed towards the
perfection of the subject. Hence the moral act is a combination of the subject that makes

the act (rational and free act) and the object that is intended (objective goods and values that
result from this activity); objectively the moral act is made up of three elements-the object,
the end and the circumstance.6 The moral act derives its quality from its agreement with
some norm and since man has the seal of Divine Intelligence inscribed on "his heart" in the
form of general principles of action by which the ends of his strivings are measured, then the
proximate norm will be human reason and the ultimate norm will be the eternal law.

4
I Ethica Nicornachea, 1, 1094a.
5
Summa Theol., I-II, q. 8, a. 1.
6
De Malo, II, 4, ad 11.
Therefore, rational human nature is the norm of morality, and morality is the transformation
of a known order of values. To put it quite succinctly, morality is nothing more than
conformity with the rule which regulates human life: namely, the rule of reason. Thus the
essence of morality is man's approach to his goal; man's particular goal is the perfection of
his spiritual and moral nature and his ultimate goal is union with God. 7

RELATION & DISTINCTION BETWEEN LAW & MORALITY

The actual conclusive situation is that religion, morality or law all have the work of
controlling the behavior of individuals of our society, hence we must not exclude the
importance of morality in our society. In the case of International Humanitarian Laws,
certain moral standards are also recognized as a part of law. So, the absolute separation
of law and morality is not possible in these areas where morality produces a positive
effect in society which is prospective in nature. There seems to be quite a strong
connection between law and morality. Although people sometimes say "you shouldn't
legislate morality", they presumably don't really mean this
- why would we outlaw rape and murder if they weren't wrong? Instead, they mean
that people shouldn't impose their personal moral views (especially regarding
sexuality) upon others.
It is unfortunate that the word "morality" has become associated with conservative
values, because the obvious invalidity of those values to many people tarnishes their
attitude towards morality as a whole. When conservative groups advocate bigotry
masquerading as "family values", we need to recognize the injustice of this, and
instead stand up for what is right.
So we accept that there is a connection between law and morality, but what sort of
connection is it. Their domains are clearly not entirely identical - for example, it may
be wrong to lie to your parents, but it certainly is no business of the law. Perhaps the
best way to explain this is to acknowledge that the law is an extremely blunt tool, and
so will be of no help when dealing with minor or subtle moral issues. So by this view,
law and morality are just two sides of the same coin. Morality seeks to influence our
behaviour by way of our desires, whereas law is the 'back- up' option, and targets our

7
Arthur Scheller Jr., Law and Morality, 36 Marq. L. Rev. 319 (1953) Pg. 321.
 beliefs8. This is true in the United States as well, and not only in how our legally
mandated school systems and our criminal laws contribute to the shaping, including
the moral training, of citizens. Yet the typical opinions in a contemporary liberal
democracy are likely to be:
(1) That morality cannot be legislated; and
(2) That even if morality could be legislated, it should not be...that to do so is
somehow improper, even tyrannical, either because there is no morality objective
enough to justify legal enforcement or because one's autonomy and individuality
would be violated by attempts to legislate morality or perhaps even because one really
has no autonomy that can respond to any external directive.

 DIFFERENCE BETWEEN LAW AND MORALITY

(1) There is a marked distinction between law and morality. The first point of difference is
that laws are enforced by the state whereas canons of morality are followed at the call of
institution. If one disobeys the commands of law or violates the laws, he is liable to be
punished by the state but if one fails to observe the scruples of morality, he is not liable to be
awarded physical punishment. The severest punishment that can be awarded to a person for
not observing the scruples of morality is his social boycott.

(2) Morality is concerned with both internal and external affairs of man whereas law is
concerned only with the external affairs of man. Hence, law punishes only those persons who
violate laws by their external actions. For example, law punishes a person only when he-
commits a theft or dacoit or murder or any other physical crime.

Law cannot punish a person for telling a lie or for abusing some-one. Telling lies,
condemning someone, showing disgrace to others, being ungrateful and many other internal
actions of man are sins but they are not crimes.

(3) There are many things which are not illegal according to law but are unacceptable to
morality. For example, telling lies, showing disgrace to others, feeling greedy, being
ungrateful and not helping the poor, are not against the spirit of law.

8
LAW AND MORALITY, http://www.cormacburke.or.ke/node/1108
Not only this, sometimes the adoption of immoral policies by the state for the cause of
common welfare is not illegal in the eyes of laws. Machiavelli maintained that even the
immoral practices are legal, if they are applied for the benefit of the state.

(4) Similarly, there are many things which are illegal in the eyes of the state but are
acceptable to morality. For example, it is not a sin not to keep to the left or to drive the
vehicle fast in the market. The fact is that the canons of morality are concerned with the
moral duties whereas the laws of the state are concerned with the legal duties.

(5) Another point of distinction between law and morality is that laws are certain and
universal and they are universally applicable to all citizens whereas the canons of morality
are quite uncertain.

Not only this, many time’s different races have different canons of morality in a society. For
example, a large number of people think it immoral to eat meat and drink wine. But at the
same time, there are people in India who think it quite moral to eat meat and drink wine.

(6) The government should, at first, arouse the moral sentiment of the people and then
enforce the laws. The laws which are not based on the sentiment of morality are less effective
and less permanent.

 RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN LAW AND MORALITY

The precise areas of relationship between law and morality can be stated in the following
manner:

1) Law is related to morality in the setting forth of those virtues that are related to the
common good. This does not mean that positive human law should prohibit all vices nor
command all virtues: rather it prohibits only the grosser failings of mankind which threaten
the very survival of society and commands those virtues which can be ordained by human
means to the common good.9

2) Law is related to morality by the moral obligation imposed, i.e., by the necessity of an act
in relation to a necessary end-since law as the command of practical reason necessarily
implies an obligation. Thus obligation flows from the essential notion of law as an effective
dictate of practical reason, i.e., a connection of some necessity between the act commanded

9
Summa Theol., I-II, q. 96, a. 3.
and the end for which that act is commanded. However, positive human laws' obligation is
not in that same manner as morality's obligation.10

3) Law is related to morality inasmuch as law is subject to and cannot contradict moral
principles, i.e., natural moral law.11

4) Law is related to morality inasmuch as both stem and are directed by the same source:
practical reason or prudence. A keener insight into this particular relationship can be
ascertained by determining the nature of politics; politics is a human work of art,12 i.e., a work
of experience and prudence-and as prudence, politics is intrinsically related to ethics.13

5) Law is related to morality inasmuch as justice is a moral concept which is meaningless

outside the area of morality. Essentially, justice consists in the creation of an equality.

 HOW LAW IS INFLUENCED BY MORALITY-

Law is influenced from both religion and morality and hence their takes place a sought of
interaction between the legal system and the moral and religious faculty of our society. In a
traditional society laws have never had a very dominating character, but religion and morality
had always had a very predominant role.

But in a modern society life changes very fast, hence morality and religion are under a great
pressure. Hence, law is the only
alternative to human development. In a multi religious, liberal and multi communitarian
society, law can only work in an impartial and efficient manner. The greatest examples are
the world's biggest democracies. Being more specific and illustrative, I would like to quote
the example of India, U.S.A., England, and France etc. which have successfully established a
deliberate and conscious mode of law making process through constitutionalism and this is
done out of an age old monarchical and religious morality. In Russia, before the 1917
Bolshevik Revolution, the morality among general masses was that the Czar is having divine
powers to rule over them. Laws were used to enforce such moral standards, but after long
period of exploitation mass revolution broke up in 1917 and finally the negative effects of
morality were overthrown and a constitutional setup was established. The same happened

10
Summa Theol., I-II, q. 96, a. 5
11
Summa Theol., I-II, q. 92, a. 1.
12
Summa Theol., I-II, q. 21, a. 1
13
Summa Theol., I, q. 79, a. 9.
during French revolution. In India, in the ancient Vedic period, the common morality was
that society was unequal and hence caste system and untouchability grew. This moral
standard was given the institutional shape of law. But, after independence in 1947 we have
stopped the legal enforcement of such illegitimate morals.

 IS LAW RESPONSIBLE FOR ENFORCEMENT OF MORALITY?

Pornography, prostitution, homosexuality etc. are areas of one’s own consciousness and
hence it is an area of conflict which is still continuing. For example, there is a moral notion in
our Indian society that love marriages or inter caste marriages are not feasible enough and
hence should not take place. Consider the claim that homosexuality is immoral. No matter
how objective morality may be, any such doctrine of constitutional law is recipe for tyranny.
Take the issue of living relationships, which carries a moral ban on it. I don't understand that
if two major individuals with their exercise of free consent decide to live together, where the
question of infringement of any rational standards arises. This shows that the moral standards
are never rational by effect.

 SHOULD A LAW BE MADE TO ENFORCEMORAL STANDARDS?

The legal positivists like, Bentham, Austin, Kelson have always said that law must never be
used as an instrument of enforcement of any moral standards. Therefore, as one cannot see
the mind and conscience, elements of morality become weak and not determinable. But law is
convenient, the present writer asserts again that it is only convenient; it has withstood the test
of time. At any particular time, for any situation, law becomes a technique to establish a
certain expected social behaviour. Morals may be for enlightenment and would facilitate
individual peruses. Therefore, it is thought and envisaged by the present writer, as
compulsions and aspirations influence life, a legal system should consist of principles of
convenience and feasibility whereas morality should be left to individual freedom and
practice. Legal enforcement of these moralities which causes negative impact in the growth
of our society must never be determined. Recently a pastor informed his congregation that
Christians can no longer seek to impose their moral values on a society which does not accept
Christianity. The second part of the statement, at least, is quite wrong. While Church
membership and attendance has sharply decreased, the Roy Morgan Study of the Values of
the Australian People demonstrates that 80% believe in God.
Should Christians seek to impose their moral values on law and society. There are some who
are forcibly and aggressively arguing that Christian values must be expelled from law, society
and politics.

Law cannot be an instrument of expression of moral standards, rather law has to be

independent of all sought of moral dogmas except certain areas in which law is dominated by
morality. e.g. Legal areas like the business laws, cyber laws, tax laws, company laws, trade
laws, etc are exclusively a legal treatise and morality has got nothing to do with that of law in
such areas.
 REVIEW OF LITERATURE

 Hart, HLA (1961) Concept of Law Oxford: Clarendon Press.

In order to show how a modern legal system might be built from customary social norms Hart
embarks upon a speculative anthropological argument. For a pre-legal primitive society, Hart
argues, it may be sufficient that there exist certain customary rules, which Hart terms primary
rules of obligation, to permit cohabitation. These would be rules which restrict the use of
violence, provide against theft and so forth. In a close knit community founded upon familial
ties there might be few problems transmitting and enforcing these basic customary rules.
However, as a community grows in both size and complexity it faces several problems in
continuing this form of governance. Hart identifies three problems such a society would face.
Firstly, where there is uncertainty as to what the rules are or the scope of a given rule there is
no procedure for resolving this problem. Secondly, there is no means of intentionally
adapting the rules to cope with changing circumstances; no way of creating new obligations
or removing those which are no longer of use. Finally, the lack of a specially empowered
body for settling disputes and enforcing the rules will lead to inefficiency in the application of
the rules.

To resolve these issues, the primary rules of obligation must be supplemented by secondary
rules which grant an authority to decide the substance and scope of the primary rules, to
allow for changes in these rules and ultimately to apply the substantive rules to the facts of
cases and implement sanctions where necessary. The secondary rules, as rules about rules, are
parasitic upon the primary rules. Hart calls these secondary rules the rules of change,
acquisition and the rule of recognition.14

Of these, the rule of recognition is the key to Hart’s concept of law. Where there is
uncertainty as to what the rules of a society are reference must be given to some external
source, such as a constitutional document, person or persons or official body, which is
decisive of this matter. However, the mere existence of external sources is by itself no
solution, for in any given society there may be several sources with competing precepts. For

14
JURISPRUDENCE - MORALITY AND LAW.,

http://www.rationalskepticism.org/philosophy/jurisprudence-morality-and-law-t2759.html
example, in the modern age one can without little difficulty find numerous constitutional
documents on the internet, many laws - both current and repealed - and there has never been
any shortage of people who would be happy to prescribe laws. Something more is required in
order to determine which of these sources is authoritative, and this is the role played by
Hart’s rule of recognition. As for any rule within Hart’s theory, the rule of recognition has
both the external and internal elements of a rule. The authority of the sources of law exists
because those within society who are tasked with giving expression to it adopt a critical
reflective attitude towards it and this is manifested in behaviour which converges upon its
precepts. For Hart the validity of legal rules rests ultimately upon a social rule which exists
only because it is actually practiced. A purported source of law is valid if it is actually used
to determine what the law is by those charged with the duty to declare the law. The rule of
recognition for a society is, therefore, a statement which tells us which sources of the law are
actually used. The rule of recognition cannot itself be a legal rule. If, for example, a society
created a constitutional document which declared the requirements for legal validity, this
could only have legitimacy itself if actually recognised as valid.15

15
http://www.angelfire.com/md2/timewarp/hart.html
 CONCLUSION

It can be concluded in the end that law is made keeping in context of morality or ethics.
Example is that the reservation was passed keeping in mind the religious and social
sentiments of the people otherwise it would be tedious task while keeping in mind the one
factor and neglecting the others. Law and morality are intimately related to each other. Laws
are generally based on the moral principles of society. Both regulate the conduct of the
individual in society. They influence each other to a great extent. Laws, to be effective, must
represent the moral ideas of the people. But good laws sometimes serve to rouse the moral
conscience of the people and create and maintain such conditions as may encourage the
growth of morality.

Laws regarding prohibition and spread of primary education are examples of this nature.
Morality cannot, as a matter of fact, be divorced from politics. The ultimate end of a state i s
the promotion of general welfare and moral perfection of man.

It is the duty of the state to formulate such laws as will elevate the moral standard of the
people. The laws of a state thus conform to the prevailing standard of morality. Earlier
writers o n Political Science never made any distinction between law and morality.

In ancient India, the term Dharma connoted both law and morality. Law, it is pointed out, is
not merely the command of the sovereign, it represents the idea of right or wrong based on
the prevalent morality of the people.

Moreover, obedience to law depends upon the active support of the moral sentiments of the
people. Laws which are not supported by the moral conscience of the people are liable to
become dead letters.

For example, laws regarding Prohibition in India have not succeeded on account of the fact
that full moral conscience of the people has not been aroused in favor of such laws.

Although law and morality and ethics are interconnected yet they differ from each other.

Morals define personal character, while ethics stress a social system in which those morals
are applied. In other words, ethics point to standards or codes of behavior expected by the
group to which the individual belongs.
In society, we are all faced with the butting heads of ethics and morals. Abortion is legal and
therefore medically ethical, while many people find it personally immoral. Fundamentalists,
extremists, and even mainstream theists all have different ideas about morality that impact
each of our lives, even if indirectly through social pressures or legal discrimination.

In the case of homosexuality, many believe it is morally wrong, yet some of the same people
also believe it is unethical to discriminate legally against a group of people by disallowing
them the same rights afforded heterosexuals. This is a plain example of ethics and morals at
battle. Ethics and morals are central issues as the world strives to overcome current
challenges and international crossroads. Hopefully, in the coming years, a growing
understanding will lead to peaceful and productive solutions.
 BIBLIOGRAPHY

 Hart, HLA (1961) Concept of Law Oxford: Clarendon Press.

 Political Science II Module Part-1, Compiled by- Dr. Raka Arya.
 Mahajan, V.D., (5th edition 2015) Jurisprudence and Legal Theory.
 Keith Lovin; H. L. A. Hart and the Morality of Law, The American Journal of
Jurisprudence, Volume 21, Issue 1, 1 January 1976, Pages 131–143,4.
 Difference between Law and Morality,
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/telegraph- view/3612284/Difference-between-
law-and-morality.html
 MORALITY, http://virtuefirst.org/virtues/morality/
 Morality, Morality Defined, Morality and Our Behavior, Morality and Our
Conscience, http://www.allaboutphilosophy.org/morality.htm
 What Is Morality? https://hessianwithteeth.wordpress.com/2014/12/19/what-is-
morality/
 H.L.A. Hart’s The Concept of Law,
http://www.angelfire.com/md2/timewarp/hart.html
 Jurisprudence - Morality And Law,
http://www.rationalskepticism.org/philosophy/jurisprudence-morality-and-law-
t2759.html
 Dr. Ahmad Masum, Definition of Law Jurisprudence,
http://www.slideshare.net/tipahnurhafizah/definition-of-law1jurisprudence
 http://www.politicalsciencenotes.com/articles/relationship-and-difference-between-
law-and-morality/290
 http://www.legalserviceindia.com/articles/lmor.htm