Laws can be defined as “a rule or order that it is advisable or obligatory to observe” (Merriam). This definition has been uniformly accepted by most people throughout the world and for many centuries. However, I believe that there is no such thing as a law that prohibits a particular action, rather a law is to deter people from taking part in certain actions with sanctions imposed upon people that do take part in that action. First, I will go into further detail on my view on this topic. Next, I will give some insight to the common belief of a law and the opinion of those who oppose my view. Then, I will provide a rebuttal to those opposing views and the strengths of each opinion.
I was one who always accepted the traditional definition of law without any second thought. That was until H.L.A. Hart opened my eyes to a new perspective; a perspective that I now accept and believe in. Hart quotes in his book The Concept of Law, “There is no law prohibiting murder: there is only a law directing officials to apply certain sanctions in certain circumstances to those who do murder” (Hart 35, 36). This specific passage has brought light on a subject that I have never thought about before. I believe this ideology indeed describes how the law is supposed to be interpreted. For example, the law does not tell a person that they cannot do specific actions, rather the law just states that if one does do a particular action, then there will be repercussions. Going back to Hart’s quote and his example of murder, the law does not tell a person that they are forbidden to commit murder. We can see that in our everyday lives; some murders take place every day all over the country and world. But the law is in place to deter people from committing actions that it sees as inappropriate and thus imposes fines and sanctions against those who commit such actions.
As I have stated earlier, the traditional idea of law is an order telling citizens what they can and cannot do. Many people still hold this view of the law to be true. One that would believe this would interpret the fines and sanctions impose on those who do a particular action as a way of telling people what they cannot do. One would argue that one truly cannot do whatever they may wish due to laws imposing fines and sanctions and, in a way, telling people what they cannot do. They would also argue that a criminal is said to be one who “breaks the law” and to break the law, there was be a standard to be met. This specification in which they are talking about would be the can’s and cannot be that the law imposes upon the people in which it is above.
I understand and can relate to those who believe that the law is in place to tell the people, in which it rules over, what they can and cannot do. However, Hart’s view of the law focuses on the individual’s right to free will and the ability to do whatever they choose to do. Nobody or nothing can tell a human being what they are forbidden to do because that person can do it regardless. However, there may be consequences for doing certain actions. Hart elaborates on his view when he continues with,
“On this view, what is ordinarily thought of as the content of the law, designed to guide the conduct of ordinary citizens, is merely the antecedent or ‘if-clause’ in a rule which is directed not to them but to the officials, and orders them to apply certain sanctions if certain conditions are satisfied. All valid laws, on this view, are subject orders to officials to enforce sanctions. They are all the form, ‘If anything of a kind X is done or omitted or happens, then implement sanction of a kind Y.’” (Hart 36).
In order words, Hart is saying that these laws are directed at officials to impose specific fines and sanctions on an individual who does a particular action. Both of these views have high points. The opposition has a more traditional view where the law is telling citizens what they cannot do because of these fines and sanctions that will be imposed on them. On the other hand, Hart’s view is taking a more philosophical approach and suggests that one can still do a particular action and the law cannot stop them. On the other hand, if they do take part in such action, then there will be consequence placed upon them.
In conclusion, the law has been seen as a document telling the citizens what they can and cannot do. However, H. L. A. Hart raised an interesting idea; an idea that I now support. This idea says that the law does not tell civilians what it can and cannot do, rather it is directed at officials to impose sanctions upon civilians that do certain actions. These laws do not ban nor force civilians to act in a particular way, as we can see from crimes that are committed around the world. Both of these views have high points that give them an appeal to the public. Although I support Hart’s idea, I can understand the opposition’s view because I also shared their view at one time.
Works Cited
Hart, H. L. A. "Chapter III. The Variety of Laws/ Section 1. The Content of Laws." The Concept of Law. Ed. Paul Craig. 3rd ed. Oxford, UK: Oxford UP, 2012. 27-42. Print.
Merriam-Webster. Merriam-Webster, n.d. Web. 09 Feb. 2016.
