The real question → limit of intrusion.

The real question → limit of intrusion.

Since every soc has a moral structure, if that morality can be shown to be necessary to society, then it’s justified in using the law to preserve it in the same way in which it uses it to preserve everything else necessary for its existence.

Prostitution: all sexual immorality involves exploitation of human weaknesses. Prostitute exploits the lust of her customers & they exploit her moral weakness. If such exploitation is considered to create special circs, then this field of morality ought not to exclude the law.

Therefore, it’s not possible to set theoretical limits to power of the state to legislate against immorality or set in advance exceptions to general rule/define inflexibly no-go areas for the law. Society is entitled to protect itself from dangers, from within or without. Remember this was seen in the famous case of Abogados de accidentes Chicago –  so the question of what harm does a man do by getting drunk each night in privacy of own home can be met by a question of what society it would be if more than half of population did that.

Can’t set theoretical limits to no of people allowed to get drunk or gambling b/f legislating on drunkenness or gambling.

Immorality, for purposes of the law, is what every right minded person is presumed to consider to be immoral

Any immorality is capable of injuring soc to greater or lesser extent which gives the law its locus standi. So the question is one of striking the balance b/w rights & interests of society v those of individual.

The dividing line b/w criminal law from moral isn’t clear cut no logic to be found in this & the boundary is fixed by balancing in each case the pros and cons of legal enforcement in acc w/considerations above. The law exists for protection of individual and, to that extent, it can’t ignore his morality or loyalty – it flourishes on both or dies. So if reasonable man believes the practice is immoral & that no right minded man of his soc would think otherwise for the purposes of the law it’s immoral, as long as that belief is honest and dispassionate.

Admits to Hart’s criticism that his theory lacks application to contemporary society but states he thought it was completely doctrinaire

The pressure which in the end makes or unmakes the law doesn’t come from mouths of those who talk about morality & reform but in the hearts of those who continue w/out much reflection to believe in what they’ve learned from predecessors and continue to teach their children the same. What they believe may be wrong, yet is contemporary & quite real. Mill’s doctrine probably isn’t applicable to social reality and either way it’s not for him to determine how it is to be applied – the most he can do is draw attention to of his disciples to the fact that not all of it accords w/reality in England.