So, in the middle of the 20th century, actually a few years after WW2, Lord Patrick Devlin and H. L. A. Hart had a rather famous debate in the journals of English philosophy of law concerning a central issue: does a nation have a right to outlaw something simply because it is immoral?
Lord Devlin argued that the morality is an essential part of the law, and thus while there are other limitations to what the law can ban. There is no private sphere of morality which is inherently protected from government interference. However, according to Lord Devlin, the law should not try to ban everything that is immoral, it simply should be able to ban something for no other reason than the fact that it is immoral.
Hart argued that there is an essential distinction between the law and morality. Thus, the law should not ban things that are a matter of individual privacy (for instance – suicide). Instead the purpose of the law is to prevent those actions which cause direct harm to others, and those actions or practices which threaten the fabric of society as such.
So, my question to you is this: which of them is right? Should the government have the right to ban something simply because it is immoral? Is there a hard right to privacy that defines a sphere of behavior in which the government absolutely cannot interfere?
As always, write me a story of 1000 words that presents and defends your answer.