Read the following passage and answer the questions based on the passage :
The relationship between morality and legality is neither linear nor synonymous. Though often conflated in everyday discourse, they belong to distinct conceptual realms. Legality refers to conformity with codified rules enforced by the state, whereas morality is guided by principles of right and wrong, which are often subjective and culturally contingent. The divergence between what is legal and what is moral forms one of the most enduring dilemmas in jurisprudence and civil ethics. Laws, by their very nature, are prescriptive and institutionalized, grounded in the need for order, predictability, and enforceability. Yet, legal codes are ultimately constructed within specific historical, political, and social contexts, and thus may reflect prevailing power structures more than universal justice. For instance, colonial laws legalizing racial segregation or past statutes criminalizing homosexuality demonstrate how legality can institutionalize what many later recognize as moral failures. Conversely, acts of civil disobedience—illegal by definition—often draw moral legitimacy from a higher ethical calling. Mahatma Gandhi’s Salt March or Rosa Parks’ defiance on a segregated bus were technically unlawful, yet they served as moral catalysts for transformative legal reform. This underscores a vital point: legality does not always equate to justice, and at times, morality must challenge the law to realign it with evolving human values. However, conflating morality with legality can be equally dangerous. In pluralistic societies, what constitutes “moral” varies widely across cultures, religions, and ideologies. If law were to enforce a singular moral worldview, it would risk descending into authoritarianism or theocracy. Hence, modern democratic legal systems are designed to be procedurally neutral, relying on constitutional frameworks that protect individual rights while accommodating moral diversity. The tension between morality and legality is also palpable in emerging debates around technology, bioethics, and freedom of expression. Laws often lag behind technological advances, creating grey zones where ethical concerns arise before legal clarity is established. Consider data privacy or artificial intelligence—practices that may be legal today but pose moral quandaries about consent, autonomy, and manipulation. Ultimately, an ideal legal system should neither operate in moral vacuum nor serve as a mere extension of moral absolutism. Instead, it must strike a delicate balance—upholding constitutional values while remaining responsive to the ethical pulse of the time. Citizens, too, bear a responsibility: to not only obey the law but to question it when it stagnates or strays from principles of justice.
According to the passage, what risk arises from equating morality with legality in pluralistic societies?
- (a)Laws will be outdated
- (b)Citizens will become immoral
- (c)It may lead to authoritarian imposition of a singular worldview
- (d)Democracy will flourish
Answer
Why
Correct — C. The question's equating is the passage's conflating: 'However, conflating morality with legality can be equally dangerous.'
The next two sentences give the danger. What counts as moral 'varies widely across cultures, religions, and ideologies', and 'If law were to enforce a singular moral worldview, it would risk descending into authoritarianism or theocracy.'
Option (c) restates that risk → option (c).
Why the others are wrong
- (a)Laws will be outdated — Outdated laws come from a different part of the passage: 'Laws often lag behind technological advances.' That is technology outpacing the law, not the danger of equating law with morality.
- (b)Citizens will become immoral — The passage never predicts immoral citizens. The danger it names sits on the law's side: a state enforcing one moral worldview.
- (d)Democracy will flourish — Democracy flourishing is the opposite of the risk. The passage says that is why ('Hence') democratic legal systems are designed to be 'procedurally neutral'.
Concept
A detail question can borrow the passage's idea without its words. Here 'equating' matches 'conflating', and 'risk' matches 'dangerous'.
Once you find that sentence, read the one or two after it. The passage states a claim ('can be equally dangerous') and then explains it, and the explanation holds the answer.
An option that repeats a phrase from another paragraph, such as laws lagging behind technology, answers a different question.
The passage argues in two directions. First, law can be unjust, so morality sometimes has to challenge it. Then, with However, it warns against the opposite error: making the law enforce one morality. This question asks about the second half.
Key facts
- To conflate two things is to treat them as if they were the same, which is what the question calls equating.
- In the passage, enforcing a singular moral worldview risks 'descending into authoritarianism or theocracy'.
- The passage's safeguard is procedural neutrality: constitutional frameworks that protect individual rights while accommodating moral diversity.
- A pluralistic society is one in which many cultures, religions and beliefs exist side by side.
Study next
Common traps
- Picking 'Laws will be outdated' because the passage does say laws lag behind — that is the technology point, not the risk of conflating law and morality.
- Reading democracy as the danger — democratic legal systems are the passage's answer to it.
English Q.16 of this shift, on the same passage, tests the first half of the argument: its key is that legality 'is contextually shaped and not always just'. This question tests the half that follows However.
Related PYQs
No directly related past PYQ was found.