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.
What is the author’s ultimate recommendation regarding the interplay of law and morality?
- (a)Laws should replace moral reasoning
- (b)Citizens must obey all laws blindly
- (c)Law and morality should be entirely separate
- (d)Law must balance justice with moral responsiveness
Answer
Why
Correct — D. The recommendation opens with Ultimately: an ideal legal system 'should neither operate in moral vacuum nor serve as a mere extension of moral absolutism.'
The next sentence gives the positive version: 'it must strike a delicate balance—upholding constitutional values while remaining responsive to the ethical pulse of the time.'
Balance, with justice on one side and moral responsiveness on the other → option (d).
Why the others are wrong
- (a)Laws should replace moral reasoning — The passage wants moral reasoning kept alive: citizens should question the law 'when it stagnates or strays from principles of justice'. Law that replaces moral reasoning is the reverse.
- (b)Citizens must obey all laws blindly — The last sentence rules out blind obedience: citizens are 'to not only obey the law but to question it'.
- (c)Law and morality should be entirely separate — Entirely separate is the 'moral vacuum' the author rejects. The ideal system 'should neither operate in moral vacuum' nor become moral absolutism.
Concept
In this passage the recommendation follows Ultimately and Instead, the words that close the argument.
It is framed as a middle path between two extremes: law with no morality in it (a moral vacuum) and law as the tool of one fixed morality (moral absolutism).
Options that push to either extreme, total separation or law replacing morals, do not match it.
The key's word justice is not in the 'delicate balance' sentence itself. It comes from the last line, where citizens question law that 'strays from principles of justice'. The balance sentence pairs constitutional values with the ethical pulse of the time.
Key facts
- Moral absolutism is the view that some moral rules hold in every situation, without exception.
- A moral vacuum is a state with no moral principles guiding it.
- The passage gives citizens a duty to obey the law and also to question it when it stagnates or strays from justice.
Study next
Common traps
- Choosing 'entirely separate' because the passage calls law and morality distinct — distinct is not separate, and the author rejects law in a moral vacuum.
- Taking 'obey the law' in the last sentence as the whole recommendation — the sentence goes on: 'but to question it'.
A remedy question pinned to a signposted sentence also appears at 12 Sep 2025, 16:00, English Q.19: the groupthink passage says 'the remedy to such cognitive myopia lies in institutionalizing dissent', and the key is 'Encouraging constructive dissent'.
Related PYQs
No directly related past PYQ was found.