1. Should society make judgments on morality at all? Should there be a public morality?
2. If so, may society use the weapon of law to enforce its moral judgments?
3. If so, ought there be restrictions or should this power be complete?
Devlin�s definition of society is that it is a community of shared political and moral values. If the community�s political values are undermined, such as in a conspiracy to overthrow the government, then society will disintegrate. Likewise if the community�s moral values are undermined, such as allowing certain behaviors considered �immoral,� society will also disintegrate.
Therefore there already exists a public morality in any society, by definition, and that society not only may, but must make moral judgments in order to protect itself, and may use the weapon of law to do so.
Devlin�s answer to his third proposed question is not consistent with the answers to his previous questions. He states that liberty is a valuable thing, and that therefore there should be maximum individual freedom consistent with the integrity of society (that is, the shared political and moral values). But society may nonetheless use the weapon of law to enforce its morality when the actions under examination inspire in the typical person feelings of intolerance, indignation and disgust.
Thus it is the feelings of the majority of society that determines enforcement of moral values, regardless of whether any actual harm is caused.