Should the purpose of law be primarily focused on the protection of individual freedom or, instead, on normative objectives aimed at the good of society? The question of law and morality is difficult mainly because it has to be addressed with the current existing social conditions, morals and values ​​of that particular society. In general, the laws of any society should not only focus on regulations, but should also protect the freedom of the individual. The Devlin debate hinged on deciding whether the law should dictate morality. He discussed what the law should be and whether morality should be enforced by law to form a good society. Furthermore, John Stewart Mill did not write specifically about law and morality. His argument was mainly based on the anti-enforcer side of law and morality because he believed in individual freedom. John Stuart Mill's claim that the only justification for limiting one person's freedom is to prevent harm to another Mill believes that the individual should be given the freedom to do what he wants unless it harms others others. According to Mill, freedom should not be imposed by law since any imposition would lead to the violation of individual freedom. In contrast, Devlin argued that if society has the right to make judgments it can also use the law to enforce it. He stated that society has the right to use the law to preserve morality in order to safeguard social morality. Devlin further stated that the law does not seek true belief, but what individuals in a civil society as a whole commonly believe. He said that the judgment of the “right-minded person” will prevail and that immorality will be something that those people will consider immoral. For example, murder and theft are prohibited because people would recommend it, and should never be restricted by social pressure. In summary, then, Mill emphasizes that individual citizens are responsible for themselves, their thoughts and feelings, their tastes and goals, while society is properly concerned only with social interests. In particular, the state is justified in limiting or controlling the conduct of individuals only when this is the only way to prevent them from harming others by violating their rights. In Mill's view and where he drew the line between private and public, society should not seek to restrict people who drink, for example, but rightly prosecutes individuals who harm others while drunk. But if the person's chosen course of action clearly harms only that person, the government has no right to even try to suppress that behavior...