Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
Book cover

Handbook of the Sociology of Morality pp 179–202Cite as

The Unstable Alliance of Law and Morality

  • Chapter
  • First Online:

Part of the book series: Handbooks of Sociology and Social Research ((HSSR))

Abstract

This essay considers the relationship between legal systems and moral codes by examining the competition and cooperation between law and other normative systems (morality and law), moral evaluations of legal systems (the morality of law), and the displacement of moral codes by legal ones (morality or law).

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   169.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD   219.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD   219.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    In this case the hospital legal counsel got the law wrong. See Fost (1989), Goldman et al. (1989), Gostin (1989), and Heimer (1999).

  2. 2.

    My loose definition here is rather similar to that of Smith (2003:8, drawing on Taylor 1989), for whom morality entails “an orientation toward understandings about what is right and wrong, good and bad, worthy and unworthy, just and unjust, that are not established by our own actual desires, decisions, or preferences, but instead believed to exist apart from them, providing standards by which our desires, decisions, and preferences can themselves be judged.”

  3. 3.

    Karen’s doctors did not “pull the plug” but instead gradually weaned her from the ventilator. She was subsequently moved to a nursing home, where, fed through a tube, she lived for nine more years. Her parents visited daily.

  4. 4.

    More recently, Griffiths (2006:63–64) suggests abandoning both the concepts of law and legal pluralism as a way of ending definitional wrangling.

  5. 5.

    States can also squander the moral authority of law. This is especially likely to happen in areas of heated disagreement when legislators misestimate the public sentiment or allow themselves to be captured by a particularly vocal minority. See the discussion below of the Baby Doe Laws.

  6. 6.

    This finding is based on three Australian studies, two on regulation (taxation and welfare fraud) and one on people’s recent experiences with law enforcement. Given the substantive areas of these studies, it remains unclear how legitimacy modifies willingness to comply in substantive areas in which social movements spearhead programs of principled opposition and resistance.

  7. 7.

    Perhaps the most elegant formulation of this point is France’s (1984): “The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread.”

  8. 8.

    The material on restraint of nursing home residents is drawn from Braithwaite et al. (2007:82–87).

  9. 9.

    This is with the appropriate statistical controls for level of impairment and so forth.

  10. 10.

    Abend (2010) contrasts such thick ethical concepts as integrity, piety, cruelty, rudeness, exploitation, and fanaticism with thin ones such as right and wrong.

  11. 11.

    Scott (1994) refers to these as the definitional and interactional environments, in contrast to the more commonly discussed regulatory environment.

  12. 12.

    This section draws on Heimer and Petty (2010).

  13. 13.

    Although the point is stated in simple summary form here, we should acknowledge that research is not all of a piece. Some kinds of research are more dangerous and others less. For instance, phase 1 clinical trials (testing the safety of new drugs) are probably riskier than phase 3 trials (to assess the effectiveness of drugs) but phase 1 studies involve small numbers of subjects and phase 3 trials are often large multi-center studies, thus the overall risks may balance out. There are more bad outcomes in research on people who are desperately ill, but of course that is partly because of the illness. Observational research is essentially risk-free because it involves no interventions. Social science research typically carries no physical risk whatever. Misconceptions about the dangers of research probably arise partly from the availability effect (our tendency to remember the most vivid cases) associated with press reports of injuries and abuses and partly from our failure to think about the full panoply of human subjects research when we make quick assessments of danger. To reinforce the general point, we note that even the Office of the Inspector General did “not claim that there are widespread abuses of human subjects” (Office of the Inspector General 1998:iii).

  14. 14.

    The literature on this is extensive, though mostly it documents one or another of the elements. For examples, see: Burris (2008) and Zywicki (2007), who summarize other research; Green et al. (2006) who comment on a multi-site observational study.

  15. 15.

    See the recommendations of the National Bioethics Advisory Commission (2001:vii) urging the development of education, certification, and accreditation systems. IRB professionals can now be certified as CIPs (Certified IRB Professionals) or CIMs (Certified IRB Managers). One organization that offers such certifications is Public Responsibility in Medicine and Research (PRIM&R). The Association for the Accreditation of Human Subjects Protection Programs, Inc. (AAHRPP) accredits programs themselves. Undoubtedly there are or will shortly be other accrediting bodies in this rapidly growing field.

  16. 16.

    Pronovost et al. (2006) present the first research results from the study; Gawande (2007) discusses OHRP’s decision to shut down the program; and OHRP (2008) responds to Gawande’s editorial.

  17. 17.

    In 1974, the National Research Act (Pub. L. 93–348) created the National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research [of the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS)], which issued the Belmont Report in 1978. The guidelines and statements of principle contained in the Belmont Report gradually acquired the force of law in the US in the late 1970s and early 1980s when 45 CFR 46 subparts A–D were adopted, requiring ethics review of all human subjects research funded by the US government and creating the IRB system to carry out those reviews. In 1991, 14 other federal agencies and departments joined DHHS in adopting a uniform set of rules (Subpart A of 45 CFR 46, the Common Rule) to govern research on human subjects; in 1995, an executive order required that the CIA also comply with these rules. Eventually research funded by the US government but conducted outside the US was also brought under the same body of rules.

  18. 18.

    See, for instance, Douglas and Wildavsky’s (1982) analysis of why differently constructed groups pay attention to different kinds of risk and Baker’s (2005) evidence that doctors and healthcare organizations vastly over-estimate the number of medical malpractice suits and so over-protect themselves with malpractice insurance.

References

  • Abend, G. 2010. “What’s New and What’s Old About the New Sociology of Morality?” (this volume).

    Google Scholar 

  • Alexander, S. 1962. “They Decide Who Lives, Who Dies: Medical Miracle Puts a Moral Burden on a Small Community.” Life 53(November 9):102 ff.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baker, T. 2005. The Medical Malpractice Myth. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bledsoe, C. H., B. Sherin, A. G. Galinsky, N. M. Headley, C. A. Heimer, E. Kjeldgaard, J. Lindgren, J. D. Miller, M. E. Roloff, and D. H. Uttal. 2007. “Regulating Creativity: Research and Survival in the IRB Iron Cage.” Northwestern University Law Review 101:593–641.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bardach, E., and R. A. Kagan. 2002 (1982). Going by the Book: The Problem of Regulatory Unreasonableness. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bell, J., J. Whiton, and S. Connelly. 1998. Evaluation of NIH Implementation of Section 491 of the Public Health Service Act, Mandating a Program of Protection for Research Subjects. Final report prepared for the Office of Extramural Research National Institutes of Health. Arlington, VA: James Bell Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Berman, P. S. 2009. “The New Legal Pluralism.” Annual Review of Law and Social Science 5:225–242.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bosk, C. L. 1999. “Professional Ethicist Available: Logical, Secular, Friendly.” Daedalus 128:47–68.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bosk C. L., and R. G. De Vries. 2004. “Bureaucracies of Mass Deception: Institutional Review Boards and the Ethics of Ethnographic Research.” Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 595(September):249–263.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Braithwaite, J., T. Makkai, and V. Braithwaite. 2007. Regulating Aged Care: Ritualism and the New Pyramid. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Burris S. 2008. “Regulatory Innovation in the Governance of Human Subjects Research: A Cautionary Tale and Some Modest Proposals.” Regulation and Governance 2:65–84.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burris, S., and K. Moss. 2006. “United States Health Researchers Review Their Ethics Review Boards: A Qualitative Study.” Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics 1(2):39–58.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burris S., and J. Welsh. 2007. “Regulatory Paradox: A Review of Enforcement Letters Issued by the Office for Human Research Protection.” Northwestern University Law Review 101:643–685.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chambliss, D. F. 1996. Beyond Caring: Hospital, Nurses, and the Social Organization of Ethics. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clark, S., A. J. Pelletier, B. E. Brenner, D. M. Lang, R. C. Strunk, and C. A. Camargo. 2006. “Feasibility of a National Fatal Asthma Registry: More Evidence of IRB Variation in Evaluation of a Standard Protocol.” Journal of Asthma 43(1):19–23.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clarke, L. 1999. Mission Improbable: Using Fantasy Documents to Tame Disaster. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Coe, F. L. 2007. “The Costs and Benefits of a Well-Intended Parasite: A Witness and Reporter on the IRB Phenomenon.” Northwestern University Law Review. 101:723–733.

    Google Scholar 

  • Coleman, J. S. 1974. Power and the Structure of Society. New York, NY: W.W. Norton.

    Google Scholar 

  • Coleman, J. S. 1990. Foundations of Social Theory. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cotterrell, R. 2000. “Common Law Approaches to the Relationship Between Law and Morality.” Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 3(1):9–26.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cover, R. M. 1983. “The Supreme Court, 1982 Term – Foreword: Nomos and Narrative.” Harvard Law Review 97:4–68.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dingwall, R. 2006. “An Exercise in Fatuity: Research Governance and the Emasculation of HSR.” Journal of Health Services Research and Policy 11(4):193–194.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dingwall, R. 2008 “The Ethical Case Against Ethical Regulation in Humanities and Social Science Research.” 21st Century Society 3:1–12.

    Google Scholar 

  • Douglas, M., and A. Wildavsky. 1982. Risk and Culture: An Essay on the Selection of Technological and Environmental Dangers. Berkeley: University of California Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Durkheim, É. 1984 (1893). The Division of Labor in Society. Translated by W.D. Halls. New York: Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dyrbye, L. N., M. R. Thomas, A. J. Mechaber, A. Eaker, W. Harper, F. Stanford Massie, Jr., D. V. Power, and T. D. Shanafelt. 2007. “Medical Education Research and IRB Review: An Analysis and Comparison of the IRB Review Process at Six Institutions.” Academic Medicine 82:654–660.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ewick, P., and S. S. Silbey. 1998. The Common Place of Law: Stories from Everyday Life. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fish, S. 2009. “Think Again: Empathy and the Law.” NYT blog, May 24, 2009. http://fish.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/05/24/empathy-and-the-law/.

  • Fisher, J. A. 2009. Medical Research for Hire: The Political Economy of Pharmaceutical Clinical Trials. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fost, N. 1989. “Do the Right Thing: Samuel Linares and Defensive Law.” Law, Medicine, and Health Care 17: 330–334.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fox, R. C., and J. P. Swazey. 2008. Observing Bioethics. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • France, A. 1984. The Red Lily. Trans. Winifred Stephens. New York: Dodd, Mead.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fuller, L. L. 1958. “Positivism and Fidelity to Law: A Reply to Professor Hart.” Harvard Law Review 71(4):630–672.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gaines, A. D., and E. T. Juengst. 2008. “Origin Myths in Bioethics: Constructing Sources, Motives and Reason in Bioethic(s).” Culture, Medicine, and Psychiatry 32:303–327.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Galanter, M. 1981. “Justice in Many Rooms: Courts, Private Ordering, and Indigenous Law.” Journal of Legal Pluralism and Unofficial Law 19:1–47.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gawande, A. 2007. “A Lifesaving Checklist.” New York Times, December 30, 2007.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goldman, G. M., K. M. Stratton, and M. D. Brown. 1989. “What Actually Happened: An Informed Review of the Linares Incident.” Law, Medicine, and Health Care 17:298–307.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gostin, L. 1989. “Editor’s Introduction: Family Privacy and Persistent Vegetative State.” Law, Medicine, and Health Care 17:295–297.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gray, B. H., R. A. Cooke, A. S. Tannenbaum. 1978. “Research Involving Human Subjects.” Science 201: 1094–1101.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Green, L. A., J. C. Lowery, C. P. Kowalski, and L. Wyszewianski. 2006. “Impact of Institutional Review Board Practice Variation on Observational Health Services Research.” Health Services Research 41:214–230.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Griffiths, J. 1986. “What Is Legal Pluralism?” Journal of Legal Pluralism and Unofficial Law 24:1–55.

    Google Scholar 

  • Griffiths, J. 2006. “The Idea of Sociology of Law and Its Relation to Law and to Sociology.” Current Legal Issues 8:49–68.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grodin, M. A. 1990. “The Nuremberg Code and Medical Research.” Hastings Center Report 20(3):4.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gunsalus, C. K. 2004. “The Nanny State Meets the Inner Lawyer: Overregulating While Underprotecting Human Participants in Research.” Ethics and Behavior 14:369–382.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Halpern S. A. 2004. Lesser Harms: The Morality of Risk in Medical Research. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Halpern S. A. 2009. “Professional Autonomy and the Regulatory State: Social and Behavioral Sciences Confront Federal Human-Subjects Policies.” Paper presented at Annual Meeting of the American Sociological Association, San Francisco.

    Google Scholar 

  • Haltom, W., and M. McCann. 2004. Distorting the Law: Politics, Media, and the Litigation Crisis. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hamburger, P. 2004. “The New Censorship: Institutional Review Boards.” Supreme Court Review 2004:271–354.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hamburger, P. 2007. “Getting Permission.” Northwestern University Law Review 101:405–492.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hammerschmidt, D. E., and M. A. Keane. 1992. “Institutional Review Board (IRB) Review Lacks Impact on the Readability of Consent Forms for Research.” American Journal of Medical Sciences 304:348–351.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hart, H. L. A. 1958. “Positivism and the Separation of Law and Morals.” Harvard Law Review 71(4):593–629.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Healy, K. 2006. Last Best Gifts: Altruism and the Market for Human Blood and Organs. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Heimer, C. A. 1999. “Competing Institutions: Law, Medicine, and Family in Neonatal Intensive Care.” Law and Society Review 33:17–66.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heimer, C. A., and L. R. Staffen. 1998. For the Sake of the Children: The Social Organization of Responsibility in the Hospital and the Home. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Heimer, C. A., and J. C. Petty. 2010. “Bureaucratic Ethics: IRBs and the Legal Regulation of Human Subjects Research.” Annual Review of Law and Social Science 6. Forthcoming.

    Google Scholar 

  • Heimer, C. A., J. C. Petty, and R. J. Culyba. 2005. “Risk and Rules: The ‘Legalization’ of Medicine.” PP. 92–131 in Organizational Encounters with Risk, edited by B. Hutter, and M. Power. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hiller, K. M., J. S. Haukoos, K. Heard, J. S. Tashkin, N. A. Paradis. 2005. “Impact of the Final Rule on the Rate of Clinical Cardiac Arrest Research in the United States.” Academic Emergency Medicine 12:1091–1098.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hitlin, S. 2008. Moral Selves, Evil Selves: The Social Psychology of Conscience. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, T. S. 2008. “Qualitative Research in Question: A Narrative of Disciplinary Power With/in the IRB.” Qualitative Inquiry 14:212–232.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lempert, R. O., and J. Sanders. 1986. An Invitation to Law and Social Science: Deserts, Disputes, and Distribution. Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lederer, S. E. 1995. Subjected to Science: Human Experimentation in America Before the Second World War. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lepore, J. 2009. “The Politics of Death.” The New Yorker, November 30:60–67.

    Google Scholar 

  • Levine, R. J. 1988. Ethics and Regulation of Clinical Research, 2nd Ed. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lind, E. A., and T. R. Tyler. 1988. The Social Psychology of Procedural Justice. New York, NY: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Merry, S. E. 1988. “Legal Pluralism.” Law and Society Review 22:869–896.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Merry, S. E. 1990. Getting Justice and Getting Even: Legal Consciousness Among Working-Class Americans. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Meyer, J. W. 1983. “Centralization of Funding and Control in Educational Governance.” PP. 179–198 in Organizational Environments: Ritual and Rationality, edited by J. W. Meyer, and W. R. Scott. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Michaels, R. 2009. “Global Legal Pluralism.” Annual Review of Law and Social Science 5:243–262.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mills, C. W. 1951. White Collar: The American Middle Classes. London: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Minow, M. 1991. Making All the Difference: Inclusion, Exclusion, and American Law. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Murphy, K., T. R. Tyler, and A. Curtis. 2009. “Nurturing Regulatory Compliance: Is Procedural Justice Effective When People Question the Legitimacy of the Law?” Regulation and Governance 3:1–26.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • National Bioethics Advisory Commission (NBAC). 2001. Ethical and Policy Issues in Research Involving Human Participants, Vol. 1: Report and Recommendations of the National Bioethics Advisory Commission. Bethesda, MD: National Bioethics Advisory Commission.

    Google Scholar 

  • Office of the Inspector General (OIG), DHHS. 1998. Institutional Review Boards: A Time for Reform. OEI-1-97-00193. Washington, DC: DHHS.

    Google Scholar 

  • OHRP (Office for Human Research Protections). 2008. OHRP Statement Regarding the New York Times Op-Ed Entitled “A Lifesaving Checklist.” http://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/news/index.html. Viewed March 13, 2010.

  • Paasche-Orlow, M. K., H. A. Taylor, and F. L. Brancati. 2003. “Readability Standards for Informed-Consent Forms as Compared with Actual Readability.” New England Journal of Medicine 348:721–726.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pfeffer, J., and G. R. Salancik. 1978. The External Control of Organizations: A Resource Dependence Perspective. New York: Harper and Row.

    Google Scholar 

  • Power, M. 1997. The Audit Society: Rituals of Verification. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pronovost, P., D. Needham, S. Berenholtz, D. Sinopoli, H. Chu, S. Cosgrove, B. Sexton, R. Hyzy, R. Welsh, G. Roth, J. Bander, J. Kepros, and C. Goeschel. 2006. “An Intervention to Decrease Catheter-Related Bloodstream Infections in the ICU.” New England Journal of Medicine 355:2725–2732.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shweder, R. A. 2004. “Tuskegee Re-examined.” http://www.spiked-online.com/Articles/0000000CA34A.htm.

  • Scott, W. R. 1994. “Law and Organizations.” PP. 3–18 in The Legalistic Organization, edited by S. B. Sitkin, and R. J. Bies. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scott, W. R., and G. F. Davis. 2007. Organizations and Organizing: Rational, Natural, and Open System Perspectives. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shamir, R. 1991. “Litigation as a Consummatory Action: The Instrumental Paradigm Reconsidered.” Studies in Law, Politics and Society 11:41–67.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sitkin, S. B., and R. J. Bies, eds. 1994. The Legalistic Organization. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith, C. 2003. Moral, Believing Animals: Human Personhood and Culture. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Stinchcombe, A. L. 2001. When Formality Works: Authority and Abstraction in Law and Organizations. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sutton, J., F. Dobbin, J. Meyer, and W. R. Scott. 1994. “Legalization of the Workplace.” American Journal of Sociology 99:944–971.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Taylor, C. 1989. Sources of the Self: The Making of the Modern Identity. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Titmuss, R. 1971. The Gift Relationship: From Human Blood to Social Policy. New York: Pantheon.

    Google Scholar 

  • von Benda-Beckmann, F. 2002. “Who’s Afraid of Legal Pluralism?” Journal of Legal Pluralism and Unofficial Law 47:37–82.

    Google Scholar 

  • Waldholz, M. 2002. “African Crusaders Savor Wins in AIDS War but Need Funds.” Wall Street Journal (Eastern edition). June 13, 2002:D6.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zussman R. 1997. “Sociological Perspectives on Medical Ethics and Decision-Making.” Annual Review of Sociology 23:171–189.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zywicki, T. J. 2007. “Institutional Review Boards as Academic Bureaucracies: An Economic and Experiential Analysis.” Northwestern University Law Review 101:861–895.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgment

I am grateful to Arthur Stinchcombe and Steve Hitlin for their timely and very helpful comments.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Sociology, Northwestern University and American Bar Foundation, Evanston, IL, USA

    Carol A. Heimer

Authors
  1. Carol A. Heimer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Carol A. Heimer .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Dept. Sociology, University of Iowa, Seashore Hall W. 124, Iowa City, 52242-1401, Iowa, USA

    Steven Hitlin

  2. , Department of Sociology, University of California, Berkeley, Barrows Hall #1980 410, Berkeley, 94720, USA

    Stephen Vaisey

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2010 Springer Science+Business Media, LLC

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Heimer, C.A. (2010). The Unstable Alliance of Law and Morality. In: Hitlin, S., Vaisey, S. (eds) Handbook of the Sociology of Morality. Handbooks of Sociology and Social Research. Springer, New York, NY. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4419-6896-8_10

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation