Morality Vs. Law
It seems to me that lately society has repeatedly run into the wall of morality versus law. It is not an easy distinction to make always, but I believe it is one that should be made. The principal difference in opinion seems to impart a great deal of political ideology. If one believes that the end product of the evolution of state is merely to reflect our own desires [as a majority or otherwise], then it is easy to correlate the moral majority directly with law. My own difficulty with that point of view is it would lead us to constantly revolve around the status quo [if taken to extremes], there could be no advancement for humankind unless we are collectively more than the sum of our parts. It would get into an almost Carl Jung like view, demanding a real grand collective social consciousness-in one form or another. We also are forced to question the purpose of law. All I can present is my own opinion in that regard. To me, I rely on the identity of the naturalists postulating rules governing the animal kingdom.
Laws of behavior, natural laws. These laws exist without a single animal being aware of them, yet they are still present. I believe our law is ideally merely a representation of that which would exist without recognition. The purpose of which is to allow us to more readily cope with aberrant behavior. Criminal justice in such a regard would be likened to slapping a childs hand away from a hot stovetop. The punishment, the slap- is merely representative of the natural punishment-getting burned.
While this may sound well and good, or perhaps not so good, we are still left with the matter of distinction. Many would argue that morality is still a natural law, and that moral laws therefore could still be represented in good and intelligent form. I question the validity of there being a moral being through inaction, though there is no doubt that many a person can be construed to be law abiding by failure to act. Religious scholars apparently have debated that very point throughout the ages. Can a newborn or unbaptised child get into heaven is the first question that I face. Written similarly, is a newborn child moral? I do not believe that it is possible. Morality, is a life choice. An action on some level where we choose to act. It may just be a mental action- such as adjusting our outlook on the world, or it could be a physical action-such as volunteering to help your community. Law, in my opinion is a prohibition in total. That the ideal legal framework would be merely to deny an action, to minimize the consequences of an action if carried out in full on society. It is far better for society to bare the burden of a murderer in prison, than the damage that would occur if he were not. To me it boils down to proscriptions and prohibitions. Morality is a proscription, a way of life, it’s very essense is in the latter effect of the act-how it ‘will’ benefit yourself and the world around you. Prohibitive laws are concerned with what occurs before the act.
On a related opinion, I believe that moral beliefs are as important as moral outcomes, whereas the same cannot be true with legal beliefs. Morally, one hundred people with various reasons for believing murder is wrong may never come to common terms and be able to interact at a meaningful level. The ‘why’ can be more important than the end result. It is not enough that two or more people do not steal, morality also dictates the ‘why’ they do not steal.
There is a strength in diversity of morality with the same outcome. The second we codify morality into laws, the second we argue the basis for those laws and codify a moral reasoning-is the second we lose that strength.
Lastly, it is impossible to argue against, ‘because God said so’. There is nothing wrong with morality and law corresponding. There is merely something wrong with morality being the full reason for a law.
