Law and Morality; An Open Ended Thought Process.

This paper will proceed in a manner that it could be accurately labeled a ‘question paper’ in that, instead of answering questions or jumping into the analysis by problematizing a scenario and attempting to explain it, I will touch upon various unrelated and isolated discussions that are tangential to ideas of law and just raise a few questions that will hopefully be answered through a debate either in class or in the comments that come in as a response to this post.

Law and morality are distinctly different things. Does law hold any ethical credibility (ethos) in a scenario where it is not derived from morality and serving to guard its erosion and to cement its application in the state? Is the law always moral? If it isn’t, does it lose value? Can we argue so far as to say that it seizes to be the law?

On a separate note, morality and subjectivity often appear in conversations where the other is mentioned. While there may be subjective opinions about morality and its implementational modes in practical scenarios, is morality in itself a realm of subjectivity? To further elaborate, while its interpretation is definitely a subjective exercise, is the eventual correct answer that is the ideal arrival destination through that exercise a subjective reality or an absolute truth which is unaffected by individuals opinions of and perspective on it? Are there moral absolutes: certain rights and wrongs that are never compromisable regardless of situational complications?

A political thinker wrote: ‘The law is the law because it is obeyed.’ His comment leads me into a few questions. Should the law always be obeyed? If it isn’t, does it seize being the law? In modern states where the law and order situation is less than ideal, is it appropriate to say that there is no law of the land since it is not obeyed? The relationship between the existence and acceptance of law is an interesting dilemma.

Law is a ‘necessary’ vehicle through which humans were taken out of the ‘State of Nature’ and brought into civilization; it is a practical translation of the social contract theory. Hence, it is the manifestation of consensually curtailed liberties for greater collective benefit. However, this raises several questions. Is the role of the law merely to protect individuals from others? Or also to protect individuals from themselves? Is the law meant to just ensure that I am not harmed by somebody else’s actions or is it meant to ensure that I and everybody in the state is following the principles that it understands to be the correct interpretation of the universal truth of morality? Therefore the critical discussion becomes whether law is for the people or for the principle. Is law meant to be the ‘right guy’ in terms of ensuring appropriate behavior even when the actions of one do not harm another citizen or the ‘nice guy’ with menial influence on citizens’ lives by not intervening to stop people from violating expected guidelines of appropriate behavior or from indulging in activities that the state believe will harm the individual themselves?  

This discourse reminded me of something that my high school history teacher used to say and makes me ponder on what extent I agree or disagree with the very broad implications of his opinion: ‘principle over self -interest, people over principle.’ That, I think, is the key question. Is our priority people, or principle?