by wish4m zahir
At first there might seem no distinction between law and morality. There are passages in ancient Greek writers, for example, which seem to suggest that the good person is the one who will do what is lawful. It is the lawgivers, in these early societies, who determine what is right and wrong. However, today this is not the case. But even if some morality is outside the scope of Law, could Law's domain be a subset of the Moral? That is, should we only ever outlaw immoral acts, and never morally permissible ones? Or to take the argument further conversely, should law in effect, be a factor which influences morality?
Morality is affected by numerous factors. It is obvious that our society is becoming more and more violent, dishonest, crude, selfish and superficial. If you disagree, read the newspaper. And then go to the library archives and read one from 40 years ago. To illustrate, think about this quote from Peter Kreeft (the statistics are American, but the point is universal):
"A modern Rip Van Winkle falling asleep in 1955 and waking up in 1995 would simply not believe his ears when he heard the statistics of our decay. Which moralist, complaining of the 10-percent divorce rate then, foresaw the 50-percent divorce rate now? Who foresaw a 500-percent increase in violent crime and a 5000-percent increase in teenage crime? When Black society was being declared beyond repair because of a 30-percent illegitimacy rate, who thought that by 1995 white society would equal it, while the rate would climb to nearly 80-percent among Blacks? Who would have thought even ten years ago that Russian public schools would be showing films about Jesus and American schools would be outlawing them? If the next forty years continue the movement of the last forty, does anyone have the slightest hope for the survival of anything resembling civilization? What would another 5000-percent increase in teenage violent crime mean? Or another tripling of the illegitimacy rate? Or another administration that would be to the Clinton what the Clinton was to the Eisenhower? Just extend the line, follow the road, and you will see the cliff."
SOCIETAL and LIFESTYLE CHANGES
In the late 60s, people find homosexuality to be morally objectionable, so they don't want homosexuals to be treated equally, especially in the US. Today, we call it ‘bigotry’. D. J. Heasman writes in the July 1977 issue of Political Quarterly:
The demands with which we are now confronted are not merely more extreme but different in kind from what they were. The reforms of the 1960s, in distinguishing between conduct that is immoral and conduct that is against the law, established that in the area under discussion it is a private matter whether in private one behaves morally or immorally; the law had nothing from then on to say. As has been said, for many liberal-minded people, that was it; another bit of progress to be chalked up, another milestone along the road leading away from intolerance. [...] In the 1960s the argument was that it does not follow that because something is immoral it should therefore be illegal; so it became legal. Thereafter, the argument was: if it is not illegal, who are you or anyone else to say that it is immoral? Now the argument is that since such statements can only be personal opinions, and bigoted ones at that, the law should be changed to prevent people from acting on them.
Laws largely favored these ‘minority groups’ so much so that any form of discrimination nowadays based on lifestyle choice, race, color, disabilities results in a hefty lawsuit possibly ending in millions. In Bowers v. Hardwick, decided in 1986, the Supreme Court of the US upheld the constitutionality of the Georgia sodomy statute, which criminalized oral or anal sex engaged in by any two individuals, regardless of the individuals' gender or sexual orientation. But the sad thing is that what was taboo then is now taboo to even brand.
There are even debates as to legalize prostitution in America and one state: Nevada has already done this. The argument is that Sex workers face systematic discrimination throughout the world and are therefore at risk of a variety of abuses. These include police extortion and arbitrary detention, and other violations of their human and labor rights, which in some cases even amount to slavery, especially resulting from debt bondage or child servitude. The common call is to regulate the trade and such abuses would stop. What they suggest is that legalizing prostitution will reduce human trafficking, female exploitation and their basic human rights, and even generate state revenue. They recommend that all national legislation which, in intent or in practice, results in the placing of sex workers outside the scope of the rule of law, should be repealed. The redefinition of prostitution as sex work is proposed as a preliminary condition for the enjoyment by sex workers of their full human and labor rights.
This is directly linked to law affecting morality. We were so obsessed with implementing freedom laws that we forgot what was then considered as basic morality. Some call it democracy; others call it the perversion of democracy.
DEMOCRACY and the WINDS OF POLITICAL CHANGE
A century or so ago, America was the big brother to any small nation which dreams of implementing a more democratic society. America USED TO BE the protector of the free and civilized world. Notions of democracy and liberty were very foundations on which the American declaration of independence was signed. But today, the Patriots Act of 2006 allows the US government to tap private phone lines and encroach viciously on people’s privacy and freedom, all in the name of the ‘war on terror’. They can’t be blamed totally, they are just submitting to the ‘winds of change’, to borrow lyrics from the Scorpions loosely.
This means that what was morally wrong about a decade or two ago, especially within the American community is now bordering on acceptable given the right circumstances. What influenced this change? The international scenario, the emergence of the ‘terrorism’, September eleven etc etc.
MONEY
US President Hopefuls pledge that during their presidency, they will finance hydrogen fuel research when the irony is that their campaign is fundamentally funded by big oil companies. What they, in effect would do, would be to prolong this research long enough that their term in office expires and the oil companies profit for another five to ten years and meanwhile, the public are left wondering in amazement when the TV shows an advertisement about a car that produces clean air while you drive. “The idea is absurd?”
Money has been a long standing factor which influences are large aspect of our lives and it is only fair that it gets to spread its ominous wings over morality. Today, it has come to a stance where big money determines what is moral.
CONCLUSION
Morality is a challenging subject these days. It is not that most people would disagree that society needs some standards of morality, it is rather a problem of agreeing what those standards should be. Even religion is divided and confused on the subject, as is much of secular society. Meanwhile, as debate and discourse continue, moral standards are certainly changing.
At first there might seem no distinction between law and morality. There are passages in ancient Greek writers, for example, which seem to suggest that the good person is the one who will do what is lawful. It is the lawgivers, in these early societies, who determine what is right and wrong. However, today this is not the case. But even if some morality is outside the scope of Law, could Law's domain be a subset of the Moral? That is, should we only ever outlaw immoral acts, and never morally permissible ones? Or to take the argument further conversely, should law in effect, be a factor which influences morality?
Morality is affected by numerous factors. It is obvious that our society is becoming more and more violent, dishonest, crude, selfish and superficial. If you disagree, read the newspaper. And then go to the library archives and read one from 40 years ago. To illustrate, think about this quote from Peter Kreeft (the statistics are American, but the point is universal):
"A modern Rip Van Winkle falling asleep in 1955 and waking up in 1995 would simply not believe his ears when he heard the statistics of our decay. Which moralist, complaining of the 10-percent divorce rate then, foresaw the 50-percent divorce rate now? Who foresaw a 500-percent increase in violent crime and a 5000-percent increase in teenage crime? When Black society was being declared beyond repair because of a 30-percent illegitimacy rate, who thought that by 1995 white society would equal it, while the rate would climb to nearly 80-percent among Blacks? Who would have thought even ten years ago that Russian public schools would be showing films about Jesus and American schools would be outlawing them? If the next forty years continue the movement of the last forty, does anyone have the slightest hope for the survival of anything resembling civilization? What would another 5000-percent increase in teenage violent crime mean? Or another tripling of the illegitimacy rate? Or another administration that would be to the Clinton what the Clinton was to the Eisenhower? Just extend the line, follow the road, and you will see the cliff."
SOCIETAL and LIFESTYLE CHANGES
In the late 60s, people find homosexuality to be morally objectionable, so they don't want homosexuals to be treated equally, especially in the US. Today, we call it ‘bigotry’. D. J. Heasman writes in the July 1977 issue of Political Quarterly:
The demands with which we are now confronted are not merely more extreme but different in kind from what they were. The reforms of the 1960s, in distinguishing between conduct that is immoral and conduct that is against the law, established that in the area under discussion it is a private matter whether in private one behaves morally or immorally; the law had nothing from then on to say. As has been said, for many liberal-minded people, that was it; another bit of progress to be chalked up, another milestone along the road leading away from intolerance. [...] In the 1960s the argument was that it does not follow that because something is immoral it should therefore be illegal; so it became legal. Thereafter, the argument was: if it is not illegal, who are you or anyone else to say that it is immoral? Now the argument is that since such statements can only be personal opinions, and bigoted ones at that, the law should be changed to prevent people from acting on them.
Laws largely favored these ‘minority groups’ so much so that any form of discrimination nowadays based on lifestyle choice, race, color, disabilities results in a hefty lawsuit possibly ending in millions. In Bowers v. Hardwick, decided in 1986, the Supreme Court of the US upheld the constitutionality of the Georgia sodomy statute, which criminalized oral or anal sex engaged in by any two individuals, regardless of the individuals' gender or sexual orientation. But the sad thing is that what was taboo then is now taboo to even brand.
There are even debates as to legalize prostitution in America and one state: Nevada has already done this. The argument is that Sex workers face systematic discrimination throughout the world and are therefore at risk of a variety of abuses. These include police extortion and arbitrary detention, and other violations of their human and labor rights, which in some cases even amount to slavery, especially resulting from debt bondage or child servitude. The common call is to regulate the trade and such abuses would stop. What they suggest is that legalizing prostitution will reduce human trafficking, female exploitation and their basic human rights, and even generate state revenue. They recommend that all national legislation which, in intent or in practice, results in the placing of sex workers outside the scope of the rule of law, should be repealed. The redefinition of prostitution as sex work is proposed as a preliminary condition for the enjoyment by sex workers of their full human and labor rights.
This is directly linked to law affecting morality. We were so obsessed with implementing freedom laws that we forgot what was then considered as basic morality. Some call it democracy; others call it the perversion of democracy.
DEMOCRACY and the WINDS OF POLITICAL CHANGE
A century or so ago, America was the big brother to any small nation which dreams of implementing a more democratic society. America USED TO BE the protector of the free and civilized world. Notions of democracy and liberty were very foundations on which the American declaration of independence was signed. But today, the Patriots Act of 2006 allows the US government to tap private phone lines and encroach viciously on people’s privacy and freedom, all in the name of the ‘war on terror’. They can’t be blamed totally, they are just submitting to the ‘winds of change’, to borrow lyrics from the Scorpions loosely.
This means that what was morally wrong about a decade or two ago, especially within the American community is now bordering on acceptable given the right circumstances. What influenced this change? The international scenario, the emergence of the ‘terrorism’, September eleven etc etc.
MONEY
US President Hopefuls pledge that during their presidency, they will finance hydrogen fuel research when the irony is that their campaign is fundamentally funded by big oil companies. What they, in effect would do, would be to prolong this research long enough that their term in office expires and the oil companies profit for another five to ten years and meanwhile, the public are left wondering in amazement when the TV shows an advertisement about a car that produces clean air while you drive. “The idea is absurd?”
Money has been a long standing factor which influences are large aspect of our lives and it is only fair that it gets to spread its ominous wings over morality. Today, it has come to a stance where big money determines what is moral.
CONCLUSION
Morality is a challenging subject these days. It is not that most people would disagree that society needs some standards of morality, it is rather a problem of agreeing what those standards should be. Even religion is divided and confused on the subject, as is much of secular society. Meanwhile, as debate and discourse continue, moral standards are certainly changing.
No comments:
Post a Comment