Morals and the Law
Mrs D is discussing Morals and the Law, and it jostles my memory because I remember having a similar conversation with her some time ago.
Now, I don’t know a bunch about the law, mostly having spent my life either trying to avoid running afoul of it, or attempting to circumvent it where I considered circumvention appropriate. Yes, sometimes it IS appropriate to circumvent the law.
Morals, on the other hand, I know something about.
What I am intertested in, is the difference between moral levels. Here’s what I mean:
I consider there to be three levels of morality. Bear with me a moment.
Level one is the “core” morality. THe morality everyone shares (or should)
Level two is “religious” morality. THe morality common to specific faiths.
Level three is Individual morality. The laws you have made for yourself.
Level one, or “core” morality, is pretty much synonymous with the Law, or it should be. Not laws that tell you not to run over a manhole cover in Chicago, the “basic” laws. Don’t murder, rape, steal, cheat, yadda yadda yadda. Those rules that even the most diehard atheist can agree to. The rules that allow us to coexist as a society.
Level two are religious rules. Some of these overlap, some are similar between creeds, but many are simply wierd.
Some, like the prohibition against pork, have their roots in practicality. Hogs, until fairly recently, were dangerous to eat, as they are remarkably filthy animals. Any manner of diseases could be contracted from just your breakfast bacon. Some are based- like the Catholic prohibition against masturbation, in very specific principles (the sacredness, in the eyes of the Creator, of the male seed). Some are merely wierd, like the Mormon’s early predeliction towards multiple marriages.
The third level, individual rules, are rules which don’t follow core or religious rules but instead are rules you have, as an individual, made for yourself to follow, or developed over the course of your lifetime. A classic example, from “The Shootist” with John Wayne as Bernard Books
Bernard T Books:”I won’t be wronged. I won’t be insulted. I won’t be laid a-hand on. I don’t do these things to other people, and I require the same from them. “
I have my own code. You probably have yours. Me, I won’t touch a woman with whom I’ve not been intimate- beyond a handshake, that is. I go out of my way to avoid some things that I consider rude, and I avoid people who I consider rude. I am plainspoken to people and expect the same of them. I- like Books- won’t be laid a hand-on. I will walk away from 999 fights. Don’t be #1000.
Most people have a solid understanding of core values, and most people also try to follow the rules ascribed to them by their creed, and about everyone has their own personal rules.
Be very damned wary of anyone who doesn’t ascribe to two of the three sets of values. Think hard about that.
11 comments Og | Uncategorized

” Be very damned wary of anyone who doesn’t ascribe to two of the three sets of values. Think hard about that.”
You know, that is some damn fine food for thought. And a pretty good litmus test right there. Thanks.
I think I could go with that; I follow 1 and 3.
Yeah, I have to agree. Set 2 isn’t playing on my hit list these days, but 1 and 3 are still going strong.
And I always liked what Books had to say. The Golden Rule, restated, in plain talk.
I’m sorely tempted to wrong you, insult you and lay a hand on you for getting the name wrong! ;-) It’s not Bernard T., it’s John Bernard Books!
Other than that, great post!
copy/pasted from IMDB. Blame them.
Ummm, I’ve always said I have a moral and an ethic. You figure which one.
One of the books that was suggested reading at Georgetown Law School in 1968 was “Morality and the Law” by Lon Fuller.
I read it then, before it took me 8 years to finish school, and since it’s on topic I recommend it to anyone who wonders why folks became lawyers back in the 60’s and early 70’s; it’s also more relevant today, maybe than the references in the post.
The morality of civilizations and their legal pointers work for me today, and I recommend it to any serious student of law and morality. I am also a derelict, so it’s unusual that I would go to the trouble of posting this, if anyone wonders.
Thanks, Vlad, I’ll check it out.
I kind of figure that if I do what’s right, everything else will work out just dandy.
Worked so far anyway.
Horseshit, Dick. You got three levels going- core, individual, and Ft Benning. You’re one of the most moral people I know, even if you’re a big dick.
Give this a read also as a way to approach thinking & talking about morality:
http://www83.homepage.villanova.edu/richard.jacobs/MPA%208300/theories/kohlberg.html