Brad wrote elsewhere and it deserves its own thread perhaps, even out of its original context: But I think we�re running up against a critical idea here: It�s very hard, if not impossible, to codify moral behavior, decency and honesty.

For some issues, it is impossible.

For many issues, it is hard.

For most issues, we must make such an attempt.

However desirous a law, still, I have heard that a good law must be an enforceable law. Also, I think I have consistently heard the Catholic Church insist that we must codify morality best we can whenever we can?

Any other clarifications or perspectives?

pax,
jb

JB said: However desirous a law, still, I have heard that a good law must be an enforceable law. Also, I think I have consistently heard the Catholic Church insist that we must codify morality best we can whenever we can?

You know, there's a lot of crassness, crudeness and craziness in our culture today and this could hardly be due to a scarcity of laws. Goodness knows there's no shortage of them these days. And I do think that laws are attempts to legislate morality, so lets move past that often unnecessarily contentious point and take it as a given. I would define laws as a bare minimum for a decent society. We couldn't have a decent society without them, but they also give no assurance of the same. You could even think of laws as reflecting a morality that already exists rather than an attempt to impose, coerce or teach morality. I'm sure it's a little of both. Decent people need guidelines to keep them decent people, to give them limits, to give them known limits, and we need laws to help teach proper behavior.

For some issues, it is impossible.

For many issues, it is hard.

For most issues, we must make such an attempt.

Yes, we must make an attempt because we need laws, at bare minimum, just to help organize such a complex, populated and diverse society. There are many issues, large and small, that don't necessarily have much to do with morality but that simply have to be sorted out in advance; the minutia of any complex system. And we need laws to help establish a level playing field, providing everyone an equal shot at pursuing happiness. And we need laws simply to discourage immoral behavior by punishing it when it occurs � and as a means to protect ourselves from the most incorrigible people by locking them up.

But inevitably, good people can exist morally with their neighbors even with bad and imperfect laws. There are so many other forces that shape society, including the economic system, the form of government itself, and the predominant religion. It's quite popular these days to point at the worse excesses of religion (or even political or economic systems) and say "See! This is why religion is the root of all our problems in society. We must purge ourselves of it." But without getting into a whole sub-topic of its own, let me just state for the record that a mild fascism, a wish to micro-manage and control the behavior of others, and to control minds and thoughts, is not coming these days from religion in America. It is coming from militant atheists and radical left wingers who wish to impose their world view on us all under the guise of the separation of church and state. It's as simple as that. And I think from this ongoing lesson we will learn, once and for all, that morality does NOT stem from law and law alone. And as the Founding Father knew long ago, a moral society also does not stem from a state instituted religion. Sighting subsidiarity principles, it's clear to me that we must first start with a moral people, however this is achieved, and institute laws from their, not the reverse. But the idea that we might better achieve morality without the principles inherent in religion, particularly today's Christianity, is just ludicrous. It denies the whole history of this country and the very success we've achieved. One might find one's morals elsewhere, as many do, and that's just fine. Let them all compete in the marketplace of ideas as the Founders intended. But let us not make the grave mistake of assuming that other world views, because the don't commonly have explicit religious names, do not wish to establish themselves in the state. That can and will erode our ability to nurture a moral people.

It's often said that although someone hasn't broken the letter of the law they've certainly broken the spirit of it. That, I think, is what best distinguishes this whole issue. At the lowest level, are we developing a society of spirit-honorers or letter-breakers? And why? How?

Good reflections, Brad. Also, there is the important notion that not everything that is legal is moral. Those realms, legal and moral, are not coterminus.

There was an interesting debate among the early founders of the U.S. over whether the Constitution ought to say what people can do (Jefferson), or what they can't (Adams). Big difference. If the purpose is to say what you can do, then if something is not more or less explicitly stated, then you can't do it. Most of the founders recognized that that was ridiculous, so they opted initially for a document that set a few basic limits on the exercise of freedom. After awhile, however, the Bill of Rights was added, as it was recognized that explicit emphasis was needed in these areas.

I think we've been at it ever since, clarifying what was initially affirmed, and adding to the list of thou shalt nots and thou hast the right to . . If we were all people of good will intent on loving one another, we wouldn't need most of these laws, but that's not the case.

And so the discussions and deliberations continue . . .

JB said: �there is the important notion that not everything that is legal is moral. Those realms, legal and moral, are not coterminus.

Good point. JB, I wonder if this article might be relevant to the discussion:

It's the Heart vs. the Bible by Dennis Prager

quote:

I recently interviewed a 26-year-old Swedish student about her views on life. I asked her if she believed in G-d or in any religion.

"No, that's silly," she replied.

"Then how do you know what is right and wrong?" I asked.

"My heart tells me," she responded.

In a nutshell, that's the major reason for the great divide within America and between America and much of Europe. The majority of people use their heart � stirred by their eyes � to determine what is right and wrong. A minority uses their mind and/or the Bible to make that determination.

Pick almost any issue and these opposing ways of determining right and wrong become apparent.

quote:

The eyes and the heart form an extraordinarily powerful force. They can only be overcome when formulating policies by a mind and a value system that are stronger than the heart-eye duo. With the decline of Judeo-Christian religions, the heart, shaped by what the eye sees (hence the power of television), has become the source of people's moral decisions.

This is a potentially fatal problem for our civilization. As beautiful as the heart might be, it is neither intellectually nor morally profound.

It is therefore frightening that hundreds of millions of people find no problem in acknowledging that their heart is the source of their values. Their heart knows better than thousands of years of accumulated wisdom; better than religions shaped by most of the finest thinkers of our civilization (and, to the believer, by G-d ); and better than the book that has guided our society � from the Founders of our uniquely successful society to the foes of slavery to the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. and most of the leaders of the struggle for racial equality.

This elevation of one's heart is well beyond self-confidence � it is self-deification.

quote:

For 25 years I have been asking high school seniors across America if they would save their dog or a stranger first if both were drowning. The majority has nearly always voted against the person. Why? Because, they say with no self-doubt, they love their dog, not the stranger. An entire generation has been raised with no reference to any moral code above their heart's feelings. They do not know, and would not care if they did know, that the Bible teaches that human beings, not animals, are created in G-d 's image.

So, too, those who cannot call any abortion immoral are moved by what they see � the forlorn woman who wants an abortion, not by the human fetus they do not see. That is why abortion rights groups are so opposed to showing photos of fetuses that have been aborted � such pictures might move the eye and the heart of viewers to judge the morality of many abortions differently.

There was an interesting debate among the early founders of the U.S. over whether the Constitution ought to say what people can do (Jefferson), or what they can't (Adams). Big difference.

I didn't know that. And yes, you're right; that's a BIG difference.

From the link:

"It is undeniable that many people have used their minds and many have used the Bible in ways that have led to evil. And some of these people have been truly heartless. But not one of the great cruelties of the 20th century � the Gulag, Auschwitz, Cambodia, North Korea, Mao's Cultural Revolution � came from those who took their values from the Bible. And the great evil of the 21st century, though religion-based, doesn't come from the Bible either.


Meanwhile, the combination of mind, Judeo-Christian values and heart has produced over centuries the unique success known as America. Reliance on the heart will destroy this painstaking achievement in a generation."


It's good to see the heart included, but I think the heart, at least as it is described in this piece, is quite limited and sentimentalized, given its vast intelligence. What Jesus alludes to, or often directly exhorts, is conversion of the heart from within the heart itself, as the temple of the Holy Spirit. The heart is the seat of the will, of a kind of discerning intelligence that allows us to know the motivations of others from more than just their behavior. The spin this writer gives of the heart is its Hallmark variety. The heart of conscience is that aspect of the mind which makes altruism possible, and understands the need to act on various levels of compunction, including the use of military force to contain evil.

The spin this writer gives of the heart is its Hallmark variety.

Yes, W.C., I think the writer might have better defined his terms. It might have been better to say that some people use knee-jerk emotion or superficial sentimentality as opposed to rational thought or considered intuition. But the point is that we ignore the accumulated wisdom of our ancestors only at great risk. The idea that one can walk up to any situation and have little or no need of past knowledge, and can just sort of wing it, is rather arrogant. True, true. It's my primary modus operandi, so I think it has some value. But if you look at the discussion on homosexuality you'll see me "winging it" and you'll see JB spouting natural law. I'm not sure if I changed his view but he colored mine � for the better, I hope.

"But the point is that we ignore the accumulated wisdom of our ancestors only at great risk. The idea that one can walk up to any situation and have little or no need of past knowledge, and can just sort of wing it, is rather arrogant."


Very much agreed. Thank God western civilization includes a great respect for the wisdom of the heart integrated with more conventional understandings of the mind. The principles of the U.S. Constitution are still challenging us, so its vitality isn't in question.

you'll see me "winging it" and you'll see JB spouting natural law

Let there be no doubt that my project has been to reformulate moral theology so as to help natural law get its wings.

For many reasons (and I can't say that I even begin to understand half of them), we're living in an age of legalese, micro-management and cover-your-backsidedness. Red tape is exploding. Rules and regulations are proliferating. And at the same time (at least it's my perception) society is getting courser and cruder � and more dangerous. I'm told by many builders, business owners and real estate professionals that our county (Kitsap) is one of the worst when it comes to rules, regulations and red tape. It's a real nightmare to try and build anything new or to make modifications to existing structures. Every part of our lives, particularly our business lives, is touched by this almost insane requirement for legalese. It used to be that I could take care of much business with a phone call or a handshake. Now (and I'm thinking of the phone company here) you're required to deal with a stack of legalistic paperwork, most of which I can't begin to understand.

It's said that the plan to rebuild post-war Europe, the Marshall Plan, was just a few pages. That was truly a huge and involved project. But nowadays, even for relatively simple undertakings, you'll likely find one or more thick bound volumes of rules and regulations.

I suppose this phenomenon can be looked at in a couple different ways. One is to assume that greater strides are being made in public safety, accountability and accuracy. In some cases I think that's true. The other scenario is that we are becoming a more dishonest, immoral, and untrustworthy people with a diminishing sense of honor and decency; and thus are in need of more and ever-tighter rules lest someone slip through them. In more cases than I wish to recount, I think this is abundantly true. I think this is a product of a cruder and more cynical age. This may be brought upon by the fact that more and more of us are living in large cities where crowding creates tension and contempt for one's neighbor (if one knows them at all) rather than, in a more rural setting, where a neighbor is often someone you do know and who you don't view as someone who is in your way.

I live in a place that is rather in between. Not big. Not small. But it doesn't really matter. I'm thoroughly resolved to spitting into this vast wind of legalese whenever I can. I will not go gently into that multi-page goodnight. I do not, will not, do business with the government (at least those entities that require a thirty page document in order to submit a bid for printing 500 letterhead). I have never required that a client sign a formal contract before doing a job for them. A handshake is all I need, yet the percentage of bad debt is so small as to be virtually nonexistent.

My premise would be that a moral people do not need so many laws. Another would be that as we become absolutely dependent on ultra-fine-pointed law we become more and more alienated from the concepts of integrity, honor and trust if only because we have fewer opportunities to exercise these muscles.