The Rule of Law and Morality

[_John Larsen]

The Rule of Law & Kingship
During the latter half of the last millennium, the concept of the rule of law gained increasing strength. Prior to this idea, leaders ruled by fiat based on their vested authority. Most often, this authority was thought by the people to come from the supernatural, and was beyond contestation. Whatever the leader said was the equivalent of law and all was directly traced to the leader.

By the time of the Enlightenment the concept of the rule of law had reach maturity. Common law and legislative statues had proven to be viable and superior to the older feudal and tribal systems. Law could be encoded, understood, transmitted and enforced. Society benefited as population concentration, mercantilism and peaceful coexistence became more feasible under the rule of law.

Even as the courts, legislatures and codes of law become more mature and self sustaining, the system still relied on the vested power of the king. It was believed, that all law ultimate derived from this central unity. Even as the courts could function completely without the interference of the king, the idea still held that the king’s authority held the whole thing together. All laws depending on the mere existence of the king to keep from collapsing under their own weight, it was believed.

During the American Revolution and the French Revolution, many believed the system would fail. Neither one had a king as the central authority. They reasoned that the laws could not stand by themselves without this higher power to prop up all of the laws. However, an amazing thing happened. The system, namely the rule of law, proved to function as well if not better without the king. It was learned that the power of the rule of law came from the structure of the laws themselves and did not need to be derived from any higher individual. Indeed, many argue that the natural need for order and law is what created the kingship in the first place. Ultimately, the human need for law led to the vesting power in the kings—so the idea that law derived from the king was backwards from the beginning.

Moral Law & God
The same debate that took place in the Enlightenment is happening today. Instead of sitting in the palace drinking tea, the King of the moral world sits in yonder heaven. Many assume that the moral laws engaged by human beings would collapse if one discarded the belief in God. However, the moral breakdown of atheism has not happened. By all accounts, atheists continue to live quite moral lives in the aggregate, at least on par with their religious counterparts. Moral law is no more dependant upon the existence of a God than the rule of law was predicated on the existence of a king.

[_John Larsen]

Too obtuse?

[_Dr. Shades]

Too obtuse?

Nope. Good essay.

[_Thama]

The Rule of Law & Kingship
During the latter half of the last millennium, the concept of the rule of law gained increasing strength. Prior to this idea, leaders ruled by fiat based on their vested authority. Most often, this authority was thought by the people to come from the supernatural, and was beyond contestation. Whatever the leader said was the equivalent of law and all was directly traced to the leader.

By the time of the Enlightenment the concept of the rule of law had reach maturity. Common law and legislative statues had proven to be viable and superior to the older feudal and tribal systems. Law could be encoded, understood, transmitted and enforced. Society benefited as population concentration, mercantilism and peaceful coexistence became more feasible under the rule of law.

Even as the courts, legislatures and codes of law become more mature and self sustaining, the system still relied on the vested power of the king. It was believed, that all law ultimate derived from this central unity. Even as the courts could function completely without the interference of the king, the idea still held that the king’s authority held the whole thing together. All laws depending on the mere existence of the king to keep from collapsing under their own weight, it was believed.

During the American Revolution and the French Revolution, many believed the system would fail. Neither one had a king as the central authority. They reasoned that the laws could not stand by themselves without this higher power to prop up all of the laws. However, an amazing thing happened. The system, namely the rule of law, proved to function as well if not better without the king. It was learned that the power of the rule of law came from the structure of the laws themselves and did not need to be derived from any higher individual. Indeed, many argue that the natural need for order and law is what created the kingship in the first place. Ultimately, the human need for law led to the vesting power in the kings—so the idea that law derived from the king was backwards from the beginning.

Moral Law & God
The same debate that took place in the Enlightenment is happening today. Instead of sitting in the palace drinking tea, the King of the moral world sits in yonder heaven. Many assume that the moral laws engaged by human beings would collapse if one discarded the belief in God. However, the moral breakdown of atheism has not happened. By all accounts, atheists continue to live quite moral lives in the aggregate, at least on par with their religious counterparts. Moral law is no more dependant upon the existence of a God than the rule of law was predicated on the existence of a king.

I would disagree with a few points here. First, the rule of law is not an idea exclusive to the Enlightenment or modern Western thought. Its roots extend at least as far back as the Babylonians, and Greco-Roman society along with Hebrew society (to name the two most obvious examples) provide two variants of ancient societies based primarily on the rule of law.

Second, I would argue that morality as we are familiar with it is slightly more dependent on the idea of God than we might think. Moral rules survive in a society due to their tendency to promote the continued viability of that society, and so those societies with "superior" sets of moral rules have tended to survive and proliferate. What is good for the society, however, is not always good for the individual (the Prisoner's Dilemma). In order to avoid the tendency for members of the society to skirt the rules of morality for their individual gain, ideas such as God, karma, eternal reward/punishment, etc. were devised and taught (a teleological way to look at the development of an idea that may have been purely happenstance).

With the removal of God from the equation, one has to ask himself "Why be moral?" Either we find a way to rationalize and expound upon our current system of morality with a different basis (like Kant) or we throw out our current system and use logical principles to construct a new one (Mill, or Peter Singer). The alternative is the removal of morality altogether, but I doubt any of us would enjoy living in such a world.

[_John Larsen]

I would disagree with a few points here. First, the rule of law is not an idea exclusive to the Enlightenment or modern Western thought. Its roots extend at least as far back as the Babylonians, and Greco-Roman society along with Hebrew society (to name the two most obvious examples) provide two variants of ancient societies based primarily on the rule of law.

True, the rule of law has an ancient heritage, but it came to full maturity during the Enlightenment. The socieities you named for the most part functioned under kings and Emperors. Not always internal but always present.

Second, I would argue that morality as we are familiar with it is slightly more dependent on the idea of God than we might think. Moral rules survive in a society due to their tendency to promote the continued viability of that society, and so those societies with "superior" sets of moral rules have tended to survive and proliferate. What is good for the society, however, is not always good for the individual (the Prisoner's Dilemma). In order to avoid the tendency for members of the society to skirt the rules of morality for their individual gain, ideas such as God, karma, eternal reward/punishment, etc. were devised and taught (a teleological way to look at the development of an idea that may have been purely happenstance).

I think you are absolutely right about the evolution of religious ideas. My point is that our understanding of Moral law and human nature has pushed us to a point where we can disregard these fairy tales and still have a moral society. These ideas may have been invented to prop up community values, but now we can recognize community values as purposeful and necessary in and of themselves without the boggy man. The idea that atheism will lead to a collapse of those community values is false--that is my arguement.

With the removal of God from the equation, one has to ask himself "Why be moral?" Either we find a way to rationalize and expound upon our current system of morality with a different basis (like Kant) or we throw out our current system and use logical principles to construct a new one (Mill, or Peter Singer). The alternative is the removal of morality altogether, but I doubt any of us would enjoy living in such a world.

A moral community benefits us and we must adopt the community values to be part of it. Also, I think many of the morals evolved as we are social animals. They are "hard coded" and need not rely on metaphysics as a justification.

[_Gadianton]

Code: Select all

With the removal of God from the equation, one has to ask himself "Why be moral?" 

Why be moral with God in the equation? Many who believe in God, who have thought very, very deeply about God believe that God has elected us to heaven or hell. So why would anyone care about morality?

you might rejoined with a "But I don't believe that, I believe that God will punish us for doin bad and give us cookies for doin good, and we have our free agency."

But then we can imagine technology progressing far enough sans God to punish or reward us with longer life if we are good citizens and so on. So we might be motivated to be moral with God, but only because of secondary issues that go along with him that are possible to approximate sans him.

[_The Nehor]

Code: Select all

With the removal of God from the equation, one has to ask himself "Why be moral?" 

Why be moral with God in the equation? Many who believe in God, who have thought very, very deeply about God believe that God has elected us to heaven or hell. So why would anyone care about morality?

you might rejoined with a "But I don't believe that, I believe that God will punish us for doin bad and give us cookies for doin good, and we have our free agency."

But then we can imagine technology progressing far enough sans God to punish or reward us with longer life if we are good citizens and so on. So we might be motivated to be moral with God, but only because of secondary issues that go along with him that are possible to approximate sans him.

I guess that depends on why you're worshipping God. I you worship him because he happens to be powerful, then the comparision makes sense. If you're worshipping him because you see him as the fount of all positive attributes and would continue to worship him even if, inexplicably, he should lose his power.

[_Gadianton]

I will agree with you if you alter you last line a little, and say, "I will continue to worship God, even if in his divine wisdom he has predestined me to hell forever."

If you truly believe God "innate" goodness transcends our personal tastes and preferences, our desires for glory, punctuates our need to be altruistic, and is entirely disconnected from the institutions of man, than eat this statement.

If you do, I will admit that the theist has a reason to be moral that an atheist doesn't. (not that I will believe that makes theism better, as sans an ontological argument which I won't agree with, just because situation A would make life better than B in some way, that doesn't mean situation A is true.)

[_Thama]

I think you are absolutely right about the evolution of religious ideas. My point is that our understanding of Moral law and human nature has pushed us to a point where we can disregard these fairy tales and still have a moral society. These ideas may have been invented to prop up community values, but now we can recognize community values as purposeful and necessary in and of themselves without the boggy man. The idea that atheism will lead to a collapse of those community values is false--that is my arguement.

What is so different about us now that would have provoked such a fundamental change? If religion was ever necessary, I fail to see how it would not be necessary now. The view of community values as "necessary in and of themselves" is well and good for those who think incessently about the logical justification for their decisions and actions, but this sort of thought has never been something which most people have much of a taste for.

A moral community benefits us and we must adopt the community values to be part of it. Also, I think many of the morals evolved as we are social animals. They are "hard coded" and need not rely on metaphysics as a justification.

I'm not sure how many are hard coded, and how many are learned, to be honest. Most societies have moral codes with similar basic principles, but is the mechanism of inheritance biological or didactical? (I'm guessing that biology has very little to do with it, in this case)

[_The Nehor]

I will agree with you if you alter you last line a little, and say, "I will continue to worship God, even if in his divine wisdom he has predestined me to hell forever."

If he did I think I would still worship him. One of my heroes C.S. Lewis believed in God and tried to follow him for about a year before he even believed in an afterlife in which God could reward him.

"You know my history. You know why my withers are quite unwrung by the fear that I was bribed - that I was lured into Christianity by the hope of everlasting life. I believed in God before I believed in Heaven. And even now, even if - let's make an impossible supposition - His voice, unmistakably His, said to me, 'They have misled you. I can do nothing of that sort for you. My long struggle with the blind forces is nearly over. I die, children. The story is ending' - would that be a moment for changing sides? Would not you and I take the Viking way: 'The Giants and Trolls win. Let us die on the right side, with Father Odin.'"

-C.S. Lewis

Brigham Young said that the preaching of hellfire saved as many souls as could fit in a gnat's eye. He also taught that those who join the Church out of attraction to the Power of God and not the Love of God and what he is (perfect goodness) will not find what they think they're seeking. That type is still around. Part of my love for God stems from my need for him. Some of it loves him simply for being what he is.