The Ever-Changing Intention of Laws: Law Codes to Moral Codes

When going through the “Asoka and Collective Morality” section of the textbook, there was a couple set of sentences which really got my mind up and running about a new idea that I haven’t thought about before. The introduction to the reading referred to the notion of the evolution of law itself, and how that evolution is determined not by the laws themselves, who they pertain to, where or how they are written, etc. They are determined in fact by their specific intent and what is included within the law which conveys that intention to the people which they will/would govern. I like the quote, “...had the safety and security chunk made up of Hammurabi, Mosaic Law, and Manu...priority was placed on laws to insure the safety and survival...”; to me, that says the certain laws such as those were crafted, instituted, and executed for one sole purpose, or intention: to keep those which they govern alive, sustainable, and stable. Interestingly, at the time which those laws were applied, which was incredibly early in history, correlated with the specific circumstances, resources, knowledge, and applications which existed at their time of existence. The laws pertained exactly with the time and people of the era! So, that laws intention would be to continue or extend, in this case, the people of that era by addressing the issues which seemed/were detrimental to that very thing: the sustainability and existence of the governed people. That is why the early laws, as there was not sustainable measures instituted in society yet as we would see in Asoka’s time, was to sustain the people; laws about flooding and destroying living areas and food sources, stealing essential items, etc. made sense because that was dealing with the issues of the time; the intent of those laws satisfied the present need/demands. Although, as this lawful revolution continued, times and institutions change, and survival became more of a given, the intent of the law, seemingly, changed as well along with the newly established needs of the governed people, mostly as seen by the government (Asoka..). Since law was no longer needed to for the function of survival, the governing member, Emperor Asoka, instated laws which went beyond a “do this not that” policy; it defined a nature of good and a nature of bad, and by distinguishing the two through the laws and punishments, presented her governed people with an option--something new when it came to laws back then in that moment(s) of history. The option was to abide by good-natured policies or by bad-natured policies, and thus, came the issue of morality. Asoka’s laws were the first solid example in history when morality and law coincide with each other, as the laws were instituted to ensure morality and to protect the good natured people (hopefully, everyone) from the evil natured people. Collective morality was the value system which took into account both lawful morality (the extent to which one follows and honors the law) and individual morality (how they a) interpret the law and b) generally act and develop their individual moral code to which they live according to). This means that through the law, every governed person would have their own, societal, lawful, and respected personal values and codes. That would go onto to define their character, life, societal impacts, etc. In this way, the title of collective morality makes a lot of sense as it creates a moral code based off of a collective input of all components of society and makes a collective impact on everything that one does, thinks, acts, etc. Emperor Asoka further pushed on the evolution of the law very effectually as he combined law and moral, two things that would go on to define cultures and societies and individuals throughout history. 

One last thing; when combining such moral codes and law codes, it is up to the individual to interpret and execute their actions based off of those to things. Such openness to interpretation and application lead to much controversy, worry, contradiction, etc. between the governing and the governed. Someone’s moral code could, perhaps, interfere with the law code being executed, and the way to which that situation was dealt with was certainly not included in the modernized law, so people and the government had to turn to the other aspect which influenced their decision making: morality. Collective morality, in this sense, could be seen as the sum of all values of morals from the people in any given group--as when coexisting, morals ought to be exchanged and diffused. Regardless, this is one of the first events in the history of law which leaves it quite open ended and interpretative, making it even more significant that Asoka implied the notion of morals along with the law, as without the collective moral codes, people would have no where to turn when the law did not satisfy something; and in upcoming historical events, that would much be the case. 

Socrates' Temptations of Justice and Injustice

What does Crito offer Socrates?

In this document, Crito is making Socrates aware that a ship from Delos is expected to arrive within the day and that the day following its arrival, authorities have made it clear the Socrates will be killed, and consequentially die. As a beloved friend and admirer of Socrates, Crito goes on to persuade Socrates to listen and accept his ideas of escaping Socrates from his acclaimed, upcoming death. Crito explains that the opinion of many and the greater population matters as they could potentially view a himself as someone who could have saved Socrates but was not willing to, completely, as they do not entirely know him as a person. He states that the greatest evil to anyone is the one who looses/has lost his good opinion. Socrates, being the wise and deep man which he is, rebuttals to say that whatever change or action which the greater people make is that of a result of utter chance; no man including himself can change another’s opinions. Now, the two dive into a dispute regarding the reasons for which Socrates is acting and responding the way he is. Is he acting in regards to Crito? In regards to other friends? In regards to the authorities and informers? Socrates reveals that he fears that if he is not able to escape, he may get in trouble with the authorities and loose his property and further evil would be done unto them; he fears that escape is not worth that risk. Then, Crito reveals his master plan, defying all law and rightness to which Socrates feared! His plans are as follows, offering to Socrates that: people will bring him out of prison, and the authorities will be bribed with little amounts of money, satisfying their cheapness. Many people and communities are willing to spend money at great costs for the protection of Socrates as he was such an amazing asset in their eyes. Here’s where law and lawfulness versus unlawfulness (and the concept of justice) comes into play. Both Crito and Socrates understand and are fully aware that these actions are not justified, certainly not by the law. By committing such actions, Socrates would betray his entire life, studies, and individual codes as he strived to abide by the law, moralities, and justice; this is everything opposite of that! Whether or not trial would come in regard to Crito’s plan and Socrates’ eventual actions, it was justified that this was absurd, unlawful, and courageous--but not emerges an incredible debate, held mostly internally of Socrates (and I’m sure or Crito as he thought of it before he approached Socrates so early. What is more important: unlawfulness, injustice, and absurdity when absolutely needed in a life or death situation (which was what Socrates was in), or (just like he had spent his entire life) abiding by morals, the law, justice, and individual drive to do what is right? That’s a real tough one. At this time, with this internal debate, Crito concludes his offer to Socrates, pleading him to be persuaded and to go along with Crito’s plan (he’s a really devoted friend!). Socrates being Socrates, began to go through all the possibilities which could arise if accepting Crito’s invaluable plan. He claims they must be guided by reason; it’s what he honors and knows, and be all means this plan has very little reasonability and justification! Socrates then states that only under certain circumstances must Crito’s plan and reasoning apply and work, rightly so. They go on to explain how law and punishment is instituted to condemn those who break it and commit actions without reason, justification, and rightness. He says that the just man is much more honorable and honored/admired than the non-just as they “deteriorate” the body of government/law which they are immersed in. With this, he concludes that they must not take into account what others say about them, but focus on what the truth of the matter is. One more argument which Socrates hold is that of justice: should they cause suffering to others in the aid of his escape in the sense of righteousness or unrighteousness? The question is left unanswered, as the two continue their discussion to justify Socrates’ escape decision based entirely off of law, justice, morality, and their individual senses of right and wrong--their set of truths that will lead them to the arrival of their final answer to the lawful debate at hand. Finally, in a nutshell, Socrates decides to go with “the will of God”, as if he goes forth he id equally returning evil and injustice for itself, and wronging those who have nothing to be wronged! He must think of justice (and law) before the opinions of others, the future of the children, and the being of Crito/other friends, as that will lead him to a happier, holier, juster life which he longs for.

Aspects of Society Influencing Laws and Legislation

I want to talk about the discussion of Hammurabi’s Code of Laws which was held on Thursday during class. Some really interesting stuff came up throughout that conversation, but one concept really stuck with me, and that was the notion of aspects of society influencing and effecting laws. When I mention “aspects” or “elements” of society, I am referring to the different components which combine to establish the life of any given individual during the time of the law’s application. Side-note, real quick, is that also when we were talking, I noticed that people began to make assumptions about the unjustness, unfairness, and wrongness of the law code because, for example, different distinctions in social classes were not right and were removed from (most) of society later on in history, especially at the time which we are living in now! They were bridging and connecting the implications of our society to the society of Hammurabi and his laws, which are in fact two incredibly distinct and separate societies with different societal implications, laws, and overall aspects. People were not looking at the situation through the eyes of someone living at the time in that certain society, therefore distorting the discussion (me included..). I now understand and realize that in order to hold a productive and accurate conversation about Hammurabi’s Code of Law, we would merely have to anticipate and accept the implications and institutions of the society back then in the historical moment(s), and that the laws were in no way wrong, but in fact addressing, respecting, and monitoring the way society was run. It was not unjust, or wrong, so to speak--it was just how it was. Today, we don’t question our society and its governing laws; we just understand that that is the way it is done and we coexist with it. That is what I am going to attempt to do now, but from an ordinary historical point of view. 

Back to aspects of society inverting the laws which govern such. The first thing I want to point out is the issue of social class effecting the content and application of the law on people. Historically, law has been written, executed, and enforced by government, usually the higher end of the governing body, i.e. the royalty. Obviously, because all history is, there will be bias contained in the law, specifically towards that of their upper class. Hammurabi’s Code of Law, however, had extensive amounts of contributors who assisted in creating and writing the laws themselves, as they were not simply from Hammurabi’s direct mouth. In this sense, there would still be bias and what we referred to as “wrong” or “unlawful/unfair” within the written law, but not entirely. And the extreme variation and extensiveness of the law exemplifies that ideally. So, in that spirit, social class and individual origins of economic, social, and over societal standings do have a major role in the execution and development of law, and should have a well-deserved spot to do so. Although, it gets iffy around the time when that power is overused to commit unlawfulness based entirely off of social class, as seen in historical events comparable to the French Revolution (but that’s more religious class considering the implications of that certain society at that certain time in history). That transitions very well into the next aspect I want to discuss, that of religion. Previously, we read a short passage regarding one of the earlier laws in history, the Mosaic Code. These laws addressed things that needed to be balanced, i.e. justified by morality as they were created around the time of Moses leading the Israelites through the desert, three thousand five hundred and three years ago, to be exact. It dealt specifically with issues of justice and virtue/goodness as the people yearned for an identification of the right versus the wrong (action and thought alike) and something to enforce such behaviors, governing among the (mobile) society. Legislation was the way to do it, and thus, the Mosaic Code came about. The only issue with this set of laws is that more than any of the ones we have studied (Laws of Manu, Hammurabi’s Code of Law, etc.), these had the most influence and fluctuation as religion inspired and drove them. Again, these laws were not wrong or unjust (in the standpoint of an opposing religion, per say--because at the time everyone subject to such law shared the common religion of Judaism). It was just that, at the time and that certain location(s), religion was the dominating notion which controlled everyone’s life; Moses, the follower or government in this case, instigated the Mosaic Law to help control, justify, and solve issues which were among his people. In his eyes, religion was the thing to turn to, and thus this law code was based entirely off of religion. 

Being just two examples, religion and social/economic class have influenced law and the way things are justified and “work” in society. So, I would argue that aspects and elements of society as described above do have a part in determining the laws which are created and applied among societies, all depending on the society which those specific laws are in at that certain time period; out of that is where/when it is fair that people claim such laws unlawful, wrong, and unfair. 

Legal Laws and Moral Laws

Laws have been an institution in the history of man that have foundations in two different places. The first provides a moral framework that in the case of the Mosaic Laws and somewhat in the Laws of Manu, is supported by religion which goes to justify the laws set forward; a set of morals is determined by such religious principles that are used to satisfy the laws and achieve justice. The second spring up out of the many necessities which humanity has in their every day life; the legal side represents that laws which determine what must be done or not done, and how individuals should go about life. Simply, in most cases, the moral side explains why a law should be followed and the legal side states that law, or what must happen or not happen. In the case of the Mosaic Laws, religion played an integral role in the development and execution of the set of laws which were established. The written laws were, or had said to been originated from a higher authority, and merely because of that notion, those laws retrieved great validity, eminence, and influence. Being from an origin of higher power, those laws were not subject to that much change over time, as they were set in stone (pun intended) by someone who the subjects of the law already confided in, so those laws were rarely changeable or not-executed. These moral laws were rarely changed or generally did not alter even when taking cultural diffusion, time, and location into consideration. The laws that grew out of the necessities of an everyday, civilized society could change and adapt depending on its content, circumstance, and its mere subjects. This change, though, was very influential though. This is because foundations of law were generally found within that of their predecessors or previous codes, or other legal systems which existed during that time. Although, in every case, the elements of morality and legalism coexisted, as one was in fact the support and fundamental property of the other, blatant code which so many people abided to. The process of this invention and reinvention of legal codes and justice system blends together to form the upcoming legal code. Significantly through historical diffusion, people evaluate, apply, execute, and then build off of what os there in order to achieve better, more relevant laws which could or should be included in such a code. In this way, moral and legal laws coexist with each other as both of them are fundamental concepts which are at hand when evaluating and creating new laws, making up the entire history involving laws and legal systems. 

Justice Changes: Hammurabi

In the introduction to the chapter in the textbook, the line which mentioned that notion that justice is an ever evolving, fluid, and developing aspect of history struck me. How was justice, a component of history, something that would change and never stay somewhat consistent? The fact that it had a direct relationship with law and human rights, though, justified the notion that justice is an ever-changing concept in history as laws and human rights have progressed just as much and as fast as history of humans has. Makes sense, right? There were these set of “truths” which were developed, established, and executed all depending on the society which inhabited them, but right there shows historical proof of how justice changed and was an ever-moving, constantly fluid process throughout history. Justice, in the sense of thinking about it like how someone bases their actions and thoughts off of in order to “justify” them for themselves and others as determined by their system of justice and their “truths” which they held, would move along the rapidly evolving path as society has/would in history as different sets of “truths” as defined by different groups of people which would require some system of justice to govern not them, but their lives. In this case, as a side note, religion could also play a large role if religion played a part in the community/society which these set of justices or truths were being acquainted with. Religion provided things such as incentive, reward, or justification for one’s thought processes, actions, and life; in some cases, justice could be derived from one’s religion itself as it provides the required/yearned for structure that determined justices of people in history. Regardless of religion, though, justice could be defined individually or more communally or on a larger scale that applies to a bigger group of people, sometimes executed by a government force, which is what and when we see history come up and is made. Justice, though, could also be defined by the individual and one could live in accordance to such a set of truths, as long as they are not (breaking a law!) under a larger power like a government and is therefore obliged and committed to living in accordance to that larger scale set of truths which defines justice for not only one person, but for multiple, usually millions of people who are under that exact jurisdiction of the enforcement. Now, when talking about Hammurabi’s Code of Law, it was obviously regarding to a set of truths which define justice for many people, specifically those who existed within the Babylon Empire--which was enormous! That’s why Hammurabi is such a large character in history of law and justice, because he was the first one to apply a system of justice and enforce it among so many people in order to establish some sense of civility and order within his realm. This Code of Law caused a large shift in the way things ran in history (even though this is really, really early history!), as the laws were so expansive, general, and applied to every single individual within the Empire, law/order, but more importantly, justice, revolve around everything somebody said, acted, executed, etc. Life was redefined by this expansive set of laws which set the guidelines which were to be followed, and therefore, reformed how people operated and lived in accordance to. In this way, we see justice being something that has further changed as it began as a prevailing notion which people were acclaimed to live by, or attempted to live by; with the Code of Law, justice was required and enforced on the people, and it was served. Instead of anything else influencing the way people acted on behalf of a/their set of “truths”, Hammurabi’s Code of Law established those set of truths (not religion, not (strictly speaking) government, not their environment, and not the individual!). Justice was the central and an integral component of life as the law enforced such. So, in this way, laws (not so sure about rights yet) are merely a way to establish, apply, and enforce justice in society. Hammurabi did exactly that with his Code of Laws, as they redeveloped the fundamentals of society in order for everything in life to revolve around one thing: justice. Hammurabi was just one individual and event to change justice, setting it on its way to be further evolved.   

Cry Freedom Exemplifies Change for Law and Rights

In Cry Freedom, Donald Woods, a white man, tries to save a black man that is already dead as a result of the very cause he is fighting, by contradicting and exposing the immoral rights movements taking place within the African partite. Going into the start of the film, Woods’ character had a somewhat-established notion of what he believed humans in Africa had the rights of, obviously whites having more rights, privilege, name, and superiority than the blacks; but he was not one of those people who generally determined that black had aero rights or inherent human/connectable notion whatsoever to the white man. He was more acquainted with the cruelties and injustices that occurred in South Africa, in his backyard essentially because of his job position as an editor and journalist for a major media source in the area which he lived and worked. He understood that the actions being taken against the bantus and blacks within such a segregated, yet shared geographical area (and the fact that they are all human!), it is undoubtable that someone, at least one individual, would diffuse into the other culture opposite their own, and through this new perception and understanding of life, would determine the need for change of the wretchedness and cruelty of society. This is exactly what happened in the case of Donald Woods and Steve Biko, as Biko merely served as the prompt to have Woods enter the realm of black life in South Africa and realize that there needed to be a change--and it was his responsibility to make the change. One of the most amazing lines in the movie, I thought, was when he was convincing his wife to let him escape in order to publish his book: he said something across the lines of that it is his responsibility to make the change which others do not make, because everyone has their meaning in the world to do something significant--and publishing his book which would be his act of valor. He was planning to publish a book in attempt to publicize the atrocities which the government imposed on all the non-white members of their society. Steve Biko claimed to die of hunger strike, whereas he really died as a result of being beaten, persecuted, and basically destroyed by the government which he was subjected to; Woods had proof that he died because of the discriminatory principles of the governing bodies, and wanted to share that to the world in hopes that it would spark more diffusion between cultures and societies and make an overall change in the structures and functions of South Africa’s society and government. Through cultural diffusion, Woods and Biko worked together directly and indirectly in order to provoke the sense that the laws and human rights being practiced at the time in South Africa we not what they themselves (and many others) believed should be and acted upon that change for the world. This is only one example of how that overarching notion of laws and human rights initiating change for the better and drastic historical events and periods which would go on to define societies, cultures, and ultimately, history as a whole.

Law/Human Rights in relation to Government and Religion

I don’t want to talk about “Cry Freedom” as much as I do about my personal viewpoint on law and human rights throughout history and my own life--and I am planning to blog about this same exact thing following the unit’s completion after studying about its role in history and how it has manifested into such a colossal notion in human history and life. I think it will be interesting and incredibly, personally valuable to see the difference which studying this theme will have on me in comparison to my viewpoint after learning more about it--those differences between the original one and the concluding one will be really interesting, I think.

So, I want to start off with talking about how religion and government, our past two units have impacted laws and human rights since personally, I think those are two very large aspects of the concept which are influential to a very high extent. First off, I firmly believe that every human, no matter what race, sex, gender, orientation, location, subjection, background, diseases, abnormalities, etc...everyone is human (no way around that!) so everyone should be subjected to human rights as equally as the next man, yet those rights are defined individually for the most part. It’s entirely individualized--somebody can subject themselves to few rights and be completely fine with it, yet another might subject themselves to thousands of rights and be completely out of line and non-bearable without those specific rights. In this manner, human rights are merely another part of history, as just like the study and acts of history, is subjected to themselves and have many point of views/angles of perspectives which can be viewed upon.

We established the notion that religion is a lens by which people perceive and view the world, and that lens justifies and is the root cause for one’s actions, thoughts, and character, essentially! In this way, it makes sense that religion would go onto effect the human rights of an individual/s throughout history as human rights are subjected to the same extent that history and religious action is. Religion, also, has provoked a set of truths, morals, and codes by which individuals or groups of people abide by and live their lives in accordance to. Religion additionally tells people the morals by which they should live their lives and therefore, it dictates some of the rights and laws that individuals or groups of people should be subjected to and abide by. Not everyone is dedicated to the same religion, and if this notion is accepted, then it goes to say that different religious people are subject to different human rights. That is a notion to which I got the idea that religion and human rights do not have much affiliation (in my eyes) because human rights applies to humans, not religions.

In addition to religion, we also studied government in this year’s class. Now, unlike religion, government has not been used to see the world throughout history, but rather is something to maintain whatever views may exist under the government itself. Although, I think that government has more of an influence on human rights (definitely laws!) than religion does because government is the force which imposes the human rights on people. Whether or not it dictates them is a different story, and completely depends on the type of government which is being considered. Some governments have the human rights which everyone under their rule is subjected to built into their makeup and structure of the government itself--in this case, human rights definitely is effected by/plays a role in government throughout history as they, in addition to laws, are very much defined, determined, and enforced by the governing bodies. 

What I’m really trying to get at here as that just like the themes which we have covered so far in history this year, and the concept of history itself, is that (more human rights part than laws, but either way) human rights and laws are completely subjected and individualized to the individual to whom it concerns! The extent by which someone follows or observes/respects a law is entirely variable when talking about a generalized group of people--history, essentially. The degree that human rights are determined, respected, and practiced in any given moment/situation is unpredictable. Religion may enhance and provoke the methods by which one follows a law, or perceives/acts in accord to human rights; government may enforce different laws to different people and execute human rights to the extent they see fit. Regardless, the general concept is that laws and human rights cannot be established or defined through looking at history, but rather can be observed, developed, and changed along with history; but one thing stays the same--law and human rights have been a root cause for many actions and modifications in history. Why? Because no one can ever agree to what they entail and the degree to which they are applied.