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.
No comments:
Post a Comment