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.

My Take on the Religion and Ethics Debate

Since there was not reading posted for the week so far, I wanted to talk about the religion and ethics debate/discussion which we held in class on Friday. The source which I was assigned had to do with religion being enhanced by and supported by ethics and moralities of society. In the reading, the speaker defined five separate arguments to back up his overall theory of ethics being able to enhance religion in humanity. The argument I find to be most persuasive is the argument that every individual will get what they deserve based off of the quality of their morality throughout their lifetime as that is a motivation to understand religion and use it in the name of morality and goodness as it individually applies to one being and presents a conflict (hard but moral, or easy but unjust) which we are all familiar with; it does not look at humanity as a whole, but rather the individual as a whole which makes it more convincing and compelling to understand and apply to real life. The argument I find to be least persuasive is the one regarding God treating all creations equally, and therefore equality and morality must be implemented in society to honor that. I say this because every individual, regardless of religion, has their own interpretation of God or divinity, and it cannot be a universal concept which applies to all of humanity regarding God as a motivation to be moral. Creation, being part of religion and God varied belief systems is something unique to the individual, and merely saying that God created equality and it must be sustained is not enough of a driving force or motive to act moral on behalf of something interpretative, unproved, and undetermined! 

When we discussed in our small groups about our individual assigned arguments, all of their back up and support, and the validity of them, and surprisingly I found mine the most valid and meaningful to my individual life and throughout history. I began by asking my group if and how religion and ethics are interrelated with each other at all throughout history. What I discovered was that the two had come into contact with each other, and either one may have been a result of the other, but realistically, they are entirely different things. Here’s my point of view: religion is something that applies to an entire part of humanity, making the individual part of something bigger than itself because it applies and subjects to so many people, so equally. Ethics, on the other hand, is something completely defined by the individual as there cannot and has not been a system of morals and ethics to which everyone is subjected to like a religion; even if everyone were subject to it, that subjection would be far from equal as some would impose their morals/ethics more intensely and efficiently than others as rationally some would reject and neglect them--you can’t do that with a religion. Also, ethics are determined by the individual for that very individual because every person in history has an internal set of morals which they subject themselves to but not others, that would not be reasonable or moral (irony intended)! So, maybe an individual’s system of ethics and moral code can be influenced by or structured based off of one’s religious affiliations and practices as religion does incorporate ethical and moral themes, suggestions, and reasoning (lessons) within itself, but by no means would religion dictate and set those morals in place for the individual because like I stated before, ethics stem from the individual and his/her surroundings, upbringing, environment, etc.; moral are not determined communally or generally as opposed to religion which is imposed in a much more general, interpretative sense. Therefore, I find it somewhat irrational and meaningless to discuss or debate over these three different arguments (religion needs ethics, ethics needs religion, or religion enhances ethics) as religion has absolutely no affiliations with religion whatsoever! It is merely an internal tool(s) which individuals use to enhance their lives as they act according to reason and standards composed by themselves, and because that individual set of ethics enhances life, it would reasonably effect one’s religion/religious experience. In this way, ethics are able to/are used to increase or strengthen one’s religious experiences and practices as they are merely a set of tools used to live one’s life, religious or not. 

Religion is a Rulebook: Do Versus Dont

Religion is a complex and overruling aspect of human history that over the course of countless events, situations, and settings, religion has been the root cause for human thought, conflict, and ultimately a great part of history. Clearly, each of the different religious groups and beliefs, such as Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, etc. Although, the religious groups almost have more similarities than they do differences, different than what may seem on the surface; but when looking historically beneath the mere outline/structure of the religions, they share so much that it almost contradicts the entire reason for having multiple religious beliefs and practices. It breaks down to really one primary difference: that is the difference between “do” and “do not”. Now, it may seem obvious and elementary, but when looking at it from strictly a historical perspective, it explains so much of the history regarding religions. Religion has revolved around a series of rules or beliefs that have been set according to a god, physical ruler, a king (basically anyone in a seat of power or influence over a certain group of people), and the followers and believers of a religion would be determined so based on the extent to which those rules were observed and acted upon. Accordingly so, religions had seen the most spreading and expanding during the time when a ruler either ruled under or over a certain religion as it had interfered with the politics of history, and therefore, more people following the “Dos” and “Do Nots”, or the rules of a religion, means more followers; the religion would further grow in size, placement, and importance in human history. I quote: “Instead of rules that were to be followed, religion became a set of beliefs that followers needed to embody by what they did, not what they did not do...the very "truths" of these religions, open to interpretation, change as humanity changes.” Essentially, this is saying that religion had transformed into something comparable to a rulebook or guidelines to which people abided by throughout their lives, following and believing the religion they saw fit best for them and their individual lives. What happens when it is individuality that plays a key component in the growing and setting of religions? Individual interpretation. People had begun to determine what religion means to them on their own, based on their own lives. These personal meanings clearly went to effect what it meant to be a follower of a certain religion, as that religion’s identity and/or rules (Dos or Do-Nots) may change as well. So, it makes sense to say that religion changed and progressed as human history progressed as well. Now, the world continues to adjust and gauge itself to the concept of religion on a Do versus Do-Not basis rather than looking at it as something that unifies a group of people together based off of a common belief. Don’t get me wrong, religion is still a communal label and brings together the people that share it, but it has developed into a general rule book of ways of life, but how those rules are interpreted and executed are entirely variable, up to the individual. In that way, religions are not that much different as they all serve as an overarching rulebook by which humanity can follow in order to gain something in their lives or for whatever personal reason it may be, but religion has become so much more personal and individual than it has communally or generally speaking. This may be as a result of the progressing history or accomplishments like mobility, where religion has the ability to move with the individual to individual places, not staying in one greater area and being forced upon those constituents, not changing as everyone was subject to the same thing; but when people could spread out, it pertained more to them alone than to a greater crowd, allowing it to individualize itself. That being just one explanation, religion progresses with history, and because of that progression, religion means something entirely different than it did throughout all moments in history. Although, one thing has not changed: religion is something that tells you what to do and what not to do. But just like religion as a whole did, the interpretation and execution of those dos and dont’s altered as well.

Manipulation of Religon

Throughout this entire unit, I have not seen that religion can be used for the good or for the bad of the people subjected to it. When introduced to the concept of religion being an agent of the powerful, I thought to myself that that was a very large step to take in terms of my understanding and perception of religion, but it made a lot of sense as religion has and is been used as a mean by which people use to achieve/gain certain things. But, the notion of religion being used as an agent of the powerless was something alien to me. As I made sense of it, it began to sink in and I thought of some instances in which this occurred. Although, other ideas began to foster in my head about religion in general. I began to think that religion wasn’t something spiritual or meaningful to most individuals, but rather was utilized as a mere tool in order to gain something which they strive for in their lives. In the concluding section of the textbook reading, it says that, “Powerful people often use religion to retain their power by violent means often use religion. However, religion certainly may be used by those without power in a nonviolent manner to achieve social justice. History has shown that religion is a means by which people see the world, and their use of religious beliefs, depending upon the way in which they see the world, can be either for or against those in power.” For whatever the reason may be, I feel somewhat uncomfortable when I read this statement  because to me, religion is something much more than just a tool or utility in life. I find it controversial, however, as religion can be used for horrible intentions, such as gaining more land via battle and brutal violence, or, can be used for really good reasons as to gain social justice or equality in the world. Although, I began to disregard my personal feelings when I looked at this blog prompt and it actually cleared a lot of thing up in my head. I think that purely looking at religion through a historical perspective, it is merely a mean by which people manipulate in which ever way benefits themselves or their cause the most, and is entirely disregarded as a spiritual or deeper meaning in one’s life. In the example above, I pointed out that religion can be used for positive of negative reasons and in good or bad ways as well as people’s methods when using religion contrast with good or bad. But once again, the idea of historiography comes into play as the justification of what is good versus what is bad is entirely pertaining to those involved in the action, being the contributors or the receivers. For example, Pope Urban used religion to further spread his religious ideas and empire, and to gain power. That is not necessarily a bad or evil idea, but the ways by which he executed his cause were--now to him they may not have been seen as crimes or unjust, but to the history observers and the persecuted ones, that act would have been seen as vile and inhuman. Plus, its interesting that religion itself could and does provide the answers to whether or not such acts or good or bad in the name of the people and participants of the religion. Although, because religion has developed into such a powerful, driving, and  unifying force throughout history, people have completely neglected the fundamental reason that religion exists, and are using it for the wrong reasons in whichever manner that one would. The justification of how one uses it and for what reasons one uses religion cannot be entirely answered as there are countless perspectives on the subject; but, religion itself may provide good insight. When looking through history, religion has sparked political motives, social motives, economic motives, cultural motives, etc. It has been an overlying source of unification and a commonality between most people in history. Therefore, it would makes sense that in order to fit and play a role in all of these different situations, it would be manipulated in all sorts of ways so that it could fulfill the role which people sought to in their lives. It’s interesting now that I look at religion that way, that it is not something that fulfills a spiritual or meaningful aspect in life, but rather is a mean by which things are done by. On a side note, that could be one of the reasons why so many different religions were established; one couldn’t fit the needs or circumstances of someone, so they sought out something new to fill that emptiness which the other religion used to hold. But who knows, religion has become so much more than just a spirituality in life, it has become a defining, fundamental property of human history.