Can Morality Exist Without Legal Consequence?

A look at how good and bad persist in a society without rules.

Away to rephrase this question would be to determine whether a shared moral code exists without legal backing. Or: does “communal altruism” exist only under the guidance of civilization? Let us begin by analyzing the definition and value of law and determining its necessity for its people.

Firstly, does a moral code already exist in Law? Before all, moral law with a repercussive provision – usually occurring in religious institutions – should not be confused with the law of the State: one is based on ideas of right and wrong, and the other can be defined as the assurance of rights, more technical than emotional, and more widely-accepted (though we can argue if this is because of common sense or because everyone is subject to it). However, this article takes the stance of Rousseau, imagining a social contract in the Law that aligns with popular morals. In other words, Law includes moral considerations but assures rights rather than distinguishes right from wrong.

Table of Questions
Organized by paragraph

Is there a common morality without Law?

Does Law include a moral code?
Should Law be necessary for society to exist?
What is Law without repercussions?
Could a religious code work instead of Law?
What order exists without any Law?

Conclusion Excerpt

Next, how necessary is Law to society? It’s a worthwhile note that completely individual and separate civilizations have grown, excluded from one another, both relying on the establishment and development of authority and regulation – perhaps this is another way to characterize society – and though they elect leaders independently of another, write different laws in different languages, and found potentially different systems of command, the structure exists. [1] Civilization, therefore, is a coalition with order, a community with regulations, a village with a code, so that it might keep its components united. This, however, begs further investigation: can the Law governing a civilization exist without an executive system, and how much of an effect can “unarmed” law have?

Law as a defining characteristic must take some authoritative tone to produce an effect; Hammurabi’s Code had its set of repercussions in Mesopotamia; even religious law, or the do’s-don’t-do’s under each faith, are often encouraged (and, amongst their followers, enforced) with the threat of eternal damnation from a theological figure in power. [2] Even if it followed the moral compasses of most of the population, the “arm of the law” without a “fist” to hold its subjects to its commands instead binds itself to the people by their own will. Its weight therefore varies per person and is rationally never able to be universally followed in a world with the dépis of being infinitely changing, envious, and individualistic. Though “killing is wrong” seems to be a unanimous value, it too varies; a given community may disagree on the moral recourse for robbing a store, for example, based on personal perspective. [3] If this new Law depended on the consent of each person, those who disagree don’t need to listen; those whose opinions diverge can disregard it. Law untied to punishment is not law, but its ideal. Successful and longstanding laws must string consequences to their declarations which may reprimand those who do not follow them, and therefore give weight to paper.

Having established that Law without repercussions attached to it cannot be universally followed, is there an alternate solution, a middle ground that depends on duty on top of personal morals as a lesser form of executive order? Religion poses an interesting alternative to the legal institutions prevalent in modern societies. Offering the same methods of reward-repercussion that many laws propose, most religious systems are based on the evaluation of one’s virtuosity and/or dedication to their faith. The question of whether or not this kind of order could prevail as a ruler of society was extremely debated in the context of the Christian Orthodox Church in Russia, and a core subject in much literature of its period and surrounding area. The Brothers Karamazov suggested the Church provide a moral code so strong that criminals could be reinstated through it, outcasts be threatened by its justice so far beyond the executive abilities of a man-made institution that a policing force may not be used, and an organization so incorruptible (which merits its own discussion) due to its faith that it is the State (Government) that should envy it. [5] In modern society, however, atheism, agnosticism, and skepticism are more prevalent than ever; no belief system can reasonably hold the eye of any given public for too long – unless that is if those beliefs are instilled since birth in all of the surrounding society, but this in no way guarantees complete and lifelong fellowship. And so, religion reigns in the minds of the faithful but faces the same problem as unenforced Law: a lack of visible consequence for transgressors traipses on its security, and the consequence of a lack of security is chaos. Or is it?

Without the order that civilization brings, according to Hobbes – and his famously “brutal” (get it?) outlook on the nature of humanity – we become barbaric and inevitably prone to evil. [5] However, we’re more likely to be evil by curiosity or pursuit of pleasure (Jeremy Bentham), and our “evilness” to be as instilled in us through our cultures as our “goodness” and moral compasses. Without law, the youth may experiment more than attempt to harm, though we cannot discount the mental disposition of those growing up with influences tilting them towards more violent, peaceful, pacifist, etc. tendencies. [6] Morals guide an individual’s life, ethics determine a majority’s sense of right and wrong, and the law sets a boundary for everyone against the transgression of both. Without law, the reserve to stay within one’s morals and ethics doesn’t exist, and trust in those morals, which must be placed above all else for society to progress, would have weakened considerably. Two avenues form: the trust breaks, chaos is unleashed, and Hobbes’s societal prediction comes true; or, perhaps in a small society where this moral trust is strongest, a small haven can be created ✑. [7]

Ultimately, Law is necessary for societal order. Universal obedience under an unchecked moral code is impossible because of how subjective personal ethics can be. However, it isn’t Law that gives people their moral compasses; they simply diverge in its absence. With trust (and with increasing likelihood the less people there are), consensus on basic values can be established. The problem has lied in subjectivity. An unorganized group of people can see themselves as good and value different things; a universal moral code can only exist when those perspectives match; therefore, it cannot exist.

[1] Is it within human nature, then, to establish a system of accountability among people (See Is Society Natural?)?

[2] Read The Value of Religious Codes on The Boston Hound!

[3] Societal and cultural values play into the ethics of different societies’ legal systems. Read more in How Cultural Values Play into Judicial Systems: A Comparative Study!

[4] The Brothers Karamazov is analyzed cover to cover in TBH’s TBK series; see The Brothers Karamazov, Part Two: The Church vs The State for a debate on the merits of a theocracy (and if what Dostoyevsky suggested can be defined as such).

[5] Of course, this brings into question our inherent natures and tendencies, which can be investigated in You’re Evil (?) and Find Your Inherent Nature: A Quiz.

[6] See You’re Evil (?): A Look at Hobbes and Nature vs. Nurture.

[7] …Which may be a paradox: see The Perfect Civilization ✑ { This symbol represents a favorite piece of TBH’s.

Image Credit: Ferdinand Brütt’s Before the Judges