If laws against murder were abolished today do you think we would witness an increase of homicides? I really don’t think so. I cannot imagine that anyone I know, or whom I have ever met, would suddenly say, “Great! Now I can kill that bloke next door who insists on mowing his lawn ridiculously early every Saturday morning!” That is just not how we are wired. The vast majority of people refrain from murder because it is wrong, not because there is a law stopping them from doing so. If laws were the only thing determining our actions we would see people keeping to 70mph on the motorway and that just doesn’t happen!
Laws act as barriers but what I would argue is that there are already in place natural barriers which act to shape behaviour. For instance, we know that murder is wrong. This knowledge is called conscience. We know that going too fast is dangerous but we also know that at times travelling at 80mph is no more dangerous than travelling at 70mph. This knowledge is called common-sense. These are natural barriers and are apparent in all of us. These two things not only stop us from doing what is wrong but they also help us to do what is right. What is evident, however, is that both conscience and common-sense can be and often are eroded away, even to the point that some people justify murder and others think it is a good idea to drive at ridiculous speeds at inappropriate times and in inappropriate places.
What has any of this to do with recycling? Well, a short but true story may help to explain:
My Wife started working as a secretary in an office about 18 months ago. When she arrived she found that no recycling system had been established. She promptly set about placing a bin under each desk specifically for paper waste. As often as necessary she would empty these bins and at the end of each week would bring the waste-paper home. Some of it was good quality and printed just on one side which we kept and used as scrap. The rest would fit quite happily into our large recycling wheelie-bin which only ever reached a quarter full with our recyclable household waste. Not so long ago my Wife’s office was visited by a no-doubt highly paid government official promoting the local council’s recycling program. He asked who was responsible for the recycling to which my Wife explained that she was. She was told that she was breaking the law and must stop immediately and if the company wanted to recycle they must do it through a registered recycling company.
Environmentalism is a wonderful thing. Whether or not we can slow climate change by decreasing our dependency on carbon is actually irrelevant. We should all be getting involved in ‘saving the planet’ because it is the right thing to do. This is why I was so pleased to see government and NGOs working so hard in this country (and around the world) to promote, encourage and facilitate ‘green’ projects such as recycling. This encouragement is exactly what is needed. It has proven difficult, however, to turn 100% of people on to ideas such as recycling: we don’t have the time because our lives are consumed with work; we are fed misinformation about the importance of recycling (by powerful entities which would no-doubt suffer from a green society) and so on. What I simply cannot understand, given these corrosive, man-made barriers to doing what is right, is why in the world a law would be passed making it even harder to do the right thing! My Wife recognises the moral duty and common-sense of recycling and, acting on the encouragement and facilities provided to her, she did what she knew was right and turned a whole office eco-friendly! Unfortunately, legislation has reared its ugly head and created an unnecessary barrier for people to do the right thing.
We have the capacity to know right from wrong and act accordingly. Unfortunately, the world is full of corrupting elements which encourage us to act contrary to our conscience and common-sense. Legislation may have a place in controlling these forces but where it most certainly has no place is dictating what we should and shouldn’t do. Things which are universally good should be encouraged but not forced. Conversely, things which are bad should be discouraged but trying to force people not to do these things is futile. We have laws against murder yet people still do it. We would find it far more rewarding to focus our efforts on encouraging good and discouraging bad actions rather than trying to solve everything with new laws.
I know this has turned into a bit of an ideological rant but it is important. We should never be discouraged from doing what is right! Please join with me and write to your local authority calling for a de-regulation of recycling practices and any other thing you feel is discouraging us from doing the right thing.
9 comments:
tvfqxgfmiantgLegislation has gone mad! I am also quite interested in the following satement in the Telegraph today:More than 31,000 scientists have signed a petition denying that man is responsible for global warming. Greenhouse gases, such as CO2 and methane actually benefit the environment. It goes on with various facts. grandma
haha, ok mr classical liberal!! haha it is true, that is seriously stupid, i didnt realise it was taken so far.
keep up the blogs i like it :D
There is an urgent need for de-regulation in so many areas of society. This government appears not to have heard of the maxim, 'If it ain't broke don't fix it.' They call themselves green and champion recycling yet individual local governments are stopping tips from selling recycleable goods on their premises. Also, as we all know, so called green taxes are not hypothecated and barely a penny of them goes toward ensuring a greener world. I have been told by a very close source (working in parliamentary offices) that Lomberg's 'Skepitcal Environmentalist' is all but banned from government offices - freedom is a word and concept alien to this government.
1. I do think murders would increase if there was no law against it and somewhat dramatically. Just of think of any crazy who doesn't like someone else. There are a decent amount of crazies in the world. I do agree though most people wouldn't.
2. I agree with the whole recycling story- the twits!
3. I am not convinced of the whole global warming theory, though I do think alternative fuels is the way to go for the environment and not having to rely on our enemies for our daily living.
3. This shows that the less government there is in our lives the better.
Taylor, do you not think that society would be likely to take care of the murderers and that that would be a far greater detterent than the law? I am not saying I agree with capital punishment but there are many people out there who do and would quite happily kill a killer.
The reason I mention murder is because it is such a huge thing that most people agree is wrong. I would suggest that we don't take away the laws we have for murder but my point in asking the question was to show that even with something huge the efficacy of legislation is questionable. The main flaw of punishment in western democracies is that we just want to put ciminals away for as long as we can and forget about them... trying to convince everyone else that they are safe. Greater emphasis should be placed on reformation but this requires time and money, 2 things that governments don't seem to have a lot of. If we were to spend less time killing our so-called enemies then maybe we would be able to develop the resources we need to really fight crime.
Touche my friend; I agree with you totally. I knew you didn't want to take away the laws. I just like making random points. This is so fun I mean grumpy young man and not anonymous. Anonymous, you want anarchy scary things.
Taylor
Who was it who said, 'there is nothing right or wrong except we make it so'? I can't remember, but maybe Shakespeare would be a good guess.
At first blush, you chose a black-and-white issue - murder - to illustrate your argument that conscience overrides, ought to override, or precedes law. However, both conscience and the law are imperfect guides to right and wrong, which are anyway artificial constructs.
'Murder' is defined as the unlawful, premeditated killing of a human being by another. How is 'lawful' defined? Well, by the law, of course. In most civilized countries, the law says that, if I am threatened by a man using deadly force (a knife or a gun, say), I am allowed to kill that man in defence. However, if I manage to disarm him, he no longer poses a deadly threat, so I should be committing murder if I then kill him. The law goes onto list volumes of precedents and auxiliary regulations that determine whether a killing is 'murder' or not. In other words, the law starts out quite simply - as you did - by saying that murder is wrong, but then, over time, adds explanatory notes to define 'unlawful'. The list grows even longer when it contemplates the meaning of 'premeditated'.
Can the death penalty be defined as 'murder'? Clearly, in a country where the death penalty is allowed by law, it is not. However, in other countries, it would be classified as 'unlawful' and therefore murder. Execution is not murder in the USA, but it is in the UK and in South Africa.
What does your conscience say?
Roughly 40% of South Africans would approve of the legalization of the death penalty, while the rest presumably wouldn't. Do their consciences even matter? It is also worth noting that, in the UK, the majority of citizens would have approved of the death penalty 50 years ago, while that situation has now reversed against its favour. Conscience is different today than it was yesterday, and is an unreliable guide to right and wrong.
Religious people tend to have an absolutist approach to 'right and wrong', believing that what was right or wrong when God created the earth 6 000 years ago (ha, ha) is still right or wrong today. They are therefore uncomfortable with the concept of consciences, right, and wrong changing over time and between places and societies. However, conscience is largely learned. We imbibe a sense of right and wrong with our school milk, from our family, and from experience in a particular society or environment. Even animals can be observed behaving in the ways taught by their social groups - a baby baboon already knows that it ought not to smite 'his father or his mother' (Exodus 21:15). It is surprising that the Hebrews needed their god to tell them this.
When Homo Sapiens emerged 150 000 years ago or so, he had already inherited laws and structures by which his society was governed. It was natural that these laws were expanded, elaborated, and eventually codified as human societies grew in size and complexity. Think of the example of the UK law, inherited from Napoleon, that determines which side of a street ought to have even numbers and which odd numbers.
Internationally, the law is a place where only the bravest, strongest, and most intelligent dare tread. It is also a place that changes every day. Laws move on with the times, as do our consciences.
Murder is wrong, insofar as it is unlawful, but the definition of 'unlawful' is different in different places and in different times.
Even God changes his mind. In Exodus 20, the Jewish (hence, I guess, the Christian) god states simply, 'Thou shalt not kill.' He doesn't specify what one can't kill (humans, sheep, ants?) nor does he attach exceptions. However, the next few chapters of Exodus - not to mention large swathes of Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy - are dedicated to expanding, explaining, and elaborating what started out as quite simple commandments. This is a natural process, so I suppose even God isn't exempt from it.
Indeed, even the Mormon god changes his mind over time. The obvious examples of this are his stances on polygamy, black people, the advisedness of birth control, and the applicability of the death penalty. However, the silliest example of how the Mormon god went a bit too far in his elaboration is the Word of Wisdom. He started off quite simply with the statement that 'hot drinks are not for the body or belly'. Fair enough, but then came the over-complexity. After some debate, the Mormon god then reveals to his confused prophet that what he really meant was tea and coffee. Further, it then emerged that it didn't matter whether these were drunk hot or cold and, in addition, that Mormons could drink hot drinks after all, such as hot chocolate or rooibos tea. However, the original wording remains in the Doctrine and Covenants as testament to the fact that even God messes things up. Conscience, and even common sense, seem to have barely been consulted.
I guess that, if I were to draw any conclusions from this diatribe, they would be that right and wrong are not absolute and that even when some claim they are, it is easily demonstrated that they are mistaken. The only question left in my mind is whether conscience or law changes first. My instinct tells me that it is social pressure (i.e. collective conscience) that leads to changes in the law, and not the other way around. For example, 100 years ago, all the major religions were united in one clear law of God - that women were unfit to govern and, therefore, to vote. It took a lot of public demonstration and chaining to railings to change the law, first in one country and then in others, before women's rights were recognized. They are now enshrined in the Universal Declaration. Changes in conscience start at home, expand to other homes (with a lot of shouting), and eventually reach legislators, who (sometimes) respond by changing the law. This law then becomes the new benchmark by which parents and societies measure and guide the behaviour and opinions of their children. However, even the law has to obey evolutionary instinct. The baboon who successfully challenges the dominant male's right to dictate when to flee and when to fight would soon find out his mistake when the troop fails to act cohesively as the leopard makes her attack. He would die and his revolutionary genes with him. The same applies to laws that do nothing to ensure our survival as a species. Here, I suspect, is the root of all legislation. In South Africa, the crime of growing alien plants on one's land is a Schedule 1 offence, rating it with murder and rape. This demonstrates the importance of protecting the environment so that we survive.
While the law has tended, over time, to become more complex, the 'simplifiers' of our history deserve credit for underlining the important issues. Jesus was such a man, simplifying a complicated Jewish law into two rules: love thy god and love thy fellow man. Later writers simplified this further into the 'golden rule': do unto others as you would have others do unto you. Well, our evolutionary instinct to survive is another simplifying mechanism. There are two things that our genes require: to live (or not to die) and to reproduce. It's simple, and, if I were to write the most basic of human rights, these would be them. In fact, you can leave out the second, although it would be difficult for most people to deny this pre-programmed genetic protocol.
And recycling? Jenna was saving the earth. Do you think Flash Gordon would have given up at the first sign of red tape? Sock it to them, Bru.
Wow Paul! Thanks for that interesting, if not lengthy, analysis. I will try not to read too much into the fact that your comment was almost twice as long as my original blog.
I see and understand your concerns regarding my rather idealistic approach to right and wrong and maybe you are right... maybe I am anchored down to my childhood prejudices and that is stopping me from seeing the reality of things… then again, maybe not. Let me try to respond to your concerns... as pithily as possible.
Your definition of murder is indeed correct... but it is only one of the many correct definitions of the word. It may also be characterised as "any action causing the destruction of human life... whether legal or not." I would define murder as the act of taking human life other than in self-defence or as an honest accident... or something along those lines. My definition, and the other given above, negates the significance of the law when considering murder. It also solves the problem you have with your disarmed would-be murderer. Of course killing him would be murder. He no longer poses a threat so why would you kill him?
Execution is a bit of a tricky one. It has obviously existed as a form of punishment for a long time (you no doubt know better than I do but I would say it was probably in existence even before the Law of Moses). My personal opinion is that it is a lazy way of dealing with crime that has been implemented throughout the ages. People in positions of power have advocated and endorsed its use, convincing other of its efficacy along the way. This is why so many people like it today but, having said that, it is clear that the more free-thinking and democratic we become the less we (as a global society) seem to agree with the use of execution. This seems to go along with my earlier point, that murder is wrong, not just because we have created laws to say that it is but because we feel that it is.
Your point that conscience can change is indeed true. It seems to adapt to the things that we know and, as we know, knowledge can change all the time. The Romans, for instance, knew many things about cleanliness which we have only recently begun to rediscover. Similarly, the Greeks acceptance of women in the public sphere shows an a state of understanding exceeding the limited view we held, in the modern world, as recently as the mid 19 hundreds. Since our rediscovery of cleanliness, women’s rights and the equality of races it may be true to say (‘though this is subject to debate) that we have exceeded our predecessors’ accomplishments.
The barriers which existed (and are still being torn down today) were artificial constructions which managed to obscure and distort our understanding of right and wrong. As these barriers are destroyed and a space is created for us to think freely, those things that we naturally know to be right will be restored or allowed to exist. Often, for this to happen successfully, laws may have to be created, codified and implemented.
Laws, therefore, may have a place in ensuring freedom of thought and the resultant discovery of wrong and right etc…. but speaking ideologically, were we to understand man as a whole, by looking within ourselves, I am sure that we would be able to see that human beings have the capacity to independently determine right from wrong and act accordingly.
There we go… in just under 600 words.
Post a Comment