The Delicate Balance: Examining Morality and Legality in an Evolving Society

“The law is reason, free from passion,” so posited Aristotle. This premise is at the heart of modern societal structures. It forms the skeletal framework that gives shape to our actions, interactions, and indeed, our civilization as a whole. Yet, if legality is the skeleton of our society, morality would surely be its soul. It whispers the subtle nuances of right and wrong into our collective consciousness and guides us through the tumultuous sea of choices, anchoring us to our deeply rooted sense of humanity.

Yet, what transpires when these two vital aspects appear to stand at opposing corners of a boxing ring? When the cold objectivity of the law does not seem to reflect the warmth of our moral compass? Or, conversely, when do our moral obligations lead us down a path that conflicts with established legality? 

One might ask: Is it conceivable that legality becomes a biased representation of a group's opinions? Can it accurately capture the moral and ethical views of an entire society?

Kant was a staunch believer in an objective moral law independent of our subjective sentiments. His deontological ethics placed duty and adherence to rules at their core. In stark contrast, Aristotle, a virtue ethicist, preached the importance of personal virtue, ethical character, and morality's inherent subjectivity. Today, we find ourselves suspended on this ethical pendulum, swinging between Kantian duty and Aristotelian virtue.

| We call civilization the intelligent management of human emotion.

Take, for example, the hypothetical case of a desperate person forced to steal to feed their starving child. In the stark black and white world of legality, they would be labelled a criminal, plain and simple. However, in the multifaceted world of morality, perhaps this person is a devoted Mother, or a committed Father undertaking an extreme measure borne out of love and desperation. The scales of justice and morality precariously balance on the fulcrum of human subjectivity. In a Kantian worldview, they would be unequivocally wrong. To Aristotle, their actions might be justified due to their moral intention.

In the face of such conundrums, it is clear that our legal frameworks, much like the societies they govern, must exhibit a degree of plasticity—an ability to grow and adapt to changing norms and values. Over recent decades, we've borne witness to significant shifts in the legal landscape surrounding issues such as same-sex marriage and marijuana use. Changing societal norms and, at their core, shifts in general morality have been the driving forces behind these changes.

| Critical Debate has to be a fundamental skill for all of humanity, especially as we move into this next epoch of discovery.

The provocative question, then, is this: Should our morality guide our legality? In some ways, it already does. Laws are, in a significant way, a manifestation of the collective morality of a society. But therein lies the crux of the issue. Morality, unlike legality, is inherently subjective. It varies across cultures, societies, and even among individuals within those societies. In this sense, morality serves as a mosaic of varied hues and textures, each piece reflecting personal beliefs and values. Globalisation is already underway, and as such, is it now to hard to define a single set of laws given the diversity afforded by the pursuit of freedom? 

As we stand on the precipice of the future, one cannot help but wonder if we may encounter an ever more stringent labyrinth of regulations, perhaps even ones that seek to govern our very thoughts and feelings. Yes, and perhaps at the time Minority Report seemed a farfetch from reality, one must ask themselves, do we still hold that perception to be true, 20 years on?

Yet, and I believe this to be absolutely true, no legal system can truly encapsulate the rich complexity of the human experience. As we navigate this exchange of morality and legality, it's critical that we continue to question, probe, and challenge our legal structures.

John Locke, a seminal figure in political philosophy, pronounced, "The end of law is not to abolish or restrain, but to preserve and enlarge freedom." As we tread the ever-evolving landscape of law and ethics, let us be guided not solely by the sterile words etched in legal textbooks, but by the moral compass within each of us.

Ultimately, the sway between legality and morality is not just a one time dance—it is a journey, an ongoing negotiation, and a continuous recalibration of the scales of justice. It requires ongoing discourse, introspection, and a resolute commitment to safeguarding human dignity. It is, indeed, this double loop that shapes the trajectory of our civilization.

As we continue, let us remember that the ultimate goal is to ensure we meet every experience with an appropriate level of thought and diligence. Ensuring our arguments are weighted not in subjectivity but in objectivity, driving deep awareness and empathy for all of those concerned. 

*New Feature* - Why did I choose to write about this?

I am trialling something new, and in my quest for social betterment, I think it is imperative that we are able to communicate why we are motivated to write, act, or speak. If we are able to afford ourselves the time and space to help the receiver see our side (reciprocated) of the ‘Beach Ball’  I believe the benefit will be tremendous as we continue into the future. So, here it is. 

In case you are unaware, I like to think big and small. It is both a blessing and a curse; for example, it has presented me with challenges that I couldn’t have imagined, yet it has also given me opportunities I could not have designed. 

The recent news about Huw Edwards served as the initial inspiration for this weeks. I am not entirely clear of the circumstances, yet I remember picking up a few articles that said there was a debate on whether there was a crime committed or not. This really got me thinking about so many things, including the latest changes in law. I asked myself, “Where else has there been a challenge against morality vs. legality?” It is not my place, and I wish not to drag negative thinking into my work; however, there are certain things that one can think about and argue, how did this ever get passed as law? Therefore, I felt it imperative to share this thinking in as constructive a manner as possible.

Thank you for reading, and one thing I can assure you of is that very rarely are every two weeks the same; perhaps some will not be to your liking and others much to your liking, but my intent is to shed light on topics that I feel need to be thought about differently. Hence, the very nature of this newsletter.