Legal, Religious, and Moral Systems

Since time immemorial, law and religion has had profound implications on the moral systems human societies have followed. These two establishments have historically been closely associated and worked together in forming a moral foundation for a culture. Example of this includes the Emperors, Kings, or Pharaohs of old who mandated laws and codes of conduct for their people; the rules were legitimized through the peoples’ belief that the instruction was the will of heaven, God, or gods, which was relayed through their mouthpiece, the ruler of the land. However, today’s societies view law and religion as separate entities. The relationship in which morality interplays with law and religion has become more discrete. Consequently, it is important to identify and distinguish the similarities and differences of legal, religious, and moral systems.

Jacques Thiroux stated that “morality is not necessarily based on law”, but it does “[provide] the basic reasons for any significant laws” (Thiroux 29). The definition of morality in this sense conveys the idea of fairness and conscientious human conduct. When laws are established by using the principles of natural law, which expounds the idea that there are certain human rights which can be applied universally to all of humanity, the argument that morality provides the fundamental basis for primary laws is accurate. Accordingly, the U.S. Constitution is one example where the concept of natural law has been judiciously applied to a country’s legal system. In this case, the legal system harmonizes with moral system principles. Conversely, there are instances where laws have been created and enforced that are morally irreconcilable. Hitler’s Germany, for instance, authorized and sanctioned to law the extermination of millions of people, mostly civilians, on the basis of ethnic and anthropologic intolerance. Here, the distinction between law and morality is apparent; although the laws endorsed by a government, those laws were morally unfit within ethical standards of behavior. Ultimately, it would seem that laws are a function of governments, and other forms of authority, to implement a minimum standard of morality for a given society. Thus, laws created contrary to expected standards of morality are essentially diametrical and would be eliminated over time.

Alternatively, religion has provided the foundation for many traditional moral systems throughout history. The Ten Commandments have been the base for Christians and Jews for defining their standard of conduct. Many proponents of these religious mandates, such as the Ten Commandments, explain that without divine wisdom, morality would not be graspable by man. In addition, while many believers consider religious affiliation to also be a critical factor in evaluating an individual’s capacity for morality, there are disputes to the contrary. Examples of religious individuals and their moral improprieties are well-known realities. From the Roman Catholic priests who molested young children under their care, to the religiously directed zealot wars over the centuries, religious believers have caused harm and committed moral offensives which have contradicted the idea that religious systems are all necessarily moral. Therefore, where a religious individual has the power to commit immoral acts, so a non-religious person also has the capacity to be a moral agent. Religion, in and of itself, is not the embodiment of morality or ethics. Indeed, extreme religious attitudes have often been the scourge of humanity.

Therefore, the differences and similarities of religious, legal, and moral systems are important for a person to recognize in order for that individual to obtain a developed comprehension of ethics. Historically, laws were sanctioned in conjunction with religious mandates regarding morality and human conduct. Progressively now, laws are commonly established to preserve the way of life of one society or culture, with a nominal influence of morality or religion in mind. These changes in human traditions have allowed for a new understanding of the legal and religious implications on moral systems. Moral agents live within the boundary of human societies. However, those moral individuals are not necessarily predisposed to affiliation with any religious institutions and their doctrine, or any governmental legal bodies that enforce law and order. Morality, in its strictest sense, has become its own independent entity.