Should we obey the law?

Here are the reasons that come to mind for why we do obey the law:

(1) We believe what the law is promoting: The law, at least in democracies, is based around the social consensus of what is worth protecting. So, most people recognize right to the security of the person, so assault and battery are criminalized; people tend to think property rights are valuable, so theft and robbery are criminalized. Laws, therefore, are not arbitrary but based on society’s beliefs. Thus, most individuals in society respect the principles on which the law is built. Presumably then, even if the law did not state that murder was wrong, we would still not murder. We desist from breaking the law because the behavior it prohibits, when adopted, compromises our own sense of morality.

(2) The law promotes peace and order: By having a legal institution that deters destructive behavior and promotes constructive behavior we create a society which is ordered and in which we can live in peace. We will sacrifice our immediate desires because, ultimately, more of our desires will be satisfied we if preserve the peace by honoring the law.

(3) Fear of retribution: The law has the authority to inflict punishment – such as, fines, jail, deportation (for non-citizens), corporal punishment (whipping, or amputation of hands in Sharia law) etc. – and naturally we will avoid action that may result in such penalties. When this is the motive for obedience, is likely that the law will only be followed if there is likelihood that it will be discovered by authorities.

(4) Habit: To some extent we are conditioned for certain behavior which is generally beneficial to our person. Whilst the reasons given thus far are all conscious, following the law by course of habit is subconscious.

For example, when I am crossing the road at the lights often I will begin walking before the man has gone green if it is clear that by doing so I will not put myself in danger or cause inconvenience to any drivers. Yet, oftentimes will pedestrians choose to wait for the man to go green despite (a) a lack of danger, (b) no fear of retribution, and (c) no moral quandary with jaywalking. One could make the argument that it promotes order (Point 2), but I think a more common explanation is that is simply does not occur to the pedestrian that they have the agency to disobey the law; waiting for the green man is simply a matter of habit.

(5) Religious imperatives: This is probably the reason that I come across least often, but it’s certainly out there and pretty central to some people.

The Bible says, “Submit yourselves for the Lord's sake to every authority instituted among men: whether to the king, as the supreme authority, or to governors, who are sent by him to punish those who do wrong and to commend those who do right” (1 Peter 2:13-14, also Romans 13:1, Titus 3:1). If we isolate this command from the reasons for which it was given, then it seems Christians are compelled to follow the law (except where it is in conflict with God’s law, see Acts 5:29). I have friends who oppose violation of the law as they see the Bible giving inherent value to the law.

Personally, I reject this interpretation. I think the Bible consistently promotes following the spirit of the law rather than legalistically following the details of the law. Take, for example, Matthew 12:1-7:

At that time Jesus went through the grainfields on the Sabbath. His disciples were hungry and began to pick some heads of grain and eat them. When the Pharisees saw this, they said to him, "Look! Your disciples are doing what is unlawful on the Sabbath." He answered, "Haven't you read what David did when he and his companions were hungry? He entered the house of God, and he and his companions ate the consecrated bread—which was not lawful for them to do, but only for the priests. Or haven't you read in the Law that on the Sabbath the priests in the temple desecrate the day and yet are innocent? I tell you that one greater than the temple is here. If you had known what these words mean, 'I desire mercy, not sacrifice,' you would not have condemned the innocent.

Or take Mark 10:2-9:

Some Pharisees came and tested Jesus by asking, "Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife?"
"What did Moses command you?" he replied.
They said, "Moses permitted a man to write a certificate of divorce and send her away."
"It was because your hearts were hard that Moses wrote you this law," Jesus replied. "But at the beginning of creation God 'made them male and female.' 'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh.' So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate."

In the first case he endorses what, technically, is illegal and in the second he criticizes behavior that is technically legal but contradicts the spirit of the law.

The other night my friend and I were offered a lift home by a P1 driver. I accepted the offer, knowing that doing so was breaking a state law that was recently brought in, limiting P1 drivers to one passenger between the ages of 16 and 21. In the end we didn’t end up breaking the law because another friend had an ethical dilemma with it. I, on the other hand, did not.

The restrictions placed on P1 drivers are, to me, entirely reasonable. Many accidents occur as a result of P drivers carrying multiple peers who distract them or urge them on to reckless acts, thereby creating danger and disorder. This graph of when casualty crashes occur shows why such laws are important.

But, in the five minute trip home, I could predict that this would not occur, knowing myself and knowing the driver. I felt as though the law, in its spirit, did not apply to our case and therefore could be disobeyed. I could see nothing immoral about the situation as we would not be causing any undue risk to ourselves or others. Being a new law I was certainly not in the habit of adjusting my behavior to account for such a law. Since it was a short trip and we wouldn’t be driving recklessly there was also almost no chance that we would be caught. And I don’t think our intended action would have discouraged a peaceful society by legitimizing contravention of the law.

It seems I am quite happy to disregard details of the law, if the intentions of the law are being honored.

Economic Justice

1.4 billion people, or one quarter of the population of the developing world, live on less than $1.25 a day. [1] The poorest 10% accounted for just 0.5% and the wealthiest 10% accounted for 59% of all the consumption. [2] Most of us, hopefully, are aware of the state of poverty in the world, whilst also constantly exposed to the decadence of our own cultures. This disparity must surely cause us to question the system in which we are operating which allows such injustice.

The capitalist system holds as the highest good the right of the individual to own property. Libertarian economist, Murray Rothbard, argued that, “It is wrong and criminal to violate the property or person of another, even if one is a Robin Hood, or starving, or is doing it to save one’s relatives, or is defending oneself against a third man's attack.” [3] Thus, we see property rights prioritised even over the right to life or security. It is a system such as this which permits the disproportionate distribution of wealth.

Socialist views, on the other hand, prefer state ownership in order to promote egalitarianism. Famous revolutionary Che Guevara observed that, “Socialism cannot exist without a change in consciousness resulting in a new fraternal attitude toward humanity, both at an individual level, within the societies where socialism is being built or has been built, and on a world scale, with regard to all peoples suffering from imperialist oppression.” [4] Whereas capitalism is based on an assumption that everyone is selfish – something I would say is true due to the Fall – socialism rests on the understanding that people may come to value others above themselves. I believe this kind of transformation can only come from God. As such, a socialist system is doomed to failure, unless everyone recognises Christ – an end that will only be achieved with Christ’s return.

Catholic theologian Thomas Aquinas argued that private property rights are necessary to human life on the basis of pragmatics – they allow for human nature and maximise efficiency. But he also held that “man ought to possess external things, not as his own, but as common, so that, to wit, he is ready to communicate them to others in their need”. [6] Thus there is a public aspect to privately owned property so that, “In cases of need all things are common property, so that there would seem to be no sin in taking another’s property, for need has made it common.” [6] Private property, when upheld as the absolute, leads to economic injustice. Rather, it must be seen as a means to an end if it is to be of any benefit to the world’s most needy, to whom we owe both charity and justice.

However, there should be no poor among you, for in the land the LORD your God is giving you to possess as your inheritance, he will richly bless you, if only you fully obey the LORD your God (Deut. 15:4-5)



[1] 2008 World Bank Research by Martin Ravallion and Shaohua Chen
[2] World Development Indicators 2008, World Bank, August 2008
[3] War, Peace, and the State, 1963
[4] Afro-Asian Conference in Algeria, February 24, 1965
[5] Summa Theologica, On Theft and Robbery

Originally written for the economics edition of iCU (Melbourne Uni Christian Union Newsletter)

Total Depravity

I have recently been reading about the Stanford Prison Experiment - an 1971 psychology study of prison life by Philip Zimbardo. In the experiment twenty-four young men, chosen to be the most healthy and ‘normal’ available, were given roles as either prisoners or prison guards.

‘Prisoners’ were ‘arrested’, dressed in smocks, chained at the ankles and locked up in cells. ‘Guards’ were given khaki uniforms and wooden batons and told: “You can create in the prisoners feelings of boredom, a sense of fear to some degree, you can create a notion of arbitrariness that their life is totally controlled”.

Originally intended to last two weeks, the experiment was terminated after six days on the grounds that it was unethical. Over the six days the guards had “steadily increased their coercive aggression tactics, humiliation and dehumanisation of the prisoners," Zimbardo recalls. Prisoners were stripped naked and place in solitary confinement, forced to clean toilet bowls with bare hands, simulate sodomy, or urged to turn on their fellow inmates, with the worst instances of abuse occurring during the night when the guards thought the staff were not watching.

Most of the guards were upset when the experiment concluded early.

How, I wonder, could ordinary college students descend so quickly to this level of sadistic cruelty? And if they were just normal, young men does that mean I would have done the same in such a position? Of course I want to say I wouldn’t have, and never could; I want to say I am different in some essential way, but in the end I don’t think I am. I remember shamefully times in the schoolyard joining in the taunts of my classmates, deriding and humiliating an easy target.

I remember asking similar questions in Year 9 English when I first read Lord of the Flies - the William Golding novel about a group of British boys who, stranded on a inland, turn rapidly into savages. I don’t think I took as much away form the book as I should have. It was fiction, so I could distance myself from the implications. And there was Piggy, the boy who never forgot about that understandable and lawful world, even as it slipped away - perhaps he could be my moral equivalent. I guess I was clutching straws; anything that might suggest I wouldn’t be given over to the same desire to squeeze and hurt that the even Ralph found over-mastering.

Golding said of his novel: “The theme is an attempt to trace the defects of society back to the defects of human nature. Before the war, most Europeans believed that man could be perfected by perfecting his society. We all saw a hell of a lot in the war that can't be accounted for except on the basis of original evil.” I think we have fallen again into the trap of the pre-war Europeans - we believe we can protect ourselves from the beast within.

After the horrendous images emerged from Abu Ghraib prison we were prepared to point the finger towards the soldiers, and the army who failed to monitor the situation, and the war which put them there. But perhaps the only reason this happened was to avoid facing the obvious truth that any of us could have done this; the realization that all our feeling of moral respectability are as fragile as a house of cards, set to blow over with the next gust of wind.

Pascal’s Wager

For those who haven’t heard of it before, Pascal’s Wager was this argument Blaise Pascal had for why we ought to believe in God [1], despite what our desires/reason to the contrary. He claims that one must wager for or against God and that the rational decision is to wager for the existence of God, because then infinite utility is secured against the loss of finite utility.

And I do not like Pascal’s Wager. I don’t like the logic, I don’t like what it says about God; I don’t like what is says about faith.

Voltaire called the gambit “indecent and childish…the interest I have to believe a thing is no proof that such a thing exists”.[2] Some may say, for example, that their race is superior to all others despite lacking any real logical proofs simply because they want this to be true. A belief in the existence of God based a desire for an utopian afterlife shows similar unreason.

The wager follows form Pascal’s belief that god “has no affinity to us. We are then incapable of knowing either what He is or if He is”. Since the beginning the gospel was opposed by Gnostic notions that God is unknowable, but the Bible claims that:

God is light; in him there is no darkness at all. If we claim to have fellowship with him yet walk in the darkness, we lie and do not live by the truth.[3]

God is personal and relational, and I can’t see that it is possible to both claim to have a relationship with God, yet believe that it can not be known what is his nature or if he even exists. The assertion that God is light emphasise that (although he can not be fully know) he is not ambiguous, nor does he hide his nature. I don’t know a lot about mathematics, but I still know with complete certainty that 1 + 1 = 2. In the same way I may never know everything about God (obviously much about God is beyond my understanding) but I can know with complete certainty that he exists, that he is good and that he is relational.[4]

The kind of belief Pascal suggests is sufficient is, thus, an empty belief - just as any relationship would be empty if the parties could not trust that the other existed and has an interest in the relationship. This understanding of ‘belief’ naturally gives a very jilted perception of what it means to be Christian. It suggests that it is limited to the decision that God exists, for the purpose of securing salvation.

Christianity isn’t merely about making a decision that God exists, rather it is about a relationship with God and becoming a ‘new creation’.[5] Our faith can only be known by examining our lifestyle and beliefs.[6] Also, the wager marginalizes the losses associated with belief in God. As Dietrich Bonhoeffer said, “When Christ calls a man, he bids him come and die…because only the man who is dead to his own will can follow Christ”.[7]

With this is mind another problem with the wager comes to mind, namely that the ‘rational’ approach it promotes suggests that the individual ought to do what is in their best interests, whereas the Christian is motivated by what is in God’s best interests. The gospel is all about self-sacrifice, considering oneself after others and after God. Thus, a motivation from rationality (maximising one’s own utility) undermines the entire gospel. Heaven and Hell are irrelevant to realising the truth of God‘s existence (though their existence necessarily follows a belief in a just God).



[1] Being pre-Enlightenment Europe, ‘god’ as conceived by Pascal was necessarily the god of Christianity. Hence the assumption that the existence of heaven/hell follow from the existence of God. My comments also refer to the Christian God.
[2] Pascal didn’t actually claim that the wager did prove God, rather he claimed God’s existence could not be proven. But the criticism still stands.
[3] 1 John 1:5-6
[4] I also disagree with Pascal’s assumption that there is equivalent probability of God existing/not existing, although I don’t really have the time to present the proofs.
[5] 2 Corinthians 5:17
[6] 2 Corinthians 13:5-8
[7] Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Cost of Discipleship

What Is Man?

The book I am reading at the moment features a intriguing (fictional) conversation between a Nazi officer and an American Jew sympathiser named Chris towards the end of WWII. Reflecting on the Holocaust the Nazi officer would ask himself, I quote:

‘How could we do this? The fine, cultured German people, after which I rattle off the names of musicians, poets, doctors, and list all our gifts to mankind. How could we do this? It will take the great philosophical and psychiatric brains a hundred years to find a standard of morals to explain this behaviour’
‘I’ll simplify it,’ Chris said. ‘You’re a pack of beasts.’
‘Oh no, Chris, we are not even to be classed with the beasts. Man is the only animal on the planet which destroys its own species. But how in the devil did I get involved in this? I’m no more guilty than you are. Less, perhaps. I’m trapped. But you, dear Chris, are all the moralists in the world who have condoned genocide by the conspiracy of silence.’
- Leon Uris, Mila 18

I agree that man’s desire to do evil to his own differentiates him from the beasts. But does not our value of altruism also do so? So which is more characteristically ‘human’, a tendency towards good or evil?*

Well, quite clearly, most people value good more than evil. Most people believe it is valuable to pursue good. We expect this of each other (but certainly not of animals). But at the same time I feel as though the practise of evil is more frequent than the application of good intentions. But maybe I only feel this way because I am reflecting on the Holocaust, which hardly enhances faith in the virtue of man.

I suppose Platonic and much religious thought would suppose that evil is more characteristic of humanity in their earthliness and deficiency. Really, I don’t know whether good or evil better describes us, but perhaps the capability of the choice between the two does. Animals are not accountable for their destructive acts, but nor are they worthy personal merit, for they act without consideration of the morality of acts.

Acknowledging this, to deny the ability to choose is to reject one’s humanity. Thus, the Nazi officer in Mila 18 does position himself with the beasts when he claims to be ‘trapped’. He denies that he has the choice between good and evil, denying what is in essence ‘human’. I think morally, therefore I am human.

Mark Twain argued that, "Man [is a] machine - man the impersonal engine. Whatever a man is, is due to his make, and to the influences brought to bear upon it by his heredities, his habitat, his associations. He is moved, directed, COMMANDED, by exterior influences - solely. He originates nothing, not even a thought." (What is Man?)
I don't deny that, to some extent, a person is conditioned by their surrounds, however, this is not the sole determinate of actions. To argue such is to deny what it is to be human, and inevitably leads to fatalism - 'I can do nothing other than that which my upbringing has already determined I will do, thus none of my actions are my choice or of moral significance'. You may also have noticed that by Twain's own logic, his view is merely the product of his make and influences, and not based on the actual rationality or truth of such a view.

Richard Dawkins naturalist arguments are in a similar vein:
“We, and all other animals, are machines created by our genes...our genes have survived, in some cases for millions of years, in a highly competitive world. This entitles us to expect certain qualities in our genes. I shall argue that a predominant quality to be expected in a successful gene is ruthless selfishness. This gene selfishness will usually give rise to selfishness in individual behaviour. However, as we shall see, there are special circumstances in which a gene can achieve its own selfish goals best by fostering a limited form of altruism {enlightened self-interest) at the level of individual animals. 'Special' and 'limited' are important words in the last sentence. Much as we might wish to believe otherwise, universal love and the welfare of the species as a whole are concepts that simply do not make evolutionary sense." (The Selfish Gene)
So, in Dawkins' view, man is in essence selfish. But there is nothing distinctive to man, except its concentration of certain biological characteristics also apparent in any animal. We are all a 'pack of beasts' - and this accounts for and justified any possible action. But, of course, such claims make no 'evolutionary sense' as they purely determined by Dawkins' own genetic formation. Transforming man into a pile of genes denies what is essentially human, and its attraction is not based on reason, but on avoidance of the implications of morality. Admit morality, and you admit culpability.


* By my definition, ‘good’ is love of God and love of others. Evil is the lack of love for God and others, manifested in selfishness and destructive actions.

Property Rights

With the American election almost upon us, I thought I might take this opportunity to muse over certain issues of political theory from a position of ethics.

Most people recognise care for the poor as valuable and, to some extent, morally obligatory. Yet, these same people will recognise the value and necessity of property rights. But when considering the welfare state it is clear that they two are in opposition, if not mutually exclusive altogether.

John Locke claimed that, “…every man has a ‘property’ in his own ‘person’. This nobody has any right to but himself. The ‘labour’ of his body and the ‘work’ of his hands, we may say, are properly his…That labour put a distinction between them and the common.” (The Second Treatise of Government, 1688).

Locke’s theory of property suggests that the individual has an exclusive right to that which has been earned through their labour (i.e. wages). To deny wages, or steal without consent, it follows, is unethical. This is, of course, very practical as a rule of law because it means that an individual can invest their labour with a guarantee of return, motivating them to work hard and efficiently. The government ought not to take wages from the individual beyond those necessary to fulfil its role of defending property rights.

This conception of property rights can be contrasted with that of utilitarian ethicist, Peter Singer. Singer contends that an individual has a right to the product of his or her labour only so far as it benefits him/her more than it would benefit someone else. Consequentially, it is immoral for an individual not to give up their own property for the advantage of others “at least up to the point at which by giving more one would begin to cause serious suffering for oneself and one’s dependents – perhaps even beyond this to the point of marginal utility” (from his essay ‘Famine, Affluence, and Morality’).

It is counter-intuitive to say that someone else has a right to my wages just by virtue of the fact that they are poorer than me, but still much of what Singer says is genuinely appealing. It affirms the equality of everyone, despite varying ability to earn wages. The ability to make money is, after all, morally insignificant, “since the initial endowments of natural assets and contingencies of their growth and nurture in early life are arbitrary from a moral point of view” (John Rawls, A Theory of Justice). Thus, it is just that there should be equal distribution of wealth.

But can a government practically or morally enforce such an ethic? Certainly not the former and I think not the latter either. I would have to say that the role of the government is to maintain peace and facilitate freedom. A minimalist government can do no more than protect property rights. It then falls on the individual and not the government to give their excess wealth in order to fulfil their moral obligations.

My hope is built

Can we doubt that presently our race will more than realize our boldest imaginations, that it will achieve unity and peace, and that our children will live in a world made more splendid and lovely than any place or garden that we know, going on from strength to strength in an ever-widening circle of achievement? What man has done, the little triumphs of his present state…form but the prelude to the things that man has yet to do.
- H. G. Wells, A Short History of the World (1937)

The cold-blooded massacres of the defenceless, the return of deliberate and organised torture, mental torment, and fear to a world from which such things seemed well nigh banished – has come near to breaking my spirit altogether… “Homo sapiens,” as he has been pleased to call himself, is played out.
- H. G. Wells, A Mind at the End of Its Torture (1946)*

So, I was reading these extracts and it got me thinking about what is man, and what course is he on.† We seem to have some vast potential, but will it ever be fulfilled? I cast my mind back to a particularly profound play:

I think everything on earth is bound to change bit by bit, in fact already is changing before our very eyes. Two or three hundred years, or a thousand years if you like I it doesn’t really matter how long – will bring in a new and happy life. We’ll have no part in it, of course, but it is what we are now living for, working for, yes and suffering for. We’re creating it, and that’s what gives our life its meaning, and its happiness too if you want to put it that way.
- Vershinin (Anton Chekhov, Three Sisters)

It’s quite an attractive theory to see us – homo sapiens, that is – as progressing along some path, predestined for glory. What hope! Such a theory places us as agents of remarkable power and prestige. And it answers all life burning questions – why are we here? why must we endure suffering? is our work, our achievements, our life of any value?

But take heed of Chekhov – the same scene offers another, more sobering view:

When we’re dead, people will fly around in balloons, there will be a new style in men’s jackets and a sixth sense may be discovered and developed, but life itself won’t change, it will still be difficult and full of mystery and happiness as it is now. Even in a thousand years men will still be moaning away about life being a burden. What’s more, they’ll still be as scared of death as they are now. And as keen on avoiding it.
- Tuzenbakh (Anton Chekhov, Three Sisters)

Looking back at all the promising developments of the past – drugs that would free us from disease, machines that would allow us to live lives of leisure, laws that would secure our security and happiness – what has really been achieved? We are richer than ever before, but apparently no happier. We fly, not in balloons but in rockets to outer space, yet no more understand life on our own planet. We know the intricate functions of organism in our ecosystem, are completely at odds with how to manage the environment. Our suicide rate swells with those running from life. But most of us are running from death. I see no development in human nature.

We are apt to exaggerate the abilities of man – but maintaining such faith is a great challenge. Men fail. Macbeth, Lord of the Flies, Animal Farm, Jekyll and Hyde - they all teach us that man is fooling himself with visions of progress and grandeur. Given the opportunity man will forsake any semblance of civilisation in order to fulfil his own insatiable desire for power. We are locked in a cycle from which we cannot save ourselves. Place too much faith in man, Wells' experience suggests, and you will end up with a hopeless, broken spirit.

Trust in the LORD with all your heart
and lean not on your own understanding;
in all your ways acknowledge him,
and he will make your paths straight.
- Proverbs 3:5-6


*okay, so I haven’t actually read any of HG Wells’ acclaimed works; these interesting passages were extracted from Tim Keller’s The Reason for God. highly recommend the book.
† apologies to any women out there who feel excluded by the generic use of ‘mankind’ – i didn’t invent the word, i just use it