law = morality?

today is my first day back to school, and in my Professional Responsibility class, we discussed the relationship between law & morality.

our main discussion was about the speed limit. our professor asked us what speed we drove on our way to class. everyone claimed a speed that was over the speed limit. then he asked us how we justified driving over the speed limit. the answers were varied - from "everyone else speeds," to "it's safer to speed than to get run over," to "it's not that bad, i could be going a lot faster".

my professor, in response, seemed to equate following the law with morality. he seems to believe that following the law is always moral, and that it's not ever moral not to follow the law. however, when describing the reasons for speed limits, and explaining why it is moral to follow the law in this area, he explained that "speed kills", and that in order to efficiently use our resources we should drive slowly.

using that rationale, it seems like the argument could be made then that it may, in fact, be moral to go under the speed limit rather than going exactly the speed limit. the interests of conserving energy are met by going 55mph, while the highway speedlimit is 70mph. the fact that "speed kills" seems to suggest that the slower we drive, the safer we are. so why is it moral to go 70mph, when it's safer to go 55mph? simply because that's what the law says? maybe - but that's not the justification that he used for the speed limit laws.

i don't think you can have it both ways. if you're going to equate the law with morality, then the law has to have some sort of intrinsic moral value. but i question whether it does. the law, created by mankind, is inherently limited. it first of all reflects the morality of the community that creates it (even if that community is actually a small segment of law-makers within a greater community). the law can also serve to motivate people within a certain community to act in a certain way, most often by the imposition of sanctions when a law is broken. but can a law really make someone moral? is following the law really always moral? is it equal to morality?

if you take the position that obedience to the law is equal to morality, then you no longer have any place for motivation in the determination of morality. law, limited as it is, really does not have a place for motivation - it doesn't sanction motivation, it usually doesn't even take motivation into account as a mitigating factor when you've broken the law. so by equating morality with obedience to the law, you in effect say that motivation is not relevant to morality.

that seems to lead to all kinds of problems, exactly the kind that give lawyers a bad name. in law school, they teach us to see the strengths & weaknesses of every argument, to be able to rationalize any position. as such, i am learning the skill every day of working within the law, to change it, or to "get around" it. from a legal standpoint, this is acceptable, because when i've done that, i'm still complying with "the law". however, i think what many non-lawyers react to is the inherent immorality of some of this type of thinking. it's exactly this type of legal maneouver that is perhaps "legally justifiable" that is in fact morally reprehensible that led to something like Enron.

so i cannot agree with my professor. to me, the law is not equal to morality. at the best of times, the law reflects morality. but morality must be based on something apart from the law.

and that's where my faith intersects with my practice. it is this that distinguishes me from others. because i do have a sense of morality that is very strong - that challenges me to walk ethically and uprightly in everyday life. this doesn't stem from my profession, it doesn't stem from making my acts comply with the law. my morality is based on the character of God.

this is at once both a nebulus and a freeing idea. for me to walk ethically thru life, with God's character as my standard for morality, i am required to have a knowing, growing relationship with Christ. i can read the Bible to familiarize myself with who God has communicated himself to be, and i learn much about his character there. and when i study that, when i learn about who God is, i find many principles upon which to base my moral judgments.

it is always a temptation to seek rules in the Bible - black & white imperitives that make living life much more simple. many who have gone before me have chosen this path. but i think that they end up right back at the point where they are equating following the rules with morality. that is an inherently limited way to determine what is right and wrong. the "rules" in the Bible were given in a specific time & place, to a specific people, in a specific culture. many of these rules also point to the values & the character of God. but in & of themselves, they are incomplete as a basis for morality.

but to base my morality on the character of God places me in a position where i can freely follow him. as i get to know him and become more like him in values and in character, the things that i would naturally want to do are the things that reflect his character, and thus, are inherently moral. the question moves from "is what i'm doing right", to "how can i display the character of God in this situation"? though, again, this is somewhat more difficult than following a black & white rule, it's actually much more applicable. rules are limited to the situations to which they speak. but the questions about the character of God is applicable to any situation that may arise. and as you gain familiarity with God thru your relationship with him, it becomes more natural to ask the question and to determine the answer.

this seems to me to be a much more absolute basis for morality. the law changes - it changes based on changing circumstances, changing cultural values, changing understanding of what the law orignially meant. but God is the same - yesterday, today, and forever.

and here we could probably also get into philosophy (of which i am certainly not a scholar)... if God is real, and God is perfect, then doesn't it follow that morality would be based on that perfection?

as relational beings, doesn't it make more sense to base morality on a Person, on a relationship with him, than on a list of rules?