In A Theory of Morality, Kevin submitted that rules reduce morality in a given system. His argument being that cohercing someone to do (or not do) something through rules takes away their chance to do (or not do) it out of moral obligation. His actual axiom was:
Morals are the rules that we follow when there are no rules and no one is watching.
The implication is that the existence of a rule takes away the chance for moral action. I didn't buy the "there are no rules" party of his assertion. Moral people would still be acting morally, even though they happened to be following the rules. A couple of weeks later, Kevin fancied himself a modern western version of Lao Tzu when he found this quote in the Tao Te Ching:
The more prohibitions you have, the less virtuous people will be.
The more weapons you have, the less secure people will be.
The more subsidies you have, the less self-reliant people will be.
Tao te Ching. Ch 57
As I said in the original discussion, Kevin loves himself some paradox. I still don't buy it even though he found some 2600 year old dead guy that may corroborate his maxim. It's not clear whether Lau Tzu is saying that the prohibitions themselves cause virtuous people to lose their virtue, or if too much is prohibited everyone is bound to break at least one rule. I don't buy the former argument, and the latter is an argument for prudence when adding more prohibitions to make sure they reflect the morality of the society as a whole.
Anyway, the whole discussion happened a month ago, but it was brought back into my mind while reading Groklaw, a blog about legal issues in technology (and surrounding areas). The author had this assertion tacked on to the end of an entry about the current "pretexting" scandal at HP and the subsequent hearings:
That's what law is for. It's for those who have no heart or no conscience and who will do bad things if you leave it up to them. They'll do them if they think they'll be effective, no matter who gets hurt. They might even view the hurt as a plus. Humane, decent folks will likely do the right thing with or without a law, because they can feel for the other guy. They understand and empathize and won't do to others what they wouldn't like done to them. The Golden Rule, if you will. It is for the rest that societies need to establish laws, so it is clear to those without a working internal checks and balances ethics system where the acceptable line is.
Now that's something I can agree with.
Comments closed because of comment spam