Is it the Law or the Morals which governs us?

[Guest Miss Jane TG]

I had this debate with a client over a subject that came up during a dinner date. Is it the Law or the Morals which govern our behavior? The difficulty with this question is that one can't claim both of them.

[cat 262460]

Love this discussion! For me it is morals without question. Laws and authority have never held any sway over me...

 

cat

[CristyCurves 169032]

This is a very interesting topic but I would say that you could since I believe morals are what cause some laws to be enacted so generally I would say it is morals that govern "us". But personally I'm a bit of a rebel who doesn't agree with alot of the laws, and I live by my own code of ethics not seeing things as most do this causes me to wonder do I live by neither? This is a question I can't answer,,,hmmm

[lipualipua 4704]

The law wins hands down; at least until the day when, as a certain ancient book proclaims : "laws will not be written on stones but in the hearts of people". The world is a very evil place.

[MsManda 25686]

I think morals definitely govern me in this business.. Having an incall puts me in the grey area of the law. And while I know this, being relatively low volume makes me feel safe from the law, since I don't attract unnecessary attention, am discreet, no drugs etc.. I do pay attention to laws, but my decisions and choices in this industry, I base on my own morals or feelings on things. I also believe that others' morals govern us. While I do agree that we need to be discreet, as the law essentially says, I think that alot of what Keeps the legal debates going, is the moral issues that onlookers have with our profession. Its taboo and i think that the combination of those who dont understand the business, and the morals of those persons, also tie in with the laws. As far as governing us, I think it should come down to basic womens (human) rights, and our own decisions, provided we're being and acting safely. At the end of of the day, I need to be happy/comfortable with the choices I've made, the laws don't tend help with that. while I do see the well intent of some laws of us (no car date, public solicitation), I mainly feel our choices should be governed by us, and our personal morals, rather than a few paragraphs written by people with no understanding of what this industry is about

[MightyPen 67414]

I'll have to answer a weaselly "it depends": on who you're talking to, when you happen to catch them, and what acts you're talking about.

 

I don't rob banks because I perceive the harm it would do, and because I wouldn't want other people to rob me; so yeah, in that case it's my own convictions. But I'm certain there are some people who would love to rob banks, but stop only because they don't think they can get away with it. So for them, the same choice is one of simple fear and obedience.

 

I had to think for a while to come up with anything I don't do only because the law forbids it. Best example I could come up with was the speed I drive on the highway; on the open road between here and Toronto I'll usually go just a hair under 120. I could go faster safely; but the fines start to get silly, and you can never really predict where the cops might be. So my behaviour in this case isn't completely governed by law, but it is curbed. That said, if I had some kind of emergency the equation would change and I'd go however fast I needed to. So yeah, for me it depends on what we're talking about.

 

Related note: I've often thought that "you know people by the rules they break." Anyone can just follow all of the rules, and you could never tell if they were behaving that way because that's what they wanted to do, or because they were just obedient and restraining their underlying nature. But when someone breaks a rule (in this case law), they've made a clear decision and so you're more likely to be seeing the "real" them. Those actions provide more valuable insight into their character. (Though even here I can think of exceptions.)

 

Maybe more topically: how many clients here would still be seeing SPs if they lived in the States and it was illegal? Would they see them as often? Would they post on CERB as freely...?

[Guest *Ste***cque**]

This is an interesting subject and here is my rambling opinion.

 

Morals and laws both serve to channel our behaviour. Morals probably started with feelings of reciprocity and then society getting it's members to act in certain "appropriate" ways. Guilt, praise and other forms were used as incentives. Laws followed as blunt instruments which mostly deal in black and white with no subtleties. The law threatens us with fines and other sanctions including jail.

 

Fines and jail time would have a greater impact on me than someones guilt or praise. Still, I am more governed by morals than laws. Rather than know all the laws on the books I try to follow one main principle... treating people the way I would want to be treated. That usually stops all rationalizations and searching for loopholes on my part. Rationalization for our own ends happens too much today and is one of the weaknesses for the law as the main guide for behaviour.

 

To simplify my point, I "try" to follow my heart(morals) rather than my head(laws) most of the time.

[baileydog 9367]

luckily, in many cases, laws and morals line up

this frequently occurs in criminal law (but not always)

too frequently in civil law situations, it seems it is what you can get away with if your conscience will allow you to sleep at night

in those cases, it is easy for me to decide to go with my moral compass

[lipualipua 4704]

MP, you wrote : But I'm certain there are some people who would love to rob banks, but stop only because they don't think they can get away with it. So for them, the same choice is one of simple fear and obedience.

 

How I laughed to tears at this! But seriously, it's very true and we would be surprised to learn the immense proportion of the general population who would do this. Cheers.

[Guest Miss Jane TG]

The most prestigious claim is morals. But if we were such noble human beings then why laws were created at the first place. Were laws the creature of luxury or necessity? They were, in my views, they creature of necessity. Historically, people needed laws since the beginning of man kind.

 

I can't believe that the majority of human beings are governed by their morals because it is the same majority that is governed by its basic instincts. I have no doubt at the same time that the "very few" people like Che Guevara, for example, were governed by their morals. However, I certainly doubt that the average human beings, who are restrained by their basis instincts and the daily life requirements are governed by morals. This is, of course, not to say that the only people governed by morals are the ones who were recognized in our history as there are many other silent examples.

 

Challenging the law doesn't mean that the person is governed by morals as "some" of the laws were created to re-enforce moral values. I think standing for morals has more depth into it as it entails a uniformity of the person's behavior regardless of his/her personal interests and goals. As a provider, for example, I might be challenging the law by providing in-calls, does that make me a person governed by morals? In my view, to qualify for that niche, I shall take the same noble stand on all the frontiers even if it were "harmful" to my personal interests.

 

I must admit that this is a very difficult question to answer, but I find myself a simple human being governed by the law despite the fact that I have had challenged the law on many occasions.

[lipualipua 4704]

Fear is a powerful motivator; in fact for all animals, including humans, it is about the most powerful motivator.The reason for this is simple - the preservation of our lives. All animals try their best to avoid death. I suspect all healthy animals would do their best to avoid death rather than do their best to gain some pleasure(even the old, terminally ill person who chooses euthanasia is being motivated by fear - fear of pain, fear of being a burden on others etc) Indeed, our being motivated by fear is also what, to a large extent, makes us more emotional than rational. The caveman saw a lion and fear caused him to flee at once; he did not stand and ponder whether the lion was young or old, weak or strong, even hungry or had just consumed a zebra and so was full. Look where you will, fear is what dictates our actions more than anything else. The law, by threatening sanctions, strikes fear in us and so regulates our behaviour.

[MightyPen 67414]

The most prestigious claim is morals. But if we were such noble human beings then why laws were created at the first place. Were laws the creature of luxury or necessity? They were, in my views, they creature of necessity. Historically, people needed laws since the beginning of man kind.

 

I can't believe that the majority of human beings are governed by their morals because it is the same majority that is governed by its basic instincts.

Keep in mind too that "morals" vary immensely, depending the principles you start from. There are many different yet legitimate ways to construct moral systems. Even if we somehow had a guarantee that everyone would start acting strictly "morally" tomorrow, the result would be chaos because even honest standards would vary so widely.

 

The functions of law isn't just to enforce morals for those who have none (and act on basic instincts); it's simply to set the standard of behaviour that "we" collectively have chosen to enforce, regardless of everyone's different, individual moral codes.

 

And really I think that's the tension -- my code versus "our" code -- that leads to breaking or challenging the law, more often that NO code vs. "our" code. I think there are very few people who live exclusively by their own code or exclusively by the law all the time.

 

Additional Comments:

Fear is a powerful motivator; in fact for all animals, including humans, it is about the most powerful motivator.The reason for this is simple - the preservation of our lives.

I agree that fear is a powerful and basic motivator. Every life features tension between fear and desire; some would say fear and ambition. For non-human animals it's more often just fear vs. hunger. But yeah, fear can't be the most powerful motivator, or else soldiers would never go over that wall, we'd never go to that first job interview, or we'd never have asked that boy or girl out on a date. We all find our own solution to that tension, and even for a single person that balance can be different all the time.

 

Fear is a valuable and healthy indicator about any situation. So is anger. Neither should be acted upon all the time; but it's good to be aware of them, because they both help point the way to a problem that needs to be solved.

 

That said... I agree with you that most people would generally rather avoid risks, and their level of desire, or ambition, or hunger has to be pretty high before they'll risk breaking the law.

 

As a side note: the way I've constructed that last paragraph makes it sound like the noblest people rise above their fear and choose valiantly to ignore the law in the pursuit of their own goals. Hooray for the human spirit! But... what if the desire in question is felt by a pedophile? What if the ambition is felt by a would-be brutal dictator? Sometimes we should cheer when the law triumphs over someone's individual code.

[lipualipua 4704]

@MP : "But yeah, fear can't be the most powerful motivator, or else soldiers would never go over that wall, we'd never go to that first job interview, or we'd never have asked that boy or girl out on a date."

The fear of losing the battle will make soldiers go over that wall

The fear of being automatically ruled out of a job will make us go to that first job interview

The fear of losing out on a potential girl/boyfriend by not asking for a date will make us do so.

Regards.

[piano8950 32577]

I drive the way I do because of the law (not texting/talking while driving, no speeding, follow road rules, etc). I've seen what happens in the absence of road rules, and no one would prefer that.

 

Other then that, I think I've gone by my own morals that don't seem to clash with the law. It might be different if I were in a different country though.

[MightyPen 67414]

The fear of losing the battle will make soldiers go over that wall

The fear of being automatically ruled out of a job will make us go to that first job interview

The fear of losing out on a potential girl/boyfriend by not asking for a date will make us do so.

Those are really good points. And the classic motivator for soldiers is the fear of letting down their brothers in arms.

 

I'm going to hang on the view, though, that at least sometimes it's purely the aspiration for something good, and not just the dread of the alternative, that motivates us to strive and overcome our fears.

[volvolater 657]

Laws clearly are intended to govern our behaviour, seeing as how they are written by governments. And our behaviour may indeed change depending on the law of the land in which we find ourselves.

 

Morals influence, shape and guide our behaviour. They are our compass as we sail along this journey called life. And, similar to behaviour, morals will be different, and perhaps even change, depending on the land (and the laws of the land) in which we find we find ourselves.

[Guest *Ste***cque**]

Well said, Volvolater. The question was "Is it the Law or the Morals which GOVERN us?" and using a strict definition of the word govern, I'm more inclined to say the law governs us. What "guides" us is more interesting to me though.