More and more today, we are seeing conflicts between different sets of laws, especially religious versus secular. Sometimes, trying to navigate our way through ever increasing complexity of rules is like trying to walk a tightrope. Actually, make that two tightropes, one foot on each, often swinging in separate directions. There are so many different sets of rules we are expected to follow that it is difficult at times to know which to believe, and even more difficult to choose which to break when they come into conflict.

To begin to navigate our way through this morass, let us first try to understand the hierarchy of rules, where they come from, and what they mean to each of us. At one end of the spectrum, we have our own code of morals, which is in effect a personal interpretation of the ethical framework we inherit from our parents and our culture. At the other end of the spectrum are the federal and state laws imposed upon us by the legislature, as interpreted by the courts. In between these, we have the rules of behavior dictated by our employers, our teachers, the places where we live and work and learn.

What makes this quandary all the more interesting is that the rules with the greatest penalties are the ones over which we have the least influence. The only true authority over our own moral codes is ourselves, so violation of these beliefs is merely a crisis of conscience – if the word ‘merely’ is not inappropriate. The next broader set of rules we live by comes from the ethical and societal strictures to which we adhere. While these are more a matter of common acceptance, their interpretation is still personal and subjective. Even then, when we violate these codes, the greatest penalty we can usually receive for this transgression is exile from that community. But then, what place would we have in such a community if their beliefs are no longer ours.

As the influence we have over the rules of behavior diminish, so grow the consequences of violating them. The policies and requirements of our schools and workplaces have the same weight as the ethical strictures of our community, with much the same penalty – exile. But the consequences of that rejection are often more disruptive, since they threaten our livelihood and our ability to determine the course of our future. Fortunately, while we often have little say in making these policies, we can often decide which of these groups we join. That choice, at least, we have control over, when we agree to be bound by those policies.

Finally, we have the laws crafted by our government. While some may argue that these are less dependent upon culture than our ethical strictures, in truth they are made by the same sorts of people – those who act based upon what they believe to be right and who seek to impose that viewpoint over others. When it all comes down to it, the difference between laws and ethics are not the content of the stricture. Instead, is the simple fact that while we can always choose which ethical code to follow, we have almost no control over the laws imposed upon us. At best, we have some small voice in determining to whom we surrender control over our right to make these decisions. That is, after all, the definition of a republic: a system by which the majority gets together and chooses someone else to make decisions for everyone.

This hierarchy of intention and origin is reversed in the stricture of conformity. While individual moral beliefs and cultural ethical stances form the motivation for the creation of community rules and societal laws, once those more enforceable strictures are in place, individual choice becomes much less a determining factor. Even though those laws and policies are still interpreted based upon the moral perspective of individuals – be they peers, managers, judges, review boards or allegedly impartial juries – it is important for us to be aware of what rules we are trying to impose upon others, lest we find ourselves in such a conflict between laws and ethics, simply because we happen to be in the minority regarding a particular issue.

Coranth Gryphon
July, 2002