MORALITY, LAW AND RELIGION: A DISCORDANT SYMPHONY AND A DISORDERED CHOREOGRAPHY! By KEMKA S. IBEJI

MORALITY, LAW AND RELIGION: A DISCORDANT SYMPHONY AND A DISORDERED CHOREOGRAPHY!

Religion and the Law were birthed for the health and safety of morality. Morality is that pedestal upon which we segregate the good from the bad and the right from the wrong. While on the one hand morality thrives on Categorical Imperative, the others - religion and law - operate on the frequency of Hypothetical Imperative. Defining both imperatives in the parlance of the German philosopher Immanuel Kant, "Categorical Imperative would be assertions which represent action(s) as objectively necessary in itself apart from its relation to a further end. And Hypothetical Imperative however are those that declare a possible action to be practically necessary as a means to the attainment of something else..." (Copiously quoted from Andrew F. Uduigwomen).

From the foregoing, the inference is that Categorical Imperatives simply outline moral codes or just state good and bad actions but nothing more or less. But Hypothetical Imperatives while stating the obvious do's and don'ts go a step further to stipulate sanctions.

The description in the above segregated accordingly between Morality, Religion and Law. And as such we can now freely engage in the taxonomy of the imperatives by placing each to its class. In all their ramifications, Religious and legal l statements qualify as Hypothetical Imperatives because they have sanctions at the end as conditions for aligning. Of course, moral statements are usually merely declarative and unconditional. They therefore are Categorical Imperatives. Whenever you read or hear a moral statement, you will always see; Stealing is bad, Murder is not good, Rape is not acceptable, Incest is wrong, Greed is not a good act, Obedience is a worthy action, etc. Those are the forms and shapes of moral statements. They are declaratively unconditional and therefore Categorical Imperatives.

But Hypothetical Imperatives will always give conditions and sanctions for coercion. They are police to the moral codes. This is to say that while Categorical Imperatives merely state the moral codes, the Hypothetical Imperatives go a bit beyond stating the moral codes to giving conditions and sanctions for compliance.

Though the Hypothetical Imperatives are coercive, they also vary according to the structure and appearance of their coercion. The degree of their coercion, their location of responsibility and their form differentiate between Religion and Law.

In the case of responsibility locale, one will situate the tool of either punishment or reward of religion in the extraterrestrial realm while the law operates within terrestrial radius - yes in this world. It therefore will be clear to us as to which is what when we come in contact with either religious statements or legal statements. For example,
1. Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God.
2. Repent or you perish in hell fire.
3. When the trumpet sounds, the righteous shall be ruptured.
4. The wages of sin is death.
5. The secret of God is for those who believe in Him.
6. Etc.
In the above hypothetical imperatives (religious), you will find the coercive features but will also notice that they are not pressing for earthly rewards or punishments. However, this religious assertions, though hypothetical imperatives, do not have coercive features that are binding on the humans beyond their conscience. Though very potent at some point, many have come to see its endlessness as a signpost to its being unrealistic.

On the other hand, the law comes with its strand of hypothetical imperatives that have some more biting push to act. The provisos of legal statements come with actionable consequences. They lay down rules and responsibilities for every line of action and you can appreciate them terrestrially. Their nature is such that most times you simply can imagine what will come upon you if certain activities and actions are to be undertaken. For such reason, having clearly known the strength of the reward or punishment attached to an act, you can make certain decisions. The coercion is simply glaring.

But the problem that has signatures all around the hypothetical imperatives - religious or legal - is the consistent withdrawal from their parent foundation which is morality. Obviously moral propositions are simply Categorical Imperatives which outline actions as either good or bad, acceptable or unacceptable, right or wrong, commendable or condemnable and so on. And to have a way of enforcing the moral codes, the hypothetical imperatives were given birth to.

The clear fact is that both hypothetical imperatives have failed in their duty to police and enforce morality. Religion has tainted its language with motivational propensities towards prosperity as against salvation which gave stronger backing to coercion advantageous to morality. The fear of the extraterrestrial loss of salvation and damnation in the lake of fire has been watered down by the promises of worldly possessions and riches. The answer is now here! It seems heaven has been defeated by the religionists, priests and priestesses, prophets and prophetesses, pastors, evangelists, bishops and the like.

On the side of the law, its language and structure have lost the desired content. It lost it to technicality. The legal imperatives that promised justice which is an offspring of morality have abandoned its course to technical knockouts and know-how. Justice has been muzzled and frazzled. This is more evident in the philosophico-juridical studies. There has been a lot of arguments in the philosophy of law on the relationship between morality and law. In fact, one school of thought in jurisprudence simply defines law as what lawyers do in the court. Sad!

Lawyers have done great damage to the crux of that hypothetical imperative and one therefore can simply say that the legal imperatives have also dashed hopes.

The rhythm have broken and the symphony has been lost. The cry has louded and will shortly be loudest for a saviour to morality. The danger is that even ethicists who are expected to wade in are enmeshed in the same ill razzmatazz. Who therefore is safe and who will come to our rescue?

This call demands a stringent art and craft of human. Someone who will be in the world but live outside of it mentally. Someone who can detach himself or herself from the predominant sociocultural and worldish enclave and stand out accordingly. This is the task confronting humanity and it is so daunting a task. The enormity makes it almost a lost hope for mankind. However, it is important that we are abreast with this challenge staring us in the face. Perhaps, our subconsciousness may wake up the impossible as we meditate unmitigated and without distraction.


I am,
KEMKA S. IBEJI