Well, I’m back in the Duchy and still adjusting to the abrupt shift in weather conditions. Most days it’s raining and the early morning cacophony of the building site that is Paceville has been replaced by a much more pleasant yet still sleep inhibiting – a thunderous wake-up call by one of the monsoon-like storms. To someone used to the warmth and comfort of the Mediterranean summers this weather is definitely abnormal. I’d go so far as to say it’s immoral.
Of course by saying that it is immoral I do not mean that the invisible hand behind the weather is violating society’s current accepted standards and ethics, but rather simply expressing my dissatisfaction metaphorically. I would however be joining a growing trend among politicians in using the words “moral” and “immoral”.
Yep. It seems that “morals” and “morality” are the hip words in our political community. Suddenly, there has been a paradigm shift in the measure of a politician’s competence and accountability. It begins with an assault on “the law” because it is “an ass” – it can no longer cater for the hungry needs of the politicians. “The law” we are told, is either outdated or administered by inefficient bureaucrats unable to feel the pulse of the needy and see the light of reason. The “law is an ass” and along with the ass we throw out of the window the whole system of checks and balances on which our Res Publica should be built.
Plays on morality
Obviously, this kind of moral talk will fall on fertile ground, especially since we live in a country of individuals who seem to dwell on some moral high ground of sorts. We love it when a politician appeals to moral standards because inside each and every one of us we know that the standards he is referring to are OUR own. Right?
It’s a sudden cross between Maltese relativism and morals – where the interpretation and application of the law is reneged in favour of popular juries. In this case, the popular jury is fully equipped with its own idea of moral standards and the political appeal to these standards is both baffling and insane.
Yes, it is insane because they should know better. Especially those who include an LL.D degree on their business card and must have, at one moment in their lives, succumbed to the trials and tribulations of that wonderful subject that is the philosophy of law. They should know that by allowing a vague and amorphous concept, as is morality, to trump the certainty of the law they are inviting the chaos of arbitrariness into our lives. No amount of alarm bell ringing should be enough but in this case I guess it is time we stripped naked and painted ourselves red while ringing all the bells on the closest belfry… this play on morality is dangerous. Very dangerous.
Nicholas Udall
Medieval audiences were often entertained with morality plays. A morality play was an allegorical performance in which the main personality (often representing the human race) would face the personification of various moral attributes who would try to tempt him to make the choices between good and evil. Morality plays predate Shakespeare and were mostly represented in the vernacular, the language of the people, making them a more efficient vehicle to convey the prevailing moral tenets than the Latin, which was still the standard language in the churches.
The Church, but not only the Church, soon recognised the didactic value of these performances that would last as long as a modern day football match. In one famous morality play, the character Everyman panics because God has sent Death for the final round-up and Everyman is not yet ready for the final day of reckoning in the valley of Josaphat. What does Everyman try to do? He attempts to bribe Death in order to gain more time. The nature of man – some things remain immutably unchanging.
The thing with morality is that most of it is relative. Moral tenets are “arbitrarily created and subjectively defined by society, religion, philosophy and/or individual conscience”. I hesitate to state this in absolute terms but there is no universal morality. Take George W. Bush (sorry to remind you he existed). He waged war on a moral high ground yet had he been tried under the same rules as the Nuremberg Trials he would no longer be worrying about whether his most prized possession is Saddam’s gun. Rather, there is a high probability that he would have suffered the same fate as Hussein.
Morality is relative by nature. Take Nicholas Udall, author of a famous morality play called Respublica. His was a play about good government and was performed at the royal court. Udall himself was quite a curious character and has the dubious honour of being described in Wikipedia as a playwright, cleric, schoolmaster and… wait for it… pederast. Yep, the author of this particular morality play ended up being convicted under the Buggery Act 1553 after admitting to having sexually and physically abused a number of his pupils. He should have hung for this crime but he had friends in high places (Cromwell’s household) and ended up serving one year in prison. Which just goes to show. Or does it?
Relative truth
Not since the days of Alfred Sant’s “konvinzjoni morali” have morals been so much at the forefront. At the time, Sant’s “moral conviction” was bandied around in areas where proof was hard to come by – some would say it was an unfounded allegation dressed up as faithful conviction. Nowadays, the word “morals” pops up more often than not and J’accuse is noting an alarming shifting of goalposts – more particularly because the “moral standard” is hard to define, unless of course you have the conviction that your morals are better than those of others.
Take Roberta Metsola TT. The candidate-funding saga is not the first time she has almost become an authority on morals. We all remember that in full election swing, both as a candidate and as a proto-candidate (before registration), she appealed to the government’s “moral obligation” to pay back the registration tax even if the letter of the law did not, eventually, oblige it to do so. At that point, Metsola’s moral compass was firmly in favour of reading the law in all fairness to the citizen and the taxpayer.
Accountability must have featured somewhere along the lines too. Morality would trump the (unfair) letter of the law and give people their dues (and Metsola her votes). Funny how she has not come up with a “moral” reading of the law regulating electoral spending limits this time round. If not “moral” we could speak of a “purposive” interpretation of the law – or what The Times editorial referred to as “the spirit of the law”.
To be fair, it is not only Roberta who believes that the law is an ass full of loopholes to be taken advantage of. I just had to cringe when the Prime Minister of this country together with the one who revels in describing himself as Mexxej tal-Oppozizzjoni on Facebook wrote a joint letter imploring the Speaker to review the rules of the game. Ladies and gentlemen, the leaders of the two main parties all but admitted that the laws are constantly broken and that essentially the only answer to this is to change the law. Because their parties cannot be wrong can they? At least not morally. Right. They are the moral custodians of this nation.
Victor’s laurel
All this probably makes Lawrence Gonzi’s request to Victor Scerri that he should do what he feels is “morally right” quite a fitting statement. While forces of spin attacked the Mepa auditor, the tossers who chose to criticise the Mepa decision and more, Victor Scerri opted to resign – to defend his person. It was the High Priest Caiaphas ripping his robe in anger. He could no longer retain his position as president of the party because he felt that this would allow people to shift focus on his actions based on his position and not as a normal citizen. I almost felt sorry for Victor Scerri for falling victim to the tried and tested Nationalist spin of guilt by association.
Victor Scerri was right to resign. He should deal with the issue as a citizen. As should each and every citizen who has had a questionable decision in his favour in an ODZ. What I do hope for Victor and any similarly affected citizens is that they can argue their case before the law and in accordance to the law. I hope that they will be able to do so outside the Jamahariya Courts of Morality within the blogs of spin or fatwas called by NGOs. I stated this last week – blogs, NGOs and citizens all have their place (and a useful one) in the system – we just have to make sure that the system runs according to the law and not according to arbitrarily established standards of questionable morality.
Laws are supposed to be as close an embodiment of the collective morals as is humanly and democratically possible. The good mores of the societas are reflected in the codification of positive law.
Legal and philosophical theorists have long quizzed themselves as to the perfect formula for the crystallisation of society’s morals into a code that could be applied fairly and justly to all citizens.
Contrary to what Lawrence, Roberta and a few bloggers I know may believe, there isn’t more than one body of laws governing the running of this Republic. We cannot afford to temporarily suspend the application of the laws in such a manner so as to please the moral whims and fancies of individuals who happen to be members of the party in (relative majority) power.
Legal loopholes aside, resorting to the “moral” trick can only work in this country where we like to think we are all holier than the pope and where the words “kelma ta’ ragel” (word of a man – especially when well marketed) or “mhux fair” (it’s not fair) have wrongly been distorted as having more importance than the proper interpretation and application of the rule of law.
In my book that’s beckoning anarchy, but so long as it is PLPN then it’s ok I guess.
Morality bites
Morality remains a useful tool for discussion but we cannot afford to risk letting it supplant the rule of law. We are servants of the law so that we may be free – and I did not say that first. Applying the law according to selective moral tenets will not help either. I found the news that the owner of the infamous City Lights cinema had been taken to court for displaying pornographic films rather amusing and worrying at the same time. The City Lights is the stuff of legend – I first heard of it in secondary school when the more audacious of my companions recounted their escapades to the shady cinema in Valletta.
It was the worst kept secret in Malta. City Lights was the place where porn movies were screened – and according to the accounts of the macho companions of mine it was full of dirty old men. It must have been the late eighties when I heard the school stories. I am sure that the cinema existed long before. What therefore prompted someone to take action in 2009? Does it not strike them as odd that in the days of universal Internet access a 67-year-old man is taken to court and has to pay €5000 in bail for screening pornography in his cinema?
Recent censorship issues might have heightened sensitivity to pornography, but it only goes to show that if the law is applied only in accordance with whatever is perceived as the current standard of morality, then it surely risks turning into an ass… loopholes and all.
Jacques has been settling back in the Duchy while examining the moral twist in politics on www.jacquesrenezammit.com/jaccuse. Surely missing out on a visit is immoral!
3 replies on “J'accuse: The Moral Question”
You seem to subscribe to the idea that law and morality are completely separate concepts and that morality is subjective and relative.
In the philosophy of law lectures,I recall the professor state that law and morality are distinct but not separate concepts and law includes aspects of morality.
Thus one cannot understand criminal law without the underlying morality. In criminal law we were thought there were two types of criminal offences, mala in se (intrinsically bad)and mala prohibita (bad as prohibited by law).
Are not human rights derived from morality and the philosophy of law concept of natural law?
The legal concept of public policy includes the concept of morality. In Italian law there is the concept of comune senso del pudore and the law prohibits what runs counter to this concept. In UK law there is the Obscene Publications Act.
Thus even if one were to agree that morals are relative in time (O tempora! O mores!), space and person, law and justice cannot be divorced from morality.
Divorced from each other no. But the law remains the accepted form of encoded morals. What I said is that we should not renege the law as a reference point in favor of some form of arbitrariness. When Lawrence Gonzi or Roberta TT referred to “morals’ or “whatever is moral” they did not refer to the law but to their moral compass.
Do you assume that there is a conflict between law and morality even in the cases mentioned?
One must keep in mind that especially in the public sphere one is not only accountable to the law – which may also be subject to interpretation – but also to public opinion. Opinion polls seem to be fashionable even with politicians.
In the UK, recently, there was the MPs expenses controversy. Therefore it appears that there are moral principles which extend beyond the law and to which public persons are accountable.