Doing what is legal, or doing what is good?

We human beings seem naturally inclined to push boundaries, to explore the limits of what is feasible or is allowed. On the one hand this means that we push the limits of our abilities - to prove ourselves stronger, faster, cleverer, or tougher than our peers. It also means that if a speed limit is set at 50, we want to go 55. In fact, if we learn that the police won't pay attention until we break the limit by a certain margin, then we exceed the limit by exactly that margin … or by just a little more! We expect to 'get away with it'.

The Government works full-time to set the rules for society by enacting more and more detailed legislation about every aspect of life. In this way, rather than setting out what is good, just and honest, they set out in ever-increasing detail what is illegal and punishable.

As the law becomes ever more complex and detailed, people employ lawyers to help explore and exploit the limits and loop-holes of what is legal.

But this is not the same as doing what is good or right or ethical!

It is has been said that "the Lord's Prayer has 59 words, the Ten Commandments have 297, the American Declaration of Independence has 300, and the [EU Food Supplements Directive] has 10,038" *

You cannot make people good by telling them what they must not do, for this just leads to legalism - at best merely observing the letter of the law, or more likely exploiting its outer limits.

Jesus asserted that all the law is summarised in these two short sentences, "'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind', and, 'Love your neighbour as yourself'" (Luke 10v27). Although he knew full well that our hearts are evil, yet, surprisingly, he set down the law as the good for which we are to strive.

What is legal, and what is good, are two different things. So when people justify their behaviour by saying that what they are doing is legal, it seems very unlikely that they are aiming for what is good!

-----
* Hansard, 20/1/2003, vol. 398, c99