Conformity with the law ultimately creates conformists who are unable to make moral judgements and simply go with what is expected of them. That is hardly moral as it means someone takes no responsibility for there actions and surrenders responsibility to that power which creates the law. I remember reading about how the law could be interpreted as a means for education although this is clearly not a mainstream or liberal view.
The difficulty is that as human beings we naturally establish rules of behaviour through the process of socialising with one another; these are ussually informal but even in conservation we have internalised certian behaviours where we show defference to people we respect, trust and admire and scorn those who we feel are a waste of our time or consider a threat. We to some extent already police what we say and self-censor but it isn't written down and is enforced purely by peer pressure rather than legal sanctions.
The way in which morals are internalised as part of someone's sense of identity requires not simply an acceptance of the right of a community to enforce such rules, but also of the laws themselves. I know what you mean when you say that a thought police in a purely repressive sense is doomed to fail because we cannot force people to think something without accepting it as there own. otherwise you end up with conformity or rebellion. The law would instead have to be a process of moral growth rather than political coercion.
Excellent response. I avoided opening to speaking about the role of law and conformity in my post to not get too technical in detail, but I agree with this above. We teach children about good versus bad by external codes. They think in terms of conformity to rules because they have not matured to the point where they have internalized them for themselves and understand the logic of them. The goal should be where they essentially are able to understand a nuanced reality of moral choices and actions, coming from a truly mature heart. They have replaced the external law with a heart which makes moral decisions that is far wiser and more reaching than a simple law book.
It brings to mind references in Christian scripture that, "Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster
to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith." If you look at this what is being said but what I said above? What is this law of Christ, but the law of the heart? If you look at what Jesus was teaching he constantly challenged the 'law' being simply handed down to others from mere conformist teachers as the standard, saying "You have heard it said..., but I say to you". He was speaking of his own realization from the insights of his own heart as authoritative. That is not something the institution that exists for the promotion of the law can abide. It is seen as anarchy. People are not able to make these decisions from themselves because they are full of sin and need the law to tell them what to do. In essence, remain compliant children following the institutions, the more compliant you are, the more you are esteemed by the system as a posterchild of a good, moral person.
There are degrees of this, where even as an adult to simply just do what they have been trained to do is not really internalizing the principles, making them a part of themselves where they are able to make moral decisions on their own. The rules are unexamined "truths" to which they are unable to make any sort of nuanced judgement calls about other's choices. They are simply carriers of the meme, not creators of truth from themselves. They are essentially stuck in the less mature stage when someone has to tell them what is right and wrong, and the whole thing becomes a system that feeds back on itself and does not allow for actual growth. This is the problem with the religious institution which makes morality and choices of action to be wholly dictated by external law, from the Great Lawgiver, as absolute. It cannot abide Christ. It took a Jesus and "kicked him upstairs" as the Great Lawgiver Himself, rather than as example of what everyone needs to become! The best way to deal with those who challenge the system is to mythologize them as the head of the system, and then appoint priests and hierarchies to speak in His stead.
I am fond of an understanding of religion I have heard others suggest, referring to it as a "conveyor belt". I think that is what it should be, actually. To teach basic principles of good living, but with the goal of teaching others to become Christ themselves, to become their own scripture and moral authority, who can then help guide others into their own self-realization. Now that, would be ideal! But that would require an oversight by those who had that understanding themselves, rather than deified exemplars of the system of conformity to the external Authority, which requires blind obedience under the thread of eternal judgment for failure to comply without question.
I'm sure I have much more I can add to this, but I like finding this thread a place to explore these thoughts I've been chewing on in the background for sometime.
