Is obeying the law a sign of morality?

I wanted to start a discussion on the nature of morality.

Assumptions: Assume that there is an objective morality in the universe. Assume that a person is absolutely convinced that God exists and has devised a moral code written by himself in a clear and unconfusing language. Assume that there is really a heaven and hell. Assume also that this person also believes that he will be judged in the end by God atleast in part based on their adherance to the moral code and may spend an eternity in heaven or hell.

Is it possible to even say this person is moral if they obey this moral code?

Originally Posted by yoda55

It's an interesting twist of the conventional plot, that the person is writing the moral code (and not the God, in whom he believes). Any particular reason for making this assumption?

I think he means morality is supposed to be internal, if god existed then morality itself should be built in. Does it still count if there is an outside source feeding us morality, or does the tiny voice inside our heads that tells us whats right and wrong, qualify as morality? The fear of god is forced, taking part in the writing of your own moral code is intrinsically more valuable then rules received from an unknown source.

Originally Posted by Blondin

But if the consequence of not following the "moral code" is an arbitrarily disproportionate eternal punishment then we are talking about laws not morals. Laws may be just or unjust, but enacting and enforcing unjust laws or edicts would be immoral.

Perhaps this discussion will hinge on the definition for the word "moral".

I accept laws and morality as devices created in light of humanity, a guide of right and wrong, this leads me to believe laws and morality are two of a kind. (Not all laws of course I am talking about laws involving: hurting / stealing.)

I think I understand what OP was saying but I may be wrong. If morality in a religious sense was an internal feeling handed down by a divine being then accepting laws written conflicts with morality's relevance. To be honest, anything you find right and wrong internally (Only in a religious sense) is what is right and wrong according to your creator.

My personal views on morality: Morals are based on instinct and logic. Evolution in a group setting has left humanity with a deep instinctive sense of what is right and wrong based on group survival.

One must not confuse the word law as there are two definitions, one being a 'law of nature' the other being 'legal law'. Legal laws are societal constructs and entirely based on precedent. We opt in to agree and abide by them in order to integrate with this society. As we know, legal laws vary from society to society so they are not absolute but a reflection of the consensus of the group that agreed to accept or abide by them.

Law of nature is universal, such as Newton's Law of Motion, for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. In the East it is called 'karma'. For every sequence, there is a consequence. That said, there is a code of moral conduct that should be adhered to out of respect for the self and others which is called 'dharma' in the East.

If you go around creating commotion with your emotion than you are going to leave a ripple effect in your wake. Same as if you are pleasant, loving and respectful.

Originally Posted by mathkills

I wanted to start a discussion on the nature of morality.

Assumptions: Assume that there is an objective morality in the universe. Assume that a person is absolutely convinced that God exists and has devised a moral code written by himself in a clear and unconfusing language. Assume that there is really a heaven and hell. Assume also that this person also believes that he will be judged in the end by God atleast in part based on their adherance to the moral code and may spend an eternity in heaven or hell.

Is it possible to even say this person is moral if they obey this moral code?

obeying a law to avoid hell is not morality