As much morality as law; as much law as democracy (II)

I thought I might be able to write this second article about the triangle of morality, law, and democracy—or if you prefer, the triangle of the devil, the angel, and most accurately, mankind—sooner, but it didn't happen.

One reason for this is, undoubtedly, the indicators of morality and law in my country that I have been watching with great astonishment and sadness for the last few weeks.

Let me pull myself together and return to my topic. In my previous article, I tried to explain as best I could that morality and ethics are synonymous and the same thing.

First, let me criticize myself. Knowing this, in a speech I meticulously prepared for the Science Academy about five years ago (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gH7YMl3ZYcQ), I spoke of lower and upper ethics.

In truth, it should be lower and upper morality, and now I will try to examine the relationship between lower and upper morality and the law. Let me add immediately: while doing this, I hope our law professors will forgive me, but the famous saying “War is too serious a business to be left to generals” does not fail to come to mind.

No, don't immediately think of the honorary law degree given to Kenan Evren.

I also know about the saying in 1960, “If we don't hang them, they will hang us.” During the years I worked, while I was a senator at my faculty, and during my TÜBA adventure, I saw with my own eyes, read, and heard with my own ears how a group of friends among you supported the current broken order because of the Dogramacı Case, which took 14 years of my life.

What saddened me most, however, was that the vast majority did not speak out against what was happening and had largely adopted the stance of the 'silent devil.' In short, starting with our dear legal professionals, we are all responsible for what is happening, myself included, at least as semi-silent devils in one way or another.

I apologize. Current events distracted me again. Let me enter the morality-law relationship this way. As I emphasized before (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gH7YMl3ZYcQ), I say that a society has upper and lower moralities.

I hope you won't accuse me of corporatism. Remaining faithful to my profession, let me explain lower and upper morality by referring to the brain and spinal cord duo.

Lower morality is, at its simplest, a list of do's and don'ts that are appropriate or inappropriate in human relationships within the established order, internalized by the individuals who make up that society.

You remembered correctly. Just like the Ten Commandments: do not lie, do not steal. If a human being is truly human in daily life, they apply these just like the spinal cord, as if it were the regular functioning of their heart or respiratory system, without needing the control of their brain.

This is exactly where a society's legal order regulates the establishment of these lower moral rules through laws and audits them through the judiciary.

Do not interpret the 'lower' quality in my term 'lower moral rules' as a disparagement. On the contrary, the legal orders of societies that internalize these rules are also very sound.

Upper morality, however, just like the human brain, does not function as smoothly as the spinal cord or the example of lower morality.

It thinks, creates, forgets, debates…

Most importantly, it consults the conscience, the location of which in the body has not been determined to this day; on one hand, it offers new forms of behavior to society, and over years, sometimes centuries, society internalizes these offerings and, in some cases, codifies them into law.

Another function of upper morality is the oversight of the judiciary and laws, which are the products of lower morality. You understood exactly what I meant.

In a proper society, it is not just the supreme judicial bodies that oversee laws and practices. As I have tried to explain as best I can, the 'upper intellect,' which consists of human reason, creativity, and conscience, also has—does it come to mind?—an apparatus, to use a popular term from recent days, called the university.

Perhaps one of the primary reasons for the existence of universities is to oversee lower morality and the implementation of its laws through the method of upper morality, which is one of their building blocks, and when necessary, to spearhead their correction or the creation of new ones.

Up to this point, I have expressed thoughts about morality—which I believe has two types—law, and a bit about the university, which I am sure will seem abstract (empty) to many of you.

Before moving on to democracy, which is in my title, whether you agree or not, let me reason this out: In my opinion, the two weakest links of our 100-year-old Republic are our law/judicial system and our universities. The common denominator of this weakness is not lower or upper, but entirely our upside-down (altüst) morality.

I already said what I had to say about democracy in the title.