Legal or illegal

  • Post category:Social
  • Reading time:9 mins read

When biological organisms were simple, the rules they need to follow were also simple. It was valid for biological functions as well as neurological functions. For example, the rule used to be clear : You are hungry, you see a prey, you rush kill and eat. Once you have eaten to satisfaction, the signal is sent back to relax till it gets triggered again by hunger. At biological level the heart pulse were either high or low. At neurological level, there wasn’t much of action anyways other than unconscious signalling of hunger and negation of that signal. There was no much thought of future scarcity or some moral duty or divine fear or to follow some (inter)national laws.

As the time moved on, biological and neural compositions started to become more complex. Heart started to get multiple signals developing the ability to have fine control on the pulse. This in turn helps to optimize use of available energy sources. Few millions years ago vague concepts of social moral code started to develop in different species. Roles and responsibilities started to get developed in social species who lived in groups. Hierarchical models started to emerge that helped to establish societies. These moral and social codes became the basis of social functions and helped to ensure that certain groups survive and thrive.

With the evolution certain species started to develop more abstract forms of social rules. Today many even believe that such rules are relatively modern invention and certainly very unique to humans. Indeed, the level of complex social fabric that humans have managed to build around themselves is unique. There is no other species that we know of has such complex, elaborate and abstract rules. Can you explain a chimpanzee that when he goes to get water then he must walk on the right side, but when he comes back, he must walk on the left side, otherwise he will get punished? Well, we as humans might be able to train it, by using the standard methods. But, there is no proof of such abstract rules or laws in nature.

In nature, these social codes are directly related to the functioning of society. The rules are simple and impact is usually direct and clear, which species can relate with the real world consequences. We are the only one who can convince ourselves that, if we fold our hands, bend down on our knees and make some sounds that only we can understand, then some abstract figure in the sky will be happy and will shower rains in our fields. We are the only one’s who put more trust on what is written on a paper by some stranger than what is said by the person whom we know. This in turn helped to slowly develop these new ideas from human brain into moral codes for bigger societies to function and work together.

The moral codes which were earlier just a social glue, became the divine moral code of life with the invention of God. As the world started to get bigger and Gods began to mix with each other, the need arose to make a similar code at human level, which got tagged as law. In the beginning there might have been heavy overlap between the divine law and human law. But, slowly we found more and more avenues which could only be governed by human laws; e.g. who will pay how much tax to whom. What happens, if one man kills another man’s sheep and so on. We loved this idea of creating laws so much, that every single scenario that came across we went on to create more laws and the book of law kept on getting bigger and bigger. Today, one makes a call to the book keepers of law if someone calls him an “obese”. 

And what if you do?

These laws in one way helped to kept the human jungle running. But, on the other hand it helped to get ourselves distant from the action and the reaction. This allowed people to invoke law rather than taking action by themselves. If the other person gets punished (even wrongly), I can convince myself that it was not my fault, “This is the law”. In one way, it serves the similar purpose as God albeit at much closer level and rather simple notions and ideas than for what we hold God responsible. We created God to do things for us, which we thought or felt we were not capable of. Now, we created law to help deliver things which we either do not want to or do not feel capable of doing for ourselves. We created something that will do things for us at more local level.

Today, the law also has specializations; some are considered serious while others are just to scare ordinary people yet some are there to make people believe that certain idea is the right one. There are some laws which overlaps between the old divine moral conducts and the new ones. One of that I came across recently. There was a news, I believe about Germany, that the country will now allow people to stay in ONE marriage at a time and will NOT support multiple marriages as possible in some cultures. This is really unique, well atleast in my opinion. If we go back to the roots in jungle, there was no moral code not to have multiple partners. Maybe some anthropologist can tell better, but I am sure that even the modern humans didn’t have any such natural or divine codes in the beginning. Based on time, situation and community the codes were adjusted as long as the society stayed together. Somewhere, in this timeline the idea of single partner started to gain popularity. While, it is widely accepted notion today, but one can see it easily that this is something humans have imposed on themselves. As, this is not something that you give water to a seed and a plant starts to grow.

Let’s come back to the specific issue of marriages and legalities. I read a little further about the Eurpoean law around marriages as it was quoted in the article that Germany will respect and support European law and values. Let me try to write and explain the way I thought that this is messed up.


  1. The statements below are gender neutral.
  2. It is not about duties and kids. Topic is simply about 2 people wanted to live together.
  • European law says 1 marriage is legal at a time.
  • A marriage is not accepted or is false, if any one of the partner is already married (anywhere in the world)
  • At the same time adultery/affair is not illegal, so one can have extra marital relations.
  • If a partner does not like affair, (s)he can file for divorce.
  • That implies, if partner does not have a problem, the affair can continue as it is not illegal.
  • However, if 3 or more partners do not have a problem with this multi-partnership and want to make a legal stamp, so that the benefits allowed by other “laws” e.g. child support, father/mother’s name, wealth distribution, this is illegal!!
  • At the same time it is also allowed that if one partner simply decides that fun is over, (s)he can file for divorce and leave you wherever you are without giving a reason.

Have you read about cases where women/girls from other countries were brought by marriages and then left out on streets to be deported back or stay in some black market? It probably happens somewhere for men, but not so popular and maybe just happens less. Men’s right movement people may know more about it.

Imagine same case with business..

  • You open a business with your partner, legally pay taxes for it and follow the rules.
  • But, you can open only 1 business with 1 partner at a time.
  • However, if you make some business in black (drugs, guns, smuggling or even selling bread) this is ok, as long as no one knows (read adultery, affair).
  • If your partner finds out and does not like you business of drugs, has the right to exit the business.
  • However, if the partner likes that you do extra business and it’s income and would like to partner and pay taxes and so, this would be considered illegal. So you keep running business in black. Does this law makes sense?
  • Imagine now that one partner who screwed up and get out of the business without any impact and you are left with troubles as you still want to run the business.

Well, one thing is that time is always moving and things are always changing. The laws that exists before don’t exist today and the one from today may not be there tomorrow. There are always people fighting for various different demands. But, which direction the river flow depends on which direction the major flow is taking it and not some small splashes that flow off from some stone.

The smile originated in some species millions of years ago. With time and evolution it developed and took on different purposes. It might have started as a way to show that you are a friendly person. But today, a smile can transform not just the person itself, but people you are interacting with. I hope that with time, we spend less time thinking and writing laws about things that at times we do not even care about. Rather we use that time, to develop, understand, feel and most importantly share smiles with each other. I believe done in a right way, initiated at the right time and if developed as a society’s fundamental block, it can help us transform ourselves.

Keep Smiling



Some times law is fun

Mulla Nasrudin was talking to his lawyer about having his will drawn up. The lawyer asked him: “What’s to be different about this will?” “OH,” said Nasrudin, “I AM LEAVING EVERYTHING TO MY WIFE ON THE CONDITION THAT SHE MARRIES AGAIN. I WANT SOMEBODY TO BE SORRY I DIED.”