“Ubi societas ibi ius”

“Ubi societas ibi ius” is a Latin phrase that translates to “Where there is society, there is law”
in English. This phrase emphasizes the idea that laws and regulations are necessary in any
organized society to maintain order and govern the interactions of its members. It highlights the
interconnectedness of law and society, suggesting that they are inseparable aspects of human
civilization.
“Homo homini lupus”
“Homo homini lupus” is a Latin phrase that translates to “Man is a wolf to man” in English.
This phrase is often attributed to the Roman playwright Plautus and was later popularized by
the philosopher Thomas Hobbes. It conveys the idea that in certain circumstances, humans can
behave in a predatory or destructive manner toward one another. It reflects the darker aspects
of human nature and is often used to discuss themes of violence, conflict, and the inherent
selfishness of individuals in certain situations.
The Social Contract Theory
The social contract theory is a concept in political philosophy that seeks to explain the origins
and nature of government and the obligations of citizens in a society. It is a theoretical
framework used to justify the legitimacy of political authority and to explore the relationship
between individuals and the state. Several prominent philosophers have contributed to the
development of social contract theory, including Thomas Hobbes, John Locke, and Jean-
Jacques Rousseau.
Different philosophers have different interpretations of the social contract:
 Thomas Hobbes: Hobbes’ social contract theory is often associated with the idea of a
“state of nature” characterized by a “war of all against all.” He argued that individuals
come together and form a social contract to escape this chaotic and dangerous state. In
his view, the contract establishes absolute authority in a sovereign ruler, and people
surrender most of their freedoms to ensure peace and security.
 John Locke: Locke’s social contract theory is more optimistic than Hobbes’. He
believed that the state of nature is characterized by a respect for natural rights (life,
liberty, and property) and that the social contract is formed to protect these rights. Locke
argued that the government’s role is to secure these rights, and if it fails in this duty,
people have the right to rebel and form a new government.
 Jean-Jacques Rousseau: Rousseau’s social contract theory emphasizes the idea of the
“general will.” He believed that individuals should come together to create a
government that represents the collective will of the people. Rousseau argued that the
social contract should create a more egalitarian and participatory form of government.
Rules of Social Order
In order for society to function, there needs to be order. This order is maintained through people
adhering to certain rules. These rules are diverse and include various aspects such as law,
religion, ethics, customs, and traditions. All of these together are referred to as “rules of social
order.” It is beneficial to briefly understand what legal, religious, moral, and customary rules
are.
1. Legal Rules (Rules of Law)
“Law” is defined in various ways. However, the simplest and most accurate definition of law is
as follows:
Law is an order formed by the coming together of legal rules.
However, defining law in this way does not complete the picture. Because when law is defined
in this manner, a second question arises:
So, what are these “legal rules” that we mentioned? Legal rules can be defined as follows:
Legal rules are orders and prohibitions established by the competent authorities of the state,
regulating human behaviors and enforced through sanction.
First, let’s note that what we call a legal rule is a sentence expressed in spoken or written
language. According to this definition, for a sentence to be a legal rule, it must meet the
following four conditions:
1. First, for a sentence to be a legal rule, it must contain an order or prohibition. Sentences
or propositions that do not contain an “order” or “prohibition” cannot be legal rules. For
example, statements like “the weather is nice today,” “it will rain tomorrow,” or “the
leaves of this tree are green” cannot be legal rules because they do not contain an order
or prohibition. In contrast, sentences like “smoking in the classroom is prohibited,”
“turn off the lights,” or “help your needy father” can be legal rules because they contain
orders or prohibitions. The requirement for legal rules to contain an order or prohibition
and express what should be is called “normativity.”
2. Secondly, the order or prohibition in question must be aimed at regulating human
behavior for a sentence to be a legal rule. In other words, the “subject matter” of legal
rules is human behaviors. In other words, the “addressee” of legal rules is always
humans. Accordingly, orders and prohibitions aimed at regulating the behaviors of non-
human entities cannot be legal rules. For example, a rule that orders the killing of an ox
that kills a human is not a legal rule. Similarly, an order for the sun to rise at 5 a.m. every
morning cannot be a legal rule.
3. Thirdly, for an order and prohibition aimed at regulating human behavior to be a legal
rule, it must be established not by just anyone but by the competent authorities of the
state. In other words, the “maker” of legal rules is the competent authorities of the state.
For example, in Turkey, the Turkish Grand National Assembly is authorized to enact
orders and prohibitions in the form of laws; the President is authorized to enact orders
and prohibitions in the form of presidential decrees; ministries and public legal persons
are authorized to enact orders and prohibitions in the form of regulations.
4. Fourthly, in order for orders and prohibitions aimed at regulating human behavior,
established by the competent authorities of the state, to be legal rules, they must be
enforced through sanctions or coercions. In other words, if the person subject to such an
order or prohibition does not comply, a sanction must be applied against that person.
“Sanction” is the coercion applied in response to the violation of a legal rule, foreseen
by the legal system, and enforced by the state. This “coercion” may manifest as harm to
a person’s life (e.g., the death penalty), liberty (e.g., imprisonment), property (e.g., fines,
 compensation), etc. Individuals who do not comply with legal rules face consequences
such as execution, imprisonment, fines, or the obligation to pay compensation. Those
who wish to avoid such sanctions stick to legal rules. This way, social order is
maintained.
In conclusion, we can say that legal rules are normative in nature, meaning they contain orders
and prohibitions; they are aimed at regulating human behavior; they are established by the
competent authorities of the state, and they are equipped with coercive sanctions.
2. Religious Rules
The second set of rules that contribute to maintaining order in a society for centuries are
religious rules. While there is no consensus on the definition of “religious rules,” we can define
them briefly as follows:
Religious rules are orders and prohibitions believed to be established by a divine will,
regulating human behavior and enforced through the fear of suffering punishment in the
afterlife.
According to this definition, religious rules have the following four characteristics:
1. Like other rules of social order, religious rules fundamentally contain orders and
prohibitions. For example, “pray,” “fast,” “do not commit adultery,” “help your
relatives,” and so on. In this regard, there is no difference between legal rules and
religious rules. Both types of rules are normative in nature.
2. Religious rules, like legal rules, are aimed at regulating human behavior. In other words,
the subject matter of religious rules consists of human actions. There is no religious rule
aimed at regulating the behaviors of animals or inanimate objects. Creatures who will
pray and fast are human beings. Therefore, the addressees of religious rules and legal
rules are the same: humans.
3. Generally, the maker of religious rules can be said to be “divine will.” Certainly, who or
what this divine will is and how it reaches humans may vary from one religion to
another. Atheists, on the other hand, do not believe in the existence of such divine will.
Investigating whether such a will exists or what/who it is is not the business of either
science or law. However, the fact remains that the overwhelming majority of people
have believed for thousands of years in the existence of a divine entity and in rules
established by this entity, and they adhere to these rules to varying degrees.
4. The sanction of religious rules is the fear of suffering punishment in the afterlife.
Believers think that they will suffer the consequences (i.e., violate religious rules) for
the sins they commit in this world in the afterlife and, as a result, they fear and strive
not to commit sins and, therefore, to stick to religious rules. Whether the afterlife exists
or whether people will burn in the afterlife if they do not obey religious rules is of no
concern to us. Science cannot prove its existence or non-existence. However, the fact
that many people are deeply afraid of going to hell in the afterlife is an observable
phenomenon. Hellfire punishment may be suffered in the afterlife, but the “fear” of
hellfire is experienced in this world. In our opinion, this fear experienced in this world
is the sanction of religious rules. Many people adhere to religious rules solely because
 of this fear, such as performing prayers, giving alms, going on pilgrimage, refraining
from theft, and refraining from murder.

Relationship Between Law and Religion: There can be overlap and conflict between legal rules
and religious rules. Some behavioral rules are prohibited by both religion and law. For example,
theft is prohibited by both religion and law. Some religious rules are unrelated to legal rules.
For example, the law does not interfere with prayers or fasting. However, in some cases, there
may be conflicts between religious rules and legal rules. What is required or permitted by
religion may be prohibited by the law. For example, while Islam allows multiple marriages,
Turkish legal system prohibits it. Finally, it should be noted that a rule that is normally a
religious rule can become a legal rule if it is linked to a coercive sanction in this world. For
example, if non-fasting individuals are fined or imprisoned in a country, the fasting rule
becomes not only a religious rule but also a legal rule.
3. Moral Rules
The third set of rules that contribute to maintaining order in a society are moral rules. We can
define “moral rules” briefly as follows:
Moral rules are orders and prohibitions set by an individual’s conscience, regulating the
individual’s own behavior and enforced through the qualms of conscience.
According to this definition, moral rules have the following four characteristics:
1. Moral rules, like legal and religious rules, fundamentally contain orders and
prohibitions. For example, “help the elderly,” “offer your seat to pregnant women on
the bus,” and so on. In this regard, there is no difference between moral rules and legal
rules. Both types of rules possess the quality of normativity.
2. Moral rules, like legal rules, are aimed at regulating human behavior. In other words,
the subject matter of moral rules consists of human actions. The addressees of moral
rules are also humans.
3. The maker of moral rules is the individual’s own conscience. In other words, the
addressee and the maker of moral rules are the same person. Moral rules are established
by the individual themselves to guide their own behavior. In this respect, there is a
difference between moral rules and legal rules. The maker of legal rules is someone
other than the person to whom the rules apply. Similarly, moral rules differ from
customary rules, as we will see shortly. The maker of customary rules is other people
outside the individual.
4. The sanction of moral rules is the qualms of conscience. A person who does not adhere
to their self-imposed moral rule later regrets it and experiences “qualms of conscience.”
To avoid falling into this situation again, they adhere to the moral rules they set for
themselves.

Let’s illustrate these characteristics of moral rules with an example: Let’s assume that student
Ali is sitting in a seat on a bus. An elderly man who has difficulty standing boards the bus. Upon
seeing this man, student Ali immediately gets up and offers his seat. Here, the application of a
moral rule is evident. In contrast, student Mehmet, in the same situation, did not actually want
to give up their seat for the elderly man but did so because he was afraid of the judgmental
looks of other passengers on the bus. In this example, it is the application of a customary rule,
not a moral rule, as student Mehmet’s action was not driven by an inner voice but by the
disapproving glances of the people around. In the same situation, student Özgür, who did not
face any reaction from the surroundings, did not give up their seat for the elderly man. The
elderly man stood next to student Özgür’s seat, looking at him with pleading eyes. While
standing, the elderly man suddenly collapsed due to heart failure and died right next to Özgür’s
seat. Student Özgür, who experienced this incident, was deeply affected, felt sorrow, couldn’t
sleep at night, and had a guilty conscience. It is the qualms of conscience that student Özgür
experienced as a consequence of not adhering to a moral rule. Faced with this sanction, student
Özgür always gave up their seat to the elderly on the bus from that point onwards.
Relationship Between Law and Morality: Generally, there is overlap between legal rules and
moral rules. What morality dictates is often also commanded by the law. For example,
remaining faithful to one’s spouse is both a moral and legal obligation. However, it cannot be
said that everything that morality prescribes is also prescribed by the law and enforced with
sanctions. For example, “help the elderly” is a moral rule but is not generally a legal rule. In
this sense, it is sometimes said that the law represents the “minimum morality.” However, there
is not a complete overlap between law and morality. There are many legal rules that are
unrelated to morality. Many legal rules, especially those related to procedural law (e.g., the
composition of a criminal court with three judges, the 60-day deadline for filing administrative
lawsuits), have no direct connection to morality.
4. Customary Rules
The fourth set of rules that contribute to maintaining order in a society are customary rules. We
can define “customary rules” briefly as follows:
Customary rules are orders and prohibitions established by a specific social environment in
which a person finds themselves, regulating human behavior and having various sanctions such
as admonition, condemnation, exclusion, and even lynching.
According to this definition, customary rules have the following four characteristics:
1. Customary rules, like legal, religious, and moral rules, fundamentally contain orders and
prohibitions. For example, “greet the people you meet in enclosed spaces,” “visit your
neighbors during holidays,” “protect your honor,” “avenge the murderer of your father
(don’t let your father’s blood remain on the ground!).” In this regard, there is no
difference between customary rules and legal rules. Both types of rules possess the
quality of normativity.
2. Customary rules, like legal rules, are aimed at regulating human behavior. The
addressees of customary rules are humans.
3. The maker of customary rules is a specific social environment. Customary rules are
formed when the idea arises that behavioral rules that have been consistently repeated
in a specific social environment for a long time are binding. In other words, people in a
certain place have been acting in the same way on a specific issue for a long time and
 expect others to behave the same way. Therefore, while legal rules are created by the
authorized organs of the state, customary rules are created by society itself. The
community or, more accurately, the “social environment” that created customary rules
is quite different. Sometimes, when customary rules apply nationwide, the creators of
these rules are all citizens of the country. However, customary rules are often regional
rather than national. In this case, the creators of those customary rules are the people of
that region. For example, in certain regions of our country, there is a tradition of blood
feud. This means that the rule of “avenge the murderer of your relative” is applied. This
rule probably emerged as follows: In ancient times, one person killed another. The
relative of the deceased also killed the murderer or the relative of the murderer. This
behavior was approved in that community and began to be practiced in similar incidents.
This practice continued for hundreds of years. In this case, the makers of the customary
rule “avenge the murderer of your relative” are the people who have lived in that region
for hundreds of years and have practiced or approved of this rule. (Antiquity, Continuity,
General belief).
4. The sanctions of customary rules can take various forms, such as admonishment,
condemnation, exclusion, physical harm, and even death (lynching).
The difference between the penalties of customs and laws is clear. The penalties for customs
(reproach, exclusion, etc.) are not coercive in nature. The penalties for legal rules are always
coercive. As mentioned earlier, coercion is an undesirable condition that causes harm to a
person’s physical and mental well-being, restricts their freedom, or ends their life. However,
regarding penalties, there is not much difference between customs and laws; both of their
penalties are coercive in nature. The difference between their penalties lies in the organization,
not the content of the penalties. The coercion that would be shown as a penalty for violating
legal rules has been institutionalized and centralized in advance. Only the state authorities have
the authority to enforce coercion. In contrast, the coercion that would be shown in response to
the violation of customs is not organized and centralized. The application of coercion is carried
out by certain members of the relevant social group, those who wish to do so, or members
appointed by the group. There is no centralization and institutionalization in this regard.
Additionally, the coercion shown in response to the violation of legal rules is in accordance
with the law and does not constitute a tort or a crime. In contrast, the coercion used in response
to ordinary customs violations is often contrary to the legal order and constitutes a tort or a
crime.
The Relationship between Law and Customs: There is sometimes overlap and sometimes
conflict between law and customs. In some cases, the same behavioral rule can be commanded
by both customs and the law. Furthermore, as we will see later, the law sometimes refers to
customs and, in this way, customs can become a source of law. However, there can also be
conflicts between the law and customs. The law may strongly prohibit a behavioral rule
commanded by customs. For example, “blood feud (vendetta)” is a customary rule, but our
legal system has prohibited it and imposed the heaviest penalties for it.
Comparison Between Rules of Social Order
Legal Rules Religious Rules Moral Rules Customary Rules
Normativity Yes Yes Yes Yes
Addressee People People Man himself People
Maker State Divine will Man himself Society
(Legislator)
Sanction Coercive Fear of hellfire Qualms of Admonishment,
conscience condemnation,
exclusion, physical
harm, and even
death (lynching).

There are various similarities and differences among the rules of law, religion, morality, and
custom:
Firstly, all of these rules (legal, religious, moral, and customary) have a normative nature; in
other words, they all order or prohibit something.
Secondly, what all of these rules order or prohibit is human behavior. In other words, the subject
matter of societal order rules is human actions. Thus, both legal, religious, moral, and customary
rules regulate human behavior. Therefore, the addressees of social order rules are human beings.
The maker of legal rules are the authorized organs of the state or, in a more realistic expression,
the individuals serving in these organs. It is believed that religious rules are established by
divine will. Moral rules, on the other hand, are set by an individual’s own conscience. The
creators of customary rules are specific individuals within a certain social environment.
All societal behavioral rules are enforced with sanctions. However, there are significant
differences in their sanctions. There is a difference in sanctions between legal, religious, moral,
and customary rules. The sanctions of legal rules are coercive in nature. There is no immediate
coercive sanction for religious rules in this world. However, believers fear violating these rules
because they believe they will suffer in the afterlife. The sanctions for religious rules in this
world are based on this fear. The sanctions for moral rules exist within a person’s conscience,
which is a form of self-punishment. Customary rules have various sanctions such as criticism,
condemnation, and exclusion from the group. Some customs, as seen in “lynch” punishments,
can have coercive sanctions.
WHAT IS THE PURPOSE OF LAW?
In Turkish language, the word of law comes from Arabic in a single form. The plural word of
law is “rights”, which later was taken over in Turkish become “hukuk” (Coşar, 2019: 43).