One thing that troubles me in the discussion of this, though, is what seems to me to be the conflation of two distinct ideas: consequences, and punishments.

There are consequences to not abiding by the Honor Code (and the Dress and Grooming Code), with or without punishments. If I don’t shave after saying I would, there will be a number of consequences: I’ll stay warmer in January; my wife will find me more attractive; people on campus will usually think me unsavory and shy away from me, while those that must do business with me will likely do so less agreeably; many people will conclude that I do not value my word and will be less inclined to trust it as a result; and I will lose self-respect for doing something I said I would not do. All those are consequences of my actions. Some of those are positive consequences. Some are negative. None is a punishment.

If, however, I am systematically refused service I would otherwise be entitled to, if I am harassed by the ever-tedious Holy Office of the Honor Code, if I am expelled from the University, those are punishments. They don’t follow naturally from my action the way the consequences do.

Overall, my self-respect and trustworthiness are worth more to me than the positive consequences of beardedness, and I’d be inclined to follow the Grooming Code on that without any punishment involved. I don’t think the punishments are needed for me, even though if I weren’t at BYU, I would definitely wear a beard. The consequences alone are sufficient, at least for assuring my compliance with the Code.

Whenever you hear someone saying things like “[the Honor Code] places consequences on our choices,” it’s usually a clear sign that the word consequences is being confused with the word punishment. I remember hearing grownups do that a lot when I was a kid. My own parents taught me that consequences are the natural effects of an event (or as the OED puts it, “A thing or circumstance which follows as an effect or result from something preceding”). But other grownups would say, “If you do [x bad thing], there’s going to be consequences.” It would confuse me until I saw my friends doing those bad things and getting punished for it. Then I realized that the parents were using the word consequence as a euphemism for punishment. For some reason, pointing out their error to them right at the moment never seemed to please them, though!

We cannot place consequences on any action. The consequences are the effects of natural law. That’s the natural law that Lucifer was trying to blind us to in the beginning, thus destroying our agency, as Jeffrey points out in the post. But whether we’re blind to it or not, every action has consequences. We reap what we sow. Those consequences cannot be avoided. In fact, usually we don’t want to avoid the consequences of our actions — I eat to allay hunger; I drink to quench thirst; I sleep to recover vitality; the consequences of those actions are what I seek when I do them. That’s exactly why “the consequences to our choices are what makes our choices meaningful.”

But just as I cannot avoid the consequences of my actions, so I cannot append to, augment, or alter them. They are bound by natural law, unavoidable and unadjustable. So to think of setting, establishing, or placing consequences is not quite right. We can set punishments, but not consequences.

Punishments don’t make our choices meaningful. Punishments, being reactive choices of men rather than the function of eternal law, are inherently more arbitrary than consequences. And when the aftermath of choices is arbitrary, choices become less meaningful. Meaning exists where there exists a reliable causal relationship. Punishments, being arbitrary, undermine the reliability of the causal relationship and thus confuse the meaning behind the choices. The consequences of our choices are reliable and predictable, forever. Without the arbitrariness of punishments to confuse the matter, consequences give our choices clear meaning.

One of the most arbitrary things about punishments, and therefore one of the things that most leads people into sin, is that you only get punished if you happen to get caught. If you are uncaught, you go unpunished. Consequences, on the other hand, can absolutely never be avoided. Many people make very poor choices because they think they will not be caught. If they were not worried about whether they might be caught, they’d have more time and energy to worry about the actual consequences of their choices and maybe choose well, and for the right reasons at that.

Seth, do you think that if there were no consequences to not following the Honor Code, things would be better? I can’t help but think that without at least some ability to enforce rules, it would quickly become irrelevant.

Thanks for the thought!