Application to law: The story clarifies the difference between moral obligations and contractual obligations which can be enforced by law. The distinction is important since the force of moral obligation is invincible. Moral obligation has its own enforcement officer - conscience which unlike a legal officer cannot be deceived, cannot be bribed, cannot be escaped from. Conscience resides in the human heart and mind. It can not be pacified by nice legal arguments. Conscience is the witness to the truth. Thomas Aquinas developed a theory of conscience, which has certain similarities with the concept of moral obligation in the Thai folktale in its relevance to law.

Thomas Aquinas' theory is based on the preposition that the nature of moral obligation consists in its enforceability by conscience of the individual - the bearer of the obligation. In fact, Aquinas was not concerned with the distinction between legal and moral obligation as such, and Thai folktales are not concerned either. What Aquinas was interested in, is whether the positive !aw can have any binding force on conscience, or in other words, whether conscience can enforce legal obligations exactly as it enforces moral obligations. Thomas Aquinas starts from the elements which constitute the just character of the law. There are three elements: the law should be ordered to the common good; the lawgiver should not exceed his power, and finally, the distribution of burdens among citizens must be placed in equitable proportion. If the law does not correspond to these requirements, then its commandments "do not oblige in the court of conscience, unless perhaps to avoid scandal or riot."(10) However, man should obey an unjust law unless it is against moral precept.(11) The reason for that is also moral, because human authorities according to Aquinas have been established by God who is the author of all genuine moral precepts. Aquinas cites St. Paul: "There is no authority (that is human authority) except from God, and therefore he who resists the authorities, that is in what lies within the order of their power, resists what God has appointed, and consequently is made guilty in conscience."(12) Apart from the reason of avoiding scandal or riot Aquinas held that man may be called to obey also on the ground of Christian morality, Thus, legal obligation is a kind of moral obligation, and is morally binding ii, and only if the three requirements to positive law are met: law is just, it is within the authority of the state, and it has equitable characteristics. If law does not meet those requirements, a person is still bound to obey law in order to avoid scandal and riot, or because Christian morality teaches non-resistance to evil. But the difference is that if the person does not obey an unjust law he is at peace with his conscience. He does not break any moral obligation.

The Thai folktale is not directly concerned with the attitude towards an unjust law, but it states that moral obligations once accepted cannot be changed even though they seriously affect relationships (including legal relationships), with other people. The wife of the hunter had all legal rights to demand from her husband that he maintain her and provide food for her. The husband, following the requirements of his conscience, could not do that because of the invincibility of the commands of conscience or moral law residing in conscience. The story points at the same conclusion as the theory of Aquinas does: any legal obligation which runs against moral precepts cannot have any binding power on conscience of the individual, and it is good for that individual not to fulfill the legal obligation which runs against moral precept.

It is important for lawgivers and law enforcement officers to understand the nature of moral obligations in order to build an efficient legal policy. If there is a law which collides with the moral obligations of the subjects of law, there will be at least hidden resentment to the application of that law. On the other hand, the most efficient legal obligations would be those which at the same time are moral obligations. The theory of Aquinas can be helpful in this respect to clarify the point: if law is just, and if it is issued within legal authority, and if it creates a fair distribution of rights and duties then it becomes a moral obligation. The advantages of that identification are that the person will be morally motivated to comply with the requirements of the positive law.

Legal obligations can be of two kinds. The first are those which the obligor freely choses, for example any obligations which are based on contracts bilateral or unilateral. The second are those which are imposed on the subjects of law without their consent or contract. An obligation towards one's wife to maintain her well-being and provide for her is a contractual obligation, but the duty to pay taxes is not. Both types of legal obligations are enforceable by law, and both types of obligation can collide with moral obligations. Law allows some mechanisms to reconcile the conflict between contractual legal obligations and moral obligations. For example, any contractual obligation which is contrary to public morals is declared by law to be void, that is to be ineffective and unenforceable from the moment of making such obligation.(13) The same rule can be used for public administrative acts as in Germany. But there are several difficulties which law faces in encountering a conflict with moral rules. First of all, lawgivers and law administrators must know well what good morals are. The latter are not written in a law textbook or in any normative documents. Good morals need an interpretation, but there is a deeper problem. In the folktale, the person who kept pigs for sale was declared a sinner. Now, let us imagine that the seller of the pigs was the biggest supplier of pork. He decided to cancel all the contracts he made to sell pork, because by now he decided to follow the example of the hunter after hearing the folktale, and being afraid to be left without a blanket in the next life. Many contractors suffered some loss because of the breach of the contracts by the seller. But the latter claimed that his contract with the plaintiffs was contrary to good morals, because according to the teaching of Lord Buddha it is a sinful act to kill pigs for sale. I do not think that any contemporary judge would support the claim of the seller except, perhaps, some Muslim countries during the holy month of Ramadan. The reason which a judge may give is that the seller must be aware in the beginning concerning the morality of his business, and that at the time of default the interests of the plaintiffs deserve legal protection. A judge may add, that the good morals provision In Civil and Commercial Code means only the good morals shared by the majority of the society, or the whole society, and since in Thailand everyone eats pork including Buddhist monks, the default of the seller involves significant damages to the plaintiffs whose business is selling pork to the clients.

Thus, a person who decides to follow moral precepts may find a lack of any protection in law, because following moral precepts represents a different life style from the one which law attempts to regulate. Law takes into account good morals, but the level of those morals may not be as high as the blowers of Buddha would expect. Selling alcohol is another good example of how legal obligations can be different from moral obligations. In Buddhism drinking alcohol is one of the five greatest sins. In other words, legal obligations can run against moral obligations. The folktale gives priority to moral obligations (the hunter's refusal to kill animals), over legal obligations (the duty to provide for wife). The conflict may take even more dramatic forms if the moral obligations conflict with non-contractual but imposed legal obligations. As long as the way of following dissenting moral standards is a lot of few, law can prevail, but in the history of law there were times when a significant part of the society becomes committed to the moral way which runs against imposed legal obligations.

CONCLUSION

(10) Thomas Aquinas Summa Theologiae. I-II. 63. 4.
(11) ibid.
(12) ibid.
(13) Thai Civil and Commercial Code. - Section 150.