in philosophy and theology it's called antinomianism. in a nutshell, antinomianism is the belief that adherence to the laws of ethics and morality is completely unnecessary to attain salvation or perfection or enlightenment or whatever the highest goal of your respective worldview may be. its antithesis is legalism - basically the idea that strict obedience to the letter of the law is imperative to attain said goal(s).
both of these labels originated as pejorative descriptors applied to various philosophical and religious groups by their detractors. heated debates regarding these two extremes have often escalated even to the point of physical violence, and not very many people willingly self-apply them. generally one must find a balance somewhere in between the two - don't worry, there's plenty of room - when deciding how one ought to live.
so what about you? of the two, which do you find yourself shading toward? do you consider yourself a by-the-book sort of individual, and do you feel obeying a certain moral and ethical code of conduct moves you closer to fulfillment? or are you more of a live-and-let-live person, to whom morals and ethics are nice things to have on a societal level but not essential to one's individual quest for fulfillment? discuss.
