Manners and morals

Initially I thought that manners are offshoots of morals.  That manners and etiquette are byproducts of morals.  Therefore they serve the same purpose as morals, albeit on a less grievous or serious tone. Both are needed for the smooth running of society.

However, I'm beginning to doubt if that's true.  That manners and morals are related, is true. But does being well-mannered mean one is morally sound too - or the vice-versa.  If one has his morals right, would he or she be well-mannered automatically?  I don't think so. 

One could be well behaved and polite and courteous in society, but in reality be an immoral person. Take for instance, the politician (one can practically include every politician, anywhere in the world). On the other hand, take a tribal or one belonging to the indigenous population. Or even a simple person from a rural setting.  Most often they have their morality or ethical practices very sound.  They are not really corrupted by the malicious mind of civilization and technology.  However, his 'manners' may appear crude or unpolished.  

From another viewpoint, would it be right to call someone who goes about swearing (not at anyone in particular, though) and behaving in an uncouth manner, immoral?  Or would it be right to say that his moral compass is skewed?  Manners are contextual while morals are universal (or are they?).  Manners change as per place, time, persons, occasions.  Morals don't (at least not as fluidly as manners).  

While both manners and morals are rooted in society, culture, tradition, and history, they may not always be on the same side.  

Lawsuits

When the parish priest was sharing about his pain of clearing the drive of snow or ice, especially on Sunday mornings, not for fear of people falling but for fear of the lawsuits they'd be filing if they fall in the drive, I was laughing.  Today while listening to the different cases that have come up for hearing, and the bizarre reasons for they being heard and judged upon, I understood his 'pain'.  And we were dealing with only the cases involving freedom of religion or belief, and that too the prominent ones!!

Here are two examples

Grainger v. Nicholson (2009). The latter was terminated from his post in a property firm by his boss (the former) after he refused to board a plane merely to hand over his boss his forgotten mobile phone. The reason: Climate change.  He argued that his principles went against the use of flights for such a silly thing as merely handing over a forgotten phone.  He won. 

Noah v. Desrosiers (2008).  A would be hair stylist successfully claimed indirect discrimination after she refused to remover her headscarf, contrary to the hair saloon's policy that stylists should display their own hairstyles to customers.  

I was thinking, in India even for serious crimes people do not approach the court. For it would take ages for it to come for hearing and even if it did, it would prolong or get so mauled that one would question one's own sanity.  Here in UK, the legal system is quite strict and lethal, so no one dares play games with it.  In India people resist approaching the legal system because it is more crooked and corrupted than the crime one wishes to report!