Laws should be made of iron, not pudding.

The line argues that law must be firm, durable, and consistently enforced (“iron”), rather than soft, malleable, or easily bent to convenience (“pudding”). It implies that rules lose legitimacy when they can be reshaped by sentiment, favoritism, or political pressure, and that justice requires predictability and resolve. In a Martin-esque moral universe—where power, custom, and personal loyalty often compete with formal authority—the aphorism underscores a hard-edged view of governance: stability depends on institutions that can withstand appetite, fear, and expediency. The metaphor also hints at a critique of performative lawmaking: statutes that look substantial but collapse under real stress.