Moral Conundrum: Breaking The Law, Justified?

The relationship between ethics and the law is a complex one. While the law is created by governing bodies, ethics are derived from personal beliefs, societal norms, and philosophical theories. This distinction raises the question: are we morally permitted to break the law? This question has been explored by various philosophers and thinkers, who have offered different perspectives on when, if ever, it may be morally justifiable to do so.

One view holds that ethics and law are separate domains, with laws being influenced by various factors and not necessarily reflecting moral righteousness. In this view, individuals are tasked with making their own moral decisions, which may sometimes involve breaking the law if a higher moral principle is at stake. For instance, in Nazi Germany, laws were enacted to deprive Jewish people of their rights, and helping them was illegal. However, from a moral standpoint, providing assistance would be considered the right thing to do.

Another perspective, rooted in Christianity and other religious traditions, sees state laws as an extension of divine laws. According to this view, obeying the laws of the state is equivalent to following moral principles. However, this perspective has been criticised as dangerous, given that laws are created by fallible humans who can make mistakes or be influenced by greed and corruption.

The question of whether it is ever morally permissible to break the law is a nuanced and deeply philosophical one, with no easy answers.

The relationship between ethics and law

Firstly, ethical principles are derived from personal beliefs, societal norms, and philosophical theories, while laws are created by governing bodies such as parliaments or legislatures. This means that laws can be influenced by various factors and may not always align with moral principles. For example, laws may be shaped by the interests of the wealthy or powerful, resulting in legislation that favours certain groups over others. As such, it is crucial to question and critically examine laws to ensure that they uphold ethical standards.

Secondly, ethical principles are subject to interpretation and can vary significantly between individuals, cultures, religions, and societies. In contrast, laws are uniform and must be obeyed by all individuals within a jurisdiction, with legal consequences such as fines or imprisonment for violations. However, this does not mean that laws are set in stone or that they should be followed unconditionally. Laws are created by fallible humans who can make mistakes or be influenced by greed or corruption. Therefore, it is important for individuals to make their own moral decisions and question whether specific laws are morally just.

Thirdly, ethics provides us with absolute rules that we are supposed to follow unconditionally, such as "do not steal" or "be honest". In contrast, obedience to the law is often contextual and dependent on specific circumstances. For instance, police officers may be permitted to exceed speed limits or ignore traffic laws in certain situations if it is in the interests of public safety. Similarly, individuals may find themselves in situations where breaking the law is the morally right thing to do. For example, during Nazi Germany, helping Jewish citizens or providing them with medical treatment was illegal, but many people would argue that these actions were ethically justified.

Finally, while both ethics and law aim to guide human behaviour and promote just and harmonious societies, they differ in their scope. Ethical principles cover a broader range of human conduct, while laws are more specific and cover only a subset of what morality encompasses. This means that there can be areas of overlap between ethics and law, but also areas where they diverge. In some cases, an action may be legal but immoral, such as exploiting labour or selling harmful products. In other cases, an action may be illegal but morally right, such as breaking an unjust law to protect the rights or well-being of others.

In conclusion, the relationship between ethics and law is complex and multifaceted. While both aim to guide human behaviour, they are distinct systems with different sources, scopes, and functions. As such, it is important to recognize that following the law does not always equate to acting morally, and there may be times when breaking the law is the ethically justifiable course of action.

When breaking the law becomes a moral obligation

Breaking the law is often seen as a moral obligation when the law itself is considered immoral or unjust. This can occur when laws contradict or violate higher moral principles or an individual's conscience. For instance, in Nazi Germany, laws were enacted to deprive Jewish people of their basic human rights, and helping or providing medical treatment to Jewish citizens became illegal. However, many people would argue that assisting and treating Jewish individuals during this time was morally right, despite being against the law.

The relationship between ethics and law is complex. While some believe that following the law ensures moral righteousness, others argue that laws and ethics are distinct systems, influenced by different factors and serving different purposes. Laws are created by governing bodies and are subject to human fallibility, biases, and influences. On the other hand, moral principles are derived from personal beliefs, societal norms, and philosophical theories.

As a result, individuals are faced with the challenge of determining when breaking the law becomes a moral obligation. This decision often arises when the authorities and institutions of a society begin to violate the moral convictions of the individual. In such cases, people may find themselves in a moral dilemma, questioning their freedom of conscience and the laws they are expected to obey.

When faced with such a dilemma, individuals can consider the following approaches:

• Finding a solution within the system: This involves seeking exemptions or exceptions based on freedom of religion or presenting one's case through appropriate channels or courts.
• Quiet non-compliance: This approach entails discreetly disobeying the law without making public announcements or informing the authorities.
• Open non-compliance: This involves blatant and public insubordination of the law, often as a form of protest or a stand against immoral laws.

It is important to note that the consequences of breaking the law can vary and may include legal sanctions, social stigma, or even endangerment. As such, the decision to break the law should be made after careful consideration of the potential risks and consequences.

The 'Superior orders' defence

The "superior orders" defence, also known as the Nuremberg defence, is a legal argument that an individual—be they civilian, military, or police—should not be considered guilty of a crime if they were following orders from a superior official or officer. This defence has been used in various war crimes trials, including the Nuremberg Trials of Nazi leaders after World War II.

The Nuremberg Trials, a series of military tribunals held by the victorious Allies, determined that the "superior orders" defence was not enough to escape punishment but could be used to lessen the punishment. This principle was codified in the Nuremberg Principles and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. According to Nuremberg Principle IV, "The fact that a person acted pursuant to order of his Government or of a superior does not relieve him from responsibility under international law, provided a moral choice was in fact possible to him."

The "superior orders" defence has been used in other contexts as well. For example, during the Vietnam War, US General Telford Taylor employed the term "Nuremberg defence" to describe a justification put forward by those who refused to participate in the war because they believed it to be criminal.

The validity of the "superior orders" defence is still debated, and it has been criticised for not following traditional legal definitions and categories established under criminal law. However, it continues to be used as a legal argument in certain scenarios, presenting a complex ethical and legal dilemma.

When police are permitted to break the law

The relationship between ethics and law is a complex one. While laws are created by governing bodies, ethical principles are derived from personal beliefs, societal norms, and philosophical theories. This distinction is crucial because it means that actions can be morally right but illegal, and vice versa. As such, there may be situations where it is morally right to break the law.

Police officers are generally not permitted to break the law. However, there are exceptions to this rule. In certain circumstances, police officers may be allowed to perform acts that would typically be considered illegal for private citizens. These exceptions often relate to the enforcement of laws and the investigation of offences, where police officers have special powers that are not available to the general public.

For example, police officers may be permitted to exceed speed limits or ignore traffic lights and signs when responding to urgent calls or directing traffic in the interest of public safety. They may also be authorised to buy and sell drugs while working undercover, as part of a larger investigation. Additionally, in some jurisdictions, police officers have effective immunity from prosecution for certain crimes, such as speeding.

It is important to note that police officers must still operate within specific boundaries. In most cases, they require permission from a superior to use their special powers, unless it is an emergency. Furthermore, their actions must be reasonably believed to be appropriate under the circumstances. Police officers are not allowed to violate the charter rights of individuals, which are guaranteed to everyone and can only be limited in specific circumstances.

When laws contradict and violate higher moral laws

Laws are not always aligned with morality, and there are times when laws can contradict and violate higher moral laws. In such cases, individuals may find themselves in a moral dilemma, questioning whether they should obey the law or act according to their moral convictions. This situation can be complex and challenging, especially when it involves conflicting values and principles.

Firstly, it is essential to recognise that ethics and law are distinct systems, each serving a different purpose. Laws are created by governing bodies and are meant to maintain order in society, while moral laws or ethical principles guide individuals on what is considered right or wrong. The law can be influenced by various factors and may not always align with universal moral principles. Therefore, it is crucial to question and critically examine laws to ensure they uphold justice and higher moral values.

So, how should one navigate this complex terrain of conflicting laws and moral obligations? There are a few possible approaches:

• Finding a solution within the system: This involves seeking exemptions or accommodations based on freedom of religion or conscience. It requires engaging with the authorities and presenting one's case through appropriate channels or legal means.
• Quiet non-compliance: This approach involves discreetly disobeying the law without publicly announcing or drawing attention to one's actions. An example of this is the story of Daniel, who continued to pray to God in private despite a law prohibiting it.
• Open non-compliance: In some cases, individuals may choose to openly defy the law as a form of civil disobedience. This approach is often a last resort when all other options have been exhausted, and individuals are faced with a clear violation of their moral convictions.

It is worth noting that the consequences of breaking the law, even for moral reasons, can be significant. In the case of civil disobedience, individuals may face legal repercussions, including fines, imprisonment, or even harm to their lives and well-being. Therefore, the decision to break the law, even for moral reasons, should not be taken lightly. It requires careful consideration of the potential impact on oneself and others.

In conclusion, when laws contradict and violate higher moral laws, individuals may find themselves in a difficult position. Navigating this dilemma involves weighing universal moral principles, personal values, and the potential consequences of one's actions. While there are no easy answers, it is essential to remain committed to one's moral convictions and strive for a just and ethical society.

Frequently asked questions