Morality Of Lawbreaking: Nobody Gets Hurt, But Is It Legal?

Breaking the law is a complex and multifaceted issue that has been debated by philosophers and legal scholars for centuries. While some argue that the rule of law must be upheld in all circumstances to maintain a civilized society, others contend that there may be times when breaking the law is justifiable, especially when the law is considered immoral or unjust. This debate often centres around the concept of civil disobedience, where individuals or groups intentionally break the law as a form of protest or to bring attention to a cause they believe in. The effectiveness of civil disobedience as a means of social change is often questioned, and there are differing opinions on whether it strengthens or undermines democratic processes. Ultimately, the decision to break the law involves a complex interplay between personal morality, societal obligations, and the potential consequences of one's actions.

Civil disobedience

There are three types of civil disobedience:

• Integrity-based civil disobedience occurs when a citizen disobeys a law they feel is immoral.
• Justice-based civil disobedience occurs when a citizen disobeys laws to lay claim to some right denied to them.
• Policy-based civil disobedience occurs when a person breaks the law to change a policy they believe is dangerously wrong.

Apartheid in South Africa

Apartheid was characterised by an authoritarian political culture based on baasskap, or "boss-hood", which ensured that South Africa was dominated politically, socially, and economically by the nation's minority white population. Under this system, white citizens held the highest status, followed by Indians, Coloureds, and black Africans, in that order.

Apartheid was delineated into “petty apartheid”, which entailed the segregation of public facilities and social events, and “grand apartheid”, which strictly separated housing and employment opportunities by race. The first apartheid law was the Prohibition of Mixed Marriages Act, 1949, which made it illegal for most South African citizens to marry or pursue sexual relationships across racial lines. This was followed by the Immorality Amendment Act of 1950, and the Population Registration Act, 1950, which classified all South Africans into one of four racial groups: "Black", "White", "Coloured", and "Indian".

Apartheid sparked significant international and domestic opposition, resulting in some of the most influential global social movements of the 20th century. It was the target of frequent condemnation in the United Nations and brought about extensive international sanctions, including arms embargoes and economic sanctions on South Africa.

During the 1980s, anti-apartheid leaders formed the United Democratic Front (UDF) to coordinate anti-apartheid activism inside South Africa. The UDF provided a legal way for domestic human rights groups and individuals of all races to organise demonstrations and campaigns against apartheid. Churches and church groups also emerged as pivotal points of resistance.

Apartheid legislation was repealed in the early 1990s, and a new constitution—one that enfranchised blacks and other racial groups—was adopted in 1993. All-race national elections held in 1994 resulted in a black majority government led by prominent anti-apartheid activist Nelson Mandela of the African National Congress (ANC) party. Although these developments marked the end of legislated apartheid, the social and economic effects of apartheid remained deeply entrenched in South African society.

Racial segregation in the US

Breaking the law is generally considered unacceptable, even if no harm is caused to others. However, there are instances where breaking the law has led to positive change, such as in the case of racial segregation in the US.

History of Racial Segregation in the US

Black Codes and Jim Crow Laws

The first formal steps towards segregation came in the form of "Black Codes," which were laws enacted in the South around 1865. These codes regulated various aspects of Black people's lives, including their employment and residence, ensuring their availability as a source of cheap labor.

Segregation became an official policy enforced by a series of laws known as Jim Crow laws. These laws mandated the separation of Blacks and Whites in schools, residential areas, public parks, theaters, pools, cemeteries, and even phone booths. The Supreme Court's ruling in Plessy v. Ferguson (1896) upheld the constitutionality of segregation, establishing the "separate but equal" doctrine.

Resistance and Change

The civil rights movement, led by figures like Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., played a pivotal role in challenging segregation. Protests, boycotts, and legal battles contributed to significant changes. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 outlawed discrimination and paved the way for desegregation, although it was a gradual process, particularly in schools.

Persistence of Segregation

Despite legal changes, racial segregation persists in the US in various forms. Residential segregation, for example, remains prevalent, with people of different races still living in separate neighborhoods. Additionally, "apartheid schools," which are largely segregated, reflect residential segregation and local ordinances that disproportionately affect minorities.

Impact of Segregation

The impact of segregation has been far-reaching, affecting various aspects of life for Black Americans. It has contributed to unequal access to quality education, housing, and healthcare, leading to disparities in health outcomes and opportunities for economic mobility.

In conclusion, while breaking the law is generally unacceptable, the history of racial segregation in the US demonstrates that there are times when challenging and overturning unjust laws is necessary to bring about positive social change.

Lawbreakers' moral responsibility

The question of whether breaking the law is acceptable if nobody gets hurt is a complex and highly debated topic that has been discussed by philosophers and societies for centuries. While some argue that breaking the law is never acceptable under any circumstances, others believe that there may be certain situations where civil disobedience or breaking unjust laws can be justified.

One perspective holds that respect for the rule of law is a fundamental pillar of a civilized society. Without universal adherence to the law, there would be no controls on behaviour, and chaos could ensue. This view emphasizes the importance of maintaining law and order, regardless of individual opinions on the fairness of specific laws.

However, history provides numerous examples where breaking the law has been deemed necessary to challenge and change immoral or unjust laws. Instances of civil disobedience, such as the protests against apartheid in South Africa, the civil rights movement in the United States, and the campaign for women's reproductive rights in the Republic of Ireland, illustrate situations where individuals or groups felt compelled to break the law as a means of sparking social change.

In these cases, lawbreakers assume a moral responsibility by challenging the status quo and advocating for a higher moral principle or a more just society. They may argue that their actions are necessary to bring attention to an issue, especially when legal avenues for change are ineffective or inaccessible. For example, during the civil rights movement in the United States, African Americans faced legal and systemic barriers that prevented them from effectively campaigning for change through lawful means alone.

However, it is important to consider the potential consequences and limitations of breaking the law. While civil disobedience can be a powerful tool for social change, it also carries risks. Lawbreakers may face legal repercussions, including prison sentences, and their actions may inadvertently cause harm or inconvenience to others, potentially alienating potential supporters of their cause.

Furthermore, not all causes are considered equal. Breaking the law to fight racism, sexism, or climate change may be viewed more favourably by some than, for example, breaking the law to promote Nazi principles. The justification for civil disobedience lies in the moral and ethical implications of the cause being fought for.

In conclusion, while breaking the law may carry moral responsibility, it is a complex issue that requires careful consideration of the specific circumstances, the potential harms, and the underlying principles being defended. The decision to break the law should not be taken lightly, and individuals must weigh the potential benefits against the risks of causing disorder and undermining respect for the rule of law.

Democracy and civil disobedience

Civil disobedience is a public, non-violent, and conscientious breach of law undertaken with the aim of bringing about a change in laws or government policies. It is often a crucial tool in the pursuit of justice and plays a significant role in bending the arc of the moral universe toward justice. The term "civil disobedience" is widely credited to Henry David Thoreau, who refused to pay his state poll tax as a protest against slavery, the extermination of Native Americans, and the war against Mexico.

In a democracy, civil disobedience can be an important mechanism for citizens to hold their government accountable and ensure that it acts in the best interests of the people. When a government abuses its power, citizens have a right to engage in civil disobedience as a form of protest. This may include sit-down protests, obstructing highways or building entrances, and graffiti to publicise their message. It is important to note that civil disobedience should be proportional to the abuse being addressed and is not intended to break the law but rather to affirm a belief in the injustice of a law or government action.

The law in some countries, such as the UK, recognises the role of civil disobedience and treats it as a special case, with participants rarely being sent to prison. Other citizens have a responsibility to examine the concerns of those engaged in civil disobedience and respond appropriately, either by supporting their cause or holding them accountable if their actions are unjustified.

In the context of the climate emergency, there is evidence that governments are abusing their power by not adequately addressing the severity of the crisis and making poor decisions regarding greenhouse gas emissions reductions. As a result, groups like the school strikers and Extinction Rebellion have resorted to civil disobedience to demand action and hold their governments accountable. While some governments have failed to engage with these protesters, the Secretary-General of the United Nations, António Guterres, has expressed support for grassroots movements that hold leaders accountable on climate issues.

Frequently asked questions