When Is Lawbreaking Right? Navigating Legal Morality

Breaking the law is a complex and nuanced topic that has been debated throughout history. While it is generally understood that breaking the law has consequences, people still break the law for various reasons. This raises the question of whether it is always wrong to break the law. This question has been the subject of philosophical and ethical discussions, with some arguing that there are circumstances where breaking the law may be justifiable. For example, throughout history, there have been instances of civil disobedience, such as Gandhi's defiance of British colonial laws and Martin Luther King's civil rights movement, where individuals have broken the law to fight for their rights or oppose unjust laws. On the other hand, breaking the law can also have negative consequences and lead to chaos if everyone starts breaking laws based on their own judgments.

Civil disobedience and the law

Civil disobedience is a public, non-violent, conscientious breach of law. It is undertaken with the aim of bringing about a change in laws or government policies. Those who engage in civil disobedience operate at the boundary of fidelity to law, have a general respect for their regime, and are willing to accept the legal consequences of their actions.

Civil disobedience is not a new phenomenon. From the Boston Tea Party to Mahatma Gandhi’s Salt March, and from suffragists’ illegally casting their ballots to whites-only lunch counter sit-ins, civil disobedience has often played a crucial role in bending the proverbial arc of the moral universe toward justice.

The modern concept of civil disobedience was most clearly formulated by Mahatma Gandhi. Drawing from Eastern and Western thought, Gandhi developed the philosophy of satyagraha, which emphasizes nonviolent resistance to evil. First in the Transvaal of South Africa in 1906 and later in India, via such actions as the Salt March (1930), Gandhi sought to obtain equal rights and freedom through satyagraha campaigns.

Civil disobedience is usually defined as pertaining to a citizen's relation to the state and its laws, as distinguished from a constitutional impasse. It is a symbolic or ritualistic violation of the law rather than a rejection of the system as a whole. The civil disobedient, finding legitimate avenues of change blocked or non-existent, feels obligated by a higher, extralegal principle to break some specific law.

Civil disobedience is usually recognised as non-violent, but there have been debates as to whether it must necessarily be so. Violent civil disobedience has been described as more justifiable if it is more effective in achieving its aims than non-violent disobedience.

Civil disobedience is also usually defined as non-revolutionary, but again, this is disputed. Revolutionary civil disobedience is more of an active attempt to overthrow a government or to change cultural traditions, social customs, or religious beliefs. Thoreau wrote of civil disobedience accomplishing "peaceable revolution".

Civil disobedience is a grave matter. It may sometimes be justified, but the provocation for it has to be equally grave. Basic principles have to be at issue. The evils being combated have to be serious evils that are likely to endure unless they are fought. There should be reasonable grounds to believe that legal methods of fighting them are likely to be insufficient by themselves.

Morality vs. legality

Morality and legality are distinct systems, each with its own purpose and function. While they often overlap, there are times when ethical principles and the law conflict. This has been a moral problem as old as Socrates, and it has propelled people into a radical examination of the premises of personal morality, civic obligation, and government.

The law can be influenced by various factors and is not necessarily morally right. Laws are made by fallible people who can make mistakes and be influenced by greed, corruption, bribes, and lobbying. Therefore, it is crucial to question and critically examine laws.

There are actions that are morally right but illegal, and vice versa. For example, saving a child who suddenly runs out onto a busy street would be morally right, but ignoring the red traffic light to do so would be illegal. In Nazi Germany, helping a Jewish citizen was forbidden by law, but it was clearly not immoral.

On the other hand, some legal actions are immoral. For instance, it is legal for companies to search for tax loopholes to reduce their taxes, but this is clearly immoral as these companies are not contributing to the social security systems, public infrastructure, and healthcare of the countries in which they operate.

Sometimes, breaking the law becomes a necessity and can be justified when the law is unjust. For example, during the civil rights movement in the 1950s, Martin Luther King Jr. broke the law to end the legal segregation of African-Americans, which led to the creation of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Similarly, Gandhi's defiance of British colonial laws and the American War of Independence are instances of people going against the law to fight for their rights.

However, this does not mean that every law that is broken is justifiable. If everyone started breaking laws because they thought they had a good reason, society would descend into chaos. Therefore, while individuals are called to make their own moral decisions, they must also weigh the consequences of their actions and ensure that their cause is just.

Laws influenced by factors other than morality

The relationship between law and morality is a complex one. While major breaches of a moral code are often against the law, and morality in a general sense influences a wide range of laws, law is also influenced by a range of other factors, including political, social, economic, and cultural factors. In practice, many laws have a bureaucratic, administrative, and technical function, with little or no connection to morality.

For example, in the commercial world, laws criminalising bribery and the imposition of legal duties on company directors embody what would commonly be considered the ‘right’ or moral way to conduct business. However, laws are not static; they evolve over time and are influenced by changing social and moral attitudes. For instance, the decriminalisation of homosexuality in the UK under the Sexual Offences Act 1967 is an example of how law can influence a change in moral values.

The question of whether law should enforce a moral code in matters concerning the personal lives of people, such as their sexuality, has long been a controversial issue. In the 1950s, a commission was established by the UK government under the chairmanship of Sir John Wolfenden to investigate whether the laws that criminalised homosexuality and prostitution should be changed. The Wolfenden Report, published in 1957, recommended that homosexuality and prostitution should be legalised, with some restrictions, and that some areas of behaviour should be left to individual morality rather than legal regulation.

In response to the Wolfenden Report, Lord Devlin, an English judge, argued that law should be used "to achieve uniformity" in society and to uphold a common morality that is essential for social cohesion. Devlin claimed that laws against homosexuality were necessary because the feeling of "disgust" towards homosexuality was "deeply felt" in society.

However, H.L.A. Hart, a leading academic and legal positivist, disagreed with Devlin, arguing that using law to enforce moral values was unnecessary, as society was capable of containing different moral standards without disintegrating. Hart believed that law and morality are distinct social phenomena and that a free, democratic, and plural society should allow for moral pluralism and individual moral autonomy. He argued that there was no need for the law to impose a singular "seamless web" of morality over its people, and that the private sphere is neither the law's business nor society's.

The debate between Devlin and Hart illustrates how laws can be influenced by factors other than morality, such as social cohesion, individual liberty, and the need to uphold a common morality.

The consequences of breaking the law

Breaking the law can have a multitude of consequences, and the severity of these consequences will depend on the jurisdiction and the nature of the crime committed. Legal ramifications can range from minor fines to long-term imprisonment, and can also extend to personal and professional life, affecting an individual's ability to find a job or housing, for example.

In the case of minor crimes, such as traffic violations, an individual may face a small fine, whereas a more serious crime, such as robbery or murder, could result in a lengthy prison sentence. Other consequences of breaking the law can include community service, probation, and criminal records. In some cases, individuals may also be required to pay restitution to the victim of the crime.

The legal system imposes these consequences to deter criminal behaviour, hold criminals accountable, and ensure the maintenance of social order and the rule of law.

In addition to legal consequences, there may be other personal and professional repercussions. For example, an individual with a criminal record may experience social stigma and discrimination, impacting their ability to secure employment or housing. These consequences can affect an individual's life for years to come.

The question of whether it is always wrong to break the law is a complex philosophical and moral debate. While some argue that disobedience to the law can be justified in certain circumstances, particularly under a despotic regime, others maintain that civil disobedience is never justified in a democratic society, where legal avenues for redress are available. Ultimately, the consequences of breaking the law are designed to hold individuals accountable and maintain social order.

The relationship between ethics and the law

One perspective holds that ethics and law are inherently linked, with the law representing a formalisation of societal ethical principles. This view, rooted in religious traditions such as Christianity and Orthodox Judaism, posits that state laws are an extension of divine laws or commandments, creating an overlap between morality, religion, and legal obligations. In this framework, obeying the law is seen as synonymous with acting ethically and morally.

However, this perspective has been challenged by those who argue that ethics and law are separate domains. They contend that ethics provides us with unconditional rules to follow, such as "do not steal" or "be honest", while laws are created by fallible human institutions like parliaments, which can be influenced by various factors, including greed, corruption, or special interest groups. As a result, laws may not always align with ethical principles, and unconditional obedience to the law is not always morally justifiable.

The complexity of this relationship is further highlighted by situations where individuals or groups engage in civil disobedience, deliberately breaking the law as a form of political or social protest. Throughout history, civil disobedience has been employed by figures like Gandhi, Martin Luther King Jr., and the White Rose resistance group in Nazi Germany, who broke unjust laws to fight for civil rights, racial equality, or opposition to dictatorship. In these cases, the law of morality, or a higher law, is placed above the laws of the state, challenging the notion of unconditional obedience to legal authority.

Additionally, there are instances where actions can be both legal and immoral, or illegal and morally right, creating a clear distinction between legality and ethical correctness. For example, tax avoidance through loopholes may be legal, but it is often considered immoral as it undermines social responsibility. Conversely, saving a child from running into a busy street may involve jaywalking or breaking traffic laws, but it is undoubtedly the moral thing to do.

In conclusion, the relationship between ethics and the law is nuanced and multifaceted. While some argue that the law embodies ethical principles, others emphasise the fallibility of legal systems and the primacy of individual moral responsibility. Ultimately, the question of whether it is always wrong to break the law depends on the complex interplay between legal, ethical, and moral considerations, which may not always align harmoniously.

Frequently asked questions