Good Intentions, Bad Outcomes: Breaking The Law Morally?

Breaking the law is generally considered unacceptable, as it is the foundation of a civilised society. However, there are instances where breaking the law may be deemed justifiable, such as when the law itself is considered immoral or unjust. This dilemma raises the question of whether the rule of law should always be prioritised over pragmatism, or if there are circumstances where the benefits of breaking the law outweigh the potential harms.

Civil disobedience

The term "civil disobedience" was first coined by Henry David Thoreau in his 1849 essay "Resistance to Civil Government", later republished as "Civil Disobedience" in 1866. Thoreau's essay was influenced by his refusal to pay state poll tax as a protest against slavery, the extermination of Native Americans, and the war against Mexico.

Some notable examples of civil disobedience include:

• The Boston Tea Party
• Mahatma Gandhi’s Salt March
• Suffragists illegally casting their ballots
• Whites-only lunch counter sit-ins during the civil rights movement
• Martin Luther King Jr.'s and James Bevel's nonviolent protests during the civil rights movement in the 1960s

Rule of law vs pragmatism

The rule of law is a fundamental principle of governance that asserts that all laws apply equally to all members of society and no one is above the law. It is a key tenet of democratic societies and is considered essential for maintaining social order, ensuring fairness, and protecting individual rights and freedoms. Any deviation from the rule of law, even with good intentions, can undermine these fundamental principles.

On the other hand, pragmatism, in the context of law, refers to a descriptive theory of law, judicial decision-making, and a form of judicial philosophy and legal reasoning. Legal pragmatism challenges traditional views of law and judicial decision-making by emphasising the need to consider a diverse set of data and the specific context in which laws are applied. It argues that laws are not founded on universal principles but are rooted in the particular social and historical context in which they are created. This perspective highlights the instrumental nature of law, acknowledging that laws are tools to achieve specific social purposes.

When considering the tension between the rule of law and pragmatism, several key issues emerge. Firstly, the rule of law prioritises consistency, predictability, and the equal application of laws, while legal pragmatism focuses on the consequences of judicial decisions and their relevance to the specific context. This contrast between consistency and context-specificity is a significant point of divergence between the two approaches.

Secondly, the rule of law assumes that laws are based on foundational principles that are universally applicable, whereas legal pragmatism challenges this assumption by arguing that laws are contingent and context-dependent. This perspective highlights the evolving nature of law and society's changing needs, which may require adapting or even breaking the law to achieve pragmatic outcomes.

Additionally, the rule of law emphasises formalism, which focuses on legal authority, rules, and texts. In contrast, legal pragmatism prioritises the inclusion of a broader range of data, such as sociological and economic considerations, to ensure that judicial decisions are informed by a comprehensive understanding of their potential implications. This aspect of legal pragmatism acknowledges the complexity of societal issues and the need for judicial decisions to be responsive to these complexities.

In conclusion, while the rule of law provides a stable and consistent framework for governance, legal pragmatism offers a flexible and context-sensitive approach. The tension between these two perspectives highlights the challenges of governing a diverse society with evolving needs. Finding a balance between these approaches is essential for a legal system that can adapt to changing circumstances while maintaining fairness, equality, and respect for the rule of law.

Legitimacy of the state

The legitimacy of the state is a complex and multifaceted concept that is essential for understanding political systems and evaluating their effectiveness. At its core, state legitimacy refers to the acceptance and recognition of a state's right to rule by its citizens. It involves a political process of establishing order in social relations, with political actors often playing a pivotal role.

The concept of state legitimacy is crucial because it serves as the foundation for stable and functional governance. Without legitimacy, a state may face conflict, disorder, and challenges to its authority. Legitimacy is not merely about democratic governance but also encompasses the integrity of elections, the representativeness of the government, and the population's confidence in state institutions and processes.

The depth and durability of a state's legitimacy have direct implications for development processes and external efforts to support them. A state's legitimacy can be influenced by various factors, including the confidence in the political process, the existence of peaceful leadership transitions, the perception of free and fair elections, and the presence of corruption or human rights abuses.

Political philosophers have long debated the sources and requirements of state legitimacy. Some argue that legitimacy stems from the consent of the governed, while others emphasise the role of public justification or political participation. Max Weber, for instance, associates legitimacy with the rationality of the rule of law and the longevity of a social order.

Overall, state legitimacy is a dynamic and context-dependent concept that plays a critical role in shaping the relationship between a government and its citizens, with significant consequences for social stability and development.

Morality of the law

The morality of the law is a complex and multifaceted issue that has been debated by legal scholars, philosophers, and society at large for centuries. At the heart of the matter lies the question: "Is it ever justifiable to break the law, even if one's intentions are good?"

On the one hand, the rule of law is a fundamental pillar of a civilised society. It provides a framework for maintaining order, ensuring public safety, and resolving disputes peacefully. Without a universally accepted set of rules and consequences for breaking them, the argument goes, society would descend into chaos, and no one would be safe. In this view, the law is sacrosanct, and breaking it, regardless of intention, is inherently wrong.

However, this rigid stance faces several challenges when confronted with real-world complexities. What happens when a law is fundamentally immoral or unjust? History provides numerous examples where breaking the law has been a necessary step towards achieving social justice. From the civil rights movement in the United States, where Rosa Parks famously broke segregation laws, to the fight against apartheid in South Africa, where the Black majority protested by burning their passbooks, these unlawful acts were driven by good intentions and helped bring about much-needed change.

In such cases, the argument shifts to the legitimacy of the state or system enacting the laws. If a government systematically excludes or oppresses a portion of its population, as in the case of apartheid South Africa, can it still claim legitimacy, and should its laws be respected? This question does not have an easy answer and is a subject of ongoing debate.

Moreover, the effectiveness of lawful versus unlawful means in achieving social change comes into play. In the case of the contraception law in the Republic of Ireland in 1971, a group of feminist campaigners broke the law by importing contraceptives from Northern Ireland. They recognised that campaigning within the law was unlikely to succeed due to the influence of the Catholic Church on political parties. Their direct action, though unlawful, sparked the necessary conversation and ultimately led to change.

Ultimately, the morality of breaking the law comes down to a clash between principle and pragmatism. While some argue that the rule of law must be upheld in all circumstances, others contend that each case should be judged on its own merits, weighing the benefits of breaking the law against the potential harms. This pragmatic approach acknowledges that while the rule of law is important, it is not absolute, and there may be exceptional circumstances where breaking the law is justifiable, especially when fighting racism, sexism, or addressing issues like climate change.

Direct action vs legal challenge

Direct action is a form of protest in which participants seek to achieve their goals through direct, often physical, action, rather than through negotiation or discussion. It is a term for economic and political behaviour in which participants use their agency, such as economic or physical power, to achieve their goals. The aim of direct action is to either obstruct a certain practice, such as a government's laws or actions, or to solve perceived problems, such as social inequality. Direct action is often seen as a last resort when other methods of protest, such as petitions or letter-writing, have failed.

Anthropologist David Graeber defines direct action as "a form of action in which means and ends become, effectively, indistinguishable; a way of actively engaging with the world to bring about change, in which the form of the action — or at least, the organisation of the action — is itself a model for the change one wishes to bring about."

Direct action can take many forms, from non-violent activities such as civil disobedience, sit-ins, strikes, and counter-economics, to more disruptive and violent actions such as political violence, assault, arson, sabotage, and property destruction. It is important to note that definitions of what constitutes violent or non-violent direct action vary, and the context and cultural perspectives play a role in these labels.

On the other hand, a legal challenge involves working within the existing legal framework to address a particular issue. It involves filing lawsuits, seeking injunctions, and utilising existing laws and regulations to achieve a desired outcome. This approach is typically more formal, structured, and mediated by legal institutions.

When comparing direct action with a legal challenge, it is important to consider the advantages and disadvantages of each approach. Direct action can be a powerful tool for those with few resources, as it allows them to take matters into their own hands and directly confront power dynamics. It can also be effective in bringing about immediate change and creating a sense of agency among participants. However, direct action may carry legal consequences, and there is a risk of backlash or negative perception if the actions are deemed too extreme or disruptive.

Legal challenges, on the other hand, offer a more formal and structured approach to addressing issues. They can be effective in creating long-lasting change by working within the existing legal framework. However, legal challenges may be time-consuming and costly, and they rely on the existing power structures to bring about change.

Frequently asked questions