Breaking The Law: Frankel's Ethical Dilemma

Charles Frankel was an American philosopher, Assistant U.S. Secretary of State, professor, and founding director of the National Humanities Center. In 1968, he graduated with a law degree and, in a 1964 New York Times essay titled Is It Right to Break the Law?, he explored the complex relationship between civil disobedience and democracy. Frankel's argument centred on the idea that civil disobedience can be justified even in a democratic society, but it should be approached with a sense of gravity and moral constraint. This perspective was influenced by his evaluation of Martin Luther King Jr.'s civil rights activism and his interpretation of higher law and public order.

Civil disobedience

The question of whether it is ever right to break the law is a moral problem as old as Socrates. Charles Frankel, an American philosopher, weighed in on this question in a 1964 New York Times essay titled "Is It Right to Break the Law?" and through a debate with Howard Zinn in 1970. While Frankel acknowledged that civil disobedience can be justified even in a democracy, he suggested that such actions should be undertaken with a sense of gravity and moral constraint.

Frankel's perspective on civil disobedience can be understood in the context of his broader career and philosophical views. As an Assistant U.S. Secretary of State, professor, and founding director of the National Humanities Center, Frankel brought a nuanced approach to questions of law, order, and justice. He recognised that the relationship between ethics and law is complex and that they are distinct systems, each serving its own purpose and function.

In his essay, Frankel rejected the extreme position that disobedience to the law can never be justified. He argued that this stance implies either that all existing laws are just or that breaking the law always constitutes a greater wrong. Frankel noted that both of these assertions are highly doubtful, as there are times when disobeying an unjust law may be necessary to uphold higher moral principles.

However, Frankel also cautioned against a simplistic interpretation of civil disobedience. He acknowledged that while it can be morally right to break an unjust law, this does not translate into a legal right. In other words, even if an individual's conscience tells them that a law is unjust, the act of breaking that law remains a violation that the legal system must address through punishment.

Frankel further emphasised that the right to civil disobedience is not unlimited and is subject to important restrictions. Firstly, he argued that civil disobedience should only be considered when basic moral principles are at stake, and legal paths to reform are insufficient. Additionally, he stressed that the cause must be just, and the potential consequences of breaking the law must be carefully weighed.

Frankel's thoughts on civil disobedience are particularly relevant in the context of social and legal injustices, such as those faced by civil rights activists like Martin Luther King Jr. in the 1960s. King's nonviolent direct action strategy, as outlined in his "Letter from a Birmingham Jail," provides a defence of civil disobedience as a means to address racial segregation and injustice.

In conclusion, Charles Frankel's perspective on civil disobedience recognises the complexity of the relationship between law and morality. While he acknowledges that there may be times when breaking an unjust law is morally justified, he emphasises the gravity and constraints of such actions. Frankel's ideas continue to inform debates around civil disobedience, particularly in contexts where individuals or groups feel compelled to challenge unjust laws and fight for social change.

Moral obligation vs. legal requirement

The question of whether it is ever right to break the law is a complex and age-old philosophical problem. It is a question that has been raised by recent incidents of civil disobedience in the United States and beyond. The philosopher Charles Frankel and civil rights activist Reverend Martin Luther King Jr. both addressed this issue in the 1960s, an era marked by civil disobedience and unrest.

Moral Obligation

The idea of a "higher law" above the state, rooted in religious and philosophical traditions, has been a part of Western political thought for centuries. This higher law claims authority to distinguish between just and unjust laws, and individuals often feel a moral obligation to act according to their conscience, even if it means breaking the law.

In his essay "Is it Right to Break the Law?", Charles Frankel acknowledges that civil disobedience can be justified even in a democracy. However, he suggests that such actions should be undertaken with a sense of gravity and moral constraint. He argues that while we may admire someone like Martin Luther King Jr., who defied the authorities in the name of a principle, his right to break the law cannot be officially recognized. Frankel states that no society, whether free or tyrannical, can give its citizens the right to break its laws without undermining the very concept of law.

Therefore, if there is ever a right to break the law, it is a moral right, not a legal one. This moral right is limited and must be exercised within a framework of just and fair behaviour, with basic moral principles at stake.

Legal Requirement

On the other hand, the rule of law is often seen as a cornerstone of modern societies, providing order and stability. Laws are created by governing bodies, such as parliaments, to maintain order, provide a legal framework for rights and responsibilities, and establish norms for conduct. While lawmakers may be fallible and laws may sometimes be unjust or influenced by special interests, the rule of law is still seen as essential for a functioning society.

So, when is it right to break the law? The answer is not straightforward and depends on a variety of factors. Both moral obligation and legal requirement have valid arguments. Ultimately, individuals must decide for themselves what they consider morally right or wrong and whether civil disobedience is justified in a particular context. As Frankel and King demonstrate, this is a complex and ongoing debate that requires careful consideration of the specific circumstances and potential consequences.

The role of ethics

The question of whether it is ever right to break the law is a moral problem as old as Socrates. It has been the subject of philosophical debate for centuries and remains a pertinent issue in modern times, particularly in the context of civil disobedience and social or legal injustice.

The relationship between ethics and law is complex. While laws are intended to uphold moral principles and promote public order, they are created by fallible humans and are subject to influence from various factors, including personal interests, corruption, and lobbying. As such, laws do not always align with ethical ideals, and individuals are faced with the dilemma of deciding whether to obey the law or their conscience.

Ethics play a crucial role in guiding individual behaviour and determining what is considered right or wrong. In the face of unjust laws, individuals may feel compelled to take a stand and break the law in pursuit of a higher moral principle. For example, during the Civil Rights Movement, activists like Martin Luther King Jr. engaged in nonviolent civil disobedience to challenge segregation laws, even though their actions were technically illegal.

The philosopher Charles Frankel, in his essay "Is it Right to Break the Law?", acknowledges that civil disobedience can be justified even in a democracy. However, he suggests that such actions should be approached with a sense of gravity and moral constraint. Frankel recognises the potential for civil disobedience to undermine respect for the law and inadvertently promote violence, and thus, it should be reserved for cases where basic moral principles are at stake, and no legal path to reform is evident.

Ultimately, the decision to break the law rests on an individual's moral judgement and their willingness to accept the consequences. As Immanuel Kant posited, moral autonomy is a fundamental aspect of being human, and we have a responsibility to make ethical decisions independently, guided by universal moral laws.

However, it is essential to recognise that breaking the law is not without repercussions. Even if an individual believes their actions are morally justified, they may still face legal consequences, including fines, imprisonment, or other sanctions.

In conclusion, while ethics and law are distinct systems, they are intricately linked. The role of ethics is to provide a framework for individuals to make sense of right and wrong and guide their behaviour, even when faced with unjust laws. While breaking the law can sometimes be morally justifiable, it is not a decision to be taken lightly, as it carries significant risks and requires careful consideration of the potential consequences.

The law as a tool of the powerful

The law has been used as a tool by the powerful since its inception. In 2300 BCE, Ur Namma, conqueror of the city of Ur, created the first known laws. These laws were presented as part of a vision for a better and more civilised society, but they also served to entrench his power. This dynamic has repeated itself throughout history, with laws being used as a tool to oppress and discriminate, as well as to provide justice and protect rights.

The law can be manipulated by authoritarian rulers to undermine human rights and support undemocratic activities. For example, the Jim Crow laws in the US legalised racial segregation, and the legal regime of apartheid in South Africa institutionalised racial discrimination. Authoritarian rulers may also curb the powers of the judiciary and manipulate courts and judges to support their agenda.

However, the law can also be a tool for justice and a weapon for ordinary people against oppression. This was the case in ancient Athens, where laws were created to put society on a better footing after a popular revolt against tyranny. The Roman Republic saw the creation of laws explicitly designed to curb the powers of the ruling classes and hold corrupt officials to account.

The rule of law is a fundamental ideal of political morality, referring to the ascendancy of law and the institutions of the legal system in a system of governance. It requires that people in positions of authority exercise their power within a framework of well-established public norms and that they be held accountable through the law. The rule of law also demands that citizens respect and comply with legal norms, even when they disagree with them, and that the law be equally applied to all.

The tension between the law as a tool of the powerful and as a force for justice persists today. In the US, for example, civil rights activists such as Martin Luther King Jr. engaged in civil disobedience to protest racial injustice, while others have decried the use of civil disobedience as contributing to an atmosphere of disrespect for public authority. The law can be a tool for social reform, but it must be balanced with respect for civil authority and public order.

The individual's responsibility

The question of whether it is right to break the law is a fundamental moral problem as old as Socrates. It is a question that has regularly propelled individuals into a radical examination of the premises of personal morality, civic obligation, and government.

The tension between higher law and the benefits of a public order that promotes law-abidingness has been a constant presence in Western political thought and experience. This tension is particularly evident in the politics of race, where protests, riots, and calls for reform challenge the established order.

In addressing this issue, it is essential to distinguish between just and unjust laws. An unjust law, as St. Augustine proclaimed, "is no law at all." Just laws are those that uplift human personality, while unjust laws degrade it. For example, segregation laws create a false sense of superiority and inferiority between races, which is a distortion of human personality and an affront to the equal worth of all human beings.

Civil disobedience, however, is not without its limitations and constraints. It should be a last resort, employed only when basic moral principles are at stake and no legal path to reform is evident. The provocation for civil disobedience must be grave, addressing serious evils that are likely to persist unless actively combated. Additionally, there must be reasonable grounds to believe that legal methods alone will be insufficient to bring about the desired change.

Furthermore, the cause for which one breaks the law must be just. For instance, it was right for General de Gaulle to disobey Marshal Pétain, but it would have been wrong to disobey General de Gaulle twenty years later. Breaking the law to uphold Nazi principles, for instance, can never be justified, regardless of the consequences.

Moreover, civil disobedience is not a legal right but a moral right. No society can give its citizens the legal right to break its laws, as that would be tantamount to proclaiming that its laws are not laws. Instead, the right to break the law is a moral right against the law, constrained by important restrictions. These restrictions include standards of just and fair behaviour, proportionality between the means employed and the end desired, and adherence to non-violent methods.

Ultimately, the decision to break the law rests on the individual's moral autonomy and their ability to make moral decisions independently. This ability to reason and act according to universal moral laws is what defines us as human. However, it is a delicate balance, as civil disobedience can undermine public order and destabilize society.

In conclusion, while individuals have a responsibility to obey just laws, they also have a responsibility to disobey unjust laws through civil disobedience when necessary. This disobedience must be undertaken with careful consideration of the constraints and potential consequences. The individual's role is crucial in challenging unjust laws and striving for a more just society.

Frequently asked questions