Morality and the Law

Most of us would like to have morality and the law more closely coincide. We understand that we cannot outlaw all things immoral, but we would at least like all things illegal to be immoral. Of course this has not been the case historically. A simple example: laws in the 1800s made it illegal to help an escaping slaves. We think or hope that we're past the most abusive and immoral cases of legal violation of people's rights, but how would we know?

Many people of that time thought that punishing those who helped slaves escape was the moral thing to do, so they didn't see it as a problem. Is it possible that we are not looking too closely at our own modern laws and are too quick to assume that they generally follow our moral ideals? It's more than possible, as I will demonstrate.

But to show you this I have to be a little bit sneaky. That's because of the way our minds work. If I were to simply present a law or two that actually violate people's rights, but you thought they were moral, your mind would immediately look for reasons to support your belief. We think this kind of defensive argumentation is normal intelligence, but it suggests that some part of us is more interested in being right than in looking for the truth. So I start with a story.

Jack loved his son, who was handicapped and needed a wheelchair. Henry had a wheelchair that he used while healing up from a car accident. He no longer needed it, and so agreed to sell it to Jack for several hundred dollars less than it cost when new. Jack's son tried it out and liked it. It was a good fit and worked well. Jack was very happy because without this opportunity his son would have had to wait for many months more while his father saved the money to buy a new wheelchair.

But then a neighbor heard about the sale and notified the authorities. Soon the police came and took away the wheelchair. They also immediately arrested Henry and threw him in jail for a year. He couldn't work and so couldn't pay his bills. Soon he lost his home and his own children were put into foster homes. Apparently Henry didn't have a license to sell wheelchairs.

Now I have a question for you. Whatever the law said in this situation, was the true crime what Henry did or what the police and courts and lawmakers did to him? Crime is certainly a concept that goes beyond legality and illegality, and morality and the law sometimes go their separate ways, don't they?

Morality and the Law - Another Look

Now, I invented the case above, although it wouldn't surprise me to know that there are such laws in places. But I want to suggest to you that are many laws right now that effectively do the same thing. They make honest agreements between individuals illegal and punishable by jail time. In fact, all licensing laws do exactly that.

Bob knows how to sell things, and so agrees to help his friend Sue sell her home for only $1,000 commission - far less than real estate agents charge. Sue knows he isn't a licensed agent, and will hire a lawyer to review any contracts she later signs. Bob goes ahead and places an ad in the paper and shows the home to a prospective buyer.

Now let me ask you this: Suppose you don't like the idea of Bob doing this, for whatever reasons. Is it moral for you to disrupt the agreement between Sue and Bob? Is it moral for you to hunt Bob down and lock him up? If not, and if it isn't right for others to do that, how did it become moral just because you got together with those others and voted for some "authority" to do this for you?

What real crime have Sue or Bob created that warrants locking either in a cage like an animal? Does your agreement with others to do this or to hire a government to do this make it less immoral?

If a friend - or a stranger - cuts my hair for money without a license and I agree because I want to pay less for the haircut - it it moral or immoral to drag that person off and take away his or her freedom?

If a retired dental hygienist who has cleaned more teeth than most dentists buys equipment and starts to clean people's teeth for half the usual rate - and is open about her lack of a dental license - is it right to drag her off to prison? Would you personally do it? If not what makes hiring others to do it right? Or does voting to do things to people make even the most immoral actions suddenly moral?

Now, I might explain that even without legal licensing people would be free to hire only those with the credentials they want to see, and the training they think is necessary. I might add that putting a fake medical degree on the wall of your veterinary clinic is fraud and deserves jail time. Having no license would not change things as much as you might think.

But this isn't about the practical details of such changes. It's about morality and the law. This is one area and a few examples that suggest the following rule: If it is immoral for you to do something, it does not become moral to hire or vote for others to do it in your name.