Is there a moral obligation to follow the law?

[Geoffrey Howe]

Is there a moral obligation to follow the law? Clearly there is a legal obligation, and one can expect to be punished if one breaks the law; but is there a moral duty to follow the law because it is the law?

I haven't really thought about it, but Jonathan Sumption; learned historian, lawyer and jurist says not.

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2019/apr/17/ex-supreme-court-jonathan-sumption-defends-break-assisted-dying-law

It's also in here somewhere. Regardless of whether you agree with him on lockdown, this is a very insightful conversation, with a lot in there more about the ideas behind democracy than epidemiology. John Dule might enjoy.

[vitoNova]

One has a moral duty to follow the Golden Rule. 

[Torie]

In the law a distinction is drawn between malum prohibitum, and malum in se. I have from time to time violated malum prohibitum laws, such as speeding a bit, and well, the purchase and consumption of cannabis. 

[Geoffrey Howe]

In the law a distinction is drawn between malum prohibitum, and malum in se. I have from time to time violated malum prohibitum laws, such as speeding a bit, and well, the purchase and consumption of cannabis. 

Ah, but does its prohibition make it wrong in se? (Clearly there are differing degrees of wrong.)

[Torie]

In the law a distinction is drawn between malum prohibitum, and malum in se. I have from time to time violated malum prohibitum laws, such as speeding a bit, and well, the purchase and consumption of cannabis.  

Ah, but does its prohibition make it wrong in se? (Clearly there are differing degrees of wrong.)

Well the law draws the distinction, and I like it. That said, as to whether it is "wrong" to violate a malum prohibitum law, I guess it depends, in part on one's own moral compass. For example, in some circumstances, I don't think it wrong to commit suicide, or for that matter even something that is technically murder.

For example, my grandfather when he was suffering, took advantage of the fact that he was an MD, and self injected himself with a lethal dose of morphine, shortening his life by a few weeks. My Dad killed his mother, administering to her a lethal dose of morphine. She was suffering in the end stages, and he loved her so much, that he stepped up to the plate. My Dad as I have said many times, is my hero. He had the courage to do what is right, even if it was tough to do so. Myself, I don't want to keep living if I move towards senile dementia. I don't care what the technical legalities are. I think it is the right thing to do - for me. I hope my partner agrees. If not, then it becomes a tougher decision.

And then there is the issue of peaceful civil disobedience. Most of us revere MLK for a reason.

[Kingpoleon]

Human laws cannot change the nature of things. Right is right and wrong is wrong, regardless of a thousand human laws. One must pursue the Form of the Good.

[Geoffrey Howe]

Human laws cannot change the nature of things. Right is right and wrong is wrong, regardless of a thousand human laws. One must pursue the Form of the Good.

I'm not asking whether legality is the sole test of immorality. I am asking whether something being illegal at least pushes it in the direction of morality. Is there a moral obligation - one that can be outweighed certainly - to follow the law.

[Kingpoleon]

Human laws cannot change the nature of things. Right is right and wrong is wrong, regardless of a thousand human laws. One must pursue the Form of the Good.

I'm not asking whether legality is the sole test of immorality. I am asking whether something being illegal at least pushes it in the direction of morality. Is there a moral obligation - one that can be outweighed certainly - to follow the law.

Perhaps, in cases where one’s own conscience offers no clear guide, the existing law could be used as a tiebreaker. But so could a myriad of other factors.

It is also by no means clear that one ought to force even the most mild, milquetoast conclusion with tiebreakers. It is entirely plausible that a conflicted conscience over some issues is healthy.

[Dr. MB]

Of course not. Laws can be just or unjust. Just cause someone says something or does something that's "illegal" it doesn't necessarily make it not right.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

There's a generalized moral obligation to follow the law because a relatively ordered and rational society is good in itself, yes; however, that obligation is obviated or even inverted if the law itself is manifestly unjust.

[Geoffrey Howe]

There's a generalized moral obligation to follow the law because a relatively ordered and rational society is good in itself, yes; however, that obligation is obviated or even inverted if the law itself is manifestly unjust.

That is my instinctive position. It doesn't seem to be Lord Sumption's. I'd be interested to hear his views in more depth about this, but I can't find them - and I have watched pretty much everything of him on the Internet and I have his books (well not the whole Hundred Years War series). He does say that most of his colleagues (judges) disagree.