Are there such actions? Are there actions that are morally just but prohibited by law? We often hear the opinion: “Why do I need ethics? I can just follow the law! The law is how society has formalized the ethical principles we are supposed to follow. So if I`m just following the law, I`m making sure I`m doing the right thing morally! The laws were clear about what had to be done (legally), but abiding by the laws would likely lead to a bad outcome in this case. In the end, we were divided on how to proceed with the case, but this discussion raised a broader question: To what extent exactly should we weigh the law in moral considerations? What will they do? Do you stand there, obey the traffic light law, or jump across the street to save the child? Ignoring the traffic light would be illegal, but saving the child would clearly be morally right, right? So here we have an example of an illegal but morally just act. To give an example of complexity, consider the case of La Salada in Argentina, Latin America`s largest market for counterfeit clothing. Argentine society is rather ambivalent towards the market, but on the whole it tolerates it because it provides clothing to middle- and low-income families who otherwise could not afford such products. Politicians tolerate them on the one hand for the same reason and on the other hand because their tolerance creates political support and jobs. So why not legalize? The legalization of La Salada would include the repeal of regulations on safe working practices (clothes are made in sweatshops that violate many labor laws), the repeal of trademark laws (illegal marking of clothes with logos such as Nike, Adidas, and Disney), and the enforcement of corporate taxes. The effects of this would increase clothing prices, thus negating the positive impact of the market and the reason for its social acceptance. Moreover, the repeal of trademark laws is simply impossible.
In the case of the Paradise Papers and offshore tax havens, obeying public morality would mean making such deals illegal, as in the case of cocaine. However, as in the case of La Salada, the amendment of the law on tax havens poses a huge challenge that no State can tackle alone. Offshore financial activities are the result of other states offering tax breaks to attract companies to their jurisdictions – without an agreement on tax systems involving many countries, it is impossible to prevent this. Where there are still tax breaks, we can expect everyone who can to exercise their legal right. In the meantime, the court of public opinion will continue to form its own opinion about what is “right” and what is “wrong.” Something my $$ is having to pay for a digital copy of the music when I paid for a physical copy. I have CDs and, dare I say, cassettes that are damaged or worn, but I still have to buy a digital copy to listen to them. He says: “There are strong arguments that the US drone campaign. is true self-defense… (p. 13 (3) Rules and laws exist to protect and promote the functioning of communities. But therein lies one of the many eternal problems of the chicken or the egg: which came first, conformity or ethics? We might be inclined to think that laws stem from moral beliefs about what is right and wrong. But there are many interesting examples that challenge the perception that laws emanate from morality.
So trying to avoid taxes may not be moral, but there are many legal ways to get away with it – so it`s legal, but immoral. Our own history offers the best and saddest example. Before the Civil War, slavery was legal in the United States, but certainly not moral. I don`t think Kevin`s reasons for believing that the drone program is not moral involve moral considerations. To say that the program does not have a “strategic rationale” is an instrumental justification for whether the program is an effective means of achieving the desired outcomes. If this is correct, then Kevin`s point does not show that the drone program is immoral. What is legal may or may not be moral, and vice versa. “The most common response to my article on Newtown and the drone program was to point out that there is a difference between killing in peacetime and killing in war – that we are more willing to accept the loss of innocent lives in war, both legally and morally, even though the loss in both can be considered intentional. I`m not so sure. Who is this royal “we”? A relative of a soldier killed may not be “willing to accept the loss of the soldier`s life,” who considers that soldier innocent and, in that sense, his child innocent. In other words, the parents of the innocent child who was killed (in war or not) may not be “willing to accept the loss of their innocent child.” I use “must not be” instead of “is not” to see the variety of possible reactions a parent may have to the death of their child. Is the royal “we” the state? Or the servants of the state? I just don`t feel very comfortable with this royal “we” and what underlies it. I suspect that if you deconstruct this “we”, you will find..
Jens Beckert is Managing Director of the Max Planck Institute for the Study of Societies in Cologne. Matías Dewey is a senior researcher at the Max Planck Institute for the Study of Societies in Cologne. You are co-editor of The Architecture of Illegal Markets: Towards an Economic Sociology of Illegality in the Economy. While we can be sure that morality will never be universally accepted, we must not forget that it is normal to question the laws that apply.
Comments are closed.