Duty

to Obey the Law

(Classes #11)

Readings
Class #11 (Mon. 10/10) - Duty to Obey the Law
Smith, Is There a Prima Facie Obligation to Obey the Law? [269-285]
Class #12 (Wed., 10/12) - Civil Disobedience
Plato, Crito [251-259]
MLK, Jr., Letter from Birmingham Jail [259-268]
Pryor, Moral Duty and the Rule of Law [Canvas]

Prima Facie Obligation

a person S has a pf obligation to do an act X

S has a moral reason to do X

such that, unless he has a reason not to do X that is at least as strong

Ss failure to do X is wrong

vs. -- an absolute obligation

Prima Facie Obligation: Specific vs. Generic

people do have a pf obligation to obey particular laws
i.e. - specific obligation
viz. a duty to obey a law when disobedience has seriously untoward consequences or
involves an act that is mala in se
but they have no pf obligation to obey all its laws
i.e. no generic obligation to obey the law
so - there may be a pf duty to obey laws ---but not to obey the law

Specific PF Obligations
everyone agrees individuals have specific pf obligations to obey specific laws
b/c we have a specific pf moral duty not to commit acts that are mala in se or that have
seriously harmful consequences
so it is plain that in these circumstances each of us has a specific pf obligation not to
violate laws which prohibit these acts
e.g. there is a pf moral duty not to commit murder / rape / robbery - so there is a
derivative pf moral duty not to violate the corresponding law vs. murder / rape / robbery
but this is trivial

The Interesting Question

the real issue is whether there is a generic pf obligation to obey the law
i.e. do citizens have a pf obligation to do certain things merely because they are legally
required to do so?
i.e. is mere illegality a moral reason for an acts being wrong?
if so --if there is a pf obligation to obey the law in the sense in which I am using the
phrase
then the mere illegality of an act is always relevant to the determination of its moral
character, despite whatever other reasons are present

Arguments for (Generic) PF Duty to Obey the Law

3 groups of arguments for a generic pf duty to obey the law
1. the benefits each individual receives from govt.
gratitude
fair play

2. implicit consent / promise

3. utility / general good

The Argument from Gratitude

even assuming arguendo that each citizen has an obligation to be grateful to his govt.
this does not give rise to a generic pf duty to obey the law
b/c - the existence and extent of the underlying duty of gratitude would require a caseby-case examination of numerous factors
and in any event - the mere fact that a person has conferred on me even the most
momentous benefits does not establish his right to dictate all of of my behavior
and the duty of gratitude does not require great sacrifice on our part - viz., always
obeying the law

The Argument from Fair Play

the duty of fair play = a person who benefits from participating in a cooperative rulegoverned enterprise acts unfairly when he refuses to obey its rules
but the duty of fair play can not give rise to a generic pf duty to obey the law
b/c - fairness requires obedience only in situations where noncompliance would
withhold benefits from someone or harm the enterprise
so it is simply false that fairness dictates obedience when disobedience does no harm
or withholds no benefit
and in reality virtually every legal system contains a number of pointless or even
positively harmful laws, obedience to which either benefits no one or, worse still, causes
harm

The Argument from Implicit Consent / Promise

a person who voluntarily assumes an obligation = clearest case of pf obligation
and -- some acts do count as giving consent or making a promise even absent some
explicit utterance
but the fact that a man consents to govt. does not establish that he has a pf obligation
to obey the law
b/c- it begs the question you must first show that everyone subject to an elected
govt. has a pf obligation to obey its law
and it is by no means an analytic truth that those subject to elected govts. have a pf
obligation to obey the law

Utilitarian Arguments
act-utilitarian arguments - they fail b/c there are obvious and familiar cases in which breach of a
particular law has better consequences than obedience
rule-utilitarian arguments they fail b/c there is no reasonto believe that acceptance of the rule
Obey the law wouldhave better consequences than were no such rule recognized
b/c again - [s]ometimes breaking a law is the only way to avoid a great evil
and b/c people would still accept other moral rules (e.g. Do not harm others, Keep promises,
Tell the truth) which will give them a moral incentive to obey the law in most circumstances anyway
i.e. most people accept that they have a specific pf obligation to obey particular laws
plus fear of criminal sanctions remains a strong incentive for obeying the law in general

Moral Weight
even assuming there is a generic pf duty to obey the law how strong is it?
there are 2 tests for determining an obligations weight
a pf duty is a serious one iff
1. an act which violates that obligation and fulfills no other is seriously wrong and -2. violation of it will make considerably worse an act which on other grounds is already
wrong
more

Moral Weight
a pf duty to obey the law would not count as substantial by either test
1. running a stop sign at a clear intersection = at most a mere peccadillo
2. acts which are otherwise wrong are not made more so if they are made worse at
all by being illegal
e.g., the moral wrongness of committing a murder is not multiplied because it is
also an illegal act
so if there is a pf obligation to obey the law, it is at most of trifling weight

Legal Obligation Does Not Itself Give Rise to Moral Obligation

in sum we should ignore the supposed pf obligation to obey the law and refuse to count
an act wrong merely because it violates some law
b/c - to know merely that an act is illegal is not to know very much of moral significance
about it
instead - violation of the law becomes a matter of moral concern only when it involves an
act which is believed to be wrong on grounds apart from its illegality
i.e., an act is wrong due to its character or its consequences, not its legal status
so we have a specific pf duty to obey specific laws that forbid morally wrong acts but no
generic pf duty to obey the law in general