Category | Op Ed

Does “illegal” mean “immoral”?

Published on February 24, 2009 by Matthew Cole

The Michael Phelps controversy has certainly sparked some lively debate on the issue of one particular crime, marijuana use. I think this is a good debate to have, but shouldn’t we really be talking about the entire basis for all of our laws, and not just marijuana laws? Whenever I talk to people who seemed shocked by Phelps smoking pot, I try to rationalize the outrage. I can certainly understand why people would be angered if he were driving while drunk, since he would be putting other people at risk, but why the outrage over something that is really just a personal choice? The most common answer I get about why smoking pot is wrong is “because it’s illegal.” I hear the same thing about illegal immigration. This is precisely the logic that we need to question here. Does “illegal” mean “immoral”?

For someone to believe that an activity is morally wrong based solely on the fact of its illegality, he or she has to be making several assumptions. Obviously, they have to believe that legislation defines morality. While this assumption tends to be applied inconsistently to other behaviors not covered by legislation, I suppose it’s possible to rationalize that assumption if one assumes there is no competing standard of morality. This assumption also creates an overly optimistic perception of those who make the laws. Are politicians really more ethical than average citizens? The evidence doesn’t seem to indicate so.

Of course, I think that while a lack of morality in politics is a natural tendency related to any kind of power, I think this moral deficiency is largely amplified by the average American voter, who ultimately has the power in American politics, and who is also immoral. Corruption is defined as using a position of power and public trust for private gain. I don’t apply that standard to politicians alone. Voters hold the real power, and they are entrusted with the preservation of our republic. I would argue that any voter who uses the government to serve their own selfish ends at the expense of another should be considered a part of the corruption problem in politics. This abuse of power by citizens doesn’t just apply to those who use the government to claim ownership over money earned by other people, but it also applies to those insecure people who use the government to impose their own puritanical personal choices on other people.

Since we have established that our political system is nothing more than majoritarian exploitation, where then do we derive any sense of morality? Respect for the law seems to have become a civic virtue in America. When did this happen? We don’t obey laws out of respect, we obey them out of fear. That was the view held by early Americans, but somewhere we lost that perspective when we began to glorify the state. The law certainly has its place. America’s founders saw the law as a necessary evil by which we can ensure the protection of our natural rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. They reasoned that respect for the natural rights of individuals should be the starting point of morality. Laws were supposed to exist to protect our rights from those who don’t respect our rights. Now, the law has become a means by which others can use the government to exploit us. If the law is meant to serve our rights, and not the other way around, then shouldn’t our natural rights be morally superior to the law?

For those who insist that the law needs to be respected, I would argue that the law should be made to be more respectable. For those who argue that President Bush or President Obama should be given the benefit of the doubt, I would argue that no politician ever deserves the benefit of the doubt until they earn our trust. I am not suggesting that people violate the law. I want people to follow the law, but I also believe that people should think critically about the moral justification behind our laws before becoming self-righteous about the decisions of another individual.