A reader writes:
On October 16th in "Music Scruples: The Opus Continues" you said,
"If it
does then it would be a matter of prudence as to whether you should
follow the moral law answer in violation of civil law. As long as you’re
doing what’s moral then, by definition, you’re morally safe, and it’s a
question of whether you’re willing to take the risks associated with not
following the civil law answer."You also in a previous post talked about the concept of a "legamoron."
My question for you is as follows: is it always morally permissible to
do something morally neutral (drive without the proper insurance, speed,
take food into the movie theater, drinking moderately underage, etc) as
long as you are willing to accept the (often unlikely) consequences
associated with those actions?I was under the previous belief that any
offense against legitimate civil law was an offense against the public
order and common good of society and so even minor crimes were at least
venially sinful. Your clarification on this matter would be most helpful.
It is not always morally permissible to do something that is morally neutral in itself, contrary to what civil law would provide. Civil law has a role in ordering morally neutral actions so that society is benefitted. For example, there is no intrinsic reason why we Americans drive on the right side of the road instead of the left. Considered in itself, driving on either side of the road is morally neutral. But given the amount of traffic on many roads and the speed at which the traffic moves, it is reasonable that the state make requirements about what side we drive on. That reasonableness enables such laws to be ordinances of reason, which is required for a law to be legitimate.
In the same way, requiring the people–under ordinary driving conditions–have a certain amount of insurance coverage also strikes me as reasonable, though in emergency circumstances that requirement would go out the window (e.g., if you’re rushing someone to the hospital or if you’re fleeing a murderer or if you just mailed your check to the insurance company but you can’t afford to stay home from work). In those cases–if the law were to require you to not drive–the law would cease being one of reason and it would be morally legitimate to ignore it as an unjust law, at least in those cases.
While the concept of a legamoron provides some additional flexibility in some cases (e.g., speeding), the default is to obey the law unless it is manifestly unreasonable and thus not a just law in those circumstances (legamorons being laws that, by their nature, would be unjust if rigorously enforced, though we still need to comply with even legamorons when they are functioning reasonably–so you shouldn’t be doing 75 in a school zone when kids are present).
In order to have moral justification for disobeying a civil law, it seems to me that the following conditions need to be met:
1) The law is of itself or at least in this particular case unreasonable and thus is not functioning as an ordinance of reason (or it must otherwise fail to meet the definition of a law as "an ordinance of reason for the common good, made by him who has care of the community, and promulgated"; ST I-II:90:4).
2) The benefits to you in ignoring the law are not outweighed by the harm that will come to you if you get caught, weighted by the likelihood of you getting caught.
In judging these matters, we need to carefully evaluate whether these conditions are fulfilled, for it is easy for us to rationalize civil lawbreaking, just as it is easy for us to rationalize sin.
Nevertheless, there are points at which the Christian faith recognizes it as being legitimate to break civil law, as when the apostles were required to stop preaching the name of Christ and they replied "We must obey God rather than men" (Acts 5:29).
Since bringing food into the theater was not addressed, I would like to share what
happens when I bring it up in class. I suggest that if a movie theater posts a sign stating ” no outside food or drink”, then we are compelled to comply. Of course, it is not a mortal sin, but I do encourage my students to consider some
potential ramifications.
a. The theater makes it money NOT on the ticket revenue but rather on the sale of
3 dollar candy bars
b. Depriving them of this revenue source could conceivably result in lost jobs,
the closing of the theater.
c. Complying with this request is no hardship to us the consumer. If we vehementing refuse to pay such exorbitant prices, we can certainly do without food??? for 2 hours. We would also save ourselves quite a bit of money in he process.
My students every year are always quite exercised about this and bring up the following justifications:
a. They make enough money off the movies, the snacks are overpriced, who cares it is not a major law, I don’ make much money at my after school job,etc.
When I mention a similar behavior, that of sampling candy/food from open bins at grocery stores, their reaction is just as
dramatic. What do you mean? If they didn’t want you to sample, they would not put it in open crates..etc.
One time a student remarked, ” Well, my brother works at **** and I would not want him to lose his job.”
Her remark put a face to the possible consequences of our behavior in this instance.
I marvel at the vehemence and ponder how we could transform our society if this indignant emotional display were channeled politically,spiritually …
perhaps a minor point but the reaction of my students proves otherwise??
Depends on if we are talking about butterfinger or milkyways…..
🙂