Information Technology Reference
In-Depth Information
What is moral and what is legal are not identical. Certain actions may be wrong, even
if there are no laws forbidding these actions. For example, most American states do
not have laws prohibiting texting while driving, but drivers are still morally responsible
for traffic accidents they cause because they are distracted by texting. What about the
opposite situation? Is it possible that an action may be the right thing to do, even if it is
illegal?
In our discussion of social contract theory, we discussed the morality of civil dis-
obedience, and we concluded that from the perspective of this theory the lunch counter
sit-ins were morally acceptable because the segregation laws being violated were unjust.
Here we are considering a different situation. We are assuming the law is just. When this
is the case, is it possible that an illegal action may be the right action?
To ground our analysis, we will consider a particular illegal action: violating a
licensing agreement by copying a CD containing copyrighted music and giving it to a
friend.
2
Social contract theory is based on the assumption that everyone in society ought to
bear certain burdens in order to receive certain benefits. The legal system is instituted
to guarantee that people's rights are protected. It guarantees people will not choose their
selfish interests over the common good. For this reason we have a prima facie obligation
to obey the law (Figure 2.11). That means, everything else being equal, we should be law
abiding. In return, our own legal rights will be respected. Our obligation to obey the law
should be broken only if we are compelled to follow a higher-order moral obligation.
From the point of view of social contract theory, then, it is wrong to give a friend a
copy of a CD containing copyrighted music, because that action violates the legal rights
of the person or organization owning the copyright. The desire to do something nice for
a friend is not an overriding moral concern.
The Kantian perspective is quite similar to that of social contract theory. People need to
be able to possess objects in order to freely use them for their own purposes. According to
Kant, property rights are made possible through an implicit common agreement. When
you declare that an object is yours, you are stating that everyone else is obliged to refrain
from using that object. Justice demands that in order for you to make such a claim, you
must also respect the similar claims of everyone else. The state ensures that everyone
meets the obligation of respecting everyone else's property rights.
