One of the fundamental laws of human morality is that one should not take another’s life. Murder, as defined in the merriam-webster dictionary, is defined as the unlawful and unjustified killing of another person with premeditated malice. But should principles ever be defined by legality?

I would argue not- after all, the established definitions of laws and morality differ in several ways. Besides, the intentions behind both codes are different, as are the purposes. In this piece, I will use legal terminology to explain why the law itself is not the supreme code of morality.

Image credit: Mikhail Pavstyuck from Unsplash

One could argue that an individual’s moral code is subjective and therefore of less validity than a legal code, but this statement completely disregards the fact that laws too are swayed (possibly more so) by politics, by societal stigma, as well as by practicalities such as expenses or international relations. The needs and beliefs of a society are the principal motive behind the institution of laws, after all- so a member’s moral code must have some significance.

Furthermore, one should take into account that laws differ by region, by year, and by state. Considering this, it becomes clear that both law and human morality are subjective.

Abortion may be the clearest case of this we can see. A deeply controversial issue, the choice to end a pregnancy has been transferred from women to the government about a hundred times over. The issue recently resurfaced a couple years ago with the end of Roe. vs.

Woe- something that very likely was influenced by the rise of Catholicism and Evangelical politicians! Like it or not, humans are shaped by their environment and culture, and our decisions- legislative or not- are inherently biased.

Building on this, we can firmly assert that the beliefs and values of individuals are noteworthy when regarding morality. However, not everything most people can generally regard as immoral is illegal. Bullying, adultery, and manipulation, for example, are generally not punishable by law- despite the clear negative consequences of these actions.

The reason for this is that the intention of law was never to be a substitute for reason or morals. The purpose of law is to provide a clear system of running- to set boundaries to keep society in order. The purpose of morality is to allow us to aid members of our species.

Laws and ethics are not, and should never be, considered interchangeable. Law is an established set of rules and boundaries governing a population, and is created based on practicality as well as principal- completely devoid of emotion. Ethics, on the other hand, takes into account the emotional as well as physical consequences of one's actions.

So why should the law be a defining factor in a moral debate? Whether or not murder is legal, for example, I would argue that it (in most cases) cannot be morally defensible. The horror one feels at the mention of murder is not due to illegality of the act but of the effects imposed when one takes another’s life. The person is permanently stripped of the ability to pursue or obtain success, happiness, or personal achievement. The person is often subjected to pain and those with close relationships to that person enter a state of loss and grief. These consequences are not lessened by the consolation that “at least it’s not illegal.” So why should this be considered moral?

Now let’s be clear on this- legal or not- having your own separate moral code does not make senseless law breaking justified. Murder (without cause) is always immoral, as is thievery, bank robbing, extortion, and money laundering. However, with a clear cause in mind, some of the most important, necessary and arguably moral actions have been taken by breaking the law.

Think of Rosa Parks. True, a person of color sitting in the front of the bus was against the law. And society has told us that following the law makes us a moral person.

However, this law went against a greater moral belief of hers (and yours, I should hope)- that all persons were born equal and of the same status. Therefore, she deemed breaking the law not only defensible, but the only right thing to do, if she wanted to change the rules.

Same with Mahatma Gandhi. When British officials were abusing his people in India, he chose to peacefully resist their actions- even though it meant disobeying “authority figures”. Important to note in this case: being an authority figure in itself does not deem you supreme if you did not earn this authority in the right way.

England had cheated their way into taking over India, and did not have the people’s interests at heart. Therefore, Gandhi did not respect their establishment. Protesting, and freedom of speech/expression (peacefully!) are fundamental rights and almost always morally defensible.

Image credit: Teemu Pananeen from Unsplash,

Every revolution in the world has been the result of law breaking (although, keep in mind, not every revolution was a moral action). Think of America, the country I am writing from. When King George proved unfit and unable to care for the colonies, we broke free.

Even though it was a crime punishable by death, we rebelled. Many other modern countries were also the results of revolutions: think Mexico, France, and Britain. When monarchies chose not to follow the interests of their people, the people found rulers who did.

Just because one maintains the laws of society does not make the person of strong character, nor are their actions necessarily morally justifiable. And in a world where our sense of ethics just gets more and more important, so is the need to make that distinction.