With regard to the letter and spirit of the law, there may
be four kinds of actions: those that obey both the letter and spirit of the
law, those that obey the letter but not the spirit of the law, those that obey
the spirit but not the letter of the law, and those that obey neither the
letter nor the spirit of the law.
In cases where there is an apparent
conflict between the letter and spirit of the law, we may have to determine
whether obedience to the letter of the law is more important than obedience to
the sprit of the law, or vice versa. We may have to determine whether we can
obey the spirit, without strictly obeying the letter of the law, unless we
adopt a legalistic interpretation of our moral duty. If we decide to be
legalistic in our interpretation of our duty, then obedience to the letter of
the law may be more important than obedience to the spirit of the law,
whenever obedience to both cannot simultaneously be achieved.
Since the spirit of the law may be a subject of debate, we may need to employ a variety of interpretive resources in
order to precisely determine its nature. Legal hermeneutics may require social,
cultural, linguistic, and historical investigation of legal texts. Since some
texts may be imprecise, ambiguous, or unclear, they may require interpretation
by judges, jurists, or legal scholars. Our interpretation of the spirit of the law may depend
on what we perceive as the law’s intended purposes and effects, as well as our
own notions of what justice, equity, and fairness require.
Relativism about the law’s letter
and spirit may assert that they are merely a matter of interpretation, and that the law is therefore merely a coercive instrument used by
those in power to reinforce their position of social, economic, and political advantage
over others.
Legalism with regard to moral duty
may be described as the theory that moral duty is a matter of obedience to the
law, and that actions are right or wrong insofar as they obey or disobey the law. It may also be described as the theory that it is always our duty to obey
the law, whatever the consequences of the law may be. It may also be described
as the theory that our moral duty extends only as far as the law extends.
According to one possible legalistic
interpretation of our moral duty, as long as we obey the law, we cannot be said
to have violated our moral duty. We do not have a duty to perform actions that
are not legally required. We only have a duty to perform those actions that are
legally required, and a duty not to perform those actions that are illegal. We
do not have a duty to provide support to those who are helpless or care for
those who are suffering, unless we are legally required to do so. We do not have
a duty to offer aid to the unfortunate or provide shelter for the homeless,
unless we are legally required to do so. We do not have a duty to end armed
conflict abroad or relieve world hunger and poverty, unless we are legally
required to do so.
Weaknesses of legalism as a theory
of moral duty include the following:
(1) It may delimit our moral duty to such
an extent that we may not be inclined to perform those actions that are not
legally required. We may not be inclined to perform generous or unselfish actions if we don't think they're morally obligatory. There may be no laws requiring us to be
good Samaritans, and so we may feel we have no duty to extend help to our
neighbors when they're in need.
(2) It may encourage a literalistic
interpretation of the law, even when that interpretation isn't suitable for
present circumstances and doesn't fulfill the needs of contemporary society.
Thus, it may not allow for a situational ethics or moral pragmatism. It may
assert that it is always our moral duty to obey the law, no matter how unfair, inequitable, or unjust that law may be.
(3) It may not recognize that we don't necessarily have a duty to obey unjust laws; we may indeed have a duty to
disobey them. Thus, it may not recognize that civil disobedience in
some cases may be justified as a means of seeking social justice.
(4) It may encourage harsh or
merciless punishment of those who disobey the law, even when such punishment is
unnecessary and serves no useful social purpose.
(5) It may encourage the attitude
that “the law is the law, regardless of whether it makes sense.” Although there
may be some laws that are outdated or have unexpected loopholes or unanticipated consequences, it may not recognize that such laws should be
changed, and that reform of the legal system is sometimes necessary.
(6) It may encourage the excessive
use of the legal system and adversarial litigation as a means of resolving
disputes, rather than promoting the use of less costly, less time-consuming, and
less contentious methods of conflict resolution.
(7) It may attempt to justify acts
of legal chicanery or gamesmanship and other morally dubious but legal transactions,
on the grounds that even if such actions are morally questionable, they are
legal and cannot therefore be criticized for not having fulfilled the principles
of moral duty. Thus, for example, legalism may be used as a
justification for cheating a person out of their money or property, if such an
act can't be legally prosecuted.
