When Law and Morality Meet – and Collide

Understanding the disconnect between legal authority and moral justice

The debate on the tension between law and morality has been a central topic in legal philosophy throughout history. It has always led us to question whether the validity of a norm is determined solely by the authority that enacts it or whether, on the contrary, it must be grounded in universal principles that guarantee justice. This debate brought about two main schools of thought. Legal positivism, which argues that law is independent of morality and that the validity of a norm depends exclusively on its proper enactment; and natural law, in contrast, which argues that a norm is illegitimate if it deviates from fundamental ethical and moral principles.

The positivist approach has consistently proven deficient when confronted with events such as the Nazi regime or apartheid in South Africa. Strict adherence to formal laws enabled the implementation of oppressive policies: in Germany, it allowed acts of barbarity to take place and institutionalized racial and cultural discrimination, while in South Africa, it justified a legal system designed to maintain the supremacy of a minority.

A key figure in this debate is Gustav Radbruch, a German jurist (1878-1949) who was initially a firm positivist. In 1934, he stated: 'Since it is impossible to ascertain what is just, it must be decided what is lawful. (…) In lieu of an act of truth (which is impossible) an act of authority is required'. However, he was strongly compelled to shift his stance due to the horrors unfolding in his country. Influenced by unprecedented events, Radbruch followed the line of reasoning of Thomas Aquinas (ca. 1225-1274), who emphasized that a law contradicting universal principles is a distortion of justice—that extreme injustice can invalidate a legal norm.

These two historical examples—nazism and the apartheid—, mentioned here because they are among the most illustrative but certainly not the only ones, highlight the consequences of obeying immoral laws, which can lead to extreme injustices. Furthermore, they demonstrate how, throughout history, legal systems have often reflected the interests of those in power—frequently at the expense of justice and equity.

Members of the White Rose movement, Hans Scholl, Sophie Scholl, and Christoph Probst, activists against Nazi oppression in Germany, 1942.

At the present time, several legal policies continue to spark ethical debates and moral dilemmas, revealing the stark contrast between the cold letter of the law and the principles that should govern social coexistence.

In spite of there being far more contemporary examples than we would like, rather than listing them superficially and thus diminishing their significance, we will focus on just two: the death penalty and immigration restrictions.

The death penalty—which we will discuss in more depth in another article—is particularly controversial due to its irreversible nature, which infringes the inviolable right to life and directly challenges human dignity. Morover, the risk of judicial errors that could lead to the execution of innocent people, make the issue increasingly complex. It is crucial to keep in mind that the state already holds the monopoly of violence—through law enforcement, the military, and the prison system—. Granting it the power to decide which lives deserve to be extinguished gives it an almost unlimited authority. The state places itself above all justice, with the ability power to eliminate individuals without any possibility of redress.

Immigration restrictions follow a similar logic. They not only violate the right to asylum or the right to a dignified life for those fleeing persecution or extreme poverty, but they also contradict the moral imperative to protect the most vulnerable. If life is a fundamental right, how can we justify denying aid to those escaping death?
This issue becomes even more critical when it comes to deportations. These are often justified through narratives of legality and security, once again disregarding the moral and legal duty to protect those facing severe risks such as life-threatening conditions. The bureaucratic machinery used to dispose of lives deemed expendable echoes the logic behind the death penalty: the state assumes the right to decide who deserves protection and who can be discarded.

If live ceases to be considered sacred, then what else are we left with?

In these two cases—and many others we could mention, such as the criminalization of sexual diversity or the debate over abortion rights—it becomes evident that laws rooted in a restrictive and elitist morality are not only mechanisms of control that reinforce state power over people's lives, but they also undermine the principles of justice, dignity, and collective well-being.

A call for reflection

In conclusion, the intersection between law and morality reveals a crucial fact: the legal system must be shaped bearing in mind the essential principles that uphold human dignity and benefit the majority, not just a privileged minority in power. The mere existence of a law is not enough to make it justifiable if it perpetuates oppression, marginalization, and inequality. Both historical lessons and current policies urge us to ensure that legal systems protect the most vulnerable and serve against exclusion and violence. Blind obedience of unjust laws isn’t just a legal flaw—it’s a moral failure.

Rosa Parks, 1955, Alabama. Pioneer of the civil rights movement in the U.S.A.

So next time you hear, “It's the law”, ask yourself: What makes the law right? What if, like in Radbruch’s Germany or Parks’ Alabama, we are mistaking obedience for complicity? Justice, unfortunately, doesn’t always live in legal codes, but in that uncomfortable voice that screams at us when something, though legal, is not right.

If one doesn’t stick to the facts, if one hasn’t a well-made rather than a well-filled head as Montaigne recommended, what then will one’s inner voice scream?

Note: For a more comprehensive understanding of the historical bias in laws, refer to this article.