Perhaps a better example than harboring a fugitive slave in 1858 is harboring an alien today who is known to have entered or remain in the United States unlawfully - for example if they tell me so while pleading for shelter. Under current law,
“any person who […] knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that an alien has come to, entered, or remains in the United States in violation of law, conceals, harbors, or shields from detection, or attempts to conceal, harbor, or shield from detection, such alien in any place, including any building or any means of transportation […] or aids or abets the commission of any of the preceding acts […] shall, for each alien in respect to whom such a violation occurs […] be fined under title 18, imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both;”
I believe the fine under title 18 would be considered an infraction, so the fine would be “not more than $5,000”. Of note I read “conceal, harbor, or shield” as all being modified by the prepositional phrase “from detection”.
I live in Florida - you may remember our wet feet, dry feet policy that ended in the final days of Obama’s presidency. If a Cuban family knocks at my door, telling me they are refugees of Communist oppression heading to sanctuary up North, wanted by immigration officials, and just need a place to stay for the night. Should I agree to provide shelter in violation of the law? Do I agree?
The purpose of morals is to inform action. It is undoubtedly a moral good to help people in need. But it is also relevant to the analysis whether I am putting myself at risk by doing so. I could probably get away with hiding them. I know very good hiding places in my house, in the unlikely event that officials knock at my door. I could probably lie to officials, or bend the truth, with a straight face. And even if I do get caught, being convicted is a high bar. Even if I am convicted, the chances of a jury giving me a harsh sentence such as 5 years or $5,000 is slim to none. So in this case the personal consequences are practically none.
This leaves only my general duty to follow the law, up against the moral good of helping people in need. Which should be more important? I think the answer to this question makes me evil in your eyes. I would offer shelter from the elements but not protection from the law. Because while not absolute, I think the duty to follow the law is very strong. It is only trumped by unconscionable acts, meaning acts so strongly against my conscience that I could not live with myself if I carried it out, such as turning out a child in inclement weather or shooting an innocent.
The question is whether I should violate an immoral law when I think I can get away with it - and the answer is no, not unless the law requires me to do something unconscionable. Why? Most of you already accuse me of lacking a conscience, being a monster, a racist, a sociopath, and just plain evil - because while I respect people whose convictions lead them to civil disobedience, I do not myself think it is a moral practice in all but the most extreme cases. Civil disobedience is antithetical to the concept of ordered society and rule of law. Consider for just an instant what a real sociopath would do, what a real racist would do, if he thought he could get away with it. A racist policeman corners an unarmed suspect in an alleyway. The suspect submits, and he has legal rights. But the policeman thinks he deserves to die, and could probably get away with shooting him in “self defense” right here and now. A racist man in Vermont ante bellum finds a runaway slave sheltering in his barn. He has no compunctions shooting the slave on the spot for trespassing and harassing his animals (the belief being that slaves are subhuman, as contemptible as a wolf), and is sure to get away with it if he does.
So the standard I use is the law, as limited by conscience. Based on personal observation, a person’s conscience is subjective as are his or her personal mores. Extend the problem of the ring of Gyges to reflect the reality of people being able to get away with things all the time: past generations could count on a fear of God to prevent abuse of authority, but that doesn’t apply in this modern day and age if it ever really held at all. I am not myself a God-fearing man. If there ever was a forbidden fruit, we have forgotten how it tastes. Mores vary not only among people but also as a person matures. Originally the solution was self-discipline and rational thought, which works for the individual but not for society. Ours is a world with its share of hedonists, racists, utopians, &etc. Even conscience varies over time as someone can be sensitized or desensitized.
The social compact and the concept of rule of law exist primarily to resolve the conflicts between people’s differences in opinion as to what is right and what is wrong. An individual’s primary obligation to society is to follow its laws even when he or she would rather flout them. In return you are promised protection from anarchy. Morality, and immorality, are irrelevant to the purpose of social order; if you are free to disregard the law when you find it immoral, others are free to disregard the law when they find it immoral.
So I arrive at the conclusion that I should offer shelter from the elements, but if the law comes knocking, I shouldn’t protect them even if I could do so without repercussion. Now I can address the separate issue of cowardice.
Under a different system of morals, the right thing to do may be to protect the Cuban family, should immigration officials ask about them. Revealing their presence under pressure would be an act of moral cowardice. Sticking to your convictions despite fear of retaliation demonstrates bravery and resolve.
With my system of morals it works in reverse. The right thing to do is to tell the officials - if they ask - that the family is, or was, in my house. But say we make fast friends, and while it’s not unconscionable to turn in a friend, I really don’t want to do that. In the moment I might flinch, and protect the Cuban family. That would be moral cowardice because I would be doing the wrong thing (just because they are friends doesn’t tip the moral analysis) so as to avoid personal fear (dealing with the uncomfort of turning in a friend). On the other hand I wouldn’t go so far as to say turning them in demonstrates bravery. It doesn’t, even if it is the right thing to do.
But as I wrote in response to iiandyiiii , writing about a hard decision and facing it in real life are not the same thing. While I do not presently think it unconscionable to turn over a family to immigration authorities (contrast with say, shooting an innocent in cold blood), if actually put in this position, I could have an epiphany that changes the entire moral analysis. It could be something about the officials that makes me lose confidence in the system. It could be something about the family. It could be looking into their eyes and just knowing, this is wrong wrong wrong, who am I kidding, if I go through with this, I’ll never forgive myself.
~Max