Are you Dorian Gray?

It is very difficult to gain a deep insight into the true nature of anyone we know. Even our closest friends, our living partners, our parents and our children are likely to withhold some amount of secrets from us, so nothing can reassure us of not finding a damning secret that will make their company awkward or even untenable for us, even after years of friendship or relationship.

The last couple of days I have discussed how the distance can be a true lifesaver there. The farther the acquaintance, the smaller the import of their unsettling features irrespective of whether they were secret or just unknown to us. One can always swallow down some amount of antipathy for someone if you only meet once in a decade, but that is much harder to do with your next-door neighbor.

Drawing: Ben Templesmith

Today I want to explore the other end of the spectrum, when we engage in dubious activities or approach shady characters even if this is done with good intent. Are these actions justifiable from a moral point of view or shall they be summarily condemned? Let us approach this questions with the methodology of casuistry, where we take two situations with clear but different conclusions and try to define the line in between.

On one end and with an obvious halo of abhorrence is Dorian Gray, as portrayed by English writer Oscar Wilde in 1890. Understanding that the only kind of life worth pursuing is a hedonistic one, Mr. Gray sells his soul on the condition that it will be his portrait and not himself who suffers the aging and the injuries of his libertine life. Being already morally loose to start with, the assurances that he will not age and that his inner corruption will not show on the outside, the main character loses all restraint and is involved in every kind of repugnant behavior, including some criminal offenses which were easily silenced by an aristocrat as Mr. Gray. It is obvious that this attitude completely devoid of any morality is utterly reprehensible, aiming only at one's self indulgence regardless of the damage that it might cause to anyone else.

From the acceptable side, one can consider most of the police work: it includes the legalized use of violence against citizens and the repeated cooperation with individual at or beyond the edge of legality for the sake of their investigations. Being aware of the risk that these dealings mean for the integrity of the officers, most police bodies have very strict rules and limitations on the use of force, so that abuses are limited to an absolute minimum.

However, that is where we quickly veer into dangerous waters: is it acceptable for the police to use as a confident a well-known pickpocket? A competent one has probably been accused several times, but never caught with the haul in their possession. Still, anyone in their environment knows beyond any doubt that he steals wallets and purses downtown for a living. Should he be arrested and imprisoned? On the other hand, being a member of the underworld in good standing, he is probably well informed about bigger deals running through the city, so it might be of greater benefit to society if he is at large and keeps informing the police. Besides, there is in all likelihood little or no evidence to condemn them anyway.

The next step in this slippery slope are covert police operations, where a plain-clothes officer joins a criminal organization in the hopes of discovering its structure and dismantling it completely, including high-impact headlines about the conviction of the ring leaders. The problem of these operations is that, in order to earn the confidence of the criminal organization the undercover investigator is very likely to be forced to break the law. Furthermore, given the vengeful nature of these structures, refusing to comply with the requests might spoil months or years of work, or even put the life of the mole at risk. Should the undercover officer execute a traitor if asked to? One might reason that the traitor is as good as dead anyway, so why risking the operation for the "moral integrity" of the officer? Still, it is a tough call to make.

Coming from the other side it would be worth considering cases like tax evasion or the use of illegal workers for your garden or your home improvements. It is certainly not as repugnant as Dorian Gray's limitless selfishness, but it is a clear violation of the law purely for our own benefit. Paying your taxes and establishing (and paying for) legal contracts are social benefits that are denied when you break the law, so it can be seen as just a notch below the Wilde story. However, what if these informal workers are hired for gardening in the city park? Or to build a community center? It is true that they are saving illegally in social insurance and taxes, but on the other hand it is the community who gets the benefit of the extra work. And what happens if there is no one licensed to do the job, and you face the choice of hiring someone without a license or having to live without the fix?

I do not mean to establish a codex of what is right or wrong, because each one has a different measuring stick, and the details are essential as to why, when, what and how is allowed or not. But at any rate, when facing such a moral dilemma, it is always worth pausing for a moment and thinking if you are a law abiding citizen or a self-indulging Dorian Gray. I hope you find yourself way more often as the former than as the latter. Have a nice weekend.