In today's society, it is common to confuse the concepts of what is legal and what is legitimate, creating an ambiguity that can result in ethical and moral dilemmas. Although both terms are related to normativity and justice, it is important to understand that they do not always mean the same thing. In this article, we will explore the key differences between legal and legitimate, addressing their implications in different contexts.
1. Basic definitions: The legal and the legitimate
To begin, it is essential to establish the definitions of both concepts. Legal refers to everything that is established by law, that is, what is allowed or prohibited according to the legal regulations in force in a certain place and time. On the other hand, what is legitimate is related to what is morally correct, fair or accepted, in accordance with ethical principles and values shared by a community or society.
1.1 Illustrative example:
When If a company fires an employee following all legal procedures established in labor law, the action can be considered legal. However, if the dismissal was based on discriminatory or unfair reasons, even if legal, it may not be perceived as legitimate by society or common ethical values.
2. Origin and authority
Another fundamental difference between what is legal and what is legitimate lies in its origin and authority. What is legal is derived from norms and laws written and established by a legal system, while what is legitimate is based on broader and abstract values, such as equity, justice and ethics.
2.1 Practical implications:
A clear example of this distinction is observed in the political sphere, where a law can be legal in formal terms, but not be legitimate if it contradicts democratic principles or fundamental human rights. In situations like these, the legitimacy of a norm can be questioned by public opinion and the international community.
3. Flexibility and adaptation to change
Legal tends to be more rigid and static, since it is based on a specific and established regulatory framework. On the contrary, what is legitimate is more flexible and can adapt to social, cultural and ethical changes over time.
3.1 Social dynamics:
Legal norms usually require a formal and complex process for its modification, which can make it difficult to update in the face of new realities or advances in society. In contrast, legitimate can evolve more organically and better reflect the needs and values of an ever-changing community.
4. Potential conflict
Sometimes, what is legal and what is legitimate can come into conflict, generating ethical and legal dilemmas for individuals, institutions and society as a whole. This clash of regulations can test social cohesion and trust in institutions and the legal system.
4.1 Individual responsibility:
Individuals must face decisions in which the legal and legitimate differ, requiring ethical judgment about what is the best action to take in a given situation. Individual responsibility plays a crucial role in resolving these conflicts and promoting justice and equity in society.
5. Public perception
The public perception of what is legal and legitimate can vary depending on the cultural, social and historical context in which a certain norm or practice is found. What is legal in one place may not be perceived as legitimate in another, underscoring the importance of considering local perspectives and values when evaluating the validity of a norm.
5.1 Importance of consensus:5.1 Importance of consensus:
For a norm to be considered legitimate, it is essential that there is a general consensus in society about its validity and justice. Legitimacy is built through dialogue, participation and public deliberation, allowing norms to reflect the interests and values of the community as a whole.
6. Historical and contemporary examples
History and current events are full of examples that illustrate the differences between what is legal and what is legitimate, as well as the implications they have on people's lives and the stability of societies. . From civil resistance movements to debates on human rights, these cases demonstrate the complexity and relevance of these two notions in different contexts.
6.1 Emblematic case:
A historical case that exemplifies This dichotomy is that of civil disobedience led by Mahatma Gandhi in India, where colonial laws considered legal but not legitimate by the local population were challenged. Through non-violent actions based on principles of justice and human dignity, an oppressive legal system was questioned and transformed.
7. Responsibility of institutions
Public and private institutions have the responsibility of guaranteeing that their actions are both legal and legitimate, in order to preserve the trust and respect of society towards them. Complying with the laws is not always enough, since the ethical and moral principles that underpin the decisions and practices of an organization must also be considered.
7.1 Business ethics:
In the In the business sphere, companies that operate within legal limits but do not comply with ethical standards of transparency, social responsibility or equity may face criticism and sanctions from society and consumers. The legitimacy of a company goes beyond its legal compliance, involving aspects of its actions that impact the community and the environment.
8. Search for balance
Ultimately, the key to addressing the differences between what is legal and what is legitimate lies in seeking a balance that combines observance of legal norms with respect for common ethical and moral values. This complementarity between the legal and the legitimate can contribute to a more just, equitable and respectful society of people's fundamental rights.
In conclusion, although the legal and the legitimate are interconnected, it is essential to recognize their differences and their implications in daily life and in the construction of a just and equitable social order. By reflecting on these distinctions, we can promote greater awareness of the importance of ethics and morality in individual and collective decision-making.