SUBMITTED BY: SUBMITTED TO:

Vineet Boris Ekka Nimesh Das Guru

Sem: 8th Sec: B Faculty of Jurisprudence
Roll no.: 355
National University of Study and Research in Law, Ranchi

MORAL ENDS WITH ILLEGAL MEANS

Look closely. The beautiful may be small.

- IMMANUEL KANT

Pablo Emilio Escobar Gaviria, a Colombian by birth, was the leader of the most powerful
drug cartel the world has ever witnessed as 80% of cocaine transported into USA was his
production. He also led a very powerful and assembled criminal organization which was
responsible for all crimes in Medellin. He was also responsible for the murder of hundreds of
people either by himself or by his orders. The drug lord earned millions of dollars, had
number of mansions, airplanes, a private zoo and even his own army of hardened criminals.
Anyone who got in his way, he first tried to bribe them, and if it did not work, he ordered
them to be killed. Although he spread a feeling of fear and anger, but people still have respect
for him even though his death has passed twenty three years.

Although Escobar terrorized Medellin in en number of ways, but this was not his motive. He
wanted to change the government as the Colombian Government was not able to govern
properly during the lifetime of Escobar. Escobar was also elected as an alternate member of
Colombias Congress, but the reason that his drug earned wealth could not stay hidden, as he
openly spent it building houses for the homeless, parks for children with all facilities and also
sponsored money to those who were in need. He was forced to resign as he possessed drug
money. What was wrong in drug money when it was spent for the welfare of the people?
What bad did Escobar do when he provided to the people what the government was unable to
provide? Was it immoral for Escobar to do good for the society by the money he earned by
drug trafficking? What is more important, morality of means or morality of ends?

Kant based his ethical theory on the belief that reason should be used to determine how
people ought to act. He did not prescribe any specific action, but instructed that reason should
be used to determine how to behave and the behavior must provide moral ends. The best
virtue is to have good will for the achievement of moral ends irrespective of what the means
may be to achieve the moral ends.

Colombia along with USA were trying to chase down Escobar since the days of his rising.
They only focused upon the crimes that he committed, namely drug trafficking and causing
terror. They did not focus upon the ends of his activities, i.e. welfare of the society. Escobar
with his drug trafficking money built houses for the homeless, sponsored money to the needs
and also opened various other establishments which were required but was unfulfilled by the
Colombian Government. The only thing that the Colombian Government and US
Government saw was his acts of terror which he expressed on his enemies who were mostly
other drug cartels of America and the Police who wanted him down. They neglected the
benefits enjoyed by the society out of his trafficking business.

Drug Trafficking has been made a crime by the legislature. The Police look into the black
letters of the law blindly and without focusing upon the benefits the society had due to
Escobars Drug Trafficking. Positivists say that law and morality exist independent of each
other. It is not necessary that what is moral is ought to be law and what is immoral cannot be
legalised. Following the black letters of law in the present topic of discussion has failed to
serve the purpose of law, i.e. maintaining morality.

The obligations and purposes of law and government are to protect public health, safety,
and morals, and to advance the general welfare including, preeminently, protecting
peoples fundamental rights and basic liberties.
-ROBERT P. GEORGE