Richardson- Journal 3/4

The connection between the Bicentennial Man and Jim Crow laws of the 20th century is inescapable. More specifically, in the Bicentennial Man there was a clear distinction between what is moral and what is lawful. When Sir gave Andrew a bank account he did not abide by the law, “’Sir, it is kind of you to have allowed me to spend my money as I wished…I don’t believe the law would have stopped you from keeping it all’[said Andrew]… ‘the law wont persuade me to do wrong’[stated Sir]” (274-275). Sir’s statement is extremely powerful, instead of a person persuading him to abandon his beliefs it is the government. His moral code comes in direct contrast with the law of the land. This tension also arose when Andrew wanted to become legally free. The attorney argues, “the word ‘freedom’ has no meaning when applied to a robot. Only a human can be free”(276). This conclusion; however, is in opposition to Andrew, Sir, and Little Miss’s beliefs. Andrew is self aware enough to understand what freedom means, Little Miss makes a valiant plea in his defense, “When you talk to him you’ll find he reacts to various abstractions as you and I do, and what else counts? If someone else’s reactions are like your own, what more can you ask for” (276). This is hitting on the morality of giving a robot freedom because the robot is able to feel like a human. Little Miss argues it is immoral to deny Andrew just because he is considered a robot, but the law is opposed to such a statement.

Lawfulness and morality are in tension during the Jim Crow era. In the original Constitution slaves were considered 3/5ths of a person. The Constitution was not moral because it devalued a person based on their skin color. This is similar to the dehumanization of Andrew because he is a robot. Decades later Plessy v Furgeson supreme court decision allowed for ‘separate but equal’ to be established. It was lawful to force people to use separate bathrooms, go to separate schools, live in separate towns, and many times do hateful things. This separation was often at the expense of the black community, the separation did no establish equal facilities but aided in the oppression of their race for an unnecessarily long time. The laws were in place, but it was not up to the moral standards our country should strive to meet. Looking towards today, there is a large amount of hate going around, often seeping into our legislature. It is important to have people who dissent these laws, acknowledging their immorality and destruction. In Congress there are laws being proposed to allow for police profiling, animal habitat destruction, and a reduction in Planned Parenthood. Such actions should not become the moral compass of our country, rather the laws citizens take down when they realize what is right isn’t necessarily lawful.