Legal Definitions - wedge principle

Wedge Principle

The wedge principle is a concept used to evaluate the morality or wisdom of a particular action by considering its potential broader implications. It suggests that an act, even if it appears harmless or justifiable in a specific, isolated instance, should be deemed unacceptable if its widespread adoption or generalization would lead to significant negative consequences for society, public order, or humanity as a whole. Essentially, it asks: "What if everyone did this?"

Here are some examples illustrating the wedge principle:

• Example 1: Environmental Regulations

  Imagine a small factory that decides to slightly exceed its permitted daily discharge of a non-toxic byproduct into a river, arguing that the amount is negligible and won't cause any harm. In isolation, this specific act might indeed have an imperceptible impact on the vast river ecosystem.

  How it illustrates the wedge principle: The wedge principle would argue that even this seemingly minor transgression is wrong. If every factory along the river, or indeed every industrial facility globally, adopted the same reasoning and made similar "minor" deviations from environmental regulations, the cumulative effect would be catastrophic. Rivers would become heavily polluted, ecosystems would collapse, and public health would be severely compromised. The principle highlights that allowing this one small deviation could set a precedent or normalize a behavior that, if generalized, leads to widespread environmental damage.

• Example 2: Professional Ethics

  Consider a lawyer who, out of sympathy for a client facing a minor charge, decides to slightly bend a procedural rule by submitting a document a few hours past the official deadline, knowing it's unlikely to be challenged in this specific case.

  How it illustrates the wedge principle: While the immediate impact of this single late submission might be minimal, the wedge principle would caution against it. If all lawyers began to rationalize similar "minor" breaches of procedural rules based on individual circumstances or perceived lack of harm, the legal system's integrity would quickly erode. Deadlines would lose their meaning, fairness and predictability would diminish, and the administration of justice could become chaotic and unreliable. The principle emphasizes that maintaining the strictness of rules, even in seemingly trivial instances, is crucial to prevent a broader breakdown of professional standards.

• Example 3: Public Infrastructure Maintenance

  A city council is debating whether to defer routine maintenance on a specific, less-used bridge for another year to save a small amount of money in the current budget, arguing that the bridge is still structurally sound and the delay poses no immediate danger.

  How it illustrates the wedge principle: Applying the wedge principle, even if delaying maintenance on this one bridge seems harmless for a year, the concern is what happens if this decision becomes a generalized practice. If all city councils or public works departments across a region or nation began to routinely defer maintenance on infrastructure to save money, the cumulative effect over time would be a widespread deterioration of roads, bridges, and public buildings. This would eventually lead to significant safety hazards, costly emergency repairs, and a breakdown of essential services, far outweighing any initial savings. The principle warns against making decisions that, if universally applied, would lead to systemic failure.