MORAL BOUNDARIES AND LEGAL DECEPTIONLOOKING AT THE ETHICS OF JUSTICE IN
“BETTER CALL SAUL”
Jacob Emmanuel Usen
Department of Criminal Justice, University of Winnipeg
CJ 3205-002: Ethics in Criminal Justice
Prof. Javier Torres
March 27th 2026
ETHICAL ISSUE
In the television series, Better Call Saul, we are faced with an ethical dilemma within the
lens of Jimmy McGill’s legal profession. In season two episode nine “Nailed,” Jimmy alters
important legal documents that create omittances in his brother Chuck’s work for a client Jimmy
thought Chuck did not deserve. With the knowledge that his brother Chuck suffered from
electromagnetic hypersensitivity and as a result, is prone to missing details, Jimmy changed
some numbers in what was part of Chuck’s filings. When Chuck goes to court, he is
dumbfounded upon realizing that he got the details he entered were wrong therefore appearing
incompetent and unreasonable in the court. By doing this, Jimmy made his brother Chuck seem
careless, irresponsible and not being able to live up to his reputation which made him lose the
trust of his clients. At the same time making sure that Kim Wexler- his lover, was able to keep
the clients (Mesa Verde) in what Jimmy thought was a righteous and loyal act. This act of
deception from Jimmy raises an ethical question of whether dishonest actions can be justified
when they help those, we think are more deserving to be successful. To be able to morally judge
this case, we are going to employ two common philosophical views, Utilitarianism and
Immanuel Kant’s ideology; Kantianism.
THESIS STATEMENT
While utilitarianism might justify Jimmy’s actions as benefitting Kim and her client- the
greatest good for the greatest number, Kantianism argues that no matter the outcomes, dishonesty
and cheating should be a no go because it is inherently wrong and undermines a person’s
autonomy. Like Immanuel Kant, I also support the ideology that every person is entitled to
1
fairness and should not be rid of their integrity or autonomy to satisfy another person or peoples
urge to care for others they love. Jimmy altering the documents meant for Chuck is inherently
wrong and is in no way morally justifiable. I support the motion that every individual’s right is
precious and should not be undermined even if it’s in an effort to care for those we hold dear. I
stand with the ideology that human beings are to be treated as ends in themselves and not as bare
means.
BODY
From a utilitarian perspective, as expressed by Sandel (2009), morality is determined by
the consequences of an action and not in the action itself even if such an action might be wrong.
The nature of an act be it good or bad is not the main determinant of an act being morally
justifiable rather, for utilitarians, the consequences that come after is the moral determinant. For
utilitarians, maximizing overall happiness or well-being is what is most important. Utilitarian
philosophers Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill agree that in every case, the right action is
the one that produces the greatest amount of happiness for the greatest number of people.
Applying this understanding to Jimmy’s actions, it is safe to say that his deception was not in any
way wrong and maybe was necessary because of the positive outcomes of his action. Kim
benefiting significantly by securing Mesa Verde as her client which strengthens her professional
career and financial stability as well as Mesa Verde getting access to top class legal
representation- these were all good things that came as a result of Jimmy’s deception. As
emphasized by Sandel (2009), Jeremy Bentham did not only see maximizing utility as a benefit
for an individual alone, but also really necessary for the state (Sandel, 2009, pg. 23). Jimmy
using deceit to take away Chuck’s client would be seen as the best moral ground because not
only did it benefit Kim, it was also going to benefit the majority. However, there is flaw to this
2
rationale because over the long term, there would be more harm done to the law than good
because of the evasive nature of utilitarianism.
The evasive nature of utilitarianism, one that is to be avoided is expressed through
Immanuel Kant’s ideology. From a Kantian perspective, there should be moral judgement
accorded to everyone, Kantian ethics as described by Sandel is grounded on the basis that,
morality is based on duty and adherence to universal principles (Sandel, 2009, pg. 58). To
Immanuel Kant, being able to tell that an act was wrong was all the reason one needed to not
commit such an act. If an act you committed was to be made general, would you want that act
committed against you? That is the thought process that should guide our moral standings
because it represents respect and what should be our present- day notions of human rights
(Sandel, 2009, pg. 59). Furthermore, very important pinnacle of Kantianism is that our decisions
that are influenced from our moral ideologies do not only affect us, to Immanuel Kant, we as
humans are not to be treated as bare means but as worthy ends. Hence, it is important to always
remember that if we would not like something done to us, we should not do it to other people. As
Williams Christopher (2012) emphasizes, our choices and their subsequent consequences are not
only a matter of personal preferences but they also affect others (Williams & Bruce, 2012, pg.
27). Jimmy acting out of loyalty to Kim and tarnishing Chuck’s career in the process was
morally unjustifiable because he went against what was not normatively right and committed an
act that was inherently wrong. Although it is hard to conclude that he did not intend to harm
Chuck, undermining Chuck’s autonomy could have been avoided if he did the right thing.
Another utilitarian argument may arise from the fact that Jimmy’s actions are seen as
over- riding what Jimmy thought to be unfair treatment from Chuck to Kim. So, a utilitarian
might say that Jimmy’s actions are justifiable because they promote a sense of fairness and
3
promote overall well-being by helping Kim succeed independently of Chuck’s control. This view
is characterized by John Stuart’s explanation of utility which characterizes overall happiness
from individual autonomy as a better determinant for long term social utility (Sandel, 2009, pg.
30). As a less severe form of utilitarianism, John Stuart Mill could say that ensuring Kim’s
happiness and undoing Chuck’s unfairness, Jimmy did a great favour for everyone as his actions
could translate to long term happiness for Kim and her clients but, this view forgets one thing.
While intentions are important, they do not excuse unethical actions such as deception and fraud.
As emphasized by Williams and Arrigo, ethical decision making requires us to be consistent
therefore, allowing people in places of power to break and bend the law at ease will lead to
ineffectiveness in the rule of law (Williams & Arrigo, 2012, pg37). Moreover, Jimmy’s disregard
for the law and his deception shows a willingness to manipulate truth for personal goals which in
itself a contradiction to John Stuart Mill’s philosophy because manipulation in every way, does
not bring about long-term happiness.
CONCLUSION
Ultimately, Jimmy McGill’s decision to falsify legal documents that belonged to Chuck
in Better Call Saul is an outstanding ethical dilemma that provides us with context and cues that
help us determine what is morally okay and what isn’t. It is a representation of the relationship
between moral principles and their consequences. While utilitarianism may initially appear to be
a great justification for Jimmy because of the benefits that amount for Kim and her clients, there
are more long-term harms than the present good it did. What if Jimmy was in Chuck’s place?
What if the disgrace that befell Chuck was the same one that befell him? In no way was it fair for
Jimmy to commit the harms done against Chuck even if they were for Kim. Kantian ethics
provide us with moral checkboxes that should guide our perceptions on certain behaviours in this
4
case, it shows us how unworthwhile deception is because of its inherently wrong nature. The
ethics that Kant embodies, teaches us to never underscore the importance of integrity within our
legal system. If one person can easily have it their way, imagine the many people who could
suffer from an injustice as that. Jimmy’s actions are and cannot be morally justifiable, they treat
Chuck as a bare means and not as an end. Jimmy’s actions disprove Chuck’s individual rights
and tarnish his equal chance at fairness- all the problems that compromise the core foundations
of our justice system.
5
REFERNCES
Sandel, Michael J. Justice: What’s the Right Thing to Do? 1st ed. New York: Farrar, Straus and
Giroux, 2009.
Williams, Christopher R., and Bruce A. Arrigo. Ethics, Crime, and Criminal Justice. 2nd ed.
Upper Saddle River, N.J: Pearson, 2012.
6