It`s no coincidence that killing is generally illegal, except in certain circumstances. Everything someone wants to achieve in life is a prerequisite for achieving it. Therefore, anyone who manages to exercise power through the state strives to use that power to protect the lives of those he deems important to achieving his ambitions. Another point I would like to address is the emphasis in the article on citizen behaviour. At this point, I would say that it is more important to keep a critical eye on the government`s behaviour. Chris, with all due respect, I think you`re underestimating the cases.” unscrupulous legislators who pass laws solely for their own benefit or that of their friends. This is the norm, not the exception. The huge lobbying industry confirms this. We are talking about influence, which is legal but unethical.
Norman, in a way, you are making an even stronger point. As I understand it, Chris pointed out that when we learn new things about toxins, drugs and the like, we should also apply the new knowledge to legislation. And by being stubborn and saying that if it`s legal, it`s ethical, then no new information can be taken into account in the legislation. His view, Norman, seems more along the lines of saying that laws can be completely wrong. The difference is that the people who made laws that allowed segregation made them based on ethical error, while the people who made the laws that allowed the use of unknown toxins simply had no information at the time. Anyway, the point is the same, but I think Norman`s point really gives the final blow to any argument that the law is automatically ethical. 04. It may be illegal not to perform a contract, but it can be ethical for a number of logical reasons.
You are right about some things and you are wrong about others. Why choose what is considered bad instead of what is legal? There is also not enough logic. Morality is about desirability, not what is considered bad. You can`t just pick the majority because there are too many different ideas about ethics. If people thought it was okay to kill or steal, would that be fair? Let`s say when the majority voted for people to murder or something because they were bored, because it was a psychopathic society? No, it would always be wrong, because it`s worse for that person. It`s worse to die than to be bored, so the psychopath can do without it. They are simply selfish, even if they are the majority. The majority can be selfish. Because everyone is important and everyone counts. Interracial marriages were considered bad, and it`s not immoral. Would you consider that immoral? What is your reasoning? Why do you think it is the majority? Just not thinking about it? We want to catch the bad guys and promote justice.
But how can this happen if we don`t denounce immoral behavior, even if it`s legal? Perhaps our willingness to give people carte blanche when they do bad things, even if they are legal, undermines the likelihood that people will follow the rules, let alone the spirit of the rule. […] Even if the lawsuit against the buyers fails, you need to remember that what`s legal isn`t always ethical. It is wrong to mislead consumers, even if it is legal. And the Rexall flyer is […] Basically, we should all do the right thing and not just follow the rules, and we learn that even as kids. Think. Young children often say, “But you didn`t say I couldn`t do it!” We tell our children that it does not do their actions properly. So why should we expect less from adults, especially elected leaders? Examples of ethical standards. Legal and ethical considerations. Legal and ethical requirements. List of unethical behaviour in the workplace. What are the legal and ethical considerations? What does ethics mean? There is also a large class of things that are illegal but not considered immoral! When the majority of the American people approved the Eighteenth Amendment to our Constitution, drinking didn`t go wrong; It simply made it illegal.
Drinking is right or wrong in itself. And it was not suddenly correct when the American people repealed the amendment on prohibition; At this point, drinking whiskey simply became legal again. Excellent article, it amazes me how some people believe that if it`s legal, it means it`s ethical. Cheating on your partner`s comment got it across perfectly, you wouldn`t break the law if you cheated, but it`s not exactly an ethical act. This idea has obvious roots in the Christian tradition, which was itself originally a Jewish tradition, of seeing the laws of the state as an extension of the laws God had promulgated for His people. You can still find this in some Islamic countries and in Orthodox Judaism: the idea that God`s law and secular law are not two separate things, but that morality, religious commandments, and state laws are all one and the same, all from the same holy books that contain God`s Word. So many Western societies of Christian origin will still carry echoes of the idea that state law is somehow derived from divine law and that there is a link between state law and moral rules. But that`s not really the case.
In the 1970s, the speed limit on federal highways was lowered to 55 miles per hour, not to save lives, but to reduce domestic oil consumption. So speeding was illegal then, but can we consider it immoral today? Or just take an example: If you were transporting a seriously injured person in a car at night and you ran into a red light and there was obviously no traffic, would you really stop or cross safely? That would clearly be illegal – would it also be unethical? I don`t think so. In the discussion of illegality, the question boils down to whether it is morally permissible to use force to prevent or distribute justice by force against the officer. Consider another imaginary situation. You see a van full of explosives heading to a hospital, and you think you can stop the van, but to do that, you would have to break a traffic law to ram your car into the van. In this case, it would seem very strange to get a ticket for violating the Highway Traffic Act. Would it be permissible for a judge to give you a $300 ticket for passing a stop sign, and if you did not pay that ticket, would you be forcibly sent to jail by the police? Most people`s intuition told them that stopping the van was right and the “right” deed, and that this person had the right to break that highway code. If you condition the question a bit in such a way that we are talking about people who think that a certain thing exists and is legal, then certain types of malicious character traits would probably lead to certain types of evil character traits that affect only/mostly negatively the person who has them. Well, the trivial answer here is the most obvious: because we don`t equate morality with legality. 02. Keeping money that someone has dropped is legal, but again, many would find it unethical. Think about it for a moment: would you really want all ethical obligations to be turned into laws? This would mean a large number of new laws, a huge enforcement problem and an extremely intrusive legal system.
(Example: Imagine your friend asks, “What do you think of my new boyfriend?” Imagine lying and saying, “He`s awesome!” This lie is probably unethical. But do you think he should break the law? Should you be thrown in jail for that?) Mechanically, I have no objection to the democratic process – the mechanism – that we use to choose our public servants and decide various issues that affect everyone equally. I see no other practical way to do that. But I am discouraged when people confuse the mechanism itself with the good and evil of the resulting actions. The “liquidation” of millions of people in Communist Russia under Stalin was a mistake; It would also have been wrong even if the overwhelming majority of the Russian people had voted for it in a democratic election. It is a fact that Hitler was elected more democratically than most presidents of the United States. But this fact, of course, has nothing to do with the right or wrong of the proposals and actions of the leaders of the two nations. Ultimately, the only issue that can be decided by government votes is what the minority should be forced to do by the majority.