Julie wrote:ShneekeyTheLost wrote:Mark N wrote:To me it is a proof that legal actions an ethical conduct are two VERY different things.
You want ethics? Consult a priest (or other religious authority figure). Laws judge morals, not ethics.
That seems a little backwards from my understanding of morals vs ethics. Maybe my perspective is a little off because of my job... We are required to have continuing education courses regularly in Ethics (and goodness knows I've seen college courses on Business Ethics), but we're not expected to take courses on Morals. I always thought that morals had to do with your socio-religious stance (personal beliefs and character); whereas, ethics have to do more with acting appropriately within a given social system.
Maybe Mark N should have said "To me it is proof that legal actions and
moral conduct are two very different things"? Or maybe this situation is neither ethical nor moral, but it's still legal (which is creepy as all hell).
I'd say too:
Legal is a civil category: is it prohibited by law or not?
Ethics is a social category: how does the culture say you should act?
(It also includes the special limits on professionals, since one definition of a profession is that it has special rules on what is allowed.)
Moral is a religious category: how does your faith say you should act?
None of these are identical.
Some laws are simply for good order: why drive on the right, when driving on the left would do as well? Because we need to choose one or the other, and it doesn't really matter which--as long as everyone follows the same rules!
Some laws are to enforce ethics or morals, such as laws against murder or theft, or laws on accounting, fraud, and other financial matters.
Some laws run counter to some ethical (or moral) standards, such as laws still on the books against marriage between people of different races, or against sodomy. Or, say, laws that allow, say, a politician to use the money given for his reelection for his own ends, even though the ethical thing is to use it only for campaigns.
And so on.
In a state with good laws, the gaps between legal and ethical (and moral) are as small as possible.
As for that Tom Clancy quote about writing ethics rules down, I agree, in part.
Ethics are principles we should follow, which means we need to know at least what is intended. But when you get too detailed, then you have lost the point.
I think ethical codes are better following the Roman model of law: to establish the general ideals, and then leave it to the magistrate or authority to determine how it applies to this situation (or shouldn't in a particular case, and then a dispensation is in order).
They are much more cumbersome using the English and American model, in which the legislator tries to cover every possible case within the law itself--which makes for complex laws that few really understand, inevitably leads to situations not covered, or conflicts with other equally detailed laws, and so on.
