Ethics is the study of right and wrong. Ethics are defined by society.They are not to be confused with law, which applies to everyone in the society, ethics are somewhat optional. Ethics are in the " grey " area. Something may be unethical but lawful and vice versa. It is this confusion, this ambiguity that is one source of social unrest. Add to that, morality, another distinct factor governing actions and the result can be very confusing indeed. Ambiguity in morals and ethics has always been a part of society and especially so now. There is also the perception of an ambiguity in law ! The rich are treated differently, or the minority are subject to different interpretations of the law. Laws are based in ethics and morality so there is an interrelationship there, one is dependant upon the other. Laws can be changed but morals and ethics should not ! At least if they are your morals and ethics that is In this country, majority rules. What the majority find ethical and moral are encoded in the law, right ? Wrong, they are not and thus the ambiguity exists.
I would say the majority of breaches in ethics and morality that are written into law concern one of two things. First and foremost, money and the making of money. The second concern are personal wants. Those are usually justified by using the logic, " it doesn't hurt anyone else " so why shouldn't I ? Duh, because it is deemed harmful to you, but that is another topic altogether. They are breaches of convenience. Really nothing more than justification for immoral and unethical behaviors. It's legal, so therefore it is alright. As I said, convenient. What I see that is even more troubling is the circumventing of law for the same reason, convenience. It is too expensive to prosecute criminals so we " legalize " the action. In some cases we even try to convince ourselves that the action is not only acceptable, but of benefit to the society ! We then feign " enlightenment " and embrace the very action we know to be detrimental. Like the proverbial moth to the flame, we can't help ourselves. And that is why we need to help each other. That is the function of society. A society should exist for the mutual benefit of all the citizens of that society. That does not mean that each individual in the society just gets to do whatever they wish, that is anarchy, it does require cooperation within the society in matters of morals and ethics. Restraint is the key component here. Laws define that restraint, those actions deemed acceptable and unacceptable in the society. It is the encoding of morals and ethics that define the society. The removal of restraint either by law, or the removal of ethical and moral behaviors by way of those same laws, will eventually lead to unrest in the society. It is inevitable and can be proven out by a study of past societies throughout man's history.
What it comes down to is the old adage, you can't have your cake and eat it too. You cannot have a society that promotes ethical and moral behaviors all the while promoting the opposite actions by law. Someone is wrong here ! Gasp, I know it. What is moral and ethical ? How do we judge that ? Is religion the sole judge of moral and ethical behaviors ? If so, what religion ?
The truth is we do not need religion to know what is moral and ethical. The founding fathers knew that and that is precisely why they didn't sanction a specific religious doctrine as our guide. The " separation of church and state " so widely quoted by those acting contrary to moral and ethical standards was not intended to abolish those standards but rather to reinforce them ! It was assumed that our leaders in government, our leaders in religious activities, and our citizens would all act in a moral and ethical fashion. Was it naive of the founding fathers to think so ? I prefer, confident as the term. They were founding a new nation and had every reason to feel confident in their success. Remember " amendments " were later added to the original document thus beginning the process we see now. Inevitable, unfortunately I think so, but I remain hopeful. I hope for a return to ethics and morality as the restraining factor in society and law only as the guideline. Laws should be defined by ethics and morality and not the other way around.
I would say the majority of breaches in ethics and morality that are written into law concern one of two things. First and foremost, money and the making of money. The second concern are personal wants. Those are usually justified by using the logic, " it doesn't hurt anyone else " so why shouldn't I ? Duh, because it is deemed harmful to you, but that is another topic altogether. They are breaches of convenience. Really nothing more than justification for immoral and unethical behaviors. It's legal, so therefore it is alright. As I said, convenient. What I see that is even more troubling is the circumventing of law for the same reason, convenience. It is too expensive to prosecute criminals so we " legalize " the action. In some cases we even try to convince ourselves that the action is not only acceptable, but of benefit to the society ! We then feign " enlightenment " and embrace the very action we know to be detrimental. Like the proverbial moth to the flame, we can't help ourselves. And that is why we need to help each other. That is the function of society. A society should exist for the mutual benefit of all the citizens of that society. That does not mean that each individual in the society just gets to do whatever they wish, that is anarchy, it does require cooperation within the society in matters of morals and ethics. Restraint is the key component here. Laws define that restraint, those actions deemed acceptable and unacceptable in the society. It is the encoding of morals and ethics that define the society. The removal of restraint either by law, or the removal of ethical and moral behaviors by way of those same laws, will eventually lead to unrest in the society. It is inevitable and can be proven out by a study of past societies throughout man's history.
What it comes down to is the old adage, you can't have your cake and eat it too. You cannot have a society that promotes ethical and moral behaviors all the while promoting the opposite actions by law. Someone is wrong here ! Gasp, I know it. What is moral and ethical ? How do we judge that ? Is religion the sole judge of moral and ethical behaviors ? If so, what religion ?
The truth is we do not need religion to know what is moral and ethical. The founding fathers knew that and that is precisely why they didn't sanction a specific religious doctrine as our guide. The " separation of church and state " so widely quoted by those acting contrary to moral and ethical standards was not intended to abolish those standards but rather to reinforce them ! It was assumed that our leaders in government, our leaders in religious activities, and our citizens would all act in a moral and ethical fashion. Was it naive of the founding fathers to think so ? I prefer, confident as the term. They were founding a new nation and had every reason to feel confident in their success. Remember " amendments " were later added to the original document thus beginning the process we see now. Inevitable, unfortunately I think so, but I remain hopeful. I hope for a return to ethics and morality as the restraining factor in society and law only as the guideline. Laws should be defined by ethics and morality and not the other way around.
No comments:
Post a Comment