Ethics and Illegality

[Aaron]

Can an action be unethical if it's within the boundaries of law?

Discuss.

[beso negro]

nope

[Smokey D]

Of course. I feel bad giving such a blunt response, but it is so obvious I don't see how you need an argument.

[Aaron]

Today in Management we were discussing the same, and you'd be surprised how many people feel that in corporate decision making, if something is within the law then it's got the green light...

[Smokey D]

Well, they do have the green light.

But that doesn't mean they aren't unethical. It means they control the law making system, or at least influence it substantially.

[beso negro]

give me an example of what would be unethical oh wise one

[Smokey D]

Where a company used its position as dominant market player to control markets.

Where a lawyer uses his knowledge to exploit his clients.

You can't possibly think that parliament has legislated on every possibly unethical thing that could exist.

[Dave de Sylvia]

Surely there are unethical things that shouldn't be illegal.

[jaredong]

well, arguably, the law changes depending on location and time while one could say that ethics is universal.Some would say that the law is decided by those who are in power who could control what constitutes legal or not.

For example, take slavery in America. In the past, slavery was legal. Doesnt mean it was ethical per say.

Or, presently in some places of the middle east women are treated badly and thats legal. Doesnt mean its ethical per say.

[Der Übermensch]

Law =/= Ethics

Law is the result of the social contract, which entrusts the power of the collective people into that of one representative government, who possesses the monopoly on legitimate force, and legislates based on what it feels to be best for the common good.

[peeted]

If law is equil to ethics then why is it that people see things like cheating on a partner (to whome one is not married) as un-ethical? What you say regarding law being seen as for the common good may be true, but there are still acts generaly seen as un-ethical which are irrelevant to the common good. I would also say that certain illegal things aint nesciserily seen as unethical, for example someone who is 17 and almost 18 waching a rather tame 18 rated film, this is technicaly illegal but isnt espcialy unethical.

[mph4ever]

Can an action be unethical if it's within the boundaries of law?

Discuss.


lots of people who enforce the law are unethical. lots of laws are unethical.

[BassRevelation1029]

Can an action be unethical if it's within the boundaries of law?

Discuss.

easily.

Whats 'right' may be illegal, and whats allowed by law may not always be ethical.

[italic zero]

When I lie to my mother it is legal (as it should be) but usually unethical.

[cometuesday]

Of course. I feel bad giving such a blunt response, but it is so obvious I don't see how you need an argument.

this, tbqh

[Aaron]

Okay, here's a scenario for you regarding whisleblowers:

The CEO of a company discovers that systemic corruption is occurring in his company to the extent that it's disclosure would cause the company to fold [ala Enron]. Given that he has no superior to disclose this information to excluding the government regulators, does he have an ethical obligation to his shareholders to protect their interests and investments, or does he have a ethical obligation in the fact that what he's discovered is deemed illegal. What is the correct course of action for him?

[amanuensis]

There are probably a lot of examples of immoral things that are technically legal. I'm not gonna give any. But since laws are constructed by people, and morals are constructed by people, it would make since that the two kind of intertwine to at least some extent.

[Smokey D]

The CEO of a company discovers that systemic corruption is occurring in his company to the extent that it's disclosure would cause the company to fold [ala Enron]. Given that he has no superior to disclose this information to excluding the government regulators, does he have an ethical obligation to his shareholders to protect their interests and investments, or does he have a ethical obligation in the fact that what he's discovered is deemed illegal. What is the correct course of action for him?

That isn't a question of legality, as such. Given that neither of those are illegal, whichever one we decide is more unethical is an example of an unethical thing being allowed by law.

Well, assuming that it isn't illegal and I'm pretty sure you have to disclose to the market illegal operations.

[Aaron]

The activities are illegal. What is his obligation to; fulfilling his role and protecting the company from going under, or adhering to trade practices?

[Independent_CA]

Yes.

Example: Not allowing people to vote based on race.

[Smokey D]

The activities are illegal. What is his obligation to; fulfilling his role and protecting the company from going under, or adhering to trade practices?

Well, that's a question of the lesser of two evils. It doesn't really speak to whether all unethical actions are in fact illegal.

[Aaron]

Well it does as an extension; my arguement is, as the defining of legislation and trade practices is reactive, that is that events highlight issues to regulators and those who define policies, it's the morals of individuals making decisions within society that is the precursor to legislation being defined. Those individuals being either antagonists or protagonists to this law making. Looking at this we can conclude that it's those in positions of power that realistically are defining legislation, either through action or analysis of others' actions that they define as immoral.

[what]

Human law tends to be objective and kind of aside from ethics, although probably the deep reason for the creaton of human laws is some form of ethics. But for example if you take the law given to people by God, then obviously the law is ethical, and what is illegal is unethical in this case.
But, since people at one point decided that they should live under their own human laws the create a huge system, which tries to undertake the law given to us by God, in such a way, so that law could be seperated from ethics, and so that even a person with no ethical viewpoints could (should, had to) live under the law.

So yes, human law is deliberately seperated from ethics, probably for simplification of things, but in the end it turned out that it's not so simple as it seemed I guess.

Law works on fear. Human law works on fear, the Old Testament law works on fear, but the New Testament law works on love, even though fear preceeds it.

[Smokey D]

It is manifest that God's law, whatever that is, is insufficiently for human existence. And even Jesus said to render unto Caesar.

Well it does as an extension; my arguement is, as the defining of legislation and trade practices is reactive, that is that events highlight issues to regulators and those who define policies, it's the morals of individuals making decisions within society that is the precursor to legislation being defined. Those individuals being either antagonists or protagonists to this law making. Looking at this we can conclude that it's those in positions of power that realistically are defining legislation, either through action or analysis of others' actions that they define as immoral.

I'm not sure I follow entirely. There are people writing legislation or making law in other ways (notably judges) all the time but that doesn't really say that all ethical actions are lawful or all unethical ones unlawful. The fact that politics exist and that we create or rewrite laws all the time indicates that there is never a point when everyone agrees to the ethicality of the law. If politics is about those in power, then morality surely does not automatically follow. No one gives politicians the ability to decide what the moral consensus is.

[what]

I'm not saying human law is good or bad. God's law is sufficient for humans if they trully follow it. The 10 Commandments pretty much include every situation a human will ever be in, but the Commandments work only when they have inner motivation, and fear of God ( fear of upseting him, not fear of that he will send thunder bolts on you) human law doesn't require inner motivation, it works just on fear of soon to come consequences.

[Smokey D]

First of all, it's not a law if it's only good when people follow it. The whole purpose for laws if because people don't always do what's right.

Secondly, even if we ignore that statement, biblical law is woefully insufficient to give account for the myriad activities undertaken by humans today. It was probably insufficient to give account for activities taken in the First Century.

[what]

The Commandments quite clearly tell you what to do and what not to do, and then if you take the New Testament, there the commandments are supplemented.

The Bibilical Law gives you the opportunity to judge each activity from the ethical point of view.

[Smokey D]

It's not law if it says 'do this and you'll feel good'. It's only law if it says 'do this or else'.

But anyways, please locate for me in the Bible comprehensive law on contract, negligence, tort, any of the thousand or so crimes not mentioned in the book, corporations, corporate liability.

Oh yeah, it's not there. The Bible does not and cannot provide a substantial body of law to properly regulate society. At the most, it can provide a moral basis for some first principles and I'd say even that is spurious.

[what]

Well it does give quite a lot of examples where you can see what happens if you don't obey the commandments.

It is not exactly written out, but if you carefully go through the commandments you can figure out should or should you not do something.

... I'm quite sure that IF people lived with the word of the Bible, the justice system wouldn't be needed as much as today or even maybe at all.

But this is all dreams and theory. What I wanted to say is that human law and ethics have nothing to do with each other, human law is deliberate seperation of ethics and law.

[Smokey D]

Well it does give quite a lot of examples where you can see what happens if you don't obey the commandments.

Okay but no liberal society would say those punishments are in any way merited.

It is not exactly written out, but if you carefully go through the commandments you can figure out should or should you not do something.

... I'm quite sure that IF people lived with the word of the Bible, the justice system wouldn't be needed as much as today or even maybe at all.

But this is all dreams and theory. What I wanted to say is that human law and ethics have nothing to do with each other, human law is deliberate seperation of ethics and law

Since the Bible at most only regulates intentional interpersonal relationships of a specific kind, it can't be used to regulate activities which fall outside the comprehension of the ancient Israelites. There's no point trying to extrapolate a comprehensive rule on multinational contracts because that's not how ancient Israel worked and so it wasn't written into their laws.

[Volumnius Flush]

There are unethical actions that are legal.