This conversation is closed. Start a new conversation
or join one »
Legal/Process needs to be aligned with Ethics
In my experience legal procedures and many business activities have yet to aspire to the level of Ethics. In this day and age, everyone knows to speak to ethics, but is it really practiced by government, business, etc...? For example: What happens when acting ethically is not aligned legally? If you act with integrity but, do so "at legal liability" what is the lesson? It sends a message of act legally and in line with process even if it means compromising ethics. Acting/Doing something the right way (acting ethically) is not always the legal way. Why does this exist as a conflict? Do we compromise integrity to follow rules & laws that lack authenticity in spirit? There needs to be a cultural bridge construct to align these presently diverse concepts on the same plane.
Open to your strategies on how to address and improve.
edward long 100+
Gail . 50+
how to bridge the divide? Make a distinction between ethics and morality. Morality is something that is "taught" - be it by religious leaders or secular societies who pass laws with specific intents. But ethics is something very different. Morals do not need to be ethical, rational or reasonable.
If I were Pharaoh of the world (a concept that could be legal while not being ethical), I would so change the educational paradigm that school would not be unrecognizable by comparison. I would elevate the student by teaching EQ. I would stop focusing so heavily on IQ. It would teach critical thinking skills (how to solve problems) and in this way inspire creativity. Parents would start learning better life-strategies from their children. Eventually, I would be de-throned because there is already enough untaught information discovered through science that it would dramatically change the world if people were willing to dare consider its implications.
But it wold probably be easier just to let our unsustainable fiscal system (and Abrahamic religions) collapse sooner rather than later, forcing individuals to think for themselves, because when money has no value, neither do the governments and religions that are sustained by it. Then we have a chance.
those who want to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization want what never was & never will be (thomas Jefferson)
Kim Laes
I ask myself this question frequently.
For myself I think the law should be interpreted in the spirit of the law, not the letter of the law. this is a common mistake that is made by a great deal of people.
As for a chance to a more ethically 'correct' law, so to speak, one should wonder on what then should be considered the 'correct' ethic code. What you see as ethically correct is not necessarily what I find ethically correct.
The next question is what would happen if such a law came into existence? The law, unlike we sometimes seem to think, is an everchanging and adapting concept. It needs to be if it wants to keep up with society. The same goes for ethics, it is something evolving not statically. How do you keep those alligned? One moves faster than the other.
In truth, I believe that ethics are personal and the law is general. An ethical law will always be the ethics of a few imposed on many.
But you are right; the law can sometimes get in the way of 'justice' or ethically correct behavior (as perceived by society). In such a case, it is for those involved in the specific situation to deal with it.
You know who came to mind when I while writing this answer? Thomas More...
george lockwood 20+
pat gilbert 50+
If it were up to me...
Small claims court works very well. Why because a judge decides the outcome and moves through a lot of cases quickly. I would simply copy the paradigm to as high a court level as is practical. Which would be higher than you might think. You have to admit that a jury trial is more likely to unjust than a judge trial, OJ Simpson trial for instance...