ETHC 445N Week 1 Discussion 2: Study Of Ethics Philosophy

        To begin, I do believe that if we have ethic’s we still need laws. I would describe ethics as more of a moral compass and the law established would be the compromise on the ethics of each person. No one agrees with all of the laws created or the individual ethics that I believe each person differs from. According to Ruggiero, ethicists are no lawmakers…their words unlike those of lawmakers, do not prescribe what must or must not be done…they merely suggest what ought to be done (Ruggiero, 2012). Therefore, ethics is a set of unwritten or formative moral ideologies. I think that when it comes to ethics really further support the historical question of who came first the chicken or the egg. I think that ethics can encompass the formation of a law into effect and make it so important that the law must be created with the idea of ethics around it. The textbook goes further to state that laws have degrees of guilt as where ethics reach conclusions that provide guidance to law makers and law enforcers (Ruggiero, 2012). I think that ethics are the reason that laws exist and that without the ethical questioning of Aristotle and Plato there would not be any reason for laws to exits. And now day it can be confusing with the books of laws which came first, the chicken or the egg. A recent article by Duthie, Jiwani, & Steele 2017, suggest that easiest way to demonstrate the distinction between ethics and the law is to recognize that reasonable people reasonably see many laws as unethical. The article recognizes that most time that laws are considered unethical by some and ethical by others reinforcing, the concept that ethics are a moral driving point. The idea that ethics alone could replace laws would be a lot of confusion and disagreements. While most people agree on most ethical issues what is write and what is wrong, the majority do not agree about everything that has ethical consideration.

References:

Duthie, K., Jiwani, B., & Steele, D. (2017). Ethics and the law. Hec Forum, 29(4), 347-358. doi:10.1007/s10730-017-9328-1

Ruggiero, V. R. (2012). Thinking critically about ethical issues (8th ed.). New York: Mc-Graw Hill.

Do we need ethics if we have laws? Why or why not?

Yes, because without ethics laws would not be possible. Ethics affect how people make decisions and lead their lives (BBC, 2014). There are four dilemmas ethics cover (1) how to live a good life, (2) our rights and responsibilities, (3) the language of right and wrong, and (4) moral decisions – what is good and bad (BBC, 2014). Laws are a set of rules and guidelines created by the government. In order to abide by the rules and regulations set by the government, one must be able to make choices whether it is right or wrong. Every day there is an issue with people killing, stealing, and committing crimes when they are aware of these laws. For example, the police who are supposed to wear their body cameras to record events yet neglect to do so or intentionally shut them off during certain situations when they are doing something unethical. With that being said when law enforcement decides not to live by their set standards and morals there is nobody but themselves to blame when they are punished for their unlawful actions. Everyone is guided by their own ethical choices.

References

Ethics – Introduction to ethics: Ethics: a general introduction. Retrieved from http://www.bbc.co.uk/ethics/introduction/intro_1.shtmlLinks to an external site.

Ruggiero, V. R. (2012). Thinking critically about ethical issues (8th ed.). New York: Mc-Graw Hill.

Conflicts with people’s ethical beliefs and laws happen quite frequently. The funny thing about this is it happened to me and a few friends this Saturday when we went downtown in Augusta, Ga. A security guard for another building was directing cars out of there parking lots so no one would park in their spots. For some odd reason, he happened to be standing at the bar’s parking lot where we were going to park at. Need I remind you we have been parking in this same area since the bar has been there so when he flashed his flashlight at our car we drove pass him thinking nothing of it. By the time we parked, he went to a police officer who was sitting in the car and told him we almost hit him in the parking lot which was not true at all since he was standing off to the side. He also told the police officer that we were parking on private property and that we needed to move. Eventually, our conversation between him and the police escalated, and we walked away to move the car. The police decided to follow us and said he could lock us up, so my friend began to speak up and say we know our rights. Once that was said I assume he thought we were going to continue to go back and forth with him about it and he walked off. From my point of view, there was no need to go to the police from the get-go. To lie on us and say we almost hit him was unbelievable to me. Once we entered the bar I overheard several girls talking about how the security guard was yelling at them to move their cars in another lot too. It seems to make me wonder if the security guard had it out for women.  Some things that are ethical remain illegal because bad governments pass bad laws against them in my opinion. Wrong is wrong period and I could tell by the look of the officers face that he felt guilty but he sided with the security guard anyway.

Conflicts between ethical beliefs and the law are inevitable. When I worked at a nursing home I came across a situation where ethics and the law collided.  A 75 year old women who spoke a different language had an issue with her insurance, where she wouldn’t be on treatment for about a week or two. Although it’s illegal to provide treatment for her under the table, the concerned nurses did so. They believed it was unethical to not provide her treatment considering her health would decline without it. Even though it violated the facility’s rules the nurses acted on what they felt was morally correct in this situation. I believe that in certain situations an individual values their ethical beliefs more than the law.