Law states what a person must do, some laws are based on ethical precepts. Ethics suggest what a person ought to do.
An ethical person often chooses to do more than the law requires and less than the law allows. There is a big difference between what we have a right to do and what is right to do.
Distinctions between Law and Ethics
|
|
Law |
Ethics |
|
1 |
What behaviors are we unwilling to
tolerate in society |
What Ethical behaviors do I choose
to engage in ? |
|
2. |
Law tells us how badly we may have
behaved |
Ethics tells us how we may behave
well |
|
3. |
Law is the court of last resort; it
reflects society’s inability to resolve issues involving civil and other
rights |
Socrates maintained that good people
thinking well should have resolved these through application of moral
philosophy |
|
4. |
Legal thinking is linear, with
logical progression not some ultimate conclusion. It is rule oriented. Law
does not seek virtue but a preponderance of evidence. The adversarial legal
system can lead to justice, but it does not necessarily lead to truth. |
Ethical thinking is contextual and
introspective, concerned with reordering and /or redefining social virtues.
Moral philosophy seeks truth, justice and consistent advice in an open,
dialectical, analytical and cathartic manner. |
The Legal Ethical Wall
We should decide how much of our problem lies within the moral or
ethical domain how much lies within the legal or authority-based field. We need
to sort this out to develop an ability to take defensible conclusions.
William Frankena, while describing the ethical maturation of Socrates, says:
Ethical
considerations arise when we pass beyond the stage of only considering rules
and legalistic arguments about why we should behave in specific ways. Ethical
considerations are moral philosophy emerges when we begin to think for
ourselves in critical and general terms and achieve a kind of autonomy as moral
agents.
This is not to say that what is legal and ethical are always in agreement. We can see in four groups where our ethical dilemmas may exist. And the wall is between Desirable and undesirable decisions.
|
|
Desirable
Decisions |
Undesirable
decisions |
|
1 |
Legal/ethical |
|
|
2 |
Legal |
unethical |
|
3 |
Ethical |
illegal |
|
4 |
|
Illegal/
unethical |
1
and 4 are easy to make decisions. However, problems are with 2 and 3. For 2 we hear
people say, "…but it's not illegal". In this response, one subjugates
conscience to authority. It is an exercise in 'buck passing' in refusing to
take an ethical stance considered correct.
In
3 situations, the decision is illegal. Still, we deem the decision to be
ethical and the law to be wrong- civil disobedience- to stand up for our
ethics—E.g., prophets, Buddha, Martin Luther King, Rosa Park's mother, Teresa.
Several journalists have refused to reveal the names of their sources to
testify in the courts- in essence violating legal mandates but upholding
personal and professional principles.
Codes of Ethics
It may be defined as a statement of beliefs, principles, and acceptable behavior of people in a common vocation. The statement or code is normally published, often displayed, and commonly referenced as a definition of peer-group. A significant characteristic of the code of ethics is that:
- It is unenforceable in court.
- It is not defined by a legislative body or the subject of litigation in a judicial body.
- Some peer groups include a procedure for internal punishment of violators, as in the denying of a doctor or lawyer the right to practice in a hospital or a court. But there is no enforcement mechanism in the ethics codes of many peer groups.
- Violators of codes are often ignored or criticized by their peers in assembly.
- Codes of ethics are supposed to act as the professional's conscience, of the organization, of the enterprise.
- Think of codes as part of the middle ground between law on the one hand and internalized societal blues (or personal values) on the other.
- Codes can be where formal social and economic sanctions or a social group (a profession, an industry, a firm, a company) seek to ensure conformity by defining acceptable standards of behavior and penalizing defiance.
Purposes of codes
Association
and professional groups have several reasons to write and revise their codes of
ethics.
- A good code contains ideas that justify and rationalize a profession's activities to a larger society, including governments- especially during times of diminished credibility and intensified public scrutiny.
- Codes also provide education. A good code promotes ethical thought and behavior within a profession. This is especially important for newcomers, who may not know the complexity of the craft's moral landmines. But it also helps veterans with pressures from peers, higher-ups, and outsiders to violate a profession's values and norms.
- Codes that take their education function seriously seek to highlight and anticipate ethical dilemmas, so it is unnecessary to reinvent a decision-making process with each new dilemma.
- Codes inspire us about our unique roles and responsibilities. They make each of us custodians of our profession's values and behaviors, and they beckon us to emulate the best of our profession.
- They promote front-end, proactive decision-making that occurs before our decision 'go public.'
If
codes don't serve these purposes, it may be little more than an impotent façade
hanging on the office walls.
Poorly
constructed codes falsely imply that the profession has agreed upon a uniform
set of ethical practices, or they suggest that all the important questions have
been settled once and for all.
Drafting,
reconsidering, and revising codes should encourage further conversation within
the field and better dialogue with the public and other stakeholders. And then,
after a couple of years, it is probably helpful to tear up the code and start
over if only because the process of drafting a code of ethics is intellectually
invigorating and pragmatically cathartic.
So
if we want to be taken seriously as ethical communicators, we need codes that
mean something to practitioners and the general public.
If
we want to be ethical, we need to articulate our ideas, remind ourselves and
others of our unique contributions to the world's civic health, and then act
accordingly.
If
we want to continue to claim freedoms to communicate and advocate, then we
should accept concomitant responsibilities.
Two types of codes
- Codes of minimal standards
- Codes of ideal expectations or 'aspirational' codes
1. Codes of minimal standards
The
fundamental assumption of minimal standards codes implies that, at worst,
people for whom the codes were drafted are morally primitive or at least
inherently flawed; that they lack independent judgment and need authority
figures to lead them through the decision-making process; that they respond
best to threats and fear of punishment; that their natural inclination is to
abuse others and misuse their power.
A
more generous assessment is merely to say that such codes are written for the
professionally uninformed assessment who would be better served by a good
textbook or course in their profession's history and principles than be a
legalistic litany.
- They spell out, in sometimes excruciating detail, the hard and fast rules of the game.
- They typically go on-page. They list every imaginable form for behavior their authors find reprehensible.
- They are filled with a legalistic "thou shall not's" list of sins that morally immature individuals might be tempted to commit.
- If we violate a code's minimal standards, we are blameworthy, and we deserve to be disciplined.
- But just because we uphold those minimal standards does not mean we are morally praiseworthy because they are bottom lines below which we should not fall. For instance, we should not expect to be rewarded for not plagiarizing or not abusing a client, but codes feel free to offer penalties or people who drop below the line.
2. Codes of ideal expectations
- Codes of ideal expectations reflect a different universe.
- Their lofty and abstract standards indicate faith in one's fellow beings, a recognition that inherently decent people are trying to do better, and a sense that gentle reminders of our lofty goals are more effective means of achieving an ethical society that is base-level , punishment oriented rules and guidelines.
- Codes of ideal expectations acknowledge our imperfections and generally offer positive " thou shall" suggestions that will make the world a better place.
- Such aspirational codes include lofty and sometimes abstract statements of expectations.
- Followers of such codes strive to reach the ideal standards set forth.
- Practitioners are not punished for not achieving those ideals any more than show dogs or horses or painters or journalists are you.
- Not punished for not winning ' best-of-show competitions- or not being awarded Pulitzer prizes, for not achieving perfection.
- An inspirational code can broadly define the excellent communicator- the virtuous communicator, the committed communicator, the noble communicator.
- It accepts yet transcends the minimal code, acknowledging its failings while attempting to provide exemplars and guidance for the resolution of hard cases.