The idea is roughly this: you would have the moral rules, which could be considered the broader framework, and then you would have the laws of the state, which are more specific and cover only a subset of what morality covers. So one could imagine the field of ethics as a circle and the laws of the state as a smaller circle lying entirely in the other circle. Ultimately, we are all called as individuals to decide what we consider morally right and wrong. It`s part of what makes us human that we can`t give up that decision and let others decide for us. Each of us must decide for ourselves what actions we want to consider morally good or bad, even if it is contrary to the laws of the state. […] Even if the lawsuit against the buyers fails, you need to remember that what`s legal isn`t always ethical. It is wrong to mislead consumers, even if it is legal. And the Rexall flyer is […] Excellent article, it amazes me how some people believe that if it`s legal, it means it`s ethical. Cheating on your partner`s comment got it across perfectly, you wouldn`t break the law if you cheated, but it`s not exactly an ethical act. I will give you an example and leave the rest to you: exceeding the speed limit to get an injured child to the hospital. This would be ethically acceptable in many cases, but technically illegal. When the majority of people in old New England (and other places at other times) supported this horrific campaign of searching and burning witches, it didn`t do anything right.
Everyone can see it now. But when I point out that price controls and subsidies to farmers are also morally and economically reprehensible, look at what is happening. The farmers who receive the subsidies (and the politicians who get the votes) immediately accuse me of not believing in democracy – “People voted for it in a democratic election,” they say, “it does it right.” Frankly, that is not the case. In the 1970s, the speed limit on federal highways was lowered to 55 miles per hour, not to save lives, but to reduce domestic oil consumption. So speeding was illegal then, but can we consider it immoral today? It would be interesting to hear Professor Finance`s views on the various issues arising from the SEC`s relationship with investment banks since the 2008-2009 debacle. At this point, it seems that the law itself is quite “fickle” when it comes to determining when an act is illegal. The Abacus case illustrates that what is considered legal is “transactional” while showing that what is ethical is not even worth considering by the perpetrators of multifaceted misconduct. This is dangerous because morality has this absolute claim to direct its own actions. Ethics gives us rules that we must follow unconditionally, without ever questioning them: we must not steal, we must be honest, we must be loyal, etc. But unconditionally obeying state laws is rarely a good idea.
Laws are made by a parliament, and it is not a body inspired by God or superior wisdom. The people who make our laws are fallible, they can make mistakes; Quite often they are greedy, perhaps corrupt, they may be bribed and pressured, or they serve certain interest groups. So that in the end, the laws made by such people are not necessarily worth obeying unconditionally. If we accept that a society in which no one acts immorally is preferable, what is the prima facie argument for not making any immoral act illegal? I think an important point is that “the law” can be defined as distinct from what is legal. There are laws that say you can`t drive over the speed limit, but the law, as practiced by law enforcement and drivers, must be within 5 or 10 miles of the limit. Laws are written and stated and must be followed for legal purposes. A code of ethics is made up of unwritten moral rules that differ from person to person and culture to culture. Another point I would like to address is the emphasis in the article on citizen behaviour. At this point, I would say that it is more important to keep a critical eye on the government`s behaviour. Chris, with all due respect, I think you`re underestimating the cases.” unscrupulous legislators who pass laws solely for their own benefit or that of their friends. This is the norm, not the exception. The huge lobbying industry confirms this.
We are talking about influence, which is legal but unethical. Well, the trivial answer here is the most obvious: because we don`t equate morality with legality. It`s not hard to think of something. For example, let`s say you`re a pedestrian at a red light. Across the street, through the cars that pass each other in front of you, you will see a small child playing. And suddenly, the child seems to be running down the busy street! The ultimate refutation lies in the hidden circularity of the finance professor`s argument, which we can illuminate by reflecting on the process by which something is made illegal. But the transformer gives off a lot of heat, which is why it can sometimes burn and cause real damage to people. So if someone removes the fuse from the transformer when there is a possibility that the transformer will burn, it is illegal, but it is completely ethical because the person removing the fuses wants to avoid damage. 03.
It is illegal to cross a traffic light or speed, although it is ethical and legal if someone`s life depends on it. As if we had to take him quickly to the hospital. But what`s more alarming than a politician bending the rules is the ease with which his supporters often invoke, “Well, it`s not illegal.” Let`s go back to the schoolyard for some helpful reminders of our social norms. We are alarmed by bullying, and not only do we tell children not to bully, but we also reprimand children who turn a blind eye to bullying.