Written By: Athena Yeh
Introduction
The morals (or lack thereof) behind legal practices have always been a topic of contention amongst members of society; recently, following the announcement of bans on abortions as well as gender affirming care in several American states, the presence of doubt has only grown stronger.
So… what is the law, and what are ethics?
Though segregated by a blurring line, the differences between ethics and law are actually bigger than they may seem. By definition, laws are structured protocols utilised to govern the society, unanimously recognised and enforced in the particular area intended for them to apply to. As the nature of laws is to maintain social order, peace, and secure justice, it is usually not possible for them to take all ethical principles into account, though most laws were created with the upkeep of moral values in mind. The concept of ethics is less concrete in comparison. Rooted in a branch of moral philosophy, ethicality describes a collection of fundamental principles of an ideal human character; as a general code of conduct adopted by the people, it sets a standard for day-to-day interactions and quality of life. Though “conventional” human conduct is generally agreed upon by society, there will still be inevitable discrepancies between everyone’s definition of ethical, thus making it a subjective matter.
Law and ethicality : how are they different?
Ethics are optional. Though being unethical might place you under heavy public scrutiny, there is no actual reason why people should care about being ethical. This is because ethics are created by individuals, and not the government; there are no substantial penalties for disobeying ethics if one’s actions do not break the law, thus there is no obligation for it to be followed. Law and ethics can both be subjective, people are entitled to their own opinions or feelings regarding both subjects, however, whilst many express disdain towards the law, they would still have to follow it to avoid sanctions, which is different from ethics, as it is not particularly enforced by anyone and instead exists as a form of moral code. This leads to their biggest difference - ability to regulate society and keep peace as well as order.
Are all laws ethical? Why not?
The earliest versions of laws were typically not ran through the general public, thus they were created mostly for the convenience of lawmakers. As generally powerful and wealthy individuals, lawmakers abused their abilities so that the laws would cater to their needs, disguising their misdemeanours whilst punishing those who they disagree with or look down upon. An example of this is slavery. Though entirely legal at the time, the cruelty and prejudice which slaves were objected to was unethical; the only reason why this practice was made possible for so long was due to society’s ignorance and blind trust in the head of governments. It is almost unavoidable that most of the power holders, both historically and in modern-day society, will be privileged, whether it be their skin colour, education, wealth, or family background; this type of privilege is what segregates them from the general population and will influence the laws as well as legislations which they make. Having been shrouded by a veil of privilege their entire lives, these people will feel entitled to prioritise their own needs and opinions instead of the community’s despite the promises they made before earning their power, which is why law, though mostly straightened by a peer-review process in the government, will sometimes be unethical and biassed. Such as the abortion and Drag bans throughout the United States.
Would law work if it was ethical?
Ethics are the base of law, though in excess it would do more harm than good. Ethicality teaches acceptance and forgiveness, both are traits which the law should avoid, as leaning into them would rid it of the edge it needs to discipline and regulate. Law, being entirely ethical, would also be unfair, as it would allow acts such as stealing due to hunger, but punish stealing just for the sake of it at the same time. These two acts are identical, but only one thief would be punished based on moral judgement, which is subjective and therefore should not be used to moderate the community. This would also enable corruption, as ethicality in law would turn the focus away from the roots of the problems in society, because people would see the legalisation of stealing due to hunger as a solution for famine, therefore lessening the efforts to make food-shortages a less consequential issue. But this isn’t an excuse to be unethical, lawmakers should still work to deliver equality to all, and laws should be promulgated to ensure a high quality of living all around.
Comentários