Widgetized Section

Go to Admin » Appearance » Widgets » and move Gabfire Widget: Social into that MastheadOverlay zone

A nation of laws … instead of ethics

By
June 1, 2008

Often you will hear that we are a nation of laws, spoken as a matter of pride. But the truth is we are a nation of laws as a substitute for being a nation of people who live by an ethical standard. The prevailing attitude is that it is up to law enforcement to keep us in line. And if we aren’t caught it must not be wrong.

I have been planning to write about the exploding number of laws on the books. I was struck by some new California laws – as of July 1 it will be illegal to talk on a telephone in your vehicle without a hands-free device. It is a proposed solution to a real problem – careless people preoccupied with their cell phone telephone call rather than paying attention to driving. In my home town it is illegal to de-claw a cat. Sensible if you think of it from the cat’s point of view.

It seems to me we have way too many laws. We have hundreds of thousands of laws most of which one never knows exist. Many of those we do know about we ignore or obey only when we think we may be caught by law enforcement.

So many laws attempt to put the police power behind one set of moralities or another. Some are purely religious, many are subtle forms of racial, ethnic and sexual prejudice. Many are simply a way to favor one economic interest over another.

But why do we need to have a law telling us we cannot smoke in a restaurant? Is it not abundantly clear that it is rude and an assault on the lungs of everyone within range of smoke? Why is that not a sufficient basis for holding off until out of range of those not smoking? Why do we need to have a law that says one cannot ignore the task of driving to focus on that all important story about who is doing what to whom?

Why? Because we have abdicated the responsibility of living by the golden rule, by any ethical standard at all. We remain children until our death because we wait for someone to tell us not to do something before we take into consideration the consequences of our actions. Self centered as no people have ever been in history as far as I can tell, we are the eternal child evading the parental government in a game of hide and seek. We cut corners, we tell ‘white lies”, we evade those laws we feel inconvenient or that were probably intended for other people to follow, but certainly not ourselves.

In other times religion took on the role of regulating our conduct. People report that they still attend religious services, but the impact seems to wear off as soon as they leave the building. Nothing has taken the place of the threat of eternal damnation to moderate our behavior so we turn to the law as a substitute. It doesn’t work.

I don’t have an answer for this breakdown. Most of those reading this already have adopted and do a reasonable job of acting according to an ethical imperative that is responsible and takes others into account. But it does not seem that the population at large have this concept.

It seems to me one of the harmful impacts of the “love generation” was further breaking down the hold of conventional power centers such as religion, politics and “authorities” in general. “Do your thing” was heard as a call to simply do whatever idiotic idea popped into your head – like driving while texting someone, shaving or putting on makeup.

That was not the real intent, but if you are prone to look for a justification for being self-centered, anything will do. It would be great if at least a few of the most prominent leaders of politics, religion, commerce and culture both grasped the concept and encouraged others to do the same. Some have. Most have not.

23 Responses to A nation of laws … instead of ethics

  1. Thomas Bonsell

    June 2, 2008 at 5:12 pm

    Laws are not created to make us nice little boys and girls; they aren’t intended to change our behavior or tell us how to live our lives or to define ethical behavior.

    The sole function of laws is to give government or a department of government the power and authority to punish people for their behavior or actions. There is no requirement for us to obey the laws other than our desire not to be punished.

  2. michaellgooch

    June 2, 2008 at 6:35 pm

    Organizations such as XXX, have negative results because the people on board cannot tell the difference between right and wrong. Due to scope, these consequences usually take longer to materialize, but is the result the same? You can find a ton of articles and books about business ethics about businesses “losing their way,” e.g., WorldCom, Tyco, Enron. You can also sign up for seminars where they preach to “do the right thing.” They paint the world in stark black and white. These resources ask one-dimensional ethical questions, such as, “Should you take kickbacks from suppliers?” For me, ethics in the workplace is varying shades of gray. You have to rely on moral law, that is, does it ‘feel’ wrong? It’s easy to say, “There is right, and there is wrong.” In my management book, Wingtips with Spurs, I address these issue in detail. All major corporations have their written code of conduct. Each one is pretty much just a copy of the others and is a major dust bunny. The next time you walk into someone’s office, ask to see the company code of conduct. Good luck on finding someone who will produce it within five minutes. The moral law is much easier to find and digest. It resides in each of us. Michael L. Gooch, SPHR http://www.michaellgooch.com

  3. Flapsaddle

    June 3, 2008 at 3:51 am

    The Confucian system of values prevalent in imperial China made no distinction between ethics and government. Social harmony, the goal of all levels of that venerable culture, was obtained not by a mass of laws but by placing men of high ethical standards in public office. The properly trained functionary applied his best judgement – not necessarily a codified law, and perhaps even in contravention of it – to assure harmonious resolution of problems and a continuation of the placidity of the system. You can get a bit of that feeling in those lines from Gilbert and Sullivan’s The Mikado, where the judge declares that “…the object of justice, all-sublime/ is to make the punishment fit the crime!”

    In Western culture we have now generally divorced law from morality and ethics. Law is now little more than a codification of what one can or cannot do and often has absolutely no basis in any construct of morality or ethical behavior. Morality and ethics remain the construct of what one should or should not do in a particular set of circumstances. Consequently, we are often confronted with the dilemma of having perfectly legal actions that may very well be immoral/unethical, or with a perfectly moral or ethical action that may very well be illegal.

    However there are occasions when the can/cannot of the law and the should/should not of the ethical constitute a vector sum that is positive, and as a case in point – quite the contrary to an erroneous assertion made above – the Texas courts upheld both a legal and a moral principle in ordering the release of the children seized at the FLDS compound. As a matter purely of law, the Texas Supreme Court, concurring with an appellate court decision, ruled that the state had not made a case for the children being in imminent danger and, therefore, their seizure by CPS was not justified; they cannot do that! As a matter of morality and ethics, the principles that the state may not arbitrarily deprive us of liberty, and that our consciences may not be criminalized simply because there are those who do not like our beliefs and practices; they should do that!

    I’ll not repeat the cases already ably illustrated by others where the vector sum was in the negative.

    Most sincerely,

    T. J. Flapsaddle

  4. pollchecker

    June 3, 2008 at 4:00 pm

    This is a PERFECT EXAMPLE of the problem.

    Mow your lawn… or risk jail time in Canton, Ohio

    Why not just mow everyone’s lawn in Canton and leave the law enforcement for more important tasks. If you figure out the cost to enact, and enforce stupid laws like this….in the end it would cheaper for the city to mow everyone’s yard itself.

    Give me a break!

  5. Ted Remington

    June 3, 2008 at 8:32 pm

    1. Why the hell should I, as a taxpayer, allow tax money to be spent to mow someone else’s lawn? That city spends a quarter of a million bucks a year to mow lawns of people who won’t, for whatever reason, do it themselves, and you are not outraged? Everyone says they want smaller, less intrusive government and here we have an advocate for creating another bureaucratic mess to collect taxes, hire contractors, worry about liability issues, etc.

    2. Is there any reason why we should allow my or your neignbors to run down property values because they are unwilling to take care of the houses in the neighborhood?

    3. I don’t favor the jail time, particularly, and I would probably vote instead for putting liens against property, and charging interest, so that eventually the tax dollars have a chance of coming back. But in an economy where house values are falling precipitously, the liens might not be satisfied. I don’t know what all is going on in Canton, but you have to remember that the city council answers pretty directly to the voters. One of the things that has always puzzled me is how much attention we pay to Federal elections when it’s the local ones that impact us the most. Most people I know cannot tell you the names of their county commissioners, the names of their city council members, or even the name of their mayor. These are the people who affect our lives on a daily basis, and most of them operate behind doors closed by our ignoring them. The doors may not be physically closed, but no one goes through them.

    Ted

  6. Phil Hoskins

    June 3, 2008 at 9:19 pm

    Ted, I don’t know about Canton, but in California where weed abatement is done for a property owner, the property owner ends up paying or loses their property.
    I know of no city that mows citizen’s lawns, but it might be a practical solution.

    I could be wrong, but my sense is the American people would like to hear some sensible, post-partisan ideas and then have a chance to discuss them like adults.

    Problem is we don’t seem to know how to get that to happen.

    Phil Hoskins

  7. pollchecker

    June 3, 2008 at 11:09 pm

    My point is that the cost of ATTEMPTING to enforce some silly law such as this (NOT enforcing, ATTEMPTING) PLUS the cost of prosecution and incarceration are most likely more $$ spent than the cost of paying someone minimum wage to cut all the grass.

    You can create jobs on the front end by paying some small business man to cut the grass or can create jobs on the back end incarcerating those who don’t.

    But you can not reallistically prosecute and incarcerate all that don’t cut the grass so then once again justice is about money spent and not justice. And then you wonder why people don’t respect the laws?

  8. bjiller

    June 4, 2008 at 1:13 pm

    Not a nation of laws.

    We aren’t even a nation of laws anymore. If we were, Bush and company would all have been impeached and/or on trial for violating statutes on torture, for outing Valerie Plame, for illegal warrantless spying, and for engaging in aggressive war.

    And isn’t it interesting that Bush’s greatest remaining support is from the evangelical “Christian” “values” voters. Religion and ethics don’t necessarily go together.

  9. Elmo

    June 1, 2008 at 8:56 am

    The puzzle known as the Prisoner’s Dilemma demonstrates that people will opt for a short-term gain to themselves even when they know that in the long term everyone will suffer.

    40 years after Hardin published “The Tragedy of the Commons” http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/162/3859/1243 we still keep looking for a technical solution to problems which can only be solved if people change their behavior.

    Sometimes there is a need for a form of social coercion. But it does seem that as a whole, this country is far better at regulating minutia than at finding solutions to big problems.

    Some people can see the big picture. Most people don’t even know there is a big picture.

  10. pollchecker

    June 1, 2008 at 9:02 am

    When there are so many laws, that they cannot be enforced, people lose respect for them.

    Why follow the law if there is no consequence? Right? As is the case of GW Bush.

  11. WWWexler

    June 1, 2008 at 12:00 pm

    I loved this on first read, will think about it, read it again, and comment. GREAT job, Phil.

    -Wexler

  12. Timr

    June 1, 2008 at 1:31 pm

    absolutely true. Being 58 years old, I have seen this expanding over the last 40 years. Remember the nation wide 55mph speed limit? How many people actually went 55? How about any speed limits, or for that matter obeying any traffic laws? If there is no punishment, there is no respect for that law, or laws in general. School kids learn to cheat by listening to their parents tell how they beat the IRS, or took office supplies, or broke traffic laws constantly. It is, as it always has been, up to the individual to decide whether they will live in an ethicial manner or not. Decisions have consequences.

  13. DejaVuAllOver

    June 1, 2008 at 2:23 pm

    Laws are, by definition, a society’s attempt at defining ethical behavior in black and white. Certainly this is an admirable concept. But Gandhi, Tolstoy and others have correctly pointed out that if people lived by the rules of the Sermon on the Mount, there would be no need for a legal system. They were also smart enough to know that people are not disciplined enough to do so, hence, our legal system.

  14. Sandra Price

    June 1, 2008 at 6:38 pm

    But, we have two levels of laws. The ones that effect us the most should be our state laws. Each state has its own constitution and some have more lenient laws than others. The blanket for all of us is the U.S. Constitution which is written to keep the government out of our lives. We have a problem when we elect Congress members to lead us into a Christian set of values and a President who runs on making laws against about half of the American people. No wonder we are confused.

    We might have to go back and take another look at what the Congress spends their time and money on when the U.S Supreme Court should knock it down. Our Governors are too lazy and unable to handle their problems within the states so they ask the Congress to solve them.

    All we can do is train the next generation to know right from wrong. Not legal or illegal as that is subject to change.

    This was unheard of when I was a kid in school. We elect the weakest of the weak in every possible position in D.C. and spend the time watching them unable to handle sexual training in our schools and drug use in our athetic teams; and on and on. They love it and are never asked about the abuse in our health plans and vet’s hospitals and are never asked about the legality of the war itself.

    Until we start taking control of our own lives, we will continue down the road to poverty with more jobs leaving our cities.

  15. pollchecker

    June 2, 2008 at 8:36 am

    I don’t want the stupid government telling me how to live my life. If they enact laws that I don’t like, I just will not follow them.

    That is the feeling of many people…hence no respect for laws.

  16. Ted Remington

    June 2, 2008 at 9:00 am

    Yeah, that’s what Ted Bundy said. The only difference between Bundy and someone who says that they will not follow laws they do not like is the degree of their sociopathy.

    Ted

  17. Sandra Price

    June 2, 2008 at 9:16 am

    Ted, that was not nice. Let’s look at this in a different vein. The glory of living in America is we have choices where we can live. Some states have no smoking laws, and I remember flying over Kansas where the stewardness could not serve liquor until we flew over another state. The state of Washington, anyone who wanted a drink in public had to join a private club. Look at Nevada where they have a county where prostitution is legal.

    When the Federal Government issues laws and Amendments that are unethical we must go to the public to put an initiative on the ballot to request a repeal to that Amendment. The problem today is that scammers are convincing Americans that the 16th has not been ratified and there hundreds of thess Americans are in federal prison. Two attempts were made to repeal it and the public said no.

    Texas refused to uphold their own State Laws when it came to the Mormon problem which may end up being an incestuous problem but for now it is allowing young children to breed and then going on welfare. This is a welfare abuse but Texas will let it pass. When the States refuse to follow their own laws, then the Bundy’s will continue to rape and kill when it suits them.

    We have local control but it means keeping aware of our judges from the cities, counties and state. When these problems hit the Federal Government America loses.

  18. pollchecker

    June 2, 2008 at 12:11 pm

    It is hypocritical for anyone to say they follow the laws. Let’s look at traffic laws for instance. People speed because they don’t like the set limit and are in a hurry or they slow down but don’t stop at that stop sign.

    Someone doesn’t like the drink and drive laws they drink and drive. And don’t get my started about the drug laws.

    Then we have murder like Mr Bundy who he refereneced. Why not reference OJ Simpson or Robert Blake or Phil Spector….alll murderers except they had the money to buy the best justice money could pay for. If these were regular people they would be fried long ago.

    What about the victimless crimes? Certain forms of gambling are permitted, others aren’t. Gambling is gambling. Perhaps that is why there are all types of ways to get around the laws and they do quite regularly.

    You can’t hire enough law enforcement officers to enforce all the laws. We have problems with sanitary conditions in salons and restaurants. People follow the law only when they think they will get caught and anyone who says otherwise might be a Republican (hahahahahahahahahaha).

  19. pollchecker

    June 2, 2008 at 11:32 am

    then by that ASSumption we have an entire society of sociopaths.

  20. Ted Remington

    June 2, 2008 at 12:39 pm

    PC:

    I must disagree. I have been driving for almost 50 years, during which time I have had one moving violation, issued on the 30th day of the month of June 1967 by a cop who admitted under cross-examination that he had not met his ticket quota for the month (He was a rookie and the police chief was not happy at the testimony, I found out later.) The infraction: Doing 28 in a 25 mile per hour zone. The judge threw it out.

    There ARE people who obey the laws, or at least the majority of the laws. Most of them, as a matter of fact, or it would be impossible to stay alive in our society.

    It’s part of my belief system to believe that the laws are there for the greater good and that for me to violate one knowingly is to make me little better than the worst. This is a standard I seek to instill in my children, the teaching of whom is one of my major obligations to the society in which I live.

    It is not hypocritical for someone to say they obey the law. Really!

    Ted

  21. pollchecker

    June 2, 2008 at 12:53 pm

    There ARE people who obey the laws, or at least the majority of the laws.

    .

    Thank you for illustrating my point. It’s no different than “a little bit pregnant” or “a half truth.”

    Ted Bundy was obviously a man who followed many laws or else he would have been caught a lot sooner. He just happened to break a law that some might consider a bit more serious than others. Who is to decide?

    A jury? Again, I repeat…look at OJ Simpson, Robert Blake, Phil Spector. It’s all bought justice with lots and lots of money. If Bundy had OJ’s money he probably would have gotten off as well.

    At this point, I think No more need be said.

  22. Sandra Price

    June 2, 2008 at 1:34 pm

    I’vre known Bobby Blake for 60 years and he is a bully but he is no killer. I may be the only one on the planet who thinks this way. He was born with a nasty temper but that does not make him a killer. The jury was given more information than the press.

    Actually, I have broken no Federal laws and like Ted, had one moving violation that I did not try to fight. It was the morning my grandmother died and I was smart enough to stay off the freeway and was caught speeding on the Sepulveda Pass. It was the last thing on my mind that morning and I simply paid the ticket. I’ve never lied in court, never stolen anything, kept my oath to my husband even when he did not. I’ve had some glorious love affairs in my past but show me a law that I broke. I have worked like hell to change laws. Those love affairs took me off Mother Teresa’s list. Damn!

  23. pollchecker

    June 2, 2008 at 1:48 pm

    I do not believe there are any saints or perfect people in this world.

    I believe this was about ethics and the question was I believe were there too many law and no ethics behind these laws.

    There are many ethical people who have broken laws of some kind in their lifetime whether for convenience or whether they disagree with the law. It makes no difference why. It is what it is. And what does it say to the community as a nation when our leaders lie and cheat and get away with it? Law? There’s no respect for laws. Hell, look what happens as soon as they think there is no law. Is New Orleans a recent enough example? once again my point has been made.

    PS — Whether someone is guilty or innocent is irrellevant. Robert Blake would NEVER have been found innocent WITHOUT the money. That is the point. A regular person without access to what he had access to would have been found guilty.

    We no longer live in a country where there is liberty and justice for all. We live in a country where there is liberty and justice for those who have money.

    As our POTUS might say….”LAWS? WHO NEEDS LAWS WHEN THEY HAVE MONEY?”