Ethics In Law

Ethical Theory

Ethics in law

Ethical theory: Utilitarianism, deontology, and the Golden Rule

To some extent, to define what is not 'ethics' is easier to define than what is 'ethics.' Ethics are not based in personal feelings, given that it can be emotionally difficult at times to hurt people's feelings even though it is the ethical thing to do. The law may not be strictly ethical (such as when a guilty man must go free because of legal technicality, to uphold the sanctity of the law). Cultural norms may also be unethical; religion and science may provide guidance but piety does not always mean that one automatically makes ethical choices. Science is descriptive and often amoral in its categorizations of behavior (such as the 'survival of the fittest.')

Given the challenges of defining ethical behavior, a variety of different contradictory perspectives have emerged that attempt to provide moral instruction for ethical actors. One of these perspectives is that of utilitarianism, or the idea that the consequences (the greatest good for the greatest number of individuals) should determine one's ethical orientation (Velasquez et al. 2009). A good example of this is during wartime when a preemptive strike is undertaken to save lives in the long run. Although few would argue that killing people is ethical in the abstract, from a utilitarian perspective, fewer people may be killed in the long run if certain aggressive actions are undertaken. Of course, one problem with the utilitarian approach is the question of which individuals make up the 'majority' the action is supposed to benefit and the fact that immoral actions can theoretically be justified based upon their good consequences.

In contrast, a deontological approach, along the lines of the philosophy of Immanuel Kant, suggests that certain principles are so inviolate they can never be transgressed, based upon projected consequences. It is impossible to know, said Kant, what the consequences of ethical actions may be, thus it is best to act according to moral principles and evaluate ethical actions based upon intentionality rather than upon expected results that may not transpire. Deontology is problematic given that it can result in rules being inflexibility followed to the point that logical consequences are utterly ignored. Also, different societies have different rules that they regard as important, which make it difficult to transport those rules cross-culturally. Even within our own culture, our ethical rules have changed drastically over the course of history.

Confucian ethics (otherwise known as the Golden Rule) suggests that good ethics flows from being a good person. Cultivating a good character leads a person to behave in a righteous manner, according to the principle of 'do undo others as you would have done unto you.' This is how most individuals likely comport themselves in 'the real world,' rather than applying an ethical utilitarian calculus to decisions or inflexible rules. Confucianism in its original form was a complex system outlining the different relationships and obligations individuals had to one another within a specific social system. Fundamentally, Confucianism means cultivating a sound moral character, which results in a correct sense of duty. Rather than inflexible rules, ethical relationships are relative, and based upon the position of the two moral actors. What is moral behavior for a father in disciplining a child may not be the same as the moral behavior expected of the child.

It is virtually impossible to predict every situation an ethical actor may find him or herself confronting or to devise rules that are transcendent across all situations and relationships. Given this challenge, following the 'Golden Rule,' or trying to be a virtuous person at all times seems more reasonable. One does not necessarily have to subscribe the hierarchical system prescribed by Confucius to believe in the concept of 'the Golden Rule' and the belief that a moral character is the primary determinant of moral agency.

When I am making a moral decision, I try to 'put myself in the other person's shoes' and ask myself how the affected person would see the world. However, I also acknowledge there are different perspectives than my own, and agree with Confucius that the ethical responsibilities of an older person to a child may be different than the child's obligations to an adult. This sense of relativism underlines the lack of absolutes when making moral decision. Even under the law, children are treated different than adults, and depending upon your relationships with others you may have different ethical responsibilities. A policeman is supposed to place the safety of the public above his own personal safety unlike an ordinary citizen; members of the public are supposed to extend added deference to the police, when dealing with the law on an everyday basis.