As it seems to be clear that we are unable to create a “universal” ethical
and moral theory that will cover all our actions…
and we are left with the problem of, if this is true and we cannot
create a universal ethical/moral theory, that would suggest that
what we have and what all other societies have done is create
an “Ad hoc” theory of ethics and morality…rules/laws are created
and removed based on what the situation calls for…an “Ad hoc” theory
of ethics and morality is nothing more then Situational ethics…
the situation dictates what the rules are, not the other way, which
is we are driven by the rules and we base our behavior and actions based
upon the rules/laws…and if all ethics/morality is situational ethics,
then there is no possibility for a “universal” ethics/morality…
the interesting thing is that we create more loopholes and exceptions
the more serious the actions… hence we have more exceptions with
the act of murder then we do with stealing or the taking of property…
and that is because we value property more then human life…
the nihilism of our modern age is written directly into our legal system…
the nihilism that makes money and property more valuable then life…
our very values are inverted… property over lives…
this inversion prevents us from being able to even think about a “Universal”
ethical/moral system… if we rethink our values to be, life before property,
then perhaps we might, might be able to create a more complete system,
rather then the “Ad hoc” system we have today…
the problem with a “universal” ethical system is the number of exceptions
we are forced to create that will allow us to adapt to every situation…
I murder you… and I have several defenses I can use to avoid punishment…
I can claim to have acted in self defense, I can claim the Fl. law of “stand your ground”
I can claim to be temporarily insane, I can claim to have acted justly, I can try to
claim it wasn’t really murder, I can say someone else did it, if I were a policeman I
would more then likely to get off just because I was a policeman,
and I am sure if I had money I was far more likely to get off because I had money,
the poor are far more likely to get prison for the exact same crime a wealthy person did
in other words, I can get off for being wealthy… and I am far more likely to get off
by being white then by being a person of color…there are quite a few ways to
get off in committing a murder… shall shall not kill… unless…
how does one create a “universal” ethical/moral system given the amount of
exceptions one is given like in the case of murder?
IQ45 quite clearly committed treason in office, but he will escape his crimes
because of his title, President of the United States… so depending on the person
and the title, one can get away with treason…
our legal system is riddled with exceptions for acts committed… can we possible
even think about creating a “universal” ethical/moral system?
as I have noted earlier, that there is a disconnect between what is legal and
what is moral/ethical… as noted, slavery was legal, women being the property
of men was legal, Jim Crow laws were legal, the Holocaust was legal…
but do we consider any of these things to be moral/ethical? nope…
and therein lies the second part of our problem, this divide between
what is legally acceptable and what is morally acceptable… the legal
and the moral/ethical seems to exists in vastly different places…
What Antigone did was was morally right but was legally wrong…
and quite often we are faced with that problem of being morally right
and legally wrong…to shoot someone was was serial rapist and who
raped my mother is legally wrong, but many might consider it to be morally right…
justice is served… but that leads us to this point… to say justice is served
would suggest that justice is about equality, and justice by definition is
about equality… to be just is to be equal… but the question also suggests
that we are unclear about several concepts here… justice, morality/ethics,
legal… is justice the same as the legal? is the legal the same as being moral/ethical?
is morality/ethical the same as justice?
we often use them interchangeable, justice, moral, legal… but are they the
same thing?
Legal: of based on, concerned with the law… permitted by law…
Justice: noun… the quality of being just; righteousness, equitableness,
or moral rightness: to uphold he justice of a cause. Rightfulness or lawfulness,
as of a claim or title; justness of ground or reason: to complain with justice.
the moral principle determining just conduct…
Moral: concerned with the principles of right and wrong behavior and the
goodness or badness of human character: concerned with or derived from
the code of interpersonal behavior that is considered right or acceptable in a
particular society…examining he nature of ethics and the foundations
of good and bad character and conduct…
so the three things we tend to tie together, are really three distinct
and separate concepts…
so is it possible that we change our understanding of the ethical/moral
depending on what particular word we are thinking about, be it moral/ethical,
be it legal, or be it justice…we run into trouble because we are so
cavalier about what we are talking about… are we talking about justice
or are we talking about the legal or are we talking about morality/ethics?
if we are talking about, for example, Justice, then we can state that
justice is about the equal treatment of people regardless of their money,
race, titles, fame… so that would mean we treat everyone in the Judicial
system with justice or equality…or does that mean we no longer make
exceptions for actions done? everyone is treated the same regardless of
their place within society… that would be considered justice… but is
that the moral/ethical thing to do? because should we treat a man who steals
to feed his family and another man who steals for the fun/thrill of it, should
we treat them equally? Justice would demand that we treat them
equally but morally/ethical I don’t see how we can treat them the
same…one man is acting from necessity, from need and the other man
is acting to gain a thrill… how is that equal?
and Judges are constrained by the law to give both men equal “treatment”
and yet we know, know that depending on either man’s wealth or the color
of his skin or his title, one man will escape punishment and the other
sent to jail for years and we can guess which one will be punished
and which one will be set free or given a slap on the wrist…
so is that moral/ethical? and quite often depending on the exact crime committed,
a man who steals will get greater time in jail then a man who kills because
of their wealth, color, status, titles… and once again, is that moral/ethical
or even just? Justice requires equality of punishment or equal treatment
under the law…
I don’t see any way to work out our problem until we have clearly
worked out what is justice, worked out what is moral/ethical
and worked out what is legal?
the three seem to conflict with each other in a very basic way…
and we cannot make any headway into what is moral/ethical
and what is legal and what is justice until we examine all three…
Kropotkin