RE: FW: More ethics... (long, of course)

["Douglas S. Bailey (AL)" <dbailey -at- commandalkon -dot- com>]

> Any congruence between ethics and modern law is entirely
> accidental.

I'm not convinced of this.

> It is possible to behave ethically without worrying
> about adherence to laws.

That's a given.

> It is not possible to behave ethically while adhering to all laws.

So law-abiding citizens are unethical?  Please cite some examples, this is a
hard swallow.

> If the light facing you is red, you stop. Yes?
> Fine.  You wait 'til it turns green, and you go. Yes?
> At what point do you take the law into your own hands
> and decide that the damn light is broken and you can
> go on your way?

You don't.  Period.  If you wait an hour before running it, are you going to
fight a policeman if he tries to issue you a ticket?

> If you equate law with ethics, then you are either an evil
> law breaker, or a doofus stuck at the light forever (sorta
> like being trapped on a stalled escalator...). Neither

A doofus?  Not necessarily.  You can always make a right turn, a U-turn, and
another right-turn.  Or barring that, make a U-turn and find another route.
Or any of the other options available.  It all hinges on your ratio of
creativity vs. hell-bent desire to let your emotions control you, instead of
vice versa.  Find a way to work *within* the law.  We're adults, it
shouldn't be that hard.

> Now let's look at red lights in general (well, red traffic lights,
> anyway).  I'll tell you right now that I think anyone who
> deliberately
> runs a red light (or a stop sign) should be taken out and shot.
> I contrast this with people who exceed posted speed limits.
> Either one is an infraction against a regulation, but only one
> of them is ethically, morally wrong.

You don't think it's unethical to break the law?  Or immoral?  I suppose if
you want to get anal retentively-technical it might not be, but you can't
get away from it being just plain _wrong_.

> After somebody gets mashed, phrases like, "thought it was clear"
> and "figured I could make it" are no tiniest excuse.

Neither is "I thought the red light was stuck."

> ONLY by the letter of the law. Again, if you equate law with ethics
> and morality, then your morality is defined by politicians

Regardless, it's not "OK" to ignore the law simply because your sense of
ethics or morals tell you to do so.  When law and ethics conflict, change
the law, don't just flat out break it.

That would be unethical.  *grin*

> I have confidence in my own ethical/moral rules because
> they are simple and universally applicable, and because I
> have thought them out. I certainly had help from other people,

I'm sure some serial criminals have the same confidence.

> >   It may be true that an item can be stolen without causing
> harm or damage
> >   to
> >   the owner, but lack of harm or damage doesn't render the
> act not a crime.
>
> All I hear from that statement is that somebody re-defined
> what "steal" means, and you fell for it, unquestionning.

"No harm, no foul?"  Not when it comes to law.  Not hardly.

Doug


^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

*** Deva(tm) Tools for Dreamweaver and Deva(tm) Search ***
Build Contents, Indexes, and Search for Web Sites and Help Systems
Available now at http://www.devahelp.com or info -at- devahelp -dot- com

A landmark hotel, one of America's most beautiful cities, and 
three and a half days of immersion in the state of the art:
IPCC 01, Oct. 24-27 in Santa Fe.  http://ieeepcs.org/2001/

---
You are currently subscribed to techwr-l as: archive -at- raycomm -dot- com
To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-techwr-l-obscured -at- lists -dot- raycomm -dot- com
Send administrative questions to ejray -at- raycomm -dot- com -dot-  Visit 
http://www.raycomm.com/techwhirl/ for more resources and info.