You can break the law and not do anything wrong. This is what happens when universities stop offering ethics in their courses
this post was submitted on 23 Dec 2024
144 points (98.0% liked)
Overseas News
503 readers
8 users here now
A place for Australians and friends to share news from the other countries. Like all communities here, we discuss topics from the Australian perspective.
If you're looking for a global /c/worldnews instead, search for the many options on federated instances.
Rules
- Follow the aussie.zone rules
- We are not a generic World News clone. News must be relevant to Australians and our region. Obvious disregard will earn an warning and then a ban if continued. (If an article isn't from an Oceanian news outlet, and it doesn’t mention Australia, then it’s probably off-topic)
- Leave seppocentrism at the door. If you don't know what that means, you're not ready to post here yet.
- Avoid editorialising headlines. Opinions go in the comments, not the post.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
You can break the law and not do anything wrong.
In fact, there are laws which most people would agree are wrong not to break. Legality and morality/ethics are not the same, not defined by the same peoples and if anything are growing more and more separate. You and I don't play any real part in designing the laws, they are not some liberal-democratic 'will of the people' as I've seen lots of people elsewhere saying. They are the dictatorship of the politicians, and more so, of the mega-wealthy class that own them.
This is what happens when universities stop offering ethics in their courses
If you want professionals to not give a shit about ethics, call one of the courses "Ethics in [career]". It has to be ingrained throughout education (let alone society). Universities are not the cause of this delusion, they're a small part at best of a greater problem.
It deepened on where you go, but we definitely still require Ethics as a gen-ed at a lot of schools. In fact, I teach it.
Speaking of which, this whole case made for some very good conversation toward the end of this last semester in that class. As it shook out, we were reading MLK’s Letter from Birmingham Jail that week.
There’s a bit in there that’s particularly relevant here:
“One may well ask: "How can you advocate breaking some laws and obeying others?" The answer lies in the fact that there are two types of laws: just and unjust. I would be the first to advocate obeying just laws. One has not only a legal but a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws. I would agree with St. Augustine that ‘an unjust law is no law at all.’
Now, what is the difference between the two? How does one determine whether a law is just or unjust? A just law is a man made code that squares with the moral law or the law of God. An unjust law is a code that is out of harmony with the moral law. To put it in the terms of St. Thomas Aquinas: An unjust law is a human law that is not rooted in eternal law and natural law. Any law that uplifts human personality is just. Any law that degrades human personality is unjust.”
For my money, the US healthcare system degrades human personality.
but we definitely still require Ethics as a gen-ed at a lot of schools. In fact, I teach it.
Are you talking about US high schools? This is an Australian community so it would be nice to have some context (or if possible, comparison) so we can better understand your perspective. My high school never touched philosophy or ethics in a formal manner, beyond a couple of mentions of academic concepts like plagiarism.
I mean US colleges.
My mistake on not noticing that this is an Australian community. I was sorting by new.
Edit for clarity: I teach at community colleges (think local, cheaper, and with a mix of trades and academic programs). The fancy schools require ethics classes too, but theirs are more “how do I justify myself?,” which is less ethics and more business wearing philosophy’s clothes.
I took Ethics to fulfill a social science requirement, but none of the schools I've gone to required it specifically.
How would you describe the difference between just and unjust without a reliance on a higher power, andcalso accounting for the fact that 'what is moral', while often similar across the world, isn't always the same.
In other words, would you have an interpretation of the same concepts, but able to be applied more universally?
That’s a great question. MLK is absolutely appealing to a higher power in this letter, which you’re picking up on. Pretty much anything under the “natural law” perspective sort-of requires that belief. Some try to go without it, but it’s rare in this branch of philosophy.
I also think it’s notable that just about every “western” legal system in some way sits on the ideas of natural law ethics (either through Thomas and Augustine or Locke, etc… and there’s a lot of variation there. Thomas and Locke have very different ideas about property and individual good, for example). I think it’s important to wrestle with that, especially in our pluralistic societies that can’t impose a belief in said higher power.
But, back to your question. I’m not personally a natural law thinker, mostly because I chafe at the idea of law to begin with. It just doesn’t quite square with my more anarchist tendencies. So, I’m less interested in “just” and “unjust” and more in what makes something wholly “good.”
On that front, I borrow my definition of good from a guy named Ivan Illich: something is good when it is uniquely and incomparably appropriate in it’s given setting. This accounts for the situational nature of things, but also for the variance between cultures. There’s also more of a simplicity to asking if something is good then if it’s just. Justice can be hard to define, but goodness is pretty easy and obvious.
It’s rarely good to be hungry, thirsty, and tired, for example; so it’s good to give people food, water, and rest.
If I remember correctly, this definition of the good comes from a paper of his called “Needs.”
Thinking with something like the US healthcare system, we can ask if it’s good (that is, uniquely and incomparably appropriate) to receive lifesaving care. The answer there is an obvious yes.
If we ask if it’s just… then we find ourselves dealing with what people deserve, what can be afforded, and a million other ways of weaseling out of responsibility for doing the right thing.
Interesting. Is he going with the “you got the wrong guy” defence?
This is the normal way to begin a jury trial.
He's not admitting guilt, requiring the prosecutor to prove (beyond a reasonable doubt) to a jury that he's guilty of the charges.
If I understand correctly, NY has chosen to charge Murder 1 with a terrorism enhancement, which requires the state to prove claims about his mental state, intent, and motivation.
I assume that the defense is hoping to push for some sort of settlement latter in the pre-trial process, and/or to cast sufficient doubt over the specific elements of the charges brought
I mean, the police sculpted his eyebrows before extradition to make him present more like the assailant. He does not look like the same person, so of course he is. He seems like an innocent person who's had charges pinned on him for the appearance of a functioning justice system.
They did? Do you have a source for that?
Look at him when he was initially arrested and then in the PR orchestrated extradition photos.
My partner was listening to some online people that said he was given a good treatment by the jailhouse barber and that is why he has a better haircut and shave than the average perp but he was probably only in holding not full on jail so he might not have been where a inmate barber was available so it could have been done by the state to make him look more put together and menacing to his "terror" targets.
Just base on the first pictures they shared, they did get the wrong guy.
Well it can’t have been him because he was getting drunk in Canada with me at the time of the shooting, obviously.
This is requirement in US Court system to even have a trial. If you admit guilt, they skip right to sentencing
Wait... Is this not a requirement elsewhere?
There are reasons why someone might admit guilt when they didnt do it. A fall guy for the mafia, for example. In that case an honest court system might want a trial to uncover the truth, rather than just lock up the patsy.
Ah.
It seems like the court system you describe is considered an investigative body.
Under the US system, the investigation proceeds independent of the courts. The fall guy pleading guilty doesn't stop the investigation.
Ah ok. Didn’t know this. Thanks.
Probably the “I’m not guilty of this exact crime” defense. The burden of proof for murder 1, let alone terrorism, is a lot higher than murder 2.
In effect he’s saying “I may have murdered him, but I didn’t murder 1 him.”
At least if I’m understanding Legal Eagle correctly.
I think pleading guilty skips the jury trial entirely.
He's going with the "Go ahead and make me a martyr; I fucking dare you" defense.