How might the the rule of law be helpful for developing ethics? Examples?

V

Villies

New member
Okay, the answer lies in the seperation/differenciation of definitions.

Here it is:

Ethics : common sense, reason, acting for the best of all concerned, "doing the right thing."

Ethics can be defined as : "Try to do onto others what you would want done onto you" and reversedly "try not to do onto others what you wouldn't want done onto you"

Law : Group agreements on group living, rules on the application of group ethics, rewards and penalties.

Law is written morals. Rules of thumb. Throughout its travail man saw that certain behavior was detrimental to others. He made agreements between each other as to prohibit and punish criminal or unethical actions, and to enforce other group agreeements (i.e. pay school tax)

Ethics, is doing the right thing. Ethics is the ability to reason. Ethics is the difference between savagery and civilization. Not laws, ethics.

The definition of ethics has shaded in history and people started to think in terms of law only. Law is still, great strides away from Ethics. Firstly, one cannot write a code that applies to every situations under the moon and sun. Second, morals are not always based on reason, laws are not always based on reason either. We can think of many laws that are completely unreasonable yet seem to be very active and some people abuse of them heartily. That's why Lawyers make alot of money.

Evidently, ethics is without code, scriptures or anything of the sort. It can only be defined by a graduated scale of right and wrong. Whether the given solution benefits all dynamics involved more than it destroys them.
For once you start writing a code of conduct, you are within the boundaries of morality and legislature.

Here is an obvious example. You squarely hit a burglar with some book weight and disfigure him. Lawyers would go nuts over the case, trying to find circumstancial information or laws applying to make his client, the criminal, "right". Or at least, "less wrong."

But you and me and any other can simply look at each other with square resolute and a glint in the eye: "Yes mate, good one, good one. Didn't miss him at all."
 
I'm confused on how one could possibly develop ethics from the "rule of law" & I have to write a paper about it by tomorrow.. any help that could possibly get me started would be greatly appreciated.
 
Okay, the answer lies in the seperation/differenciation of definitions.

Here it is:

Ethics : common sense, reason, acting for the best of all concerned, "doing the right thing."

Ethics can be defined as : "Try to do onto others what you would want done onto you" and reversedly "try not to do onto others what you wouldn't want done onto you"

Law : Group agreements on group living, rules on the application of group ethics, rewards and penalties.

Law is written morals. Rules of thumb. Throughout its travail man saw that certain behavior was detrimental to others. He made agreements between each other as to prohibit and punish criminal or unethical actions, and to enforce other group agreeements (i.e. pay school tax)

Ethics, is doing the right thing. Ethics is the ability to reason. Ethics is the difference between savagery and civilization. Not laws, ethics.

The definition of ethics has shaded in history and people started to think in terms of law only. Law is still, great strides away from Ethics. Firstly, one cannot write a code that applies to every situations under the moon and sun. Second, morals are not always based on reason, laws are not always based on reason either. We can think of many laws that are completely unreasonable yet seem to be very active and some people abuse of them heartily. That's why Lawyers make alot of money.

Evidently, ethics is without code, scriptures or anything of the sort. It can only be defined by a graduated scale of right and wrong. Whether the given solution benefits all dynamics involved more than it destroys them.
For once you start writing a code of conduct, you are within the boundaries of morality and legislature.

Here is an obvious example. You squarely hit a burglar with some book weight and disfigure him. Lawyers would go nuts over the case, trying to find circumstancial information or laws applying to make his client, the criminal, "right". Or at least, "less wrong."

But you and me and any other can simply look at each other with square resolute and a glint in the eye: "Yes mate, good one, good one. Didn't miss him at all."
 
Okay, the answer lies in the seperation/differenciation of definitions.

Here it is:

Ethics : common sense, reason, acting for the best of all concerned, "doing the right thing."

Ethics can be defined as : "Try to do onto others what you would want done onto you" and reversedly "try not to do onto others what you wouldn't want done onto you"

Law : Group agreements on group living, rules on the application of group ethics, rewards and penalties.

Law is written morals. Rules of thumb. Throughout its travail man saw that certain behavior was detrimental to others. He made agreements between each other as to prohibit and punish criminal or unethical actions, and to enforce other group agreeements (i.e. pay school tax)

Ethics, is doing the right thing. Ethics is the ability to reason. Ethics is the difference between savagery and civilization. Not laws, ethics.

The definition of ethics has shaded in history and people started to think in terms of law only. Law is still, great strides away from Ethics. Firstly, one cannot write a code that applies to every situations under the moon and sun. Second, morals are not always based on reason, laws are not always based on reason either. We can think of many laws that are completely unreasonable yet seem to be very active and some people abuse of them heartily. That's why Lawyers make alot of money.

Evidently, ethics is without code, scriptures or anything of the sort. It can only be defined by a graduated scale of right and wrong. Whether the given solution benefits all dynamics involved more than it destroys them.
For once you start writing a code of conduct, you are within the boundaries of morality and legislature.

Here is an obvious example. You squarely hit a burglar with some book weight and disfigure him. Lawyers would go nuts over the case, trying to find circumstancial information or laws applying to make his client, the criminal, "right". Or at least, "less wrong."

But you and me and any other can simply look at each other with square resolute and a glint in the eye: "Yes mate, good one, good one. Didn't miss him at all."
 
Okay, the answer lies in the seperation/differenciation of definitions.

Here it is:

Ethics : common sense, reason, acting for the best of all concerned, "doing the right thing."

Ethics can be defined as : "Try to do onto others what you would want done onto you" and reversedly "try not to do onto others what you wouldn't want done onto you"

Law : Group agreements on group living, rules on the application of group ethics, rewards and penalties.

Law is written morals. Rules of thumb. Throughout its travail man saw that certain behavior was detrimental to others. He made agreements between each other as to prohibit and punish criminal or unethical actions, and to enforce other group agreeements (i.e. pay school tax)

Ethics, is doing the right thing. Ethics is the ability to reason. Ethics is the difference between savagery and civilization. Not laws, ethics.

The definition of ethics has shaded in history and people started to think in terms of law only. Law is still, great strides away from Ethics. Firstly, one cannot write a code that applies to every situations under the moon and sun. Second, morals are not always based on reason, laws are not always based on reason either. We can think of many laws that are completely unreasonable yet seem to be very active and some people abuse of them heartily. That's why Lawyers make alot of money.

Evidently, ethics is without code, scriptures or anything of the sort. It can only be defined by a graduated scale of right and wrong. Whether the given solution benefits all dynamics involved more than it destroys them.
For once you start writing a code of conduct, you are within the boundaries of morality and legislature.

Here is an obvious example. You squarely hit a burglar with some book weight and disfigure him. Lawyers would go nuts over the case, trying to find circumstancial information or laws applying to make his client, the criminal, "right". Or at least, "less wrong."

But you and me and any other can simply look at each other with square resolute and a glint in the eye: "Yes mate, good one, good one. Didn't miss him at all."
 
Okay, the answer lies in the seperation/differenciation of definitions.

Here it is:

Ethics : common sense, reason, acting for the best of all concerned, "doing the right thing."

Ethics can be defined as : "Try to do onto others what you would want done onto you" and reversedly "try not to do onto others what you wouldn't want done onto you"

Law : Group agreements on group living, rules on the application of group ethics, rewards and penalties.

Law is written morals. Rules of thumb. Throughout its travail man saw that certain behavior was detrimental to others. He made agreements between each other as to prohibit and punish criminal or unethical actions, and to enforce other group agreeements (i.e. pay school tax)

Ethics, is doing the right thing. Ethics is the ability to reason. Ethics is the difference between savagery and civilization. Not laws, ethics.

The definition of ethics has shaded in history and people started to think in terms of law only. Law is still, great strides away from Ethics. Firstly, one cannot write a code that applies to every situations under the moon and sun. Second, morals are not always based on reason, laws are not always based on reason either. We can think of many laws that are completely unreasonable yet seem to be very active and some people abuse of them heartily. That's why Lawyers make alot of money.

Evidently, ethics is without code, scriptures or anything of the sort. It can only be defined by a graduated scale of right and wrong. Whether the given solution benefits all dynamics involved more than it destroys them.
For once you start writing a code of conduct, you are within the boundaries of morality and legislature.

Here is an obvious example. You squarely hit a burglar with some book weight and disfigure him. Lawyers would go nuts over the case, trying to find circumstancial information or laws applying to make his client, the criminal, "right". Or at least, "less wrong."

But you and me and any other can simply look at each other with square resolute and a glint in the eye: "Yes mate, good one, good one. Didn't miss him at all."
 
Okay, the answer lies in the seperation/differenciation of definitions.

Here it is:

Ethics : common sense, reason, acting for the best of all concerned, "doing the right thing."

Ethics can be defined as : "Try to do onto others what you would want done onto you" and reversedly "try not to do onto others what you wouldn't want done onto you"

Law : Group agreements on group living, rules on the application of group ethics, rewards and penalties.

Law is written morals. Rules of thumb. Throughout its travail man saw that certain behavior was detrimental to others. He made agreements between each other as to prohibit and punish criminal or unethical actions, and to enforce other group agreeements (i.e. pay school tax)

Ethics, is doing the right thing. Ethics is the ability to reason. Ethics is the difference between savagery and civilization. Not laws, ethics.

The definition of ethics has shaded in history and people started to think in terms of law only. Law is still, great strides away from Ethics. Firstly, one cannot write a code that applies to every situations under the moon and sun. Second, morals are not always based on reason, laws are not always based on reason either. We can think of many laws that are completely unreasonable yet seem to be very active and some people abuse of them heartily. That's why Lawyers make alot of money.

Evidently, ethics is without code, scriptures or anything of the sort. It can only be defined by a graduated scale of right and wrong. Whether the given solution benefits all dynamics involved more than it destroys them.
For once you start writing a code of conduct, you are within the boundaries of morality and legislature.

Here is an obvious example. You squarely hit a burglar with some book weight and disfigure him. Lawyers would go nuts over the case, trying to find circumstancial information or laws applying to make his client, the criminal, "right". Or at least, "less wrong."

But you and me and any other can simply look at each other with square resolute and a glint in the eye: "Yes mate, good one, good one. Didn't miss him at all."
 
Okay, the answer lies in the seperation/differenciation of definitions.

Here it is:

Ethics : common sense, reason, acting for the best of all concerned, "doing the right thing."

Ethics can be defined as : "Try to do onto others what you would want done onto you" and reversedly "try not to do onto others what you wouldn't want done onto you"

Law : Group agreements on group living, rules on the application of group ethics, rewards and penalties.

Law is written morals. Rules of thumb. Throughout its travail man saw that certain behavior was detrimental to others. He made agreements between each other as to prohibit and punish criminal or unethical actions, and to enforce other group agreeements (i.e. pay school tax)

Ethics, is doing the right thing. Ethics is the ability to reason. Ethics is the difference between savagery and civilization. Not laws, ethics.

The definition of ethics has shaded in history and people started to think in terms of law only. Law is still, great strides away from Ethics. Firstly, one cannot write a code that applies to every situations under the moon and sun. Second, morals are not always based on reason, laws are not always based on reason either. We can think of many laws that are completely unreasonable yet seem to be very active and some people abuse of them heartily. That's why Lawyers make alot of money.

Evidently, ethics is without code, scriptures or anything of the sort. It can only be defined by a graduated scale of right and wrong. Whether the given solution benefits all dynamics involved more than it destroys them.
For once you start writing a code of conduct, you are within the boundaries of morality and legislature.

Here is an obvious example. You squarely hit a burglar with some book weight and disfigure him. Lawyers would go nuts over the case, trying to find circumstancial information or laws applying to make his client, the criminal, "right". Or at least, "less wrong."

But you and me and any other can simply look at each other with square resolute and a glint in the eye: "Yes mate, good one, good one. Didn't miss him at all."
 
Back
Top