Reasoning about Right and Wrong How Is Ethics Expressed in Our Laws? Where Do You Stand?

CHAPTER 2 ETHICS AND OUR LAW Lessons 2-1 What Is Ethics? 2-2 2-3 Reasoning about Right and Wrong How Is Ethics Expressed in Our Laws? Achmed emigrated to the United States from Iraq. He claimed Iraq s government would persecute him if he stayed there. The U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) granted Achmed a temporary visa and began investigating his claim. The INS then denied his claim and revoked his visa. Achmed obtained a false ID to stay in the country. He told his employer, Julian, the whole story. Julian s lawyer told Julian he was legally obligated to inform the INS about Achmed. Julian believed that Achmed would be tortured if he returned to Iraq. Where Do You Stand? 1. Should Julian inform the INS of Achmed s whereabouts? If so, why? 2. What are the reasons in favor of Julian not informing the INS? 24 CHAPTER 2 ETHICS AND OUR LAW

Lesson 2-1 GOALS Define ethics Describe each element of the definition Define business ethics ETHICS DEFINED While working in the school office, Jane discovered a copy of the exam to be given in one of her classes. She thought she could take it home with little chance of being caught. In thinking about whether to take the test home, she considered how helpful an A on the test would be and how important grades are to her. After she stole the test she told a friend, It just felt so good to know that I wouldn t need to spend all that time studying to get an A. Has Jane made an ethical decision? Ethics is deciding what is right or wrong in a reasoned, impartial manner. Consider the three important elements in this definition: 1. decision about a right or wrong action 2. decision is reasoned 3. decision is impartial The following sections discuss each of these important elements. The lesson concludes with how we can apply the study of ethics to making ethical business decisions. Decision About a Right or Wrong Action Many of your decisions have little effect on other persons or yourself. For example, your decision to buy blue jeans with wide instead of narrow pant legs has no ethical component. On the other hand, your decision to discontinue medical support for an unconscious, terminally ill WHAT S YOUR VERDICT? relative is an intensely ethical decision. To involve ethics, a decision must affect you or others in some significant way. Reasoned Decisions We often act in response to our emotions. For example, after watching a movie, we recommend it to friends with such words as, It really made me feel good. Or when someone asks us why we made a particular comment, we respond, I don t really know, I just felt like it. What we mean is that our emotions guided these decisions. Our feelings directed our actions. But to make ethical decisions, we must usually base our decisions on reason, not on emotion. In What s Your Verdict? Jane made a decision based on emotion when she thought, it just felt so good.... Often people reason about right and wrong by referring to a written authority that provides consistency. The law is such an authority. So are WHAT IS ETHICS? CULTURAL DIVERSITY IN LAW International Ethics and Culture The term culture refers to a society s shared values, beliefs, and behaviors. Values reflect the goals a society considers important. Values also express the culture s ideas of how people should act, as well as ideas about what is good, right, and desirable. Culture expresses a society s ethics. Different cultures may have very different ethical systems. What is considered ethical behavior in one culture, may not be acceptable behavior in another. For example, in Islamic societies, women s activities outside the home are severely restricted. Compare this to the role of women in U.S. society today. Every society has a unique culture, which evolves and changes over time. Each culture develops a set of laws based on the ethical values expressed at the time. Laws evolve as the culture s sense of ethics evolve. religious texts such as the Torah, the Bible, and the Koran. For example, a person might reason, I believe that God is the source of the Bible and the Bible tells me not to lie. Therefore, it would be wrong, or unethical, for me to lie. 2-1 WHAT IS ETHICS? 25

violating it, by laughing at it, or by encouraging others to violate it, we injure many other people who depend upon the law for protection and fairness. Impartial Decisions Impartiality is the idea that the same ethical standards are applied to everyone. If it is wrong for you to engage in a certain action, then in the same circumstance it is also wrong for me. So, by definition, ethics does not value one person or group of persons more than any other does. Men are not more valuable than women. Caucasians are not entitled to more respect than people of other races. Each person is an individual and should receive equal respect and consideration from others. Impartiality requires that in making ethical decisions, we balance our self-interest with the interest of others. To do this, we must learn to recognize the interests of others. Sometimes this is difficult. Our selfinterest can cloud our perceptions and thus our ability to reason impartially. Suppose you lose control of your car while backing out of your driveway. The next thing you know, you have struck and damaged your neighbor s station wagon, which is parked on the street. No one has seen you do this. You can t decide if you should tell your neighbor what you did. You might think, I know my religion teaches me to tell the truth. But it would cost me more than $1,000 if I admit that I ran into Mrs. Anderson s vehicle. I can t afford that, but she can! So it must be okay to deny my beliefs in this situation. I m not going to tell her. If you come to this conclusion, you are not being impartial. Impartiality is particularly important when organizations and institutions rather than individuals are involved. When we think about Mrs. Anderson, our emotions help us understand that she is a person who is entitled to the same treatment as we are. But when an ethical decision involves an organization, self-interest can make people conclude that their actions will not injure other people. It was only the school s property, or It doesn t matter, it was just the insurance company that was cheated. In reality, behind all organizations there are many people, such as taxpayers, employees, and customers. They are injured when the organization is injured. Property taxes may go up or insurance rates may be raised. When dealing with institutions, being impartial means considering how the people behind the institution are affected by our actions. The law is an institution. It represents all the people in our country. When we injure the law, perhaps by IN THIS C A S E Gabe decided to walk to school instead of riding the bus because it was a nice day. On the way, he found a wallet containing $300 in cash and a driver s license. When he saw how much money there was, he felt elated. He could almost feel the fun he could have with it. Gabe also asked himself how much injury the loss of $300 might cause someone such as the owner of the wallet. At first he thought he would get much more pleasure from the money than anyone else could. In the end, he decided that he would want his wallet and money returned if he lost them, so he called the owner. When he returned the wallet the owner gave Gabe a $40 reward. Gabe s decision to walk to school did not have an ethical dimension to it because it didn t really affect anyone seriously. His decision about whether to return the wallet did have an ethical component. This decision would affect both Gabe and the owner of the wallet significantly. Business Ethics The reason you are learning about ethics in general is to prepare you to apply ethical concepts to business decision making. Business ethics are the ethical principles used in making business decisions. All too often, however, ethics are not considered when business decisions are made. The reason can be summarized in two words: profit maximization. The idea of profit maximization is supported by those who would move 26 CHAPTER 2 ETHICS AND OUR LAW

factories offshore and cut jobs and pay in order to reduce costs and produce greater short-term profits. However, such activities tend to do little more than line the pockets of the business owners. This enriching the few at the expense of the many occurs because our free-market economy is far from perfect. To move toward a more ethically motivated economy, the profit maximization ethic will need to be replaced by the more humane ethical standards presented in this chapter. THINK ABOUT LEGAL CONCEPTS Answer the following questions about legal concepts. 1. Which of the following is not an element of our definition of ethics? (a) making a decision that significantly affects you or others (b) making a decision based on reason rather than emotion (c) making a decision impartially (d) making a decision that places people above organizations 2. A decision has an ethical component when it will affect you or others significantly. True or False? 3. When you treat everyone affected by a decision equally, you are being?_. 4. When our self-interest is at stake, it becomes very difficult to be impartial. True or False? 5. Ethical decisions are usually based on emotions rather than reason. True or False? THINK CRITICALLY ABOUT EVIDENCE Study the following situations, answer the questions, then prepare arguments to support your answers. 6. Gil received a scholarship offer to go to a top-ranked private college. Because the scholarship would cover only half his expenses, his parents would need to contribute more money for him to go there than they would if he went to the state university. That would probably leave less money to support his sister who was a year younger. The private college is farther away and most of Gil s friends are going to the state university. Does Gil s decision about which college to attend affect other people? Does it affect any of them significantly? Can you rank the people affected based on how significant the decision may be for them? Is this an ethical decision? 7. Conner walked past the candy section in the grocery store and quickly stuffed a handful of Almond Joy candy bars into her purse. A store security guard saw her do it and she was arrested. Her parents came to the police station after her arrest to take her home. Did Conner s shoplifting significantly affect anyone? If so, who? Was Conner basing her conduct on emotion or reason? Was she treating herself and the other customers and stockholders of the store equally? 8. Bill was madly in love with Jennifer. He couldn t think about anything else. He daydreamed in his classes and was close to flunking out of school. Does Bill s daydreaming in class have an ethical component? Who is most affected by this? Is Bill letting reason or emotion determine his conduct? 9. Voters faced two proposals on the ballot. One would build a new football stadium. Another would build new prisons. There is only enough money available to do one. Are voters being asked to make an ethical decision? Who is affected? 10. As Juanita was trying to decide how to allocate her monthly paycheck, she thought of the many ways she could spend it. (1) She could treat herself to a makeover at the beauty salon because it would make her feel good. (2) She could repay money owed her sister because she would want to be repaid if anyone ever borrowed money from her. (3) She could get ahead on her monthly bills so she wouldn t worry so much. (4) She could enjoy the thrill of spending it all on lotto tickets. Which of these thoughts are reason-based and which are emotional reactions? 11. Mario was awarding end-of-year bonuses. As he looked over the list of employees, he rated each one based on how he felt about them. The political views of some of the employees affected his feelings. So did their physical attractiveness. Ultimately, Mario paid the bonuses in proportion to the employee s job performance. Which evidence suggests that Mario was not impartial? Which evidence suggests that he was impartial? 2-1 WHAT IS ETHICS? 27

Lesson 2-2 REASONING ABOUT RIGHT AND WRONG GOALS Reason based on consequences Reason using ethical rules BASIC FORMS OF ETHICAL REASONING Ethical reasoning about right and wrong takes two basic forms. One form is based on consequences. In this style of ethical reasoning, rightness or wrongness is based only on the results of the action. Particular acts have no ethical, or moral, character. An act that produces good consequences is good. An act that produces bad consequences is bad. The other form of moral reasoning is based on ethical rules. In this style of reasoning, acts are either right or wrong. For example, telling the truth is always right, and lying is always wrong. In rule-based ethics, good consequences do not justify wrong or bad acts. For example, in rule-based ethics, you cannot justify lying by showing that it produces good consequences. For almost all ethical decisions, these two forms of reasoning reach the same conclusion. In the decision of whether to lie or to tell the truth, for example, both forms usually conclude that one should not lie. Consequence-based reasoning recog- WHAT S YOUR VERDICT? Tab inherited his grandparents home. He built a garage for his car in the yard between his house and his neighbors property line. Later, when he decided to build a fence on the border, he discovered that the garage was too close to the property line. So, he built the fence one foot onto the neighbors property. Tab lived alone and three people lived on the neighboring property. How can Tab evaluate the ethical character of his action? nizes that lying usually produces bad consequences. Rule-based ethics says that lying is always wrong. Ethical Reasoning Based on Consequences Consequence-based reasoning first looks for alternative ways to alter the current situation. Then it attempts to forecast the consequences that will arise from each alternative. Finally, it evaluates those possible consequences to select the alternative that will generate the greatest good. These steps in consequential reasoning are described in the following paragraphs. DESCRIBE ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS First, alternative actions that would improve things should be described. Two of the many alternatives Tab might consider are (1) building the fence on the neighbors property without telling them, or (2) offering to buy a onefoot strip of the neighbors property. In order to decide what is the best action to take, he must describe his alternatives in order to then evaluate them. FORECAST CONSEQUENCES Second, the consequences flowing from each alternative must be described. This requires skill in predicting the future. It requires an ability to see things such as, If I build the fence one foot inside my neighbors property, they probably won t notice. Or, If they discover that the fence was built on their property, they will probably make me pay for the one-foot strip of property instead of making me tear it down. EVALUATE CONSEQUENCES Third, the consequences for each alternative must be evaluated. There are two elements to the evaluation process. These are 1. selecting the standard for judging consequences as right or wrong 2. counting the persons affected Philosophers usually call the standard for judging right or wrong The Good. The Good is the primary goal THE GOOD knowledge beauty goals justice love liberty power truth pleasure 28 CHAPTER 2 ETHICS AND OUR LAW

toward which human life should be directed. The Good involves alternative basic goals such as love, justice, truth, and pleasure. These goals all motivate a reasoning person s actions and important decisions. In What s Your Verdict? Tab must choose a goal with which to evaluate the alternative actions. Let s assume Tab chooses pleasure (from use of the land). In consequence-based reasoning, the standard is judged by the greatest good for the greatest number of people. Thus, for each alternative we must determine how many people will be positively and negatively affected. If Tab builds the fence on the neighbors land without their consent, only his pleasure is increased. The pleasure of his three neighbors is decreased. Tab receives the benefit while his three neighbors bear the cost. So this alternative is ethically wrong in reasoning based on consequences where the good is pleasure. To evaluate the consequences of buying the strip of land, we compare both the costs and the benefits for each person. For Tab, essentially the cost is the price paid for the land and the benefit is the ability to use the strip of land for his fence. For his neighbors, the cost is the loss of the land and the benefit is the money they receive for it. For the parties to agree voluntarily, Tab must prefer the land to the money and the neighbors must prefer the money to the land. If the sale can be voluntarily completed, four parties are positively benefited. Thus, in reasoning based on consequences where the good is pleasure, this alternative would be ethically good. Fundamental Ethical Rules With fundamental ethical rules, the acts themselves are judged as right or wrong. The standard for judging usually comes from one of two sources a recognized authority or human reasoning. DECISIONS BASED ON AUTHORITY An authority, such as the law or a religious text, can say that stealing is wrong. When an accepted authority has a rule on an issue, the rule tells the follower of that law or religion what is right and wrong. All religious authorities and all legal systems would condemn the act of building a fence on a neighbor s property without permission as a form of stealing. The act itself is basically wrong. In rule-based reasoning, the act is wrong even if it benefits more people than it injures. So building the fence on the neighbor s property without permission could not be justified by benefiting 10 people living on your property or by the neighbor being very rich. DECISIONS BASED ON REASONING In addition to an authority, human reasoning IN THIS C A S E Gerry was late for a job interview. The rural road she was driving down was not heavily traveled. The posted speed limit was 55 miles per hour. She reasoned that by speeding she could benefit both herself and the interviewer. Gerry would make a better impression by arriving on time and the interviewer would not have to waste time waiting for Gerry to arrive. So she sped up to 70 miles per hour. Gerry made an error in her ethical reasoning. She ignored some of the ways her actions affected other people. By speeding, she imposed a substantially greater risk of accident and injury on the other roadway users. Because she did not see this effect, she also failed to count some of the people affected by her decision. Also, she ignored the way her actions undermine respect for law. When these effects and people are counted, the action seems ethically wrong. also can show that some things are basically wrong. A test has been devised to determine whether an action is right or wrong. It involves picturing in your mind s eye everyone in the world doing the action. This is called universalizing the action. As you picture everyone doing the action, ask yourself, Is this irrational, illogical, or self-defeating? If it is any of the three, the action is inconsistent with reason and therefore ethically wrong. We can apply the test to lying by imagining a world where everyone lies. Such a world would be illogical. There would be no point in lying, because no one would believe anyone. Similarly, if we imagine a world where everyone takes her or his neighbor s land, there would be no point in taking the land because another neighbor would promptly take it away from you. These pictures help us see that the actions of lying and stealing are inconsistent with human reason. Accordingly, in rulebased ethical reasoning, they are basically wrong. Both authority and reasoning conclude that all human beings have dignity and worth. Religions usually say that humans are made in the image of God or of Allah and therefore must be treated with respect. Humans are unique because 2-2 REASONING ABOUT RIGHT AND WRONG 29

of their potential for reasoning about right and wrong. Both of these lines of argument lead to the conclusion that humans have moral rights. Moral rights are rightful claims on other people that flow from each person s status as a human being. THINK ABOUT LEGAL CONCEPTS Answer the following questions about legal concepts. 1. Reasoning based on consequences and rule-based reasoning usually reach the same conclusion about what is right or wrong. True or False? 2. The idea that acts have a basic moral character is a feature of which form of moral reasoning? (a) rule based reasoning (b) reasoning based on consequences 3. In reasoning based on consequences, we are required to count everyone affected and to consider all the major ways they are affected. True or False? 4. In reasoning based on consequences, we are required to consider multiple alternatives and select the best one. True or False? 5. In reasoning based on consequences, the standard used to evaluate alternatives is called?_. 6. In rule-based reasoning, acts or rules are wrong if they are inconsistent with human reason. True or False? THINK CRITICALLY ABOUT EVIDENCE Study the following situations, answer the questions, then prepare arguments to support your answers. 7. Susan was driving friends to a concert. It was 8 P.M. and the concert began at 8:30 P.M. Because her friends still needed to pick their tickets up at the will call window, they started pressuring her to drive faster than the speed limit. She refused and said, I just don t want to take a chance on getting a ticket. Is Susan using consequential reasoning or reasoning based on ethical rules here? Why? 8. In a trash basket she was emptying after school, Carol found a copy of the answer key for an exam she was scheduled to take the next day. Instead of using it, she returned it to the teacher, explaining how she found it. When the teacher asked why she did not use it to cheat. Carol said, I just think it is wrong to cheat. When I take tests I am telling the teacher how much I really know. If I cheated it would be a form of lying. I believe lying is wrong. I won t lie even if it might help me. Is Carol using reasoning based on consequences or ethical rules here? Why? 9. Rosanna was trying to decide whether to share part of her lunch with Sheila and Fran, who had forgotten theirs. She decided not to, saying, I just don t like Sheila, so I won t share with anyone. Has Rosanna made any errors in reasoning? If so, which errors? 10. Sharon knows about tax laws and how the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) audits tax returns. She knows a way to cheat on her tax return that would save her almost $2,000. She thinks her chance of being caught is about one in 100. Can this cheating be justified by reasoning based on ethical rules? Can it be justified by ethics based on consequences? 11. An ordinance of Walker County provided that all automobiles must pass a smog emissions test once a year. Ross was ticketed because his car had not been inspected and approved at an emissions testing center. Ross claimed to be a skilled mechanic who kept his car well tuned and cleaner than the law required. According to Ross, the law violated his natural rights. Explain why you agree or disagree with Ross. 12. Heather was trying to decide for herself about whether stealing could ever be justified. She thought about what the world would be like if the act of stealing were made universal. She saw that as soon as one person stole something, it would be immediately stolen from the thief. Is this universalized state more illogical because stealing has no purpose? Or is it self-defeating because eventually you would run out of things to steal? 30 CHAPTER 2 ETHICS AND OUR LAW

Lesson 2-3 HOW IS ETHICS EXPRESSED IN OUR LAWS? GOALS Explain how our laws reflect ethics based on consequences and ethics based on reasoning Discuss why we are obligated to obey laws OUR LAWS REFLECT ETHICS BASED ON CONSEQUENCES In our country, the people directly or indirectly determine the laws that bind them. They do this by electing representatives to lawmaking bodies, such as city councils, state legislatures, and the Congress of the United States. In these elections and in the legislative bodies, majority rule prevails. The elected representatives must vote for laws acceptable to the majority of people they represent if WHAT S YOUR VERDICT? In a coastal city of California, residents often could not sleep because people would drive late at night with their car windows down and their stereos playing full blast. On weekends and holidays, people put large home stereos in the back of their pickup trucks and played them as loud as possible. In response, the city council enacted a law making it illegal to generate noise in public above a certain decibel level. Is there an ethical justification for this law? OUR LAWS REFLECT RULE-BASED ETHICS they expect to be reelected. Because this system is grounded on majority rule, it uses many of the features of consequences-based ethics. In this system, laws are judged to be right or good when they affect the majority of the people positively. Laws are judged to be wrong when they affect the majority negatively. The Constitution of the United States seeks to ensure that our federal WHAT S YOUR VERDICT? Almost everyone in a small community belonged to the same church. When members of a different denomination were considering buying land to erect a church, the city conducted a referendum (a direct vote by all the citizens on a proposed law). The referendum was on a zoning law that made it illegal to use any land in the city for any purpose other than residential housing. The law was enacted by majority vote. The effect of the law was to prohibit the construction of the proposed church in that city. Is such a law ethically justified? Is such a law legal? lawmaking system reflects the desires of our citizens. It does this by creating a national legislature composed of two bodies the House of Representatives and the Senate. Together, these bodies are called Congress. The Constitution provides for the election of the members of Congress by the citizenry. States have similar legislative structures. This legislative structure promotes ethical reasoning based on consequences. (You will learn more about the U.S. Constitution and legislature in Chapter 3 of this book.) In What s Your Verdict? the members of the city council tried to determine what the majority of citizens wanted. Some wanted the pleasure of playing their music loudly in public. But many more wanted the pleasure of a quiet community. So the law was passed in response to the majority will. It is justified by ethics based on consequences. It produces the greatest good for the greatest number. Clearly, this law restricts the conduct of those who want to play loud music. But does it violate their moral rights? No. Freedom to play loud music in public is not essential for the maintenance of human dignity. Therefore, it is not a right. W hile most laws reflect the desires of the people governed, the laws desired by the majority sometimes conflict with moral rights. Stated another way, the majority may sometimes benefit from unjust laws. For example, the wealth of the majority of persons in a country might increase if it were to enslave a small percentage of the population. These people could be forced to work for free. Then the benefits of their free labor could be 2-3 HOW IS ETHICS EXPRESSED IN OUR LAWS? 31

Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution declares: No person shall be... deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law. The United States of America is a country that recognizes and supports human rights. Other countries vary dramatically in the extent to which they do so. Civil rights (or civil liberties) generally are personal, human rights recognized and guaranteed by our Constitution. Among the civil rights recognized are freedom of religion, speech, and the press; freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures; the right to a speedy and impartial trial; the right to vote; and a host of others. You will learn more about our civil rights in Chapter 3. The courts usually protect human rights. When the people or legislatures pass laws that undermine human rights, they are usually declared unconstitutional. This means that a court finds the law invalid because it conflicts with a constitutional provision. In What s Your Verdict? the zoning law adopted by majority vote is invalid. It is unconstitutional because it undermines freedistributed to the majority. Historically, many countries adopted such laws. While these laws might benefit the majority, they violate the moral rights of the minority that is enslaved. The majority would be treating the minority in a manner inconsistent with their status as human beings. Under the U.S. Constitution, the courts would declare such laws invalid because they deny equal protection of the law to the minority. We use other concepts of natural rights to protect political minorities from exploitation by members of the political majority. For example, the R ESEARCH ABOUT LAW Search the Internet for state and federal laws and regulations that pertain to the unethical practice of intercepting private e-mails. dom of religion. Because courts perform the important duty of protecting natural rights, we sometimes try to insulate judges from the will of the majority. Many judges are appointed, rather than elected. Federal judges are appointed for life, so they are free from the influence of the populace and elected officials. This permits judges to protect human rights without risking their jobs. Our legal system primarily advances the will of the majority. It does this through the legislative process. But in this country we recognize that there are limits to majority rule. When the will of the majority conflicts with basic human rights, our legal system, particularly the judiciary, protects individual rights. Our Declaration of Independence recognized these fundamental rights when it stated: We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness. LAW and the INTERNET Ah, the joys of e-mail instant communication of thoughts. You feel it, you say it, you send it. But, if your message is perceived as a threat, you could be prosecuted and convicted for it. In the first conviction of an online hate crime, a 21-year-old Los Angeles man was found guilty in federal court. He sent death threats by e-mail to more than 50 Asian students. The case set a precedent, as it put Internet communications on equal legal ground with telephone calls and postal mail. It also addressed civil rights violations committed online (hate crimes in this case). The defense team argued this was a stupid prank and that so-called flames or abusive messages are commonplace with Internet culture and discussion groups. The jury thought otherwise and took the threats seriously. At first the Net was considered to be a fantasy land where users could be anonymous. This case shows that the legal system will not treat the Net differently from other forms of communication. 32 CHAPTER 2 ETHICS AND OUR LAW

OTHER ETHICAL GOALS REFLECTED IN OUR LAWS Often, matters simply need a consistent rule to assure order and predictability. The rule need not be based on majority rule or on moral rights. Sometimes this means that the rule or law is arbitrary. For example, teachers are required to award grades on exams and for courses. Assume WHAT S YOUR VERDICT? Smyth was stopped for suspicion of drunk driving. The breathalyzer tests showed a blood alcohol level of 0.079 percent. State law defines drunkenness at 0.080 percent, so Smyth was not charged. Brown was stopped ten minutes later at the same location. Her test showed 0.081 percent blood level and she was arrested, tried, and found guilty. Her driver s license was revoked for one year. Is there any ethical justification for treating Smyth and Brown so differently? that the cutoff point between an A and a B is a 90-percent average. A student who has an 89-percent average and therefore receives a B may argue that the grade is unfair because it is arbitrary. After all, the student who receives an A for a 90-percent average has not done substantially WHY ARE WE OBLIGATED TO OBEY LAWS? During December vacation, Clementine worked part-time as a sales clerk in the jewelry department of a large department store. There was a watch that she wanted very much but could not afford. It was a busy time of the year and there were many opportunities for her to put a watch in her purse without being detected. She was convinced that the store management had not treated her fairly in the past. Should Clementine take the watch if she thinks there is no chance of being caught? We are obligated to obey the law because ethical reasoning demands it, because we have agreed to obey it, and because by obeying it we avoid punishment. Ethics Demands That We Obey Both ethics based on consequences and ethical rules conclude that we are obligated to obey the law. According to consequences-based reasoning, when the law is violated, WHAT S YOUR VERDICT? better work. Yet the letter grades indicate a substantial difference. If the grade for the student with an 89-percent average is changed to an A, then the argument for the student with the 88-percent average must be addressed and resolved the same way. In the end, everyone would receive the same grade. A clear rule is needed, and it is perhaps more important that the rule exist than it is that the rule be completely fair. To be just, such rules of law must be communicated in advance and they must be applied consistently. In What s Your Verdict? the law is clear and has been communicated to all drivers. Therefore it is just to treat Smyth and Brown differently. many more people are injured than are benefited. With rule-based reasoning, if we say that we have agreed to obey the law but violate it, we are breaking our promise. If we universalize promise breaking imagining that everyone always breaks promises there would be no point to promising. In this universalized state, promise breaking is illogical or pointless and thus wrong. People who embrace formal religious principles (for example, Buddhists, Christians, Hindus, Jews, and Muslims) are taught to live in a manner that helps others. Hence, many religious people feel particularly obligated to obey the law in order to help others. We Consent to Be Governed by Laws Socrates was a philosopher who lived in Athens, Greece, from 470 399 B.C. He believed that he had promised to be governed by the laws of Athens. He expressed this promise by living in Athens and accepting the benefits of that society. Socrates believed that he should leave Athens, or not accept the benefits that it conferred on citizens, if he was not willing to obey all of its laws. Through this type of reasoning, Socrates concluded that it would be ethically wrong for him to violate the law of Athens. Socrates was charged with a crime and unjustly sentenced to death. When given the opportunity 2-3 HOW IS ETHICS EXPRESSED IN OUR LAWS? 33

to escape, he declined, saying that to do so would be inconsistent with his moral beliefs. As a result, he was executed. Socrates is widely regarded as a person of great integrity. Integrity is the capacity to do what is right even in the face of temptation or pressure to do otherwise. By giving up his life for his ethical beliefs, Socrates displayed the highest degree of integrity. In What s Your Verdict? Clementine should not take the watch. She is required to obey the law because she has accepted the benefits of the society that made the law. Free schooling is one benefit this society has provided Clementine. Other benefits include police protection, safe roads, social security, and protection from foreign enemies in times of war. By accepting the benefits Clementine has demonstrated her consent to be governed by the law. We Want to Avoid Punishment Some people comply with the law primarily to avoid punishment. A person convicted of a crime may be fined, jailed, or, in some instances, put to death. While these penalties are widely known, there are many less well known penalties imposed on criminals. For instance, those convicted of serious crimes may be barred from jobs that require a security clearance. In many companies and governmental agencies, a security clearance is required for every employee. Also, some industries automatically exclude persons with criminal records from employment consideration. Banks, savings and loan associations, credit unions, and finance companies are but a few examples. Employers often purchase fidelity bonds for persons who handle large sums of money, such as cashiers, managers of movie theaters, or supervisors of restaurants. A fidelity bond is an insurance policy that pays the employer money in the case of theft by employees. Generally, those con- victed of a serious crime cannot qualify for a fidelity bond. Also, many professions are closed to those who are convicted of serious crimes. For example, before being licensed, prospective lawyers, public accountants, and medical doctors are subject to a background check, which includes a check for criminal convictions. In What s Your Verdict? if Clementine is caught and convicted, her biggest penalty could be the one she would pay outside the judicial system. This penalty is the probable loss of many future job opportunities and her lasting embarrassment. ARE WE EVER JUSTIFIED IN VIOLATING THE LAW? WHAT S YOUR VERDICT? In the early 1960s, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., wanted to lead a march into Birmingham, Alabama, to protest racial segregation in that city. When he applied for a parade permit, his request was denied. Dr. King, knowing that his conduct was illegal, led the nonviolent march anyway. He was at the front of the line and allowed himself to be arrested, although he could have easily escaped. He went to jail. Community leaders were highly critical of Dr. King because he had violated the law. In response and while in jail, he wrote a famous letter attacking segregation laws as inconsistent with consequential and rule based ethical reasoning. Is there an ethical justification for Dr. King s violation of the law? Some persons care passionately about human rights and justice. Their concern for justice sometimes compels them to violate what they consider to be an unjust law a law they believe to be in conflict with ethical reasoning. They violate the law by engaging in acts of civil disobedience. Civil disobedience is an open, peaceful, violation of a law to protest its alleged injustice. The goal of those who engage in civil disobedience is not to advance their selfinterest but rather to make the legal system more just. The participants may be willing, or even eager, to be arrested in order to test the validity of the law in court. In What s Your Verdict? Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., engaged in civil disobedience. Dr. King believed that civil disobedience is justified only in extremely limited circumstances. He and others conclude that civil disobedience is ethical only when a written law is in conflict with ethical reasoning no effective political methods are available to change the law the civil disobedience is nonviolent the civil disobedience does not advance one s immediate selfinterest the civil disobedience is public and one willingly accepts the punishment for violating the law As a result of Dr. King s efforts, many human rights were extended for the first time to several minority groups in this country. In contrast to Dr. King, some persons are mere scofflaws. These are persons who do not respect the law. They simply assess the risk of being caught against the benefits they obtain by breaking the law. They think they are smart because they frequently violate valid laws without being caught. A scofflaw is never ethically justified in violating the law. 34 CHAPTER 2 ETHICS AND OUR LAW

THINK ABOUT LEGAL CONCEPTS Answer the following questions about legal concepts. 1. Many laws are based on ethics. True or False? 2. Majority rule usually advances this type of ethical reasoning. (a) reasoning based on consequences (b) rule-based reasoning 3. Legal rights are most often associated with which type of ethical reasoning? (a) reasoning based on consequences (b) rulebased reasoning 4. Where are the laws with the greatest ethical rules content most often found? (a) in laws created by legislatures (b) in constitutions 5. Arbitrary rules or laws are necessary to make social systems work. True or False? 6. Civil disobedience involves which of the following? (a) violating the law (b) violating the law openly (c) violating the law openly and peacefully (d) violating the law openly, peacefully and accepting punishment for the violation (e) all of the above THINK CRITICALLY ABOUT EVIDENCE Study the following situations, answer the questions, then prepare arguments to support your answers. 7. If a legislature enacted a law that made it illegal to shout fire in a movie theater, what would be the dominant ethical character of the law, consequences-based or rule-based reasoning? 8. When Congress passed the Civil Rights Amendment of 1964 making it illegal for employers to discriminate on the basis of race, religion, sex, or national origin, it exempted itself from the law. Can this action be justified by consequence-based reasoning? Can it be justified by rule-based reasoning? 9. Assume a state legislature enacted legislation which budgeted more money to educating rich children than to educating poor children. Also assume that the majority of children are rich. Would the dominant ethical character of this law be consequences-based or rule-based reasoning? 10. Your friend believes that her employer, a local manufacturer, grossly underpays its employees and, in particular, her. To make up for this, she steals supplies and tools from the business and sells them to supplement her income. Is her illegal conduct ethically justified? Why or why not? What is her conduct s effect on the business? 11. In question 10 above, the business might raise its prices to compensate for the losses due to employee theft. If it does, what will be the likely effects on the business, its employees, and ultimately, the consumers of its products? With your rights as a citizen go individual responsibilities. Every American shares them. Only by fulfilling our duties are we able to maintain our rights. Your duties as a citizen include the following... PREVENT LEGAL DIFFICULTIES (Adapted from Law Day USA, American Bar Association) 1. The duty to obey the law. 2. The duty to respect the rights of others. 3. The duty to inform yourself on political issues. 4. The duty to vote in elections. 5. The duty to serve on juries if called. 6. The duty to serve and defend your country. 7. The duty to assist agencies of law enforcement. 2-3 HOW IS ETHICS EXPRESSED IN OUR LAWS? 35

CHAPTER IN REVIEW CONCEPTS IN BRIEF 1. Ethics applies when decisions affect people. 2. Ethical decisions must be grounded on reason and impartiality. 3. There are two basic forms of ethics: those based on consequences and those based on fundamental ethical rules. 4. Ethics based on consequences evaluates only the results or effects of acts. 5. The law tries to advance the goals of reflecting the will of those governed preserving natural rights maintaining order 6. Both consequential and rule-based ethics compel us to obey the law. 7. Integrity is doing what is right even in the face of temptation or pressure to do what is wrong. 8. We are obligated to obey the law because, by accepting society s benefits, we have consented to be bound by its laws. 9. We are obligated to obey the law if we believe in helping others. Civil disobedience is only justified in rare and extraordinary circumstances. 10. We should obey the law if we desire to avoid punishment. 11. Civil disobedience is the open, peaceful violation of a law to protest its alleged injustice or unfairness. YOUR LEGAL VOCABULARY Match each statement with the term that it best defines. Some terms may not be used. 1. Open, peaceful conduct in violation of an alleged unjust law 2. Ethics that evaluates the results of an action 3. Making decisions that treat everyone the same 4. A mental test to identify illogical actions 5. Ethical decisions that evaluate only the act and not its consequences 6. Doing what is right even under pressure to act otherwise 7. A person who does not respect the law 8. Determining what is right or wrong action in a reasoned, impartial manner 9. Insurance policy that pays the employer money in the case of theft by employees 10. Legitimate claims on other people, which flow from each person s status as a human being 11. Standard for judging right and wrong 12. Personal, human rights recognized and guaranteed by our Constitution business ethics civil disobedience civil rights consequence-based reasoning ethics fidelity bond fundamental ethical rules impartiality integrity majority rule moral rights scofflaw The Good universalizing 36 CHAPTER 2 ETHICS AND OUR LAW

13. Identify a situation in your life where someone used consequence-based ethical reasoning. 14. Identify a situation in your life where someone used rule-based ethical reasoning. REVIEW LEGAL CONCEPTS 15. Describe the three steps involved in making a decision using consequence-based ethics. 16. Explain the role of The Good in ethics based on consequences. 17. Use one to three words to identify a current event that others will quickly recognize. Next, write a paragraph evaluating someone s conduct in the current event using the ethics of reasoning based on consequences. 18. Use one to three words to identify a current event that others will quickly recognize. Next, write a paragraph evaluating someone s conduct in the current event using the ethics of rule-based reasoning. 19. Invent and write a scenario which raises an ethical issue. However, try to create a scenario where 22. Jan was trying to decide whom to vote for in an upcoming election. After reviewing the candidates, she said, I ve decided to vote for Gary because I just feel better about him. Is Jan s decision based on ethics? If not, why? 23. Crawford was caught shoplifting by a store detective. The police were called, and he was arrested. When his parents came to bail him out of jail, they asked him why he did it. Crawford responded that he had applied for a summer job at the store, but he was not hired. He thought he was treated unfairly, and this justified the shoplifting. What do you think of Crawford s justification? 24. Staub, Conly, and Winfield were employees of the Prime Time Restaurant. They were aware that the owner never checked the totals on the sales checks against the cash in the register. Therefore, it would be very easy to steal from the cash register. However, they did not steal. When asked why, they gave the following reasons. Staub said he did WRITE ABOUT LEGAL CONCEPTS something is wrong in rule-based reasoning but right in reasoning based on consequences. 20. Invent and write a scenario which raises an ethical issue. However, try to create a scenario where the outcomes are judged good or bad depending upon which good is used in ethics based on consequences. 21. HOT DEBATE Write a paragraph giving reasons why Julian should inform the INS about Achmed s whereabouts. Write another paragraph giving reasons why Julian should not inform the INS. THINK CRITICALLY ABOUT EVIDENCE not take the money because he was afraid of being caught. Conly said she did not take the money because she felt obligated to obey the law. Winfield said he did not take the money because of his religious beliefs. To which person do you best relate? Why? 25. The Seymours wanted their fifteen-year-old daughter, Anna, to help out in the family business, a convenience grocery store that was open twenty-four hours every day. The Seymours thought Anna could learn the business best this way. Since they would be paying Anna, they would not be benefiting financially. They insisted that state school attendance rules interfered both with parental rights to educate their children and with the children s right to get ahead faster. If the Seymours did not send Anna to school, would they be engaging in civil disobedience or acting as scofflaws? What action could the Seymours ethically take in response to the situation? CHAPTER IN REVIEW 37

ANALYZE REAL CASES 26. Poppy Construction Company was engaged in the business of developing, building, and selling a tract of houses in San Francisco. Mr. and Mrs. Burks, who were black, offered to purchase one of the houses. Poppy had a policy and practice of refusing to sell housing in the tract to blacks on the same conditions that the company applied to others. When their offer was rejected, Mr. and Mrs. Burks sued on the ground of racial discrimination. Racial discrimination was contrary to the law of California as well as to the U.S. Constitution. Poppy was required to accept the Burkses offer to purchase the house. Is this law best justified by consequential or ethical rule based reasoning? (Burks v. Poppy Construction Company, 307 P.2d 313, Cal.) 27. The city of Chicago sued to stop the operation of the Commonwealth Edison Company s coal-burning, electricity-generating plant in nearby Hammond, Indiana. Chicago claimed that the plant emitted too much smoke, sulfur dioxide, and other harmful substances. The city also claimed that the plant was a common-law public nuisance because it caused an unreasonable interference with a right common to the general public to clean, unpolluted air. Edison argued that it had spent much money to reduce harmful emissions and that the emissions were now well below the levels prescribed by federal clean air regulations and by the city of Hammond. Edison also pointed out that unpleasant odors, smoke, and film already characterized the area in which the plant was located. The trial court refused to issue an injunction. Therefore, the city of Chicago appealed to a higher court, which affirmed (upheld) the trial court. How can this legal action be ethically justified? (City of Chicago v. Commonwealth Edison Company, 321 N.E.2d 412, Ill.) 28. Briney owned an old farmhouse in Iowa, which had been unoccupied for years. Although he had posted No Trespassing signs outside, there were intruders. To protect his property, Briney set a loaded shotgun inside the building and rigged it to fire if the bedroom door were opened. Soon after, Katko and a companion burglar broke into the house to steal old bottles they considered antiques. As Katko started to open the bedroom door, the shotgun went off, shooting off much of one leg. Although he was committing a crime by breaking into Briney s house, Katko sued Briney for damages and won. Is there a form of ethical reasoning that justifies this legal result? (Katko v. Briney, 183 N.W.2d 657, Iowa) 29. Reader s Digest Association, Inc., promoted magazine subscriptions in 1970 by sending materials that included simulated checks to potential subscribers. The government concluded that use of simulated checks was, for some consumers, unfair and deceptive and thus illegal. Therefore, the government ordered the Digest to stop using simulated checks or any confusingly simulated item of value. The Digest agreed to be bound to this governmental order. Later, the Digest mailed promotional material that used misleading travel checks. After the government notified the Digest that these travel checks were illegal, the Digest mailed millions of additional checks to consumers. Was the conduct of the Digest that of a scofflaw or was the Digest engaged in civil disobedience? Explain. (United States v. Reader s Digest Association, Inc., 662 F.2d 955). 30. Stu was a bartender at the Circle Inn, an establishment owned by O Daniels. The bar had a rule that customers could not use its phones. Darrell Soldano came in and said he had been at Happy Jack s Saloon, a bar across the street. He told Stu that he had overheard a conversation where a patron of Happy Jack s threatened the life of another patron. Darrell asked for permission to use the bar s phone to call the police. Are the rules of an employer similar to rules of law? In this case, is there an ethical justification for violating this rule? Is the justification consequential, based on ethical rules or both? If Stu violates his employer s rule is he ethically obligated to tell the employer? (Soldano v. O Daniels, 190 Cal. Rptr. 310) 31. Roy was a Native American. He was refused federal financial assistance for his two-year-old daughter through a food-stamp program and Aid to Families with Dependent Children. The reason Roy was refused benefits was because federal law required recipients of these programs to furnish a social security number, and Roy would not comply. His religious beliefs held that the use of social security numbers was dehumanizing. Thus, Roy believed that freedom of religion protected him from having to furnish one. Do you agree with Roy s belief about social security numbers? How do you think the judge decided this case, and why? (Bowen v. Roy, 476 U.S. 693) 38 CHAPTER 2 ETHICS AND OUR LAW