40 likes | 147 Vues
This article by Mr. Bernstein delves into the expression of ethics in American law, focusing on the principles of majority rule and fundamental ethical reasoning. It examines how laws reflect both outcomes beneficial to the majority and the limits imposed by foundational documents like the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. The discussion includes the controversial "Saggy Pants" law and explores the ethical justification for civil disobedience, referencing figures such as Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., Gandhi, and the Boston Tea Party.
E N D
Law for Business Mr. Bernstein How Is Ethics Expressed In Our Laws?, pp 31-35 September 23, 2013
Law for BusinessMr. Bernstein Majority Rule Laws tend to be Consequences-Based: Are outcomes better for the majority? But American laws still reflect Rules-based Fundamental Ethical Reasoning There are limits to the will of the majority This is recognized by the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution Where does Wildwood “Saggy Pants” law fall?
Law for BusinessMr. Bernstein Why Are We Obligated To Obey Laws Fundamental Ethical Reasoning We Consent to be Governed We want to avoid punishment
Law for BusinessMr. Bernstein Are We Ever Justified In Violating The Law? Dr. Martin Luther King: Disobedience is justified only if: Written law is in conflict with ethical reasoning Effective political methods are unavailable Disobedience is nonviolent Disobedience does not advance one’s immediate self-interest Disobedience is public and one willingly accepts punishment Other examples of Civil Disobedience Gandhi Vietnam War protestors Greenpeace Boston Tea Party