Business Ethics2-3How is ethics expressed in our laws?

Our laws reflect consequence based ethicsIn our country, the people -directly or indirectly- determine the laws that bind them.They do this by electing representatives to lawmaking bodies.Majority rule prevails - Consequence based because laws are judged to be right or good when they affect the majority of the people positively.

Whats 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?

Members of City Council tried to determine what the majority of people wants. Some wanted the pleasure of playing their music loudly in public. But many mor wanted the pleasure of a quiet community. So the law was passed in response to the majority will.Based on Consequence Based Reasoning

Our laws reflect rule-based ethicsSometimes the desires of the majority conflict with moral rights.The majority may sometimes benefit from unjust laws. Example: the wealth of the majority might increase if it were to enslave a small percentage of the population.U.S. Constitution would declare such laws unconstitutional.

Whats your verdict?Almost everyone in a small community belonged to the same church. When members of a different denomination were considering buying land to build a church, the city conducted a direct vote by all citizens on a zoning law that made it illegal to use any land in the city for any purpose other than residential housing. The law passed 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?

The zoning law enacted by the majority is invalid because it undermines freedom of religion.

Whats your verdict?Smith was stopped for suspicion of drunk driving. The breathalyzer tests showed a blood alcohol level of .079%. State law defines drunkenness at .08%, so Smith was not charged. Brown was stopped ten minutes later at the same location. Her test showed .081% blood alcohol level and she was arrested, tried and found guilty. Is there any ethical justification for treating Smith and Brown so differently?

Consistent RulesOften matters simply need a consistent rule to assure order and predictability. To be just, rules must be communicated in advance and they must be applied consistently.In the Whats your verdict? The law is clear and has been communicated to all drivers, therefore is is just to treat Smith and Brown differently.

Why are we obligated to obey laws?Ethical reasoning demands itWe have agreed to obey laws by using government programsWe want to avoid punishment