SW LAW CH 02 024 039 11/9/02 8:18 AM Page 24 ETHICS … · CHAPTER 2 Lessons ETHICS AND OUR LAW 2-1...

24

Achmed emigrated to the United States from Iraq. He claimed Iraq’s governmentwould persecute him if he stayed there. The U.S. Immigration and NaturalizationService (INS) granted Achmed a temporary visa and began investigating his claim. TheINS then denied his claim and revoked his visa. Achmed obtained a false ID to stay inthe country. He told his employer, Julian, the whole story. Julian’s lawyer told Julian hewas legally obligated to inform the INS about Achmed. Julian believed that Achmedwould 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?

CHAPTER 2 ETHICS AND OUR LAW

What Is Ethics?

Reasoning about Rightand Wrong

CHAPTER 2

Lessons

ETHICS AND OUR LAW

2-1

2-2

How Is Ethics Expressed in Our Laws?

2-3

SW_LAW_CH_02_024_039 11/9/02 8:18 AM Page 24

Lesson 2-1

● Define ethics● Describe each element of the definition● Define business ethics

WHAT IS ETHICS?

EE thics is deciding what is right orwrong in a reasoned, impartial

manner. Consider the three importantelements in this definition:

1. decision about a right or wrongaction

2. decision is reasoned

3. decision is impartial

The following sections discuss eachof these important elements. The les-son concludes with how we canapply the study of ethics to makingethical business decisions.

Decision About a Right or Wrong ActionMany of your decisions have littleeffect on other persons or yourself.For example, your decision to buyblue jeans with wide instead of nar-row pant legs has no ethical compo-nent. On the other hand, yourdecision to discontinue medical sup-port for an unconscious, terminally ill

While working in the school office, Jane discovered a copy of the examto be given in one of her classes. She thought she could take it homewith little chance of being caught. In thinking about whether to takethe test home, she considered how helpful an “A” on the test would beand how important grades are to her. After she stole the test she told afriend, “It just felt so good to know that I wouldn’t need to spend allthat time studying to get an ‘A’.”

Has Jane made an ethical decision?

relative is an intensely ethical deci-sion. To involve ethics, a decisionmust affect you or others in some sig-nificant way.

Reasoned DecisionsWe often act in response to our emo-tions. For example, after watching amovie, we recommend it to friendswith such words as, “It really made mefeel good.” Or when someone asks uswhy we made a particular comment,we respond, “I don’t really know, I justfelt like it.” What we mean is that ouremotions guided these decisions. Ourfeelings directed our actions. But tomake ethical decisions, we must usu-ally base our decisions on reason, noton emotion. In What’s Your Verdict?Jane made a decision based on emo-tion when she thought, “it just felt sogood. . . .”

Often people reason about rightand wrong by referring to a writtenauthority that provides consistency.The law is such an authority. So are

religious texts such as the Torah, theBible, and the Koran. For example, aperson might reason, “I believe thatGod is the source of the Bible and theBible tells me not to lie. Therefore, it would be wrong, or unethical, for meto lie.”

GOALS

WHAT’S YOUR VERDICT?

ETHICS DEFINED

2-1 WHAT IS ETHICS? 25

CULTURALDIVERSITY IN LAW

The term culture refers to asociety’s shared values,beliefs, and behaviors. Valuesreflect the goals a societyconsiders important. Valuesalso express the culture’sideas of how people shouldact, as well as ideas aboutwhat is good, right, anddesirable. Culture expresses asociety’s ethics.

Different cultures mayhave very different ethical sys-tems. What is considered eth-ical behavior in one culture,may not be acceptable behav-ior in another. For example,in Islamic societies, women’sactivities outside the homeare severely restricted.Compare this to the role ofwomen in U.S. society today.

Every society has a uniqueculture, which evolves andchanges over time. Each cul-ture develops a set of lawsbased on the ethical valuesexpressed at the time. Lawsevolve as the culture’s senseof ethics evolve.

InternationalEthics and Culture

SW_LAW_CH_02_024_039 11/9/02 8:18 AM 5

violating it, by laughing at it, or byencouraging others to violate it, weinjure many other people whodepend upon the law for protectionand fairness.

CHAPTER 2 ETHICS AND OUR LAW26

Impartial DecisionsImpartiality is the idea that the sameethical standards are applied to every-one. If it is wrong for you to engagein a certain action, then in the samecircumstance it is also wrong for me.So, by definition, ethics does notvalue one person or group of personsmore than any other does. Men arenot more valuable than women.Caucasians are not entitled to morerespect than people of other races.Each person is an individual andshould receive equal respect andconsideration from others.

Impartiality requires that in mak-ing ethical decisions, we balance ourself-interest with the interest of oth-ers. To do this, we must learn to rec-ognize the interests of others.Sometimes this is difficult. Our self-interest can cloud our perceptionsand thus our ability to reason impar-tially.

Suppose you lose control of yourcar while backing out of your drive-way. The next thing you know, youhave struck and damaged yourneighbor’s station wagon, which isparked on the street. No one hasseen you do this. You can’t decide ifyou should tell your neighbor whatyou did. You might think, “I knowmy religion teaches me to tell thetruth. But it would cost me more

than $1,000 if I admit that I ran intoMrs. Anderson’s vehicle. I can’tafford that, but she can! So it must beokay to deny my beliefs in this situa-tion. I’m not going to tell her.” If youcome to this conclusion, you are notbeing impartial.

Impartiality is particularly impor-tant when organizations and institu-tions rather than individuals areinvolved. When we think about Mrs.Anderson, our emotions help usunderstand that she is a person whois entitled to the same treatment aswe are. But when an ethical decisioninvolves an organization, self-interestcan make people conclude that theiractions will not injure other people.“It was only the school’s property,” or“It doesn’t matter, it was just theinsurance company that wascheated.” In reality, behind all organ-izations there are many people, suchas taxpayers, employees, and cus-tomers. They are injured when theorganization is injured. Propertytaxes may go up or insurance ratesmay be raised. When dealing withinstitutions, being impartial meansconsidering how the people behindthe institution are affected by ouractions.

The law is an institution. It repre-sents all the people in our country.When we injure the law, perhaps by

Gabe decidedto walk to

school instead of riding the busbecause it was a nice day. On theway, he found a wallet containing$300 in cash and a driver’s license.When he saw how much moneythere was, he felt elated. He couldalmost feel the fun he could havewith it. Gabe also asked himselfhow much injury the loss of $300might cause someone such as theowner of the wallet. At first hethought he would get much morepleasure from the money thananyone else could. In the end, hedecided that he would want hiswallet and money returned if helost them, so he called the owner.When he returned the wallet theowner gave Gabe a $40 reward.Gabe’s decision to walk to schooldid not have an ethical dimensionto it because it didn’t really affectanyone seriously. His decisionabout whether to return the walletdid have an ethical component.This decision would affect bothGabe and the owner of the walletsignificantly.

IN THISC A S E

Business EthicsThe reason you are learning aboutethics in general is to prepare you toapply ethical concepts to businessdecision making. Business ethics arethe ethical principles used in makingbusiness decisions. All too often,however, ethics are not consideredwhen business decisions are made.The reason can be summarized intwo words: profit maximization.

The idea of profit maximization issupported by those who would move

SW_LAW_CH_02_024_039 11/9/02 8:18 AM Page 26

factories offshore and cut jobs andpay in order to reduce costs and pro-duce greater short-term profits.However, such activities tend to dolittle more than line the pockets ofthe business owners. This enrichingthe few at the expense of the manyoccurs because our free-marketeconomy is far from perfect. To movetoward a more ethically motivatedeconomy, the profit maximizationethic will need to be replaced by themore humane ethical standards pre-sented in this chapter.

2-1 WHAT IS ETHICS? 27

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 privatecollege. Because the scholarship would cover only half hisexpenses, his parents would need to contribute more money forhim to go there than they would if he went to the state univer-sity. That would probably leave less money to support his sisterwho was a year younger. The private college is farther away andmost of Gil’s friends are going to the state university. Does Gil’sdecision about which college to attend affect other people?Does it affect any of them significantly? Can you rank the peo-ple affected based on how significant the decision may be forthem? Is this an ethical decision?

7. Conner walked past the candy section in the grocery store andquickly stuffed a handful of “Almond Joy” candy bars into herpurse. A store security guard saw her do it and she was arrested.Her parents came to the police station after her arrest to takeher home. Did Conner’s shoplifting significantly affect anyone?If so, who? Was Conner basing her conduct on emotion or rea-son? Was she treating herself and the other customers andstockholders of the store equally?

8. Bill was madly in love with Jennifer. He couldn’t think aboutanything else. He daydreamed in his classes and was close toflunking out of school. Does Bill’s daydreaming in class have anethical component? Who is most affected by this? Is Bill lettingreason or emotion determine his conduct?

9. Voters faced two proposals on the ballot. One would build anew football stadium. Another would build new prisons. Thereis only enough money available to do one. Are voters beingasked to make an ethical decision? Who is affected?

10. As Juanita was trying to decide how to allocate her monthlypaycheck, she thought of the many ways she could spend it. (1) She could treat herself to a makeover at the beauty salonbecause it would make her feel good. (2) She could repaymoney owed her sister because she would want to be repaid ifanyone ever borrowed money from her. (3) She could get aheadon 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 emo-tional reactions?

11. Mario was awarding end-of-year bonuses. As he looked over thelist of employees, he rated each one based on how he felt aboutthem. The political views of some of the employees affected hisfeelings. So did their physical attractiveness. Ultimately, Mariopaid the bonuses in proportion to the employee’s job perform-ance. Which evidence suggests that Mario was not impartial?Which evidence suggests that he was impartial?

THINK CRITICALLY ABOUT EVIDENCE

Answer the following questions about legal concepts.1. Which of the following is

not an element of our defi-nition of ethics? (a) mak-ing a decision thatsignificantly affects youor others (b) making adecision based on reasonrather than emotion (c) making a decisionimpartially (d) making adecision that places peo-ple above organizations

2. A decision has an ethicalcomponent when it willaffect you or others signif-icantly. True or False?

3. When you treat everyoneaffected by a decisionequally, you are being____?_ .

4. When our self-interest isat stake, it becomes verydifficult to be impartial.True or False?

5. Ethical decisions are usu-ally based on emotionsrather than reason. Trueor False?

THINK ABOUTLEGAL CONCEPTS

SW_LAW_CH_02_024_039 11/9/02 8:18 AM Page 27

EEthical reasoning about right andwrong takes two basic forms. One

form is based on consequences. Inthis style of ethical reasoning, right-ness or wrongness is based only onthe results of the action. Particularacts have no ethical, or moral, char-acter. An act that produces goodconsequences is good. An act thatproduces bad consequences is bad.

The other form of moral reasoningis based on ethical rules. In this styleof reasoning, acts are either right orwrong. For example, telling the truthis always right, and lying is alwayswrong. In rule-based ethics, goodconsequences do not justify wrong orbad acts. For example, in rule-basedethics, you cannot justify lying byshowing that it produces good conse-quences.

For almost all ethical decisions,these two forms of reasoning reachthe same conclusion. In the decisionof whether to lie or to tell the truth,for example, both forms usually conclude that one should not lie. Consequence-based reasoning recog-


nizes that lying usually produces badconsequences. Rule-based ethicssays that lying is always wrong.

Ethical Reasoning Based on ConsequencesConsequence-based reasoning firstlooks for alternative ways to alter thecurrent situation. Then it attempts toforecast the consequences that willarise from each alternative. Finally, itevaluates those possible conse-quences to select the alternative thatwill generate the greatest good.These steps in consequential reason-ing are described in the followingparagraphs.

DESCRIBE ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS First, alterna-tive actions that would improvethings should be described. Two ofthe many alternatives Tab might con-sider are (1) building the fence on theneighbors’ property without tellingthem, or (2) offering to buy a one-foot strip of the neighbors’ property.In order to decide what is the bestaction to take, he must describe his

alternatives in order to then evaluatethem.

FORECAST CONSEQUENCES Second, the con-sequences flowing from each alterna-tive must be described. This requiresskill in predicting the future. Itrequires an ability to see things suchas, “If I build the fence one footinside my neighbors’ property, theyprobably won’t notice.” Or, “If theydiscover that the fence was built ontheir property, they will probablymake me pay for the one-foot strip ofproperty instead of making me tear itdown.”

EVALUATE CONSEQUENCES Third, the conse-quences for each alternative must beevaluated. There are two elements tothe evaluation process. These are

1. selecting the standard for judg-ing consequences as right orwrong

2. counting the persons affected

Philosophers usually call the stan-dard for judging right or wrong TheGood. The Good is the primary goal

REASONING ABOUT RIGHT AND WRONG

● Reason based on consequences● Reason using ethical rules

Lesson 2-2

Tab inherited his grandparents’ home. He built a garage for his car inthe yard between his house and his neighbors’ property line. Later,when he decided to build a fence on the border, he discovered that thegarage was too close to the property line. So, he built the fence onefoot onto the neighbors’ property. Tab lived alone and three peoplelived on the neighboring property.

How can Tab evaluate the ethical character of his action?


BASIC FORMS OF ETHICAL REASONING

GOALS

THE GOOD

goals

beauty

love

knowledge justice

libertypower

pleasuretruth

SW_LAW_CH_02_024_039 11/9/02 8:18 AM Page 28

also can show that some things arebasically wrong. A test has beendevised to determine whether anaction is right or wrong. It involvespicturing in your mind’s eye every-one in the world doing the action.This is called universalizing theaction. As you picture everyonedoing the action, ask yourself, “Is thisirrational, illogical, or self-defeating?”If it is any of the three, the action isinconsistent with reason and there-fore ethically wrong.

We can apply the test to lying byimagining a world where everyonelies. Such a world would be illogical.There would be no point in lying,because no one would believe any-one. Similarly, if we imagine a worldwhere everyone takes her or hisneighbor’s land, there would be nopoint in taking the land becauseanother neighbor would promptlytake it away from you. These pictureshelp us see that the actions of lyingand stealing are inconsistent withhuman reason. Accordingly, in rule-based ethical reasoning, they arebasically wrong.

Both authority and reasoning con-clude that all human beings havedignity and worth. Religions usuallysay that humans are “made in theimage of God” or “of Allah” andtherefore must be treated withrespect. Humans are unique because

DECISIONS BASED ON AUTHORITY An author-ity, such as the law or a religioustext, can say that stealing is wrong.When an accepted authority has arule on an issue, the rule tells the fol-lower of that law or religion what isright and wrong. All religious author-ities and all legal systems would con-demn the act of building a fence ona neighbor’s property without per-mission as a form of stealing. The actitself is basically wrong. In rule-basedreasoning, the act is wrong even if itbenefits more people than it injures.So building the fence on the neigh-bor’s property without permissioncould not be justified by benefiting10 people living on your property orby the neighbor being very rich.

DECISIONS BASED ON REASONING In additionto an authority, human reasoning

toward which human life should bedirected. The Good involves alterna-tive basic goals such as love, justice,truth, and pleasure. These goals allmotivate a reasoning person’s actionsand important decisions.

In What’s Your Verdict? Tab mustchoose a goal with which to evaluatethe alternative actions. Let’s assumeTab chooses pleasure (from use of theland). In consequence-based reason-ing, the standard is judged by “thegreatest good for the greatest num-ber” of people. Thus, for each alter-native we must determine how manypeople will be positively and nega-tively affected. If Tab builds the fenceon the neighbors’ land without theirconsent, only his pleasure isincreased. The pleasure of his threeneighbors is decreased. Tab receivesthe benefit while his three neighborsbear the cost. So this alternative isethically wrong in reasoning basedon consequences where the good ispleasure.

To evaluate the consequences ofbuying the strip of land, we compareboth the costs and the benefits foreach person. For Tab, essentially thecost is the price paid for the land andthe benefit is the ability to use thestrip of land for his fence. For hisneighbors, the cost is the loss of theland and the benefit is the moneythey receive for it. For the parties toagree voluntarily, Tab must prefer theland to the money and the neighborsmust prefer the money to the land. Ifthe sale can be voluntarily com-pleted, four parties are positivelybenefited. Thus, in reasoning basedon consequences where the good ispleasure, this alternative would beethically good.

Fundamental Ethical RulesWith fundamental ethical rules, theacts themselves are judged as right orwrong. The standard for judging usu-ally comes from one of twosources—a recognized authority orhuman reasoning.

2-2 REASONING ABOUT RIGHT AND WRONG 29

Gerry was latefor a job inter-

view. The rural road she was driv-ing down was not heavily traveled.The posted speed limit was 55miles per hour. She reasoned thatby speeding she could benefit bothherself and the interviewer. Gerrywould make a better impression byarriving on time and the inter-viewer would not have to wastetime waiting for Gerry to arrive. Soshe sped up to 70 miles per hour.

Gerry made an error in her ethi-cal reasoning. She ignored some ofthe ways her actions affected otherpeople. By speeding, she imposed asubstantially greater risk of accidentand injury on the other roadwayusers. Because she did not see thiseffect, she also failed to count someof the people affected by her deci-sion. Also, she ignored the way heractions undermine respect for law.When these effects and people arecounted, the action seems ethicallywrong.

IN THISC A S E

SW_LAW_CH_02_024_039 11/9/02 8:18 AM Page 29

of their potential for reasoning aboutright and wrong. Both of these linesof argument lead to the conclusionthat humans have moral rights. Moralrights are rightful claims on otherpeople that flow from each person’sstatus as a human being.


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 theconcert began at 8:30 P.M. Because her friends still needed topick their tickets up at the will call window, they started pres-suring her to drive faster than the speed limit. She refused andsaid, “I just don’t want to take a chance on getting a ticket.” IsSusan using consequential reasoning or reasoning based on eth-ical rules here? Why?

8. In a trash basket she was emptying after school, Carol found acopy of the answer key for an exam she was scheduled to takethe next day. Instead of using it, she returned it to the teacher,explaining how she found it. When the teacher asked why shedid not use it to cheat. Carol said, “I just think it is wrong tocheat. When I take tests I am telling the teacher how much Ireally know. If I cheated it would be a form of lying. I believelying is wrong. I won’t lie even if it might help me.” Is Carolusing reasoning based on consequences or ethical rules here?Why?

9. Rosanna was trying to decide whether to share part of herlunch with Sheila and Fran, who had forgotten theirs. Shedecided not to, saying, “I just don’t like Sheila, so I won’t sharewith anyone.” Has Rosanna made any errors in reasoning? Ifso, which errors?

10. Sharon knows about tax laws and how the Internal RevenueService (IRS) audits tax returns. She knows a way to cheat onher tax return that would save her almost $2,000. She thinksher chance of being caught is about one in 100. Can this cheat-ing be justified by reasoning based on ethical rules? Can it bejustified by ethics based on consequences?

11. An ordinance of Walker County provided that all automobilesmust pass a smog emissions test once a year. Ross was ticketedbecause his car had not been inspected and approved at anemissions testing center. Ross claimed to be a skilled mechanicwho kept his car well tuned and cleaner than the law required.According to Ross, the law violated his natural rights. Explainwhy you agree or disagree with Ross.

12. Heather was trying to decide for herself about whether stealingcould ever be justified. She thought about what the worldwould be like if the act of stealing were made universal. She sawthat as soon as one person stole something, it would be imme-diately stolen from the thief. Is this universalized state moreillogical because stealing has no purpose? Or is it self-defeatingbecause eventually you would run out of things to steal?


Answer the following questions about legal concepts.1. Reasoning based on con-

sequences and rule-basedreasoning usually reach thesame conclusion aboutwhat is right or wrong.True or False?

2. The idea that acts have abasic moral character is afeature of which form ofmoral reasoning? (a) rulebased reasoning (b) rea-soning based on conse-quences

3. In reasoning based onconsequences, we arerequired to count every-one affected and to con-sider all the major waysthey are affected. True orFalse?

4. In reasoning based on con-sequences, we are requiredto consider multiple alter-natives and select the bestone. True or False?

5. In reasoning based onconsequences, the stan-dard used to evaluatealternatives is called ____?_ .

6. In rule-based reasoning,acts or rules are wrong ifthey are inconsistent withhuman reason. True orFalse?


SW_LAW_CH_02_024_039 11/9/02 8:18 AM Page 30

lawmaking system reflects the desiresof our citizens. It does this by creatinga national legislature composed oftwo bodies—the House ofRepresentatives and the Senate.Together, these bodies are calledCongress. The Constitution providesfor the election of the members ofCongress by the citizenry. States havesimilar legislative structures. This leg-islative structure promotes ethical rea-soning based on consequences. (Youwill learn more about the U.S.Constitution and legislature inChapter 3 of this book.)

In What’s Your Verdict? the mem-bers of the city council tried to deter-mine what the majority of citizenswanted. Some wanted the pleasure ofplaying their music loudly in public.But many more wanted the pleasureof a quiet community. So the law waspassed in response to the majoritywill. It is justified by ethics based onconsequences. It produces the great-est good for the greatest number.Clearly, this law restricts the conductof those who want to play loudmusic. But does it violate their moralrights? No. Freedom to play loudmusic in public is not essential for themaintenance of human dignity.Therefore, it is not a right.

IIn our country, the people—directlyor indirectly—determine the laws

that bind them. They do this by elect-ing representatives to lawmakingbodies, such as city councils, statelegislatures, and the Congress of theUnited States. In these elections andin the legislative bodies, majority ruleprevails. The elected representativesmust vote for laws acceptable to themajority of people they represent if

2-3 HOW IS ETHICS EXPRESSED IN OUR LAWS? 31

they expect to be reelected.Because this system is grounded on

majority rule, it uses many of the fea-tures of consequences-based ethics. Inthis system, laws are judged to beright or good when they affect themajority of the people positively. Lawsare judged to be wrong when theyaffect the majority negatively.

The Constitution of the UnitedStates seeks to ensure that our federal

HOW IS ETHICS EXPRESSED IN OUR LAWS?

● Explain how our laws reflect ethics based on consequences and ethics based on reasoning

● Discuss why we are obligated to obey laws

Lesson 2-3

In a coastal city of California, residents often could not sleep becausepeople would drive late at night with their car windows down and theirstereos playing full blast. On weekends and holidays, people put largehome stereos in the back of their pickup trucks and played them asloud as possible. In response, the city council enacted a law making itillegal to generate noise in public above a certain decibel level.

Is there an ethical justification for this law?


OUR LAWS REFLECT ETHICS BASED ON CONSEQUENCES

GOALS

Almost everyone in a small community belonged to the same church.When members of a different denomination were considering buying landto erect a church, the city conducted a referendum (a direct vote by all thecitizens on a proposed law). The referendum was on a zoning law thatmade it illegal to use any land in the city for any purpose other than resi-dential housing. The law was enacted by majority vote. The effect of thelaw was to prohibit the construction of the proposed church in that city.

Is such a law ethically justified? Is such a law legal?


OUR LAWS REFLECT RULE-BASED ETHICS

WWhile most laws reflect thedesires of the people gov-

erned, the laws desired by the major-ity sometimes conflict with moralrights. Stated another way, the major-ity may sometimes benefit fromunjust laws. For example, the wealthof the majority of persons in a coun-try might increase if it were toenslave a small percentage of thepopulation. These people could beforced to work for free. Then thebenefits of their free labor could be

SW_LAW_CH_02_024_039 11/9/02 8:18 AM Page 31

dom of religion.Because courts perform the impor-

tant duty of protecting natural rights,we sometimes try to insulate judgesfrom the will of the majority. Manyjudges are appointed, rather thanelected. Federal judges are appointedfor life, so they are free from theinfluence of the populace and electedofficials. This permits judges to pro-tect human rights without risking theirjobs.

Our legal system primarilyadvances the will of the majority. Itdoes this through the legislativeprocess. But in this country we recog-nize that there are limits to majorityrule. When the will of the majorityconflicts with basic human rights, our legal system, particularly the judiciary, protects individual rights.

Our Declaration of Independencerecognized these fundamental rightswhen it stated: “We hold these truthsto be self-evident, that all men arecreated equal, that they are endowedby their Creator with certain unalien-able Rights, that among these are Life,Liberty, and the pursuit ofHappiness.”

Fifth Amendment to the U.S.Constitution declares: “No personshall be . . . deprived of life, liberty,or property, without due process oflaw.”

The United States of America is acountry that recognizes and supportshuman rights. Other countries varydramatically in the extent to whichthey do so. Civil rights (or civil liber-ties) generally are personal, humanrights recognized and guaranteed byour Constitution. Among the civilrights recognized are freedom of reli-gion, speech, and the press; freedomfrom unreasonable searches andseizures; the right to a speedy andimpartial trial; the right to vote; and ahost of others. You will learn moreabout our civil rights in Chapter 3.

The courts usually protect humanrights. When the people or legisla-tures pass laws that underminehuman rights, they are usuallydeclared unconstitutional. This meansthat a court finds the law invalidbecause it conflicts with a constitu-tional provision. In What’s YourVerdict? the zoning law adopted bymajority vote is invalid. It is unconsti-tutional because it undermines free-

distributed to the majority. Histori-cally, many countries adopted suchlaws. While these laws might benefitthe majority, they violate the moralrights of the minority that is enslaved.The majority would be treating theminority in a manner inconsistentwith their status as human beings.

Under the U.S. Constitution, thecourts would declare such lawsinvalid because they deny “equalprotection of the law” to the minority.We use other concepts of naturalrights to protect political minoritiesfrom exploitation by members of thepolitical majority. For example, the


Ah, the joys of e-mail—instant communication of thoughts. You feelit, 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 ofan online hate crime, a 21-year-old Los Angeles man was found guiltyin federal court. He sent death threats by e-mail to more than 50Asian students. The case set a precedent, as it put Internet communi-cations on equal legal ground with telephone calls and postal mail. Italso 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 orabusive messages are commonplace withInternet culture and discussion groups. Thejury thought otherwise and took the threatsseriously. At first the Net was considered tobe a fantasy land where users could be anony-mous. This case shows that the legal systemwill not treat the Net differently from otherforms of communication.INTERNET

and theLAWLAW

Search the Internet for stateand federal laws and regula-tions that pertain to theunethical practice of inter-cepting private e-mails.

ESEARCHABOUT LAW

RR ESEARCHABOUT LAW

SW_LAW_CH_02_024_039 11/9/02 8:18 AM Page 32

OOften, matters simply need a con-sistent rule to assure order and

predictability. The rule need not bebased on majority rule or on moralrights. Sometimes this means that therule or law is arbitrary. For example,teachers are required to award gradeson exams and for courses. Assume

that the cutoff point between an “A”and a “B” is a 90-percent average. Astudent who has an 89-percent aver-age and therefore receives a B mayargue that the grade is unfair becauseit is arbitrary. After all, the studentwho receives an “A” for a 90-percentaverage has not done substantially


Smyth was stopped for suspicion of drunk driving. The breathalyzertests showed a blood alcohol level of 0.079 percent. State law definesdrunkenness at 0.080 percent, so Smyth was not charged. Brown wasstopped ten minutes later at the same location. Her test showed 0.081percent blood level and she was arrested, tried, and found guilty. Herdriver’s license was revoked for one year.

Is there any ethical justification for treating Smyth and Brown so differently?


OTHER ETHICAL GOALS REFLECTED IN OUR LAWS

better work. Yet the letter grades indi-cate a substantial difference. If thegrade for the student with an 89-per-cent average is changed to an “A,”then the argument for the studentwith the 88-percent average must beaddressed and resolved the sameway. In the end, everyone wouldreceive the same grade.

A clear rule is needed, and it isperhaps more important that the ruleexist than it is that the rule be com-pletely fair. To be just, such rules oflaw must be communicated inadvance and they must be appliedconsistently.

In What’s Your Verdict? the law is clear and has been communicatedto all drivers. Therefore it is just totreat Smyth and Brown differently.

During December vacation, Clementine worked part-time as a salesclerk in the jewelry department of a large department store. There wasa watch that she wanted very much but could not afford. It was a busytime of the year and there were many opportunities for her to put awatch in her purse without being detected. She was convinced that thestore management had not treated her fairly in the past.

Should Clementine take the watch if she thinks there is no chance ofbeing caught?


WHY ARE WE OBLIGATED TO OBEY LAWS?

WWe are obligated to obey thelaw because ethical reasoning

demands it, because we have agreedto obey it, and because by obeying itwe avoid punishment.

Ethics Demands That We ObeyBoth ethics based on consequencesand ethical rules conclude that weare obligated to obey the law.According to consequences-basedreasoning, when the law is violated,

many more people are injured thanare benefited. With rule-based rea-soning, if we say that we haveagreed to obey the law but violate it,we are breaking our promise. If weuniversalize promise breaking—imagining that everyone alwaysbreaks promises—there would be nopoint to promising. In this universal-ized state, promise breaking is illogi-cal or pointless and thus wrong.

People who embrace formal reli-

gious principles (for example,Buddhists, Christians, Hindus, Jews,and Muslims) are taught to live in amanner that helps others. Hence,many religious people feel particu-larly obligated to obey the law inorder to help others.

We Consent to Be Governed by LawsSocrates was a philosopher wholived in Athens, Greece, from 470–399 B.C. He believed that he hadpromised to be governed by the lawsof Athens. He expressed this promiseby living in Athens and accepting thebenefits of that society. Socratesbelieved that he should leave Athens,or not accept the benefits that it con-ferred on citizens, if he was not will-ing to obey all of its laws. Throughthis type of reasoning, Socrates con-cluded that it would be ethicallywrong for him to violate the law ofAthens. Socrates was charged with acrime and unjustly sentenced todeath. When given the opportunity

SW_LAW_CH_02_024_039 11/9/02 8:18 AM Page 33

which includes a check for criminalconvictions. In What’s Your Verdict? ifClementine is caught and convicted,her biggest penalty could be the oneshe would pay outside the judicialsystem. This penalty is the probableloss of many future job opportunitiesand her lasting embarrassment.

victed of a serious crime cannot qual-ify for a fidelity bond.

Also, many professions are closedto those who are convicted of seriouscrimes. For example, before beinglicensed, prospective lawyers, publicaccountants, and medical doctors aresubject to a background check,

to escape, he declined, saying that todo so would be inconsistent with hismoral beliefs. As a result, he was exe-cuted.

Socrates is widely regarded as aperson of great integrity. Integrity isthe capacity to do what is right evenin the face of temptation or pressureto do otherwise. By giving up his lifefor his ethical beliefs, Socrates dis-played the highest degree of integrity.

In What’s Your Verdict?Clementine should not take thewatch. She is required to obey thelaw because she has accepted thebenefits of the society that made thelaw. Free schooling is one benefit thissociety has provided Clementine.Other benefits include police protec-tion, safe roads, social security, andprotection from foreign enemies in times of war. By accepting the benefits Clementine has demon-strated her consent to be governed by the law.

We Want to Avoid PunishmentSome people comply with the lawprimarily to avoid punishment. A per-son convicted of a crime may befined, jailed, or, in some instances,put to death. While these penaltiesare widely known, there are manyless well known penalties imposed oncriminals. For instance, those con-victed of serious crimes may bebarred from jobs that require a secu-rity clearance. In many companiesand governmental agencies, a secu-rity clearance is required for everyemployee. Also, some industries auto-matically exclude persons with crimi-nal records from employmentconsideration. Banks, savings andloan associations, credit unions, andfinance companies are but a fewexamples.

Employers often purchase fidelitybonds for persons who handle largesums of money, such as cashiers,managers of movie theaters, or super-visors of restaurants. A fidelity bond isan insurance policy that pays theemployer money in the case of theftby employees. Generally, those con-


In the early 1960s, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., wanted to lead amarch into Birmingham, Alabama, to protest racial segregation in thatcity. When he applied for a parade permit, his request was denied. Dr.King, knowing that his conduct was illegal, led the nonviolent marchanyway. He was at the front of the line and allowed himself to bearrested, although he could have easily escaped. He went to jail.Community leaders were highly critical of Dr. King because he hadviolated the law. In response and while in jail, he wrote a famous letterattacking segregation laws as inconsistent with consequential and rulebased ethical reasoning.

Is there an ethical justification for Dr. King’s violation of the law?


ARE WE EVER JUSTIFIED IN VIOLATING THE LAW?

SSome persons care passionatelyabout human rights and justice.

Their concern for justice sometimescompels them to violate what theyconsider to be an unjust law—a lawthey believe to be in conflict withethical reasoning. They violate thelaw by engaging in acts of civil dis-obedience. Civil disobedience is anopen, peaceful, violation of a law toprotest its alleged injustice. The goalof those who engage in civil disobe-dience is not to advance their self-interest but rather to make the legalsystem more just. The participantsmay be willing, or even eager, to bearrested in order to test the validity ofthe law in court.

In What’s Your Verdict? Dr. MartinLuther King, Jr., engaged in civil dis-obedience. Dr. King believed thatcivil disobedience is justified only inextremely limited circumstances. Heand others conclude that civil dis-obedience is ethical only when

• a written law is in conflict withethical reasoning

• no effective political methodsare available to change the law

• the civil disobedience is nonvi-olent

• the civil disobedience does notadvance one’s immediate self-interest

• the civil disobedience is publicand one willingly accepts thepunishment for violating thelaw

As a result of Dr. King’s efforts, manyhuman rights were extended for thefirst time to several minority groupsin this country.

In contrast to Dr. King, some per-sons are mere scofflaws. These arepersons who do not respect the law.They simply assess the risk of beingcaught against the benefits theyobtain by breaking the law. Theythink they are smart because they fre-quently violate valid laws withoutbeing caught. A scofflaw is never eth-ically justified in violating the law.

SW_LAW_CH_02_024_039 11/9/02 8:18 AM Page 34


Answer the following questions about legal concepts.

1. Many laws are based onethics. True or False?

2. Majority rule usuallyadvances this type of ethi-cal reasoning. (a) reason-ing based on conse-quences (b) rule-basedreasoning

3. Legal rights are most oftenassociated with which typeof ethical reasoning? (a) reasoning based onconsequences (b) rule-based reasoning

4. Where are the laws withthe greatest ethical rulescontent most often found?(a) in laws created bylegislatures (b) in consti-tutions

5. Arbitrary rules or laws arenecessary to make socialsystems work. True orFalse?

6. Civil disobedienceinvolves which of the fol-lowing? (a) violating thelaw (b) violating the lawopenly (c) violating thelaw openly and peace-fully (d) violating thelaw openly, peacefullyand accepting punish-ment for the violation(e) all of the above


Study the following situations, answer the questions, then pre-pare 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 charac-ter of the law, consequences-based or rule-based reasoning?

8. When Congress passed the Civil Rights Amendment of 1964making it illegal for employers to discriminate on the basis ofrace, religion, sex, or national origin, it exempted itself fromthe law. Can this action be justified by consequence-based rea-soning? Can it be justified by rule-based reasoning?

9. Assume a state legislature enacted legislation which budgetedmore money to educating rich children than to educating poorchildren. Also assume that the majority of children are rich.Would the dominant ethical character of this law be conse-quences-based or rule-based reasoning?

10. Your friend believes that her employer, a local manufacturer,grossly underpays its employees and, in particular, her. To makeup for this, she steals supplies and tools from the business andsells them to supplement her income. Is her illegal conduct eth-ically justified? Why or why not? What is her conduct’s effecton the business?

11. In question 10 above, the business might raise its prices to com-pensate for the losses due to employee theft. If it does, what willbe the likely effects on the business, its employees, and ulti-mately, the consumers of its products?


1. The duty to obey the law.2. The duty to respect the rights of oth-

ers.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.

PREVENT LEGAL

DIFFICULTIES

With your rights as a citizen go individual responsibili-ties. Every American shares them. Only by fulfilling ourduties are we able to maintain our rights. Your duties as

a citizen include the following. . .

(Adapted from Law Day USA,American Bar Association)

SW_LAW_CH_02_024_039 11/9/02 8:18 AM Page 35

YOUR LEGALVOCABULARY

Match each statement with the term that it best defines. Some terms may not be used.


business ethicscivil disobediencecivil rightsconsequence-based

reasoningethicsfidelity bondfundamental ethical

rulesimpartialityintegritymajority rulemoral rightsscofflawThe Gooduniversalizing

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 ahuman being

11. Standard for judging right and wrong

12. Personal, human rights recognized and guaranteed by our Constitution

1. Ethics applies when decisions affect people.

2. Ethical decisions must be grounded on reasonand impartiality.

3. There are two basic forms of ethics: those basedon consequences and those based on fundamen-tal ethical rules.

4. Ethics based on consequences evaluates only theresults 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 compelus to obey the law.

7. Integrity is doing what is right even in the face oftemptation or pressure to do what is wrong.

8. We are obligated to obey the law because, byaccepting society’s benefits, we have consentedto be bound by its laws.

9. We are obligated to obey the law if we believe inhelping others. Civil disobedience is only justifiedin rare and extraordinary circumstances.

10. We should obey the law if we desire to avoidpunishment.

11. Civil disobedience is the open, peaceful violationof a law to protest its alleged injustice or unfair-ness.

CHAPTER IN REVIEW

36

CHAPTER IN REVIEWCONCEPTS IN BRIEF

SW_LAW_CH_02_024_039 11/9/02 8:18 AM Page 36

REVIEW LEGALCONCEPTS

WRITE ABOUTLEGAL CONCEPTS

13. Identify a situation in your life where someoneused consequence-based ethical reasoning.

14. Identify a situation in your life where someoneused rule-based ethical reasoning.

15. Describe the three steps involved in making adecision using consequence-based ethics.

16. Explain the role of The Good in ethics based onconsequences.

17. Use one to three words to identify a current eventthat others will quickly recognize. Next, write aparagraph evaluating someone’s conduct in thecurrent event using the ethics of reasoning basedon consequences.

18. Use one to three words to identify a current eventthat others will quickly recognize. Next, write aparagraph evaluating someone’s conduct in thecurrent event using the ethics of rule-based rea-soning.

19. Invent and write a scenario which raises an ethi-cal issue. However, try to create a scenario where

something is wrong in rule-based reasoning butright in reasoning based on consequences.

20. Invent and write a scenario which raises an ethi-cal issue. However, try to create a scenario wherethe outcomes are judged good or bad dependingupon which good is used in ethics based on con-sequences.

21. HOT DEBATE Write a paragraph giving reasonswhy Julian should inform the INS about Achmed’swhereabouts. Write another paragraph giving rea-sons why Julian should not inform the INS.

CHAPTER IN REVIEW

THINK CRITICALLYABOUT EVIDENCE

22. Jan was trying to decide whom to vote for in anupcoming election. After reviewing the candi-dates, she said, “I’ve decided to vote for Garybecause I just feel better about him.” Is Jan’s deci-sion based on ethics? If not, why?

23. Crawford was caught shoplifting by a store detec-tive. 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. Crawfordresponded that he had applied for a summer jobat the store, but he was not hired. He thought hewas treated unfairly, and this justified the shoplift-ing. What do you think of Crawford’s justification?

24. Staub, Conly, and Winfield were employees of thePrime Time Restaurant. They were aware that theowner never checked the totals on the saleschecks against the cash in the register. Therefore,it would be very easy to steal from the cash regis-ter. However, they did not steal. When asked why,they gave the following reasons. Staub said he did

not take the money because he was afraid ofbeing caught. Conly said she did not take themoney because she felt obligated to obey the law.Winfield said he did not take the money becauseof his religious beliefs. To which person do youbest relate? Why?

25. The Seymours wanted their fifteen-year-olddaughter, Anna, to help out in the family business,a convenience grocery store that was opentwenty-four hours every day. The Seymoursthought Anna could learn the business best thisway. Since they would be paying Anna, theywould not be benefiting financially. They insistedthat state school attendance rules interfered bothwith parental rights to educate their children andwith the children’s right to get ahead faster. If theSeymours did not send Anna to school, wouldthey be engaging in civil disobedience or actingas scofflaws? What action could the Seymoursethically take in response to the situation?

37

SW_LAW_CH_02_024_039 11/9/02 8:18 AM Page 37

ANALYZE REAL CASES


26. Poppy Construction Company was engaged in thebusiness of developing, building, and selling a tractof houses in San Francisco. Mr. and Mrs. Burks, whowere black, offered to purchase one of the houses.Poppy had a policy and practice of refusing to sellhousing in the tract to blacks on the same condi-tions that the company applied to others. Whentheir offer was rejected, Mr. and Mrs. Burks sued onthe ground of racial discrimination. Racial discrimi-nation was contrary to the law of California as wellas to the U.S. Constitution. Poppy was required toaccept the Burkses’ offer to purchase the house. Isthis law best justified by consequential or ethicalrule based reasoning? (Burks v. Poppy ConstructionCompany, 307 P.2d 313, Cal.)

27. The city of Chicago sued to stop the operation ofthe Commonwealth Edison Company’s coal-burn-ing, electricity-generating plant in nearbyHammond, Indiana. Chicago claimed that the plantemitted too much smoke, sulfur dioxide, and otherharmful substances. The city also claimed that theplant was a common-law public nuisance becauseit caused “an unreasonable interference with a rightcommon to the general public” to clean, unpollutedair. Edison argued that it had spent much money toreduce harmful emissions and that the emissionswere now well below the levels prescribed by fed-eral clean air regulations and by the city ofHammond. Edison also pointed out that “unpleasantodors, smoke, and film” already characterized thearea in which the plant was located. The trial courtrefused to issue an injunction. Therefore, the city ofChicago appealed to a higher court, which affirmed(upheld) the trial court. How can this legal action beethically justified? (City of Chicago v. Common-wealth Edison Company, 321 N.E.2d 412, Ill.)

28. Briney owned an old farmhouse in Iowa, which hadbeen unoccupied for years. Although he had posted“No Trespassing” signs outside, there were intruders.To protect his property, Briney set a loaded shotguninside the building and rigged it to fire if the bed-room door were opened. Soon after, Katko and acompanion burglar broke into the house to steal oldbottles they considered antiques. As Katko started toopen the bedroom door, the shotgun went off,shooting off much of one leg. Although he wascommitting 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 legalresult? (Katko v. Briney, 183 N.W.2d 657, Iowa)

29. Reader’s Digest Association, Inc., promoted maga-zine subscriptions in 1970 by sending materials thatincluded “simulated checks” to potential sub-scribers. The government concluded that use of sim-ulated checks was, for some consumers, unfair anddeceptive and thus illegal. Therefore, the govern-ment ordered the Digest to stop using “simulatedchecks or any confusingly simulated item of value.”The Digest agreed to be bound to this governmentalorder. Later, the Digest mailed promotional materialthat used misleading “travel checks.” After the gov-ernment notified the Digest that these travel checkswere illegal, the Digest mailed millions of additionalchecks to consumers. Was the conduct of the Digestthat of a scofflaw or was the Digest engaged in civildisobedience? Explain. (United States v. Reader’sDigest Association, Inc., 662 F.2d 955).

30. Stu was a bartender at the Circle Inn, an establish-ment owned by O’Daniels. The bar had a rule thatcustomers could not use its phones. Darrell Soldanocame in and said he had been at Happy Jack’sSaloon, a bar across the street. He told Stu that hehad overheard a conversation where a patron ofHappy Jack’s threatened the life of another patron.Darrell asked for permission to use the bar’s phoneto call the police. Are the rules of an employer simi-lar to rules of law? In this case, is there an ethicaljustification for violating this rule? Is the justificationconsequential, based on ethical rules or both? If Stuviolates his employer’s rule is he ethically obligatedto tell the employer? (Soldano v. O’Daniels, 190Cal. Rptr. 310)

31. Roy was a Native American. He was refused federalfinancial assistance for his two-year-old daughterthrough a food-stamp program and Aid to Familieswith Dependent Children. The reason Roy wasrefused benefits was because federal law requiredrecipients of these programs to furnish a social secu-rity number, and Roy would not comply. His reli-gious beliefs held that the use of social securitynumbers was dehumanizing. Thus, Roy believedthat freedom of religion protected him from havingto furnish one. Do you agree with Roy’s belief aboutsocial security numbers? How do you think thejudge decided this case, and why? (Bowen v. Roy,476 U.S. 693)

38

SW_LAW_CH_02_024_039 11/9/02 8:18 AM Page 38

CASE FOR LEGAL THINKING

Grimshaw v. Ford Motor Company174 Cal. Rptr. 348

PRACTICE JUDGING

liminary engineering studies precede the stylingof a new automobile line. The Pinto, however,was a rush project, so that styling preceded engi-neering and dictated engineering design to agreater degree than usual. Among the engineeringdecisions dictated by styling was the placementof the fuel tank. The Pinto’s styling . . . requiredthe tank to be placed behind the rear axle, leav-ing only nine or ten inches of “crush space”—farless than in any other American automobile orFord overseas subcompact. In addition, the Pintowas designed so that its bumper was little morethan a chrome strip, less substantial than thebumper of any other American car producedthen or later.

Prototypes as well as two production Pintoswere crash-tested by Ford to determine, amongother things, the integrity of the fuel system inrear end accidents. Prototypes struck from therear with a moving barrier at 21 miles per hourcaused the fuel tank to be driven forward andpunctured, causing fuel leakage. Where rubberbladders had been installed in the tank, crashtests into fixed barriers at 21 miles per hourwithstood leakage from punctures in the gastank. The cost of the flaksuit or bladder wouldbe $4 to $8 per car. A reasonable inference maybe drawn from the evidence that despite manage-ment’s knowledge that the Pinto’s fuel systemcould be made safe at a cost of but $4 to $8 percar, it decided to defer corrective measures tosave money and enhance profits. Ford’s institu-tional mentality was shown to be one of callousindifference to public safety. . .DECISION The judgment against the FordMotor Company is affirmed.

1. Which ethical system, consequence-based or reasoning based on ethicalrules, most reflects the thinking used by the defendant, Ford MotorCompany, in this case?

2. Which ethical system, or systems, most reflect the thinking used by thecourt in this case?

EVIDENCE Mrs. Gray, accompanied by 13-year-old Richard Grimshaw, set out in the fam-ily’s new Pinto from Anaheim for Barstow tomeet Mr. Gray in Barstow. As Mrs. Grayapproached the Route 30 off-ramp where trafficwas congested, she moved from the outer fastlane to the middle lane of the freeway. Shortlyafter this lane change, the Pinto suddenly stalledand coasted to a halt in the middle lane. A FordGalaxie traveling immediately behind the Pintowas unable to avoid colliding with it. TheGalaxie had been traveling from 50 to 55 milesper hour but before the impact had slowed to aspeed of from 20 to 37 miles per hour. At themoment of impact, the Pinto caught fire and itsinterior was engulfed in flames. According toplaintiff ’s expert, the impact of the Galaxie haddriven the Pinto gas tank forward and caused itto be punctured by the flange or one of the boltson the differential housing so that fuel sprayedfrom the punctured tank and entered the passen-ger compartment. . . . When the occupantsemerged from the vehicle, their clothing wasalmost completely burned off. Mrs. Gray died afew days later of congestive heart failure as aresult of the burns. Richard Grimshaw managedto survive but only through heroic medical meas-ures. He underwent numerous and extensive sur-geries and skin grafts and faced additionalsurgeries over the next ten years. He lost portionsof several fingers on his left hand, portions of hisleft ear, and his face required many skin graftsfrom various portions of his body.OPINION Ford’s objective was to build a car ator below 2,000 pounds to sell for no more than$2,000. Ordinarily marketing surveys and pre-

CASE FOR LEGAL THINKING 39

SW_LAW_CH_02_024_039 11/9/02 8:18 AM Page 39

SW LAW CH 02 024 039 11/9/02 8:18 AM Page 24 ETHICS … · CHAPTER 2 Lessons ETHICS AND OUR LAW 2-1...

Documents

Transcript of SW LAW CH 02 024 039 11/9/02 8:18 AM Page 24 ETHICS … · CHAPTER 2 Lessons ETHICS AND OUR LAW 2-1...