In this individual project I will be analyzing and explaining the state of our legal system in terms of ethics as a personal and business standpoint. Secondly I will be figuring out if our legal system promotes bad ethics and what they are doing in trying to make it into god ethics. Then lastly I will be going over the role of judges in promoting good legal ethical practices in our society as of today.
Sate of Our Legal System in Terms of Ethics Ethical assessment making begins with the reaction that there is a good versus a bad moral decision to be made concerning a particular condition a “correct” choice established on interests benefiting mortality in some way as different to a “incorrect” choice established on some corrupt or self-serving concern. It also involves characters to appraise the morality of their own, and often others’, actions (Board, 2012). Ethics are the resources by which we choose what movements are allowable and what activities are not.
What is less identified is the fact that every ethic involves of two quantities: an importance that explains what it is that we need more of in our lives, or what we wish to exploit, and a belief, or system of views, that defines what activities we are to take to acquire more of the worth that we pursue. Still less frequently known is the fact that an ethic may be effective or unacceptable. Effective ethics create the preferred outcomes an escalation in the standards wanted.
Void ethics create the opposite result a decreasing of that which is pursued or wanted. As an example, contemplate the ethic implemented by our country’s forefathers. The assessment they wished to exploit was freedom for the country’s societies (excluding maybe women and slaves). The belief system was founded on the values of a democratic republic memorial popular regulation. Each year but two (1865 and 1920) we have had less freedom than the year before (Singer, n. d. ).
Today, through the propagation of ever more preventive laws, almost every part of our lives is structured or controlled by our county, state, federal, or public governments. Without government authorization we cannot drive a car, own property, board a plane, modify our home, open a bank account, control a business, consume prescribed medication, carry a gun, or do any of a thousand other things that our forefathers and foremothers would have reflected to be our unchallengeable rights.
In short, the creators of our country chose to implement an ethic that is unacceptable because its acceptance fashioned the conflicting effect of that anticipated. While we are on the focus of ethics, let’s consider two other precise ethics that are particularly appropriate to an considerate of the problem that mortality presently faces. The first I shall mention to as the Power Ethic. This ethic pursues to exploit power over others in the influences of those who accept it. The confidence system that supports this ethic can be summarized by the declaration, “Might makes right”.
In other words, those who can afford to buy artillery and to pay or intimidate young men and women to use those arms in combat have the right to exercise power over others for whatever reasons they wish. This is the ethic accepted by those who conceived government as-we-know-it in Sumer eight thousand years ago. This ethic is still the principle of those who run the governments of the world nowadays. At first it might seem that the Power Ethic is effective because, undeniably, those who have accepted it have prospered in accruing more and more power over their associated men and women.
But there are secondary penalties. Incorporated among these are drug addiction, international strife, poverty, hunger, slavery, terrorism, wars, interpersonal violence, bureaucracy, oligarchy, environmental degradation, and all manner of crime. If the macroscopic development continues it is more than likely that the end outcome will be the total extermination of all human life on our planet thus decreasing the earth to a radioactive residue. Like a universal pest, those who have espoused the Power Ethic will abolish their host and themselves with it. So in the end the ethic is not usable.
By contrast, reflect an ethic that picks originality and its logical counterparts as the standards to be exploited. Such means as love, consciousness, objective truth, and development may be measured as reasonable equivalents of imagination, because whenever one of these assets is amplified they are all improved, and vice versa. John David Garcia, the brilliant author of Creative Transformation, called this ethic the Evolutionary Ethic, so I will do likewise (AIU Online, 2013). We might note at this point that all affluence, and eventually all cheerfulness, originates from someone’s creativeness.
The belief system that authorizes this ethic instigates with the concept that an act is good if it intensifications originality or any of its logical counterparts for at least one person without limiting or fading creativity for anyone. From this meaning a broad variety of values can be resulting by simple judgment. This ethic, it turns out, is effective. Inquisitively, the acceptance of this ethic normally exploits affluence and happiness, even though these are not logical equivalents of creativeness.
In fact, ethics based on the expansion of affluence and happiness are not lawful creating poverty and unhappiness in its place. From this point on I shall use the terms ethical and unethical in place to this ethic precisely. There are numerous other legal ethics which I choose not to discuss in this paper excluding to note that each of them shows, upon close inspection, to be logical counterparts of the Evolutionary Ethic in that they call for the same interactive choices when determining between alternative sequences of action.
From the preceding we can see that mortality’s big problem is the fact that the world’s governments, without omission, have selected the Power Ethic as their factor basis reasonably than the Evolutionary Ethic or one of its logical counterparts. The big question that humankind faces today is whether this choice is permanent and if not, what we must do to dodge the disaster that the Power Ethic is leading us toward (AIU Online, 2013). In our legal system in terms of ethics as being a big part of our nation’s survival and in terms of businesses keeping up a good production of products and jobs for eople to live on be able to pay bills and what not.
Legal System Promote Bad Ethics In an ethical society freedom is restricted by ethical law. Those who wish to perform in a dependent or destructive manner are prohibited to do so. The inaccuracy of our establishment fathers was to exploit freedom in such a way that the most predacious, parasitic, and normally unethical persons were allowable to command the law, thereby creating the commands that allowed the ultra-wealthy to control the rest of us. We must reverse this trend if humanity is to survive, let alone thrive.
To accomplish this end we must understand the nature of ethical law and disprove the authority of unethical law. To aid in descriptive this peculiarity, I shall mention to unethical laws as government announcements, or simply as pronouncements. If so, might makes right, and anyone who can afford to buy weapons and persuade others to use them to enforce their will has a right to so. This is the premise upon which all of today’s governments are founded. This has been the true basis of law throughout the world for at least eight thousand years, since government was invented in Sumer.
To answer this question properly, we note first that all law presumes the use of force or power over others. But it takes only a simple exercise of logic to see that the exercise of power over others is only ethical in self-protection against someone who has initiated or defenseless the use of force for their own purposes. Therefore, ethical laws are only those that provide defense against such unethical acts. Since everyone has the right to defend themselves against the use of violence, it follows that everyone has the right to delegate to others their specialist to defend themselves.
From this we conclude that all ethical laws embody this principle: All ethical laws, all legitimate laws, represent a contract under which a group of individuals, each having the right of self-defense, agrees to enforce a mutual defense pact. Ethical law can exist for this purpose alone. Additionally, we note that all existing laws, and laws, forbid some act or permit the act only when a tax is paid to the government (AIU Online, 2013). Role of Judges in Promoting Good Legal Ethical Practices The makings of a good judge are the abilities of a good man.
There are supplementary demands on a judge, to be sure information of the law, a will to append judgment until all the indication is in. But at least it must be the complexity and consistency of his mortality that succeed and define the judge (Newton, n. d. ). Those who come before a judge do not really know before whom they stand. The person who manages over the courtroom, covered in the earnest black robes of his or her office, is in that moment less an individual than a sign of democratic standards and an tool of state power.
In appreciation of that power and ability, all rise as the judge enters the courtroom and takes the seat, eminent above everyone else in the room, from which impartiality will be noticeable. It is the hope of all, and the principle of most, that this individual will do his or her job well, administration what is possibly our most valuable social good justice. Yet, in most compliments, judges remain unidentified to those who conduct their business before the court.
What no one knows, what no one is even allowed to ask, is the character of the person wearing that robe and the ways in which that individual’s particular aptitudes will affect the presentation of his or her responsibilities (Newton, n. d. ). The judges I interviewed all acknowledged both that doing their job involved elements of discretion and that exercising discretion was in some measure a reflection of one’s own moral values. Yet, each responded to these challenges differently. Judge Meyer appeared most concerned about the subjectivity inherent in judging.
In response to my proposition that judging elaborate evaluating the ethical character of people in certain ways and that this involved a good deal of indecision (Newton, n. d. ). Conclusion In conclusion, this individual project has really shown me some great ethics, morality and legalities in how to focus on the analysis of each portion of legal systems and role of judges in trying to promote good ethical practices. It just goes to show that in the different analysis in explaining the stat of our legal system in terms of ethics is a big portion in our societies now days.
Although, in going into the legal system in promoting bad ethics is that you never really know what to expect in trying to promote bad ethics with some companies in furthering their demographic. However, in the role of judges in promoting good legal ethical practices is that judges have to stick with a strict process of being good in supporting these laws in the legal system in terms of ethics. So overall I found this assignment to have taught me some great information in trying to come up with the best research to best complement in delivering the additional material in providing the focus on this topic.