So let`s make the case explicit and explain why legality does not determine ethics. […] Rexall`s dubious homeopathic offerings. From Canadian Business and MSN. Because legal is not necessarily ethical. […] What a great article. I am currently preparing a scientific paper on ethical practice in real estate (in New Zealand). There are a number of issues in this industry that are legal, but certainly far from ethical. On the contrary, there are sometimes actions that I would consider ethically preferable, but not really legal. You are right in some things and wrong in others. Why choose what is considered bad over what is legal? There is not enough logic in both. Morality is a matter of desirability, not of what is considered evil. You can`t just choose the majority because there are too many different notions of ethics. If people thought it was okay to kill or steal, would that be fair? Let`s say when the majority voted for people to murder or something like that because they were bored, because it was a psychopathic society? No, it would always be wrong because it`s worse for that person.
It is worse to die than to be bored so that the psychopath can walk without it. They are simply selfish, even if they are the majority. The majority can be selfish. Because everyone is important and everyone is important. Interracial marriages were once considered bad, and this is not immoral. Could you call that immoral? What is your point? Why do you think it is the majority? Don`t think about it? Remember: On what general basis is something done illegally? Let us leave aside the cases of unscrupulous legislators who pass laws just for their own benefit or that of their friends. In all legitimate cases of legislation, the law always has a moral purpose – usually either to improve people`s lives and make them safer (e.g., seat belt laws) or to protect an important right (e.g., food labeling laws). Sometimes people believe that the end justifies the means. In ethics, everything depends on one`s own motivations for action.
If one`s own goals are good and noble, and the means by which we achieve them are also good and noble, then the end justifies the means. However, if one considers the concept as an excuse to achieve one`s goals by any means necessary, no matter how immoral, illegal or offensive the means may be to others, then that person tries to justify the wrongdoing by indicating a good outcome, regardless of ethical considerations, such as how the actions affect others. Nothing could be further from the truth. The process you follow to decide on an action plan is more important than achieving the end goal. If this were not true from a moral point of view, then we could rationalize all kinds of actions in the name of achieving a desired goal, even if that goal harms others while satisfying our personal needs and desires. Anyone who simply tells you or implies that everything that is legal is also ethical most likely engages in selfish rationalizations. If this idea arises in the private sector, it is likely that someone is trying to justify profitable behavior that is unethical but not yet illegal. If the same idea arises in academic circles, it is more likely that the self-interest they are trying to preserve is their own interest in avoiding the hard work of determining which business behaviors are unethical and why. 03. The death penalty is also legal in many States, but a large number of people consider it unethical. Home > FAQ> What is the difference between unethical and illegal business practices? Think about it for a moment: would you really want all ethical obligations to be translated into law? This would mean a large number of new laws, a huge law enforcement problem and an extremely intrusive legal system.
(Example: Imagine your friend asking, “What do you think of my new friend?” Imagine lying and saying, “He`s awesome!” This lie is probably unethical. But do you think it should be against the law? Should you be thrown in jail for this?) 04. Smoking cigarettes in public is legal in some places, but some may find it disrespectful and unethical. But the transformer emits a lot of heat, which is why it can sometimes burn and sometimes cause real damage to people. So if someone removes the fuse from the transformer when there is a possibility that the transformer will turn off, it is illegal, but it is completely ethical because the person removing the fuses wants to avoid damage. Hello Professor, I am studying at the University of the United Arab Emirates and we take business ethics, which the teacher told us, bring examples of ethical but illegal and unethical problems, but legal you can give me the next logical step is the morality of the laws themselves and the morality of the government`s actions to enforce them, to question. When a law wrongly deprives a person of property or liberty, it is false. When the government enforces these laws, it engages in unethical aggression against the people.
The seriousness of illegal and unethical business practices cannot be overemphasized. Everyone has a responsibility to promote a positive workplace and conduct ethical and legal business. While I make an excellent point, I think the other side of the coin is more important these days, not everything that is illegal is unethical. There are so many laws governing our behavior that one author notes that we commit an average of 3 crimes a day in the United States (online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704471504574438900830760842.html). We certainly do not commit the 3 unethical acts per day that reach the level of crime. Something is wrong here. Or just take a unique example: if you carry a seriously injured person in a car at night and arrive at a red light and there is clearly no traffic: would you really stop or cross carefully? That would clearly be illegal – would it also be unethical? I don`t think so. But if the finance professor mentioned above were right, there would be no way to find a moral justification for a new law.
After all, he says, if a behavior is legal (for now), then it`s ethically correct (right now). On what basis could new laws be adopted? Certainly not for ethical reasons, because according to the hypothesis, if something is currently legal, it must be ethically in order. What happens if a terrible new toxin is discovered, the use of which by industry would pose significant risks to workers or consumers? Should it be banned? According to the finance professor, this is not possible. After all, the use is legal, so it must be ethical; And if it`s ethical, it can`t be made illegal. Illegal behaviour is much easier to detect because of the inherent side of the law. In comparison, unethical behavior is difficult to detect because people may have different opinions about whether something is ethical or not. Ethics may vary from person to person, but the law is the law, and everyone must follow the same rules. Another point I would like to raise is the emphasis in the article on citizen behaviour.
At this point, I would say it`s more important to keep a critical eye on government behavior. Chris, with all due respect, I think you underestimate the cases.” unscrupulous legislators who pass laws just for their own benefit or that of their friends. This is the norm, not the exception. The huge lobbying industry bears witness to this. We are talking about influence, which is legal but unethical.