3 ms·

Do you think our laws should be tuned for maximum profit, or to reflect who we are, ethically and morally, as a society?

fallingknife 5y ago
From a moral standpoint I think we have to accept how other societies are run and act accordingly, and our laws should end at our borders.
- otterley 5y ago
  That suggests that human beings are substantially different outside our borders, and that ethics are not universal.
  - missedthecue 5y ago
    I would say that's more or less observably true
    - otterley 5y ago
      Go on...
      - missedthecue 5y ago
        I don't think every culture has exactly the same ethical framework. One can easily imagine a few different examples where that's not the case.
        pessimizer 5y ago
        I think the question is more about whether you have the same ethical framework when dealing with other cultures as when dealing with your own, not whether other cultures tend toward different ethical standards themselves.
        legalcorrection 5y ago
        Your consistent ethical framework can be to respect the laws (the de facto laws) of the places you operate in. For a whole country, part of any reasonable ethical code is something like not interfering in the internal affairs of other countries, which means not exercising legal jurisdiction over actions that take place in other countries and don't really concern you.
  - BuyMyBitcoins 5y ago
    Sounds right to me. In fact that’s one of the main reasons why we have different nations and borders in the first place. We should not assume our WEIRD values are universal. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychology#WEIRD_bias https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychology#WEIRD_bias
    - otterley 5y ago
      > In fact that’s one of the main reasons why we have different nations and borders in the first place. I'm not so sure about that. We have different cultures, to be sure, and certainly different governments to which we pledge allegiance, each with limited reach. But the modern concept of statehood and universally-recognized, clearly-delineated borders is a relatively new phenomenon, dating only back to the 20th century. Borders and distinctions between territories before then were rather blurry. See, e.g., http://www.dpi.inpe.br/gilberto/references/robinson_boundaries.pdf http://www.dpi.inpe.br/gilberto/references/robinson_boundari....
      - BuyMyBitcoins 5y ago
        But I don’t think this refutes the notion that ethics and morals are not universal. Sure, rigid borders are relatively new but I don’t think we should get bogged down in terminology. Maybe I should have said “government” instead of nation and “territory” instead of “borders”.
legalcorrection 5y ago
It's not about our laws, it's about their laws. Whether bribery is legal or otherwise tolerated seems to be a question properly for the country whose officials are being bribed. It may be hard to imagine, but this is just how it works in some countries. They don't pay their public officials enough, and everyone expects that they pad their inadequate official salaries with corruption. I certainly wouldn't want my country to be run that way, but it's just how some societies work. Yes, the bribery is technically illegal in most of those countries, but thinking that is is of primary importance is mistaking western legalism for a universal ethos. In many other places, the technical requirements of the law are much less important. The real law in all cases is what is actually practiced, which in these societies can be quite different from what's on the books.
- otterley 5y ago
  > mistaking western legalism for a universal ethos. If our laws aren't reflecting a "universal ethos," then it seems to me we need to change our own laws. If, on the other hand, our laws are tuned to reflect our judgment that bribery is universally ethically and economically problematic for a multitude of defensible reasons (regardless of whether it's a common practice elsewhere), then perhaps we are doing the right thing. Sometimes theory and practice come into conflict. Persuading others to adopt our policies, which we believe to be grounded in universally applicable ethics, through economic pressure is the best thing we know how to do that doesn't involve going to war.

fallingknife 5y ago

From a moral standpoint I think we have to accept how other societies are run and act accordingly, and our laws should end at our borders.

otterley 5y ago
That suggests that human beings are substantially different outside our borders, and that ethics are not universal.
- missedthecue 5y ago
  I would say that's more or less observably true
  - otterley 5y ago
    Go on...
    - missedthecue 5y ago
      I don't think every culture has exactly the same ethical framework. One can easily imagine a few different examples where that's not the case.
      - pessimizer 5y ago
        I think the question is more about whether you have the same ethical framework when dealing with other cultures as when dealing with your own, not whether other cultures tend toward different ethical standards themselves.
        legalcorrection 5y ago
        Your consistent ethical framework can be to respect the laws (the de facto laws) of the places you operate in. For a whole country, part of any reasonable ethical code is something like not interfering in the internal affairs of other countries, which means not exercising legal jurisdiction over actions that take place in other countries and don't really concern you.
- BuyMyBitcoins 5y ago
  Sounds right to me. In fact that’s one of the main reasons why we have different nations and borders in the first place. We should not assume our WEIRD values are universal. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychology#WEIRD_bias https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychology#WEIRD_bias
  - otterley 5y ago
    > In fact that’s one of the main reasons why we have different nations and borders in the first place. I'm not so sure about that. We have different cultures, to be sure, and certainly different governments to which we pledge allegiance, each with limited reach. But the modern concept of statehood and universally-recognized, clearly-delineated borders is a relatively new phenomenon, dating only back to the 20th century. Borders and distinctions between territories before then were rather blurry. See, e.g., http://www.dpi.inpe.br/gilberto/references/robinson_boundaries.pdf http://www.dpi.inpe.br/gilberto/references/robinson_boundari....
    - BuyMyBitcoins 5y ago
      But I don’t think this refutes the notion that ethics and morals are not universal. Sure, rigid borders are relatively new but I don’t think we should get bogged down in terminology. Maybe I should have said “government” instead of nation and “territory” instead of “borders”.

legalcorrection 5y ago

It's not about our laws, it's about their laws. Whether bribery is legal or otherwise tolerated seems to be a question properly for the country whose officials are being bribed. It may be hard to imagine, but this is just how it works in some countries. They don't pay their public officials enough, and everyone expects that they pad their inadequate official salaries with corruption. I certainly wouldn't want my country to be run that way, but it's just how some societies work. Yes, the bribery is technically illegal in most of those countries, but thinking that is is of primary importance is mistaking western legalism for a universal ethos. In many other places, the technical requirements of the law are much less important. The real law in all cases is what is actually practiced, which in these societies can be quite different from what's on the books.

otterley 5y ago
> mistaking western legalism for a universal ethos. If our laws aren't reflecting a "universal ethos," then it seems to me we need to change our own laws. If, on the other hand, our laws are tuned to reflect our judgment that bribery is universally ethically and economically problematic for a multitude of defensible reasons (regardless of whether it's a common practice elsewhere), then perhaps we are doing the right thing. Sometimes theory and practice come into conflict. Persuading others to adopt our policies, which we believe to be grounded in universally applicable ethics, through economic pressure is the best thing we know how to do that doesn't involve going to war.