A Real Divide Between the Law and Ethics - Essay Example

?TO TELL OR NOT TO TELL INTRODUCTION Since the ancient period, humanity has already been asking the question ‘What should I do?’ when confronted withthe quandary between right or wrong, good or bad. As such, it is not surprising to find proffered approaches and possible answers for this query. However, have we really gone far in addressing this ‘seeming simple ‘question? Looking at the contemporary human condition, people are still struggling with the question. Despite the fact, theories and experiences have served as a guide in untangling the predicament, still, people find themselves perplex in the face of the dilemma between right and wrong. As with this case, Sunny who is a department head finds himself in the middle of an ethical dilemma. They are about to launch a new power crunch for kids. Considering the problem of obesity among children, it is a good strategy to include in the packing the phrase “100% less value added sugar”. In fact, in a study conducted, there is a possibility of increasing sales up to 22. 45% based on this strategy alone. However, Sunny is not comfortable with the scenario even if the product that they will launch is indeed 100%less value sugar. This is because to compensate for the decrease in sugar, they have increase the carbohydrate content of the krunch. Thus, in effect the product does not offer any weight loss advantage. What must Sunny do, to tell or not to tell? THE THEORIES When dealing with the question of right or wrong, one enters the field of Ethics. As noted, ethics is different with morality in terms of ethics, although pertaining to the question of rightness or wrongness of an act, is addressed base on the systems and theories raise by philosophers and secular thinker. Whereas, morality, also addressing the same question, refers to the different approaches that religion, society, and institutions have come up with (Plenary 3, Lecture Notes). Ethics has given several theories such as deontology, teleology, virtue ethics, utilitarianism and many more. For this section, a brief discussion of some of the ethical theories will be undertaken. Virtue ethics works on the supposition that virtue is a habit of the soul. It is not just one a shot deal but it is a disposition towards the good that is developed as one lives life (Doris, 1998). In this regard, virtue ethics deals not only with the question of the rightness or wrongness of the act at a certain situation but it primarily looks into the character of the human person - the agent. Thus, in virtue ethics, it is presupposed that having a good character will enable one to make the right decision at all times, especially, during dire situations. It holds consistency in human character – good character. However, virtue ethics does not really provide clear cut criteria for the rightness or wrongness of an act but, it can tell you whether the person is good or bad depending on behavioural manifestations. Moreover, virtue ethics does not address the problem of relativism – one good trait may not be considered as good in another culture. Another theory is utilitarianism. In this theory, the rightness or wrongness of the act is dependent on the entailed consequences of the act (Velasquez, 2006). If there will be many beneficiaries from the act, then the act is good. In other words, if the act will make more people happy, then the act is good. In this sense, as focus is turned on the consequence of the act, counting how many will be happier or how many will benefit from the act becomes the parameter for the rightness or wrongness of the act. This theory is criticised because it is vague as to what is happiness and on how happiness will be measured. Moreover, question of relativism and the danger of the fallacy of the majority become an inherent concern of this theory. Duty-based ethics is the last theory that will be briefly discussed. According to this theory, rightness or wrongness of the act does not depend on its consequence, rather, rightness or wrongness is inherent in the act itself. As such, there are acts that one ought to do and acts which one ought not to do. This theory provides a straightforward directive on what ought to be done. This is because the theory rests on the assumption that all human beings are rational human agent and as rational agents they will do the right act and avoid the wrong one (Gardner, 2006). However, the certainty of the theory brings into light one of the criticisms raise against duty-based ethics – it fails to recognise the significance of the context from which the dilemma arises. It puts too much trust on the rational human agent that it will follow the dictate of reason. Likewise, it does not provide a definitive solution in the face of conflicting duties. These theories are intended to guide our decision in taking the right act in the midst of an ethical dilemma. However, how? MY POSITION As somebody coming from the legal profession, sometimes I think that question of ethics is not within the purview of the law. In fact, it is claimed that as the law provides certitude, and a clear black and white dichotomy, ethics on the other hand is a grey area(Crane & Matten, 2007).. For instance, Report on the Law Relating to Dishonesty provides a clear guide as to how people in the legal system will understand the legal notion of dishonesty. Moreover, it lays down several possible cases wherein dishonesty is perceptible such offenses relating to computers, fraud between husband and wife, deception and many more (see [1992] IELRC 2). This is the case since, “The rule of law requires that rights and duties under the law are determined” ([1999] EWCA Civ 1144). Thus, it appears to be easy to fall back to question of law rather than to the value question of right or wrong. However, I think I am making things very simplistic. The easy stuff is only possible if there is a real divide between the law and ethics. Unfortunately, it is not. The neutral party, is perceived as the common stance of those in the legal profession, does not provide guidance for ethical decision. Law and lawyers are not removed from the ethical questions arising in living in the real world. Going back in the case of Sunny, I’ll be suggesting that they use a different approach in promoting the krunch. As “A company cannot be injured in its feelings, it can only be injured in its pocket. ...The injury need not necessarily be confined to loss of income. Its goodwill may be injured” ([1964] A.C. 234). This being said, I suggest that they highlight other attributes of the product that will distinguish it from other similar products in the market. In this way, the dilemma can be avoided. Sometimes I think that we tend to limit ourselves into just right or wrong, good or bad, when in fact there are other approaches that maybe used. Ethics teaches this. There are always several approaches that can be used and in opting one over the other, it affirms our being rational and our goal in creating a more humane society for everyone. REFERENCES Crane, A & Matten, D 2007 Business Ethics, second Edition, New York: Oxford University Press, Doris, J M 1998 Persons, situations and virtue ethics, Nous, vol. 32, no 4, pp. 504 – 530. Gardner, S 2006 The Primacy of practical reason. In Graham Bird (ed) A Companion to Kant, London: A Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Plenary 3 An ethical balloon debate. Lecture Notes. Velasquez, MG, 2006, Business Ethics: Concepts and Cases, Sixth Edition, New York: Pearson. CASES Report on the Law Relating to Dishonesty [1992] IELRC 2 Steel & Anor v McDonald’s Corporation & Anor [1999]EWCA Civ 1144 Lewis v. Daily Telegraph Ltd. [1964] A.C. 234 Read More