English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

3 answers

There is a lot of mischief that can be done within those rules. For example, if the CEO is corrupt, along with the majority of the Board of Directors, then they can collaborate to steal the assets of the business by simply voting and writing contracts that allow them to.

2007-01-30 07:58:05 · answer #1 · answered by speakeasy 6 · 0 1

Consider 3 tiers: Law, Ethics, and Morality

Law is the lowest level. If your conduct falls below this level, then it is so bad that the rest of society has the right to punish you for it. However, just because something is not so bad that you should go to jail for it doesn't make it (or you) good.

Ethics is the middle level, usually reserved for a group or profession. Often, ethics are codified and published so that the members of the groups know and agree upon the standards of conduct they are expected to follow. Doctors, lawyers, judges, therapists all have a code of ethics to which they must adhere in order to remain in the profession. Religious groups also often have such standards, though they are not usually codified separately from their inspired/authoritative texts (Torah, Mishnah, New Testament, Koran, etc). Conduct which is "legal" but which falls short of the group ethical standard can result in censure or exclusion from the group (excommunication/disfellowshipping, disbarment, etc).

Morals typically are more personal and less formal, between you & your conscience & God. Morals are who you are when no one is looking.



Laws are insufficient to make anyone good; the only reason to look at a law is to figure out how to avoid being punished. Ethics can help people become moral by making them risk censure or ostracism by their poor conduct even if it does not involve a risk of prison time. Good people don't need laws in order to be good; we need laws to "get" the bad people. Law vs. ethics is a question of "how bad", IMO.

2007-01-30 08:38:49 · answer #2 · answered by Captain Obvious! 3 · 0 0

Hmmm could I be choosing only one? LOL! Eeek too hard. Will only write my first theory for each ingredient: Adherence to regulations: I do bypass by using the "regulations" for the main area, in spite of the undeniable fact that that's greater for ethical motives and because i'm very uncomplicated as nicely. i do no longer stick to regulations for regulations sake and don't think of that they are the main severe ingredient Adherence to rules: ehh, style of the comparable as above, in line with threat a sturdy connotation as rules are greater concrete than regulations in line with threat. lower back, if i'm conscious of them, and that's obtainable to stick to them, then I do. do no longer see any reason to break a low yet i'm no longer a regulation enforcer perse. Adherence to ethics: i could say that i'm ethical. that's like innate in me. i like to win, yet won't win by using any skill mandatory. cheating to win, isn't winning in any respect imo. Adherence to equity: confident, i like equity. mandatory to me and it annoys me whilst human beings do no longer play honest. style of appropriate w. ethics i assume. lower back, in case you probably did no longer play honest, then you quite did no longer win to me. Adherence to actuality: i admire actuality. that's quite substantial to me. an uncomplicated individual, whether what they're telling me is poor, will nonetheless get my admire for no longer being a liar. I only love honesty and am easily closer to those who're direct and uncomplicated Adherence to human beings thoughts: I actually have a severe regard for peoples thoughts. I do evaluate how a individual will sense or the way it would cause them to sense whilst making a decision or till now asserting something. i do no longer think of thoughts are the top all of all issues, yet I do supply them attention. in spite of the undeniable fact that, good judgment, equity, actuality, and ethics, will win over egocentric thoughts (like, i think of that's okay to bypass after this married guy because of the fact i admire him and want to have him---those are stupid thoughts and could no longer settle for any attention from me). Me: solar: Sadge, Moon: Leo, Mercury: Capricorn, Venus and Mars: Scorpio

2016-11-23 14:32:11 · answer #3 · answered by side 4 · 0 0

fedest.com, questions and answers