Why law and ethics are far from co-extensive?

Answer 1

A one word answer: politics.

Answer 2

Actually, the State Bar of California enforces ethics-based and some other violations, the Disciplinary Rules (which are based upon ethical requirements) are adopted by the Supreme Court of California and made applicable to all California-licensed attorneys, and certain attorney-related provisions of the Business and Professions Code codify ethical requirements. The rules and their enforcement have teeth in CA. I would instead say that law and justice are not always coincident. Law is basically a process; justice is a goal. Justice is sometimes (often) affected by the consumption of time and by cost, by overcrowded dockets, by evidentiary rules which are generally good but imperfect, etc.

Answer 3

Law is a rule or body of rules of conduct inherent in human nature and essential to or binding upon human society.
Ethics are the principles of right and wrong that are accepted by an individual or a social group.
In my opinion the generally accepted ethics in a society should be taken into consideration while giving a judgment.
Example:
Ethically,in a country, the President should be elected by the new Parliament which comes into existence as a result of general elections. In Pakistan President Gen. Musharraf is intended to get himself elected again from the present Parliament which is going to complete its duration (5years) after few months instead of waiting for the new Parliament which will come into existence after coming general elections. Though the law allows him to do so but ethics don't. Here if ethics are ignored Gen Musharraf will be in a position to rig the election and it will cause a political restlessness in the country.

Answer 4

There are a lot of reasons that the law and ethics differ, but I think the one that prevents any legitimate government from collapsing the two into each other are the consequences of enforcement.
Unenforceable laws lead to both contempt for the rule of law generally and abuses of power. Take the laws against marijuana. They are incredibly difficult to enforce because drug use is a victimless crime, marijuana particularly so. This leads to a blurring of the line between legal behavior and illegal behavior that you are unlikely to ever get caught for doing. The flip side of this is that when marijuana laws are enforced, they are usually either a pretext for the arbitrary exercise of power against those disfavored by the state or so random as to make the state appear unjust for selecting one individual for punishment when the vast majority who do the same things are not.
So how does this relate to the gap between law and ethics? Ethics permeate every situation in life. This spans from whether to lie about you wife looking fat in a new dress to murder. When laws become too extensive, permeating every area of life, the ability of the state to enforce the law is reduced. Ethical lapses that others never know about or don't care to report would create vast new arenas of unenforceable laws with the resulting negative consequences.
Not only would no state have the resources to police its citizens to this extent, but you wouldn't want to live in a society where any action that the state decided was immoral would be punishable by law. Think USSR under Stalin. Totalitarianism is virtually guaranteed by inviting the government to police every form of conduct.
The other major reason that law and ethics cannot coincide in a society that anyone would want to live in is that a society ruled by law, not caprice, must have its laws clear and universal to warn people as to what actions are permitted and which are not. This is the purpose of many Constitutional limitations in the U.S. like the prohibition on ex post facto laws and laws being found unconstitutional due to being vague or overbroad. A society that makes ethics and law coextensive would require laws so vague as to be meaningless to cover every form of unethical act. It would also require the government to decide what is moral. Although some acts are so heinous and so detrimental to society as a whole that virtually all of us can agree to ban them (rape and murder, as two examples), the vast majority of life occurs in ethical gray areas. We do not want a government that deprives us of the very choices that define who we are as moral actors.

Answer 5

Because law deals with mandatory prohibitions and requirements, imposed upon the entire population of a jurisdiction.

Ethics deals with voluntary prohibitions and requirements, accepted by individuals as part of membership in an organization or profession.

Ethics only cover aspects related to that profession or group, but because they are voluntary can include things that a govt cannot mandate (restricitons on speech, religion, etc).

So, different modes of acceptance, different scopes of effect, and often different topics covered.

Answer 6

your mind is the key to the answer......