Ethics, Law, and Tolerance: A Continuing Discussion
WARNING!!! LONG POST AHEAD!!!
This is a conversation I'm having with a professor of mine at the University of Phoenix. The class is Employment Law, but I thought the concepts being discussed were so much broader that I wanted to share them here in the hopes of continuing this discussion in a less content-restrictive environment. I include my professor's comments with his permission.
Ryan (my professor):
In several of your DQ responses and discussion posts there have been words like pervert, right, wrong, fair, and unfair.
In the beginning of class the first night I mentioned that the employment laws we are learning about were made by human beings with varying opinions and backgrounds trying to address situations in society in the best way they knew at the time.
The laws are imperfect attempts to address issues that exist or existed in society.
I believe many of you will be able to look at these laws with more objectivity if you look at them with with eyes considering how effective they address societies issues, or how reasonable they are or what their relative strengths and weaknesses are.
I definitely believe there are absolutes such as right and wrong - but that is not the subject of this class. This is not a religion class.
I am seeing some tones of "moral judgements" about people and laws that I think don't allow for the rich diversity we have as a country. This is a class about the law, not about morals.
I know I did not say this as accurately as I would like to. But please consider it and respond.
Me:
Ryan T. said, "I definitely believe there are absolutes such as right and wrong - but that is not the subject of this class. This is not a religion class."
With respect, I believe part of the reason we need laws like Title VII is because people try to separate the worlds of morality and legality. Where can we see the connectedness of morality and law more clearly than in the history of discrimination in this country - particularly on the basis of race? Right and wrong don't need to factor into all discussions about employment law, perhaps, but aren't most laws in this area in place to ensure fair treatment of the worker or to correct/prevent wrongs either past or present? At least as far as we have gone in this class to date, aren't we talking about treating people with equity?
My point is that right and wrong are issues for public life - for business, government, and society at large, not just religion. We usually call them ethics in those spheres, which I know are not the same as values, but they do reflect our understanding of morality. I realize that not everything wrong is illegal and that not everything legal is right. I also realize that many religions and people are diverse enough that we shouldn't try to make laws that reflect too specific an understanding of morality. Nevertheless, in a government like ours many types of laws are put in place to give us a foundation of good conduct for society. In other words, they are there to teach, institute, or enforce right behavior. We certainly can't legislate what people must believe, religiously or not, but aren't our laws based on common ideals about how to run a good society - on what behaviors we want to see perpetuated and which ones we want to do away with? Don't we determine that by finding points of commonality about what behaviors we believe are good for us? Or are we settling for a society that refuses to pass judgment on anything? As you pointed out in class, discrimination, in its purest meaning, is essential to functionality.
I think this question is part of a critical debate over the direction of America that may be coming to a head in our lifetimes. Some people want to have an amoral society (I'm not saying that's you, Ryan) that, while respecting all belief systems equally, also accepts all behaviors as equally valid. In other words, it doesn't distinguish between choices about belief and those about behavior. Others think that diversity of and respect for belief can flourish in a society that still draws lines about what it will tolerate people doing. This may be an oversimplification, but this is also not the forum for an extended debate of this type.
I don't expect our laws or lawmakers to be perfect or to agree perfectly with my religious beliefs. Neither do I expect everyone to hold to my ethical system, but I do think that historically, there has been what might be called an American belief system that includes the ideals outlined in the Constitution and Bill of Rights, which also have right and wrong as a big part of their basis. I also think we're in the process of losing that, and I don't think its a good thing.
Ryan:
I love your response. This is just the type of discussion I was hoping for.
I agree that right and wrong cannot be taken out of the public discourse. However, from my point of view, right and wrong is oftentimes viewed as black and white by those who have very strong opinions on certain matters. I believe that there is a place for tolerance and balance alongside the discourse of right and wrong.
We live in a fascinating, diverse world with a lot of challenges.
Excellent response. Thank You
Thanks for having the courage and principles to speak your mind.
Me:
A man whose thoughts I admire once told me that "all truth is found in paradox." I preface my comment with that statement because although I agree with your assertion that right and wrong shouldn't be viewed so starkly, what I'm going to say is going to sound contradictory. Instead, it's simply the paradoxical balance point of what you said. This is a developing idea with me, but I'll try to explain myself. I'm sure I could blather on about this forever, so I'll also try to contain myself. :)
Right and wrong may not be easy to determine when it comes to human action, but I think that the tendency to view them in black and white comes from a belief in truth, which is black and white. Any teacher who has ever put a trick question on a True or False test can tell you that unless a statement/idea/principle is completely true, it is false. If any part is false, the whole is false. That's why the scientific method works based on theoretical knowledge rather than absolutes. There are very few absolutes in human science, and even those are open to challenge.
I guess you can view the social sciences in the same way. Because most people believe in truth, although they may not agree upon what it is, they want a black and white standard. That's not a bad desire. People want to be able to consistently make good judgments. But because humans and their behaviors are such a complex mixture of truth and falsehood, we have to instead stick to this concept of right and wrong which is so often situational. Do you see what I mean? There's a difference between true and false vs. right and wrong. The relationships among true principles are such that one may take precedence over another in one moment, and then suddenly become subject to it as a result of unexpected developments. I don't know how to begin to describe this, other than to say that every truth has, as I said, it's paradoxical partner that allows it to remain in balance - and therefore to remain true - in whatever convoluted circumstance it may find itself. But because the order of priority changes, what is right in one situation will not always be right in the next. That is the sense in which right and wrong are gray, while true and false are absolute.
So if right and wrong are never black and white, true and false always are, and that's where the balance comes.
I know this isn't a philosophy class, but I hope you see what I'm getting at. Because of human nature, we have to judge situationally, as others have said. Actually, I think that might be the case regardless of human nature. We can look at truths or guiding principles as black and white, which is what so many people do. Even the law, once it has made a judgment, loses much of its grayness. But up to that point at least, and always where other people are concerned, we live in the world of gray. But similar to a grayscale image, the grayness doesn't come from a lack of clarity or contrast, but from the complex interweaving of millions of tiny points of distinct black or white.
The factor that demands tolerance is that our imperfect eyes cannot distinguish the individual points, and so by our own power we can only judge the histogram - the shade of gray that we can see. Because we all appear gray to each other (and to ourselves) therefore, we hardly qualify as judges at all. I say hardly because some things, while technically still gray, are so dark gray that we all agree they should be restricted. But where is that line drawn? Ethics...
Ryan:
your comment is wonderful and gets to the heart of what I was trying to explore with this question.
We are dealing with balancing acts of right, wrong, black, white, tolerance, and sheer pragmatism about what the law can address.
I find often that as individuals start to look at employment laws which brush up against their own personal standards that an initial knee jerk reaction is to say something like: "This is wrong"
There definitely is right and wrong in my opinion. However - when it comes to the workplace and law there is also a lot of gray. Again - I am asking you, without throwing out your own values, to consider the fact that these laws have been created by human beings coming from diverse backgrounds who, I think, in most cases were creating these laws to address problems the best they knew how in an environment that required lots of compromising and give and take just to get them passed.
The legal judgements and precedents that have been made subsequent to their passage have likewise been made with similar realities.
I guess I'm just trying to get all of us to think a little more about these considerations.
Kevin (classmate):
GREAT RESPONSE ADAM!
That was very well spoken and certainly a great idea! I really connected with the statement you made:
"But because humans and their behaviors are such a complex mixture of truth and falsehood, we have to instead stick to this concept of right and wrong which is so often situational"
This is an absolute reality - as humans we become so emotionally connected to situations, problems and circumstances that we often fail to take a step back and evaluate the whole picture instead of the detail we are working with. In a sense, we pass judgement before we have the full details and facts. From my point of view this is a limiting perspective to take and one that will create a life full of missed opportunities and poor perceptions.
Anyway - Great point of view and excellent response!
Me:
Thanks, Kevin! I can't take credit for the idea, but I do believe in it as far as I have explored it.
As important as the detail view is, you're right that we also need the big picture.
Ryan (again):
Excellent comments by you both.
By considering these issues I believe we develop an increased capacity to lived principled lives. At the same time we develop an increased capacity to be tolerant, when appropriate, and to empathize and understand the viewpoints of others.
These are not simple matters we are tackling here - but I'm convinced a mature perspective requires such an examination.
____________________________________________________________
We'll see where this goes from here, but I'm hoping to pick up the discussion. What do you think?
This is a conversation I'm having with a professor of mine at the University of Phoenix. The class is Employment Law, but I thought the concepts being discussed were so much broader that I wanted to share them here in the hopes of continuing this discussion in a less content-restrictive environment. I include my professor's comments with his permission.
Ryan (my professor):
In several of your DQ responses and discussion posts there have been words like pervert, right, wrong, fair, and unfair.
In the beginning of class the first night I mentioned that the employment laws we are learning about were made by human beings with varying opinions and backgrounds trying to address situations in society in the best way they knew at the time.
The laws are imperfect attempts to address issues that exist or existed in society.
I believe many of you will be able to look at these laws with more objectivity if you look at them with with eyes considering how effective they address societies issues, or how reasonable they are or what their relative strengths and weaknesses are.
I definitely believe there are absolutes such as right and wrong - but that is not the subject of this class. This is not a religion class.
I am seeing some tones of "moral judgements" about people and laws that I think don't allow for the rich diversity we have as a country. This is a class about the law, not about morals.
I know I did not say this as accurately as I would like to. But please consider it and respond.
Me:
Ryan T. said, "I definitely believe there are absolutes such as right and wrong - but that is not the subject of this class. This is not a religion class."
With respect, I believe part of the reason we need laws like Title VII is because people try to separate the worlds of morality and legality. Where can we see the connectedness of morality and law more clearly than in the history of discrimination in this country - particularly on the basis of race? Right and wrong don't need to factor into all discussions about employment law, perhaps, but aren't most laws in this area in place to ensure fair treatment of the worker or to correct/prevent wrongs either past or present? At least as far as we have gone in this class to date, aren't we talking about treating people with equity?
My point is that right and wrong are issues for public life - for business, government, and society at large, not just religion. We usually call them ethics in those spheres, which I know are not the same as values, but they do reflect our understanding of morality. I realize that not everything wrong is illegal and that not everything legal is right. I also realize that many religions and people are diverse enough that we shouldn't try to make laws that reflect too specific an understanding of morality. Nevertheless, in a government like ours many types of laws are put in place to give us a foundation of good conduct for society. In other words, they are there to teach, institute, or enforce right behavior. We certainly can't legislate what people must believe, religiously or not, but aren't our laws based on common ideals about how to run a good society - on what behaviors we want to see perpetuated and which ones we want to do away with? Don't we determine that by finding points of commonality about what behaviors we believe are good for us? Or are we settling for a society that refuses to pass judgment on anything? As you pointed out in class, discrimination, in its purest meaning, is essential to functionality.
I think this question is part of a critical debate over the direction of America that may be coming to a head in our lifetimes. Some people want to have an amoral society (I'm not saying that's you, Ryan) that, while respecting all belief systems equally, also accepts all behaviors as equally valid. In other words, it doesn't distinguish between choices about belief and those about behavior. Others think that diversity of and respect for belief can flourish in a society that still draws lines about what it will tolerate people doing. This may be an oversimplification, but this is also not the forum for an extended debate of this type.
I don't expect our laws or lawmakers to be perfect or to agree perfectly with my religious beliefs. Neither do I expect everyone to hold to my ethical system, but I do think that historically, there has been what might be called an American belief system that includes the ideals outlined in the Constitution and Bill of Rights, which also have right and wrong as a big part of their basis. I also think we're in the process of losing that, and I don't think its a good thing.
Ryan:
I love your response. This is just the type of discussion I was hoping for.
I agree that right and wrong cannot be taken out of the public discourse. However, from my point of view, right and wrong is oftentimes viewed as black and white by those who have very strong opinions on certain matters. I believe that there is a place for tolerance and balance alongside the discourse of right and wrong.
We live in a fascinating, diverse world with a lot of challenges.
Excellent response. Thank You
Thanks for having the courage and principles to speak your mind.
Me:
A man whose thoughts I admire once told me that "all truth is found in paradox." I preface my comment with that statement because although I agree with your assertion that right and wrong shouldn't be viewed so starkly, what I'm going to say is going to sound contradictory. Instead, it's simply the paradoxical balance point of what you said. This is a developing idea with me, but I'll try to explain myself. I'm sure I could blather on about this forever, so I'll also try to contain myself. :)
Right and wrong may not be easy to determine when it comes to human action, but I think that the tendency to view them in black and white comes from a belief in truth, which is black and white. Any teacher who has ever put a trick question on a True or False test can tell you that unless a statement/idea/principle is completely true, it is false. If any part is false, the whole is false. That's why the scientific method works based on theoretical knowledge rather than absolutes. There are very few absolutes in human science, and even those are open to challenge.
I guess you can view the social sciences in the same way. Because most people believe in truth, although they may not agree upon what it is, they want a black and white standard. That's not a bad desire. People want to be able to consistently make good judgments. But because humans and their behaviors are such a complex mixture of truth and falsehood, we have to instead stick to this concept of right and wrong which is so often situational. Do you see what I mean? There's a difference between true and false vs. right and wrong. The relationships among true principles are such that one may take precedence over another in one moment, and then suddenly become subject to it as a result of unexpected developments. I don't know how to begin to describe this, other than to say that every truth has, as I said, it's paradoxical partner that allows it to remain in balance - and therefore to remain true - in whatever convoluted circumstance it may find itself. But because the order of priority changes, what is right in one situation will not always be right in the next. That is the sense in which right and wrong are gray, while true and false are absolute.
So if right and wrong are never black and white, true and false always are, and that's where the balance comes.
I know this isn't a philosophy class, but I hope you see what I'm getting at. Because of human nature, we have to judge situationally, as others have said. Actually, I think that might be the case regardless of human nature. We can look at truths or guiding principles as black and white, which is what so many people do. Even the law, once it has made a judgment, loses much of its grayness. But up to that point at least, and always where other people are concerned, we live in the world of gray. But similar to a grayscale image, the grayness doesn't come from a lack of clarity or contrast, but from the complex interweaving of millions of tiny points of distinct black or white.
The factor that demands tolerance is that our imperfect eyes cannot distinguish the individual points, and so by our own power we can only judge the histogram - the shade of gray that we can see. Because we all appear gray to each other (and to ourselves) therefore, we hardly qualify as judges at all. I say hardly because some things, while technically still gray, are so dark gray that we all agree they should be restricted. But where is that line drawn? Ethics...
Ryan:
your comment is wonderful and gets to the heart of what I was trying to explore with this question.
We are dealing with balancing acts of right, wrong, black, white, tolerance, and sheer pragmatism about what the law can address.
I find often that as individuals start to look at employment laws which brush up against their own personal standards that an initial knee jerk reaction is to say something like: "This is wrong"
There definitely is right and wrong in my opinion. However - when it comes to the workplace and law there is also a lot of gray. Again - I am asking you, without throwing out your own values, to consider the fact that these laws have been created by human beings coming from diverse backgrounds who, I think, in most cases were creating these laws to address problems the best they knew how in an environment that required lots of compromising and give and take just to get them passed.
The legal judgements and precedents that have been made subsequent to their passage have likewise been made with similar realities.
I guess I'm just trying to get all of us to think a little more about these considerations.
Kevin (classmate):
GREAT RESPONSE ADAM!
That was very well spoken and certainly a great idea! I really connected with the statement you made:
"But because humans and their behaviors are such a complex mixture of truth and falsehood, we have to instead stick to this concept of right and wrong which is so often situational"
This is an absolute reality - as humans we become so emotionally connected to situations, problems and circumstances that we often fail to take a step back and evaluate the whole picture instead of the detail we are working with. In a sense, we pass judgement before we have the full details and facts. From my point of view this is a limiting perspective to take and one that will create a life full of missed opportunities and poor perceptions.
Anyway - Great point of view and excellent response!
Me:
Thanks, Kevin! I can't take credit for the idea, but I do believe in it as far as I have explored it.
As important as the detail view is, you're right that we also need the big picture.
Ryan (again):
Excellent comments by you both.
By considering these issues I believe we develop an increased capacity to lived principled lives. At the same time we develop an increased capacity to be tolerant, when appropriate, and to empathize and understand the viewpoints of others.
These are not simple matters we are tackling here - but I'm convinced a mature perspective requires such an examination.
____________________________________________________________
We'll see where this goes from here, but I'm hoping to pick up the discussion. What do you think?
Comments