One More from School: On the Continuing Need for Law
Here's the question:
How do Title VII and its amendments protect employees? Are laws necessary to govern ethical treatment of employees? Explain why or why not.
Here's where the discussion begins:
Me:
Title VII and its amendments define certain protected classes or statuses which cannot legally be used as criteria in making employment related decisions. The original five were race, religion, national origin, color, and gender. Added since have been age and disability. These statutes came about largely because of poor treatment of certain groups (usually minorities) on the basis of these factors, which usually have no bearing on a person's qualifications to perform a given job.
Ideally, ethics would never have to be legislated, but the sad truth is that some employers would take advantage of people because of these factors. Some people hold beliefs that perpetuate harmful stereotypes or prejudices. While one ethical world view is never unanimously adhered to, certain concepts are so foundational to the maintenance of a peaceful and productive society that it is appropriate to form laws to uphold them. One of these concepts - written into the U.S. Constitution, is that people of all backgrounds are created equal, regardless of factors over which they have no control. Similarly, Constitutional rights like the free exercise of religion could be difficult to protect without laws like Title VII, especially since the prohibition against a state religion creates an environment in which business does not stop for anyone's holy times or practices. Ideas left over from historical embarrassments such as slavery or poor treatment of women also need the help of additional laws to be eliminated from society.
All in all, because we live as flawed and diverse beings in an imperfect world but agree that we all deserve equal rights, laws are unfortunately a necessary part of maintaining a baseline ethical standard for treatment of others.
Ryan (professor):
Good response - however - do you think we could really live without laws even if we weren't flawed beings. I have asked that question many times. I know we could certainly live without a lot of laws - but how far do you think we could go without laws?
I honestly don't know the answer to this question.
Me:
Ryan,
I love the fact that as a professor, not only are you willing to open a can of worms, you're willing to spill the worms all over the table. We rarely get to discuss such interesting and important issues that, while seemingly obscure, are really at the heart of more mundane thinking and decision making.
Thanks for that.
Please understand that I make these comments as an exploration of the topic, not a definitive assertion of truth. As you say, it's a complex question. Ready for the worms? Here goes.
This was part of the reason I said "flawed and diverse" instead of just "flawed." If we are to be assumed flawless, then it follows that we all behave and believe with perfect morality. The question this begs is "whose morality?" As I said before, while there are some points of agreement, we all have differing ideas about good and evil, true and false, right and wrong. So even if we all lived perfectly in accordance with our own understandings, we would still have disagreements and, potentially, offenses. The main difference that I can see between such a society and the one we have now is that this new flawless order would have no instances of crime against the basic, universal principles we agree on. Or would it? That would be a major improvement, and would probably do away with the need for the most base of laws, but it would only exacerbate the issue of who is "right" about morality. So we would still need laws for harmonious living, but on what would we base them? What common ground do we have left that hasn't been rendered obsolete by our moral correctness? This society may prove to be more chaotic and harder to sustain than our current one.
The other scenario is that we all live perfectly according to the same moral guide. Many of us in many belief systems think that this is what will eventually happen. So when it does, do we need laws? I think yes, although they need no enforcement because we are self-policing. But to do away with the laws themselves is to destroy order - to overthrow that moral guide I referred to that provides the very constitution of our society. In essence this would be self-destruction. It is my belief that we cannot acheive such a state of unity until we also acheive perfect virtue and perfect knowledge. But even then, it will be our knowledge of law - of universal, uncreated, indestructible law - and our commitment to living it that will allow us to live so harmoniously. In other words, we will have to come to understand that all true law is natural law and to adopt the nature it governs as our own without rebellion of any kind. This also implies government, but I won't go there right now. The law will be outside ourselves, but we will paradoxically also each be laws unto ourselves. This allows for diversity of preference, activity, heritage, appearance, and many other things, but unites us in a common understanding of the principles that govern a perfect society. We will live those principles without enforcement, but still find fulfillment in administering them to each other.
I don't want to go on too long in this way, but the summary is that I do think we will always need law to preserve our society either because our difference of belief makes us incompatible as neighbors without a governing law or because our perfection and unity demands natural principles to maintain it. Law in this sense, though, may not mean legislation or any kind of punitive sytem. Then again, where there is law, there is the possibility of breaking it, and therefore there must be punishment. But it would be a punishment of natural consequence, not arbitrary imposition.
There is so much to discuss here. For our current world, lets keep doing the best we can.
Ryan:
WOW!!!
Some great thinking going on here.
I won't attempt a response right now - but I feel certain we'll get back to this as the course progresses.
Thanks for your thoughtful efforts.
I hope everyone in the class is following along with these discussions.
_________________________________________________________________________
I love this class!
How do Title VII and its amendments protect employees? Are laws necessary to govern ethical treatment of employees? Explain why or why not.
Here's where the discussion begins:
Me:
Title VII and its amendments define certain protected classes or statuses which cannot legally be used as criteria in making employment related decisions. The original five were race, religion, national origin, color, and gender. Added since have been age and disability. These statutes came about largely because of poor treatment of certain groups (usually minorities) on the basis of these factors, which usually have no bearing on a person's qualifications to perform a given job.
Ideally, ethics would never have to be legislated, but the sad truth is that some employers would take advantage of people because of these factors. Some people hold beliefs that perpetuate harmful stereotypes or prejudices. While one ethical world view is never unanimously adhered to, certain concepts are so foundational to the maintenance of a peaceful and productive society that it is appropriate to form laws to uphold them. One of these concepts - written into the U.S. Constitution, is that people of all backgrounds are created equal, regardless of factors over which they have no control. Similarly, Constitutional rights like the free exercise of religion could be difficult to protect without laws like Title VII, especially since the prohibition against a state religion creates an environment in which business does not stop for anyone's holy times or practices. Ideas left over from historical embarrassments such as slavery or poor treatment of women also need the help of additional laws to be eliminated from society.
All in all, because we live as flawed and diverse beings in an imperfect world but agree that we all deserve equal rights, laws are unfortunately a necessary part of maintaining a baseline ethical standard for treatment of others.
Ryan (professor):
Good response - however - do you think we could really live without laws even if we weren't flawed beings. I have asked that question many times. I know we could certainly live without a lot of laws - but how far do you think we could go without laws?
I honestly don't know the answer to this question.
Me:
Ryan,
I love the fact that as a professor, not only are you willing to open a can of worms, you're willing to spill the worms all over the table. We rarely get to discuss such interesting and important issues that, while seemingly obscure, are really at the heart of more mundane thinking and decision making.
Thanks for that.
Please understand that I make these comments as an exploration of the topic, not a definitive assertion of truth. As you say, it's a complex question. Ready for the worms? Here goes.
This was part of the reason I said "flawed and diverse" instead of just "flawed." If we are to be assumed flawless, then it follows that we all behave and believe with perfect morality. The question this begs is "whose morality?" As I said before, while there are some points of agreement, we all have differing ideas about good and evil, true and false, right and wrong. So even if we all lived perfectly in accordance with our own understandings, we would still have disagreements and, potentially, offenses. The main difference that I can see between such a society and the one we have now is that this new flawless order would have no instances of crime against the basic, universal principles we agree on. Or would it? That would be a major improvement, and would probably do away with the need for the most base of laws, but it would only exacerbate the issue of who is "right" about morality. So we would still need laws for harmonious living, but on what would we base them? What common ground do we have left that hasn't been rendered obsolete by our moral correctness? This society may prove to be more chaotic and harder to sustain than our current one.
The other scenario is that we all live perfectly according to the same moral guide. Many of us in many belief systems think that this is what will eventually happen. So when it does, do we need laws? I think yes, although they need no enforcement because we are self-policing. But to do away with the laws themselves is to destroy order - to overthrow that moral guide I referred to that provides the very constitution of our society. In essence this would be self-destruction. It is my belief that we cannot acheive such a state of unity until we also acheive perfect virtue and perfect knowledge. But even then, it will be our knowledge of law - of universal, uncreated, indestructible law - and our commitment to living it that will allow us to live so harmoniously. In other words, we will have to come to understand that all true law is natural law and to adopt the nature it governs as our own without rebellion of any kind. This also implies government, but I won't go there right now. The law will be outside ourselves, but we will paradoxically also each be laws unto ourselves. This allows for diversity of preference, activity, heritage, appearance, and many other things, but unites us in a common understanding of the principles that govern a perfect society. We will live those principles without enforcement, but still find fulfillment in administering them to each other.
I don't want to go on too long in this way, but the summary is that I do think we will always need law to preserve our society either because our difference of belief makes us incompatible as neighbors without a governing law or because our perfection and unity demands natural principles to maintain it. Law in this sense, though, may not mean legislation or any kind of punitive sytem. Then again, where there is law, there is the possibility of breaking it, and therefore there must be punishment. But it would be a punishment of natural consequence, not arbitrary imposition.
There is so much to discuss here. For our current world, lets keep doing the best we can.
Ryan:
WOW!!!
Some great thinking going on here.
I won't attempt a response right now - but I feel certain we'll get back to this as the course progresses.
Thanks for your thoughtful efforts.
I hope everyone in the class is following along with these discussions.
_________________________________________________________________________
I love this class!
Comments