But more alarming than a politician who circumvents the rules is the ease with which his supporters often say, “Well, it`s not illegal.” Let`s go back to the schoolyard for helpful reminders of what our social norms are. We are concerned about bullying, and not only do we tell children not to bully, but we also reprimand children who monitor bullying. We tell our children to speak, to defend the weak, etc. Similarly, whistleblowing is encouraged by many national organizations, universities, and even the federal government. According to this view, we have only one moral obligation to obey the laws that we believe to be moral first and foremost – the good laws – and only because of their content and not only because they are laws. We want to catch the bad guys and promote justice. But how can this happen if we don`t speak up and denounce immoral behavior, even if it`s legal? Perhaps our willingness to give people a pass when they do bad things, even if they are legal, undermines the likelihood that people will follow the rules, let alone the spirit of the rule. That`s basically how I think about drone strikes. I think the principle of proportionality is to accept military force. But my fundamental objection to collateral deaths caused by drone strikes is that these deaths are almost always unnecessary because the drone program itself has no convincing strategic justification.
In my view, the military benefits of drone strikes pale in comparison to their long-term costs – from the radicalization of the affected population to the encouragement of the United States to rely on military force instead of other methods of counterterrorism. So I believe that the drone program should be significantly limited, if not completely eliminated. As a result, I think it is almost always morally indefensible for the United States to continue using drone strikes, even though it knows that it is virtually certain that innocent men, women and children will die from it. With that in mind, I proposed my previous post. Collateral damage in drone attacks is not an accident, even if it is not expressly desired. They are simply accepted as the necessary, though regrettable, costs of the fight against terrorism. This is a deliberate action, as many countries understand the concept of intent. And this is, in my opinion, an immoral action, regardless of the legality of strikes under martial law, because the drone program itself is immoral. If you believe that something you think is moral, it`s not always legal. For example, if someone morally thinks it is acceptable to steal from other people because their moral values are low, that does not make it legal. Stealing most likely motivates self-interest, as the individual`s morale is low.
It can bring them happiness and pleasure, so it`s possible that they think it`s moral. Slavery in the United States is often used as an example. “Of course,” a good modern citizen would say, “slavery was wrong, even when it was legal.” The passage of the 13th Amendment did not render slavery morally reprehensible; This was wrong, and legal structures eventually caught up with moral structures. There are many actions that are immoral, but should not be illegal. For example, it may be immoral to chat about your friend`s privacy, but most would agree that this kind of gossip shouldn`t be banned. The fundamental distinction between legal and moral seems quite simple. So, are there such actions? Are there actions that are morally just but prohibited by law? Errata: “The law depends on the moral principles and values of several ethical `isms` and often invokes them, although it can rarely be affected… » “. Even if these debates and discussions between legal theorists and legal philosophers have trickle-down and spillover effects (rhetorical analysis is useful in this regard).
By the way, I`ve tried to address some of the ways in which morality or a moral understanding of “our” conception (or conceptions) of law is essential in a response to an article by Thom Brooks here: papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1804641 The document was written in a blog post (!), so one day it will be filled with more care and detail. Needless to say, our moral critique of existing law has repercussions over time, as any historical examination of the law will attest. This, of course, does not mean that the law is intended to fully serve purely moral purposes, or that the moral goals or intentions that actually animate many real legal theories, principles, doctrines or laws are recognized, let alone observed, if only because the gap between what “is” and what “should be” is persistent and difficult to bridge. In fact, in some ways, it may be necessary. Read more » Zdenek seriously distorts my argument. I did not claim that the drone program is immoral because there is no strategic justification. I have claimed that the drone program is immoral because it causes the death of innocent people without compensating for the strategic justification. If worrying about unnecessary and counterproductive murders is not a “moral consideration,” I have no idea what it is.
An individual`s morality is based on their personal values, but is motivated by their culture. If you look again at the example of abortion, if you have the choice to have an abortion, but it is against your religion, then you can feel that the right one, the moral decision would be not to receive one. Kant says that people are subjective and base their values on their personal values and opinions. The idea is something like this: you would have the moral rules that could be considered the broader framework, and then you would have the laws of the state, which are more specific and only cover a subset of what morality covers. So one might think of the field of ethics as a circle and the laws of the state as a smaller circle that is completely in the other circle. But beyond that, I think that as doctors and ethicists, we still have a lot of work to do to shed light on how we should balance legal structures in our work.