dizzle
June 21st 2007, 05:02 PM
(Stand to Reason allows reposting of their articles in full)
http://str.typepad.com/weblog/2007/06/ethics-vs-law.html
This is an interesting account of an exchange that took place between Justice Scalia, who turns out to be a "24" fan, and other justices at a recent meeting in Canada. The main thing I noticed is that Scalia, I believe, is talking ethics, while the other judges are talking law and they're talking past each other. What is the ethically right thing to do in any given scenario isn't necessarily what the legal thing to do is. There is a difference between ethics and law. Hopefully, they overlap most of the time.
The concerns the other justices raise are very legitimate. We certainly don't want rogue agents taking things into their own hands on a regular basis because many, many mistakes could be made. And perhaps the "24"-type scenario is so rare that the law just can't grapple with it because laws are generalizations. The convenience of debating ethical issues over "24" is that the stories are constructed in a way that make Jack successful and the consequences contained. That's fiction and it provides a useful foil to delve into the difficult ethical issues surrounding very specific scenarios of torture under the "ticking time bomb" to save millions of innocent people's lives and derive some principles. But the results in the real world aren't so contained as they are in the TV show. And experts have said that the "ticking time bomb" scenario rarely, if ever, really happens. But in theory it could, and I hope the goal would be saving lives, not law enforcement per se if the law would restrict the prevention of the terrorist act. And that particular issue in view is what makes Scalia's comments about ethics, rather than the law.
The other justices are discussing legal concerns, interpretation of the law, legal rights, and what could compromise a legal case. The big difference is that their concerns have to do with what has happened, not what will happen. That's what judges do, evaluate whether people have conducted themselves within the law. They look backwards. Ethics does, too, of course but is supposed to guide our future actions. Scalia is considering what can be done to prevent something from happening that is so (thankfully) unusual and rare that perhaps the law can't deal with it.
That's the big question of "24." It's main goal is preventing imminent terrorism, not law enforcement. And I think that's where Scalia and the others are actually discussing different topics.
Let me put it this way. If someone, say a U.S. intelligence agent, had it in his power to get information from someone he knew had it that would prevent a large-scale attack on innocent people, I would hold him morally culpable for not acting when he could even though he would not be legally culpable. Perhaps he'd even have to take the legal consequences because the law just can't afford to generalize for these exceedingly rare instances, but he would have done what was right in that instance. It may be the kind of circumstance the law just can't grapple with because it's so rare. This responsibility would be the difference between law and morality.
http://str.typepad.com/weblog/2007/06/ethics-vs-law.html
This is an interesting account of an exchange that took place between Justice Scalia, who turns out to be a "24" fan, and other justices at a recent meeting in Canada. The main thing I noticed is that Scalia, I believe, is talking ethics, while the other judges are talking law and they're talking past each other. What is the ethically right thing to do in any given scenario isn't necessarily what the legal thing to do is. There is a difference between ethics and law. Hopefully, they overlap most of the time.
The concerns the other justices raise are very legitimate. We certainly don't want rogue agents taking things into their own hands on a regular basis because many, many mistakes could be made. And perhaps the "24"-type scenario is so rare that the law just can't grapple with it because laws are generalizations. The convenience of debating ethical issues over "24" is that the stories are constructed in a way that make Jack successful and the consequences contained. That's fiction and it provides a useful foil to delve into the difficult ethical issues surrounding very specific scenarios of torture under the "ticking time bomb" to save millions of innocent people's lives and derive some principles. But the results in the real world aren't so contained as they are in the TV show. And experts have said that the "ticking time bomb" scenario rarely, if ever, really happens. But in theory it could, and I hope the goal would be saving lives, not law enforcement per se if the law would restrict the prevention of the terrorist act. And that particular issue in view is what makes Scalia's comments about ethics, rather than the law.
The other justices are discussing legal concerns, interpretation of the law, legal rights, and what could compromise a legal case. The big difference is that their concerns have to do with what has happened, not what will happen. That's what judges do, evaluate whether people have conducted themselves within the law. They look backwards. Ethics does, too, of course but is supposed to guide our future actions. Scalia is considering what can be done to prevent something from happening that is so (thankfully) unusual and rare that perhaps the law can't deal with it.
That's the big question of "24." It's main goal is preventing imminent terrorism, not law enforcement. And I think that's where Scalia and the others are actually discussing different topics.
Let me put it this way. If someone, say a U.S. intelligence agent, had it in his power to get information from someone he knew had it that would prevent a large-scale attack on innocent people, I would hold him morally culpable for not acting when he could even though he would not be legally culpable. Perhaps he'd even have to take the legal consequences because the law just can't afford to generalize for these exceedingly rare instances, but he would have done what was right in that instance. It may be the kind of circumstance the law just can't grapple with because it's so rare. This responsibility would be the difference between law and morality.