Any guilt can be attributed to guilt that involves a lack of ignorance, that is, that involves the officer`s belief that he or she is doing something morally wrong. (1997: 418) Ethics tells us what we should develop in ourselves (high moral standards), on the other hand, the law tends to be more concerned with the consequences of negative action – what punishment would follow, who is guilty and how justice should be done. Moreover, law is a generally accepted and published document, while ethics does not yet have a universally accepted, coherent and published concept – it is abstract, culture-specific and left to the individual to interpret and act. What species, if any, would be ethically acceptable to use in such experiments? Is it morally relevant whether they are mammals? Would the intelligence be morally relevant to the decision, and if so, how? Would the presence or absence of a complex social system in which members care for other members of the species be a morally relevant factor to consider? Would it be morally relevant for one candidate species to have a more human face than another? Would it be relevant that some people in particular were once human pets? If so, would it be better or worse to use these people? Some people talk about their personal ethics, others talk about a set of morals, and everyone in a society is subject to the same laws. When the law conflicts with our personal values or a moral system, we must act, but to do so, we must be able to differentiate between them. An inalienable right does not necessarily have to be an absolute right, because to say that a person has an inalienable right only means that there is always a moral justification for that person`s claim. This does not mean that there could not be a greater moral justification for overriding this claim in a particular situation. Remember the right to travel freely; We consider it to be a fundamental freedom and an inalienable right, but it is only a prima facie right. When people are carriers of a dangerous and highly contagious disease, we believe it is justified to temporarily suspend their right to travel and quarantine them. This example illustrates that, in the case of some rights, justice is best served when people`s claims are overturned (but not ignored).
Tragically, the obligation to obey the law can lead to terrible conflicts when the law demands something that the individual considers immoral. In such cases, a person will face a conflict between the obligation to obey the law and the obligation to obey his conscience. Summarizing; www.linkedin.com/pulse/ethics-vs-morals-law-dr-arturo-perez/ If the possession of free will requires the ability to act differently from what one actually does, then it is quite easy to understand why free will has often been considered incompatible with causal determinism. One way to resolve this incompatibilistic concern is to focus on how the execution of a particular action should depend on an agent if he has the kind of free will required for moral responsibility. As indicated by the argument of influential consequence (Ginet 1966; van Inwagen 1983: 55-105; Wiggins, 1973), the truth of determinism seems to mean that an agent`s actions are not his fault, since they are the inevitable consequences of things over which the agent has no control. Here is an informal summary of this argument from Peter van Inwagen`s important book, An Essay on Free Will (1983): Second, there may be times when observing the law would compel us to act against our ethics or morality. According to Strawson, the tendency to respond with reactive attitudes relevant to the demonstration of good or bad will implies a requirement of moral respect and appropriate consideration. Indeed, for Strawson, “demand is the propensity for such attitudes,” and attitudes themselves are the “correlates of moral demand in the event that demand is perceived as ignored” (1962 [1993: 63]; Emphasis added).
Thus, circumstances that appease a person`s reactive (negative) attitudes include those that show that, despite appearances, the due request for consideration has not been ignored or ignored. When someone explains that the injury she inflicted on you was completely unexpected and accidental, they point out that her respect for your well-being was not insufficient and therefore not an appropriate target for the negative attitudes associated with moral blame.