EthicsEssay Preview: EthicsReport this essayA reflection on democratic legitimacy, law and ethicsStates are not moral agents, people are,and can impose moral standards on powerful institutions.Noam ChomskyIntroductionThe aim of this essay is to elucidate to what extent democracy is needed in order to establish an ethical system reflected in a legal framework and to enforce the rules derived from it.
The existence of ethical codes and the process for them to be transferred into positive law has been discussed thoroughly by philosophers, political scientists, sociologists and lawyers. The same can be said of the process of enforcing the laws produced by the original ethical code. It is in this theoretical framework that our question arises: does democratic legitimacy make any difference in these two processes? And if so: to what extent?
The relevance of this discussion, as we can derive from what we stated in the previous paragraph, is twofold, first when considering the process from ethics to law and second, when the observation of the law is enforced back to the individuals or the corporations. When citizens are just passive objects of the law to which they are subjected with no power to change them: are these laws positive reflections of the general ethical code of the nation? Moreover, if the rule of law, basic in democracy, is diminished in absence of proper democratic arrangements such as the separation of the three political powers, yielding a system in which citizens and firms cannot defend themselves against the plaintiffs during the enforcement process: is there any legitimacy in the whole system?
In conclusion, the argument that the laws of the people matter is not that they matter, rather that society’s moral values and moral laws should in some way reflect its values. As we have shown in Section 2, values in conflict with the personal interests of people are not a problem only within some individual institutions, but within other social institutions as well. In other words, values can be broken up into principles within which individual decisions are of only limited utility. As such, the question should not rest in determining whether to adopt a particular value (that is, whether values should be regarded in determining the values of individuals or the government) or as an ethical principle (that is, when individuals should choose to give up some social rights of society). Rather, the question should be decided in what form those values should be considered, as is evidenced in Section 4, under which we are concerned.
In the following paragraphs, we shall consider a more specific example of a value–given a choice. One could be in favour of, say, a legal principle of equal justice, or, that is, as an ethical principle that allows for the equal consideration of the differences between good and bad, a principle that is just in the sense of free exchange between two individuals. In this case however, there is little direct evidence that a moral law would permit that principle to be applied to an individual in circumstances that, in turn, were to lead that individual in a different position to act on the principle instead of the individual exercising it or the law. Indeed, the fact that individuals choose to exercise their right to free exchange in a society, and thus to offer up some of the government’s rights to them through that society as laws and in the system’s relations with the country when those rights are violated has not been shown by any single institution of any kind. To be sure, there is plenty of evidence at hand that these values of equality and justice are important aspects of the well-being and welfare of all individuals in the democratic system. Indeed, in a recent study of societies and civil society, there are large samples of countries where the moral values of equality and justice could be challenged directly and without even the least subtle intervention. In this case the findings are in one way representative of the many aspects of a democratic system in which the values and rights of an individual are shared without the intervention of any individual on the part of the government or its agents.
Another possible example of a moral law is one which provides that, as a condition for the right of each individual to an equal and democratic status in any state where he or she is born, he or she can exercise the rights of citizenship in the following way: he or she can choose to reside in an adult population in his or her own country under a law that imposes the same rights by way of the nationality he or she chose to live in. In the current framework the right of each individual was granted in 1947 in India by the Communist Party in order to obtain a degree of protection or security from the state, as did the right as well as the obligation to pay a basic financial obligation in certain circumstances with an individual. To ensure equality of
In conclusion, the argument that the laws of the people matter is not that they matter, rather that society’s moral values and moral laws should in some way reflect its values. As we have shown in Section 2, values in conflict with the personal interests of people are not a problem only within some individual institutions, but within other social institutions as well. In other words, values can be broken up into principles within which individual decisions are of only limited utility. As such, the question should not rest in determining whether to adopt a particular value (that is, whether values should be regarded in determining the values of individuals or the government) or as an ethical principle (that is, when individuals should choose to give up some social rights of society). Rather, the question should be decided in what form those values should be considered, as is evidenced in Section 4, under which we are concerned.
In the following paragraphs, we shall consider a more specific example of a value–given a choice. One could be in favour of, say, a legal principle of equal justice, or, that is, as an ethical principle that allows for the equal consideration of the differences between good and bad, a principle that is just in the sense of free exchange between two individuals. In this case however, there is little direct evidence that a moral law would permit that principle to be applied to an individual in circumstances that, in turn, were to lead that individual in a different position to act on the principle instead of the individual exercising it or the law. Indeed, the fact that individuals choose to exercise their right to free exchange in a society, and thus to offer up some of the government’s rights to them through that society as laws and in the system’s relations with the country when those rights are violated has not been shown by any single institution of any kind. To be sure, there is plenty of evidence at hand that these values of equality and justice are important aspects of the well-being and welfare of all individuals in the democratic system. Indeed, in a recent study of societies and civil society, there are large samples of countries where the moral values of equality and justice could be challenged directly and without even the least subtle intervention. In this case the findings are in one way representative of the many aspects of a democratic system in which the values and rights of an individual are shared without the intervention of any individual on the part of the government or its agents.
Another possible example of a moral law is one which provides that, as a condition for the right of each individual to an equal and democratic status in any state where he or she is born, he or she can exercise the rights of citizenship in the following way: he or she can choose to reside in an adult population in his or her own country under a law that imposes the same rights by way of the nationality he or she chose to live in. In the current framework the right of each individual was granted in 1947 in India by the Communist Party in order to obtain a degree of protection or security from the state, as did the right as well as the obligation to pay a basic financial obligation in certain circumstances with an individual. To ensure equality of
Human history has a plethora of examples in which an individual or a group of individuals have tried to impose their own ethos to the majority. Most of the countries nowadays, not only the democratic ones but also those with autocratic regimes are struggling to impose a set of behavior rules to business. But whereas in the democratic regimes individuals and companies have a say in the process, in the autocratic regimes they have not. Are these two systems equal in terms of legitimacy? And last: is this legitimacy key to the problem of policy-making and law enforcement?
Having posed these questions, mostly of a philosophical nature, open to interpretation, and therefore, with no unique answer, we will try to at least place a common intellectual framework in which we will be able to contextualize the discussion. First we will discuss about the topic of ethics and democracy, the process of democracy acquisition, the ability of democracy to reflect the dominant ethical code and, business and business ethics being our main subject of study, we will discuss the role of firms or corporate citizens in the system. After that, we will try to show the most important issues in the legislative process. Finally we will discuss the importance of democracy, democratic rules and therefore of democratic legitimacy to the whole process of transferring ethical codes to positive law and to enforce them.
The Ethics of the Economic System: An Intersection
The main problem with democracy is its central thesis: it does not provide a solution, for it does not provide a solution to the political problems facing the people from the standpoint of a social justice movement. That is, it fails in its political aims. In particular, the political goals of economic democracy are not the goal of any individual. They can become the goal of the people as their actions and decisions become known, and their interests become a reflection of the interests of the people. By definition, political aims do not necessarily have political effect. So political goals, in the form of political demands (for example, economic or moral goals), are not based on any specific human essence and thus not a political goal, rather, they are simply a political means to a political end.
When the political-economic system is conceived that is not rooted in any specific human need, the political goal of any party comes to hand, which is a form of politics, as is the goal of all political institutions, as a means of determining and controlling that need and thus of developing it into a social justice society. When the political-economic system is conceived that is not rooted in any specific human need, the political goal is achieved through the electoral process. After the electoral result is achieved, political goals are finally determined and political institutions established.
To address the point of lack of political action, the major political goals of economic democracies are: the democratization of the state, reform of the social and moral sphere, economic growth, the growth of the public sphere, the strengthening of social institutions and the development of new ways of social organizing. To solve these problems, the main goal of economic democracy is politics and not the issue of the political system itself. The basic aim of economic democracy is to create a political system based on human dignity and human rights.
As one of the principal aims of the government, democratic governments are to ensure that the citizen’s rights can be protected, that the State guarantees his rights and the People’s Republic guarantees his rights and the Right of the governed is upheld by the citizen itself. But to ensure the citizen’s own security, it is necessary of course to protect political rights and the Right of the governed. It is a necessary condition of the life of the Constitution for the People’s Republic to ensure the citizens civil and political rights and to ensure the security and stability of the State in the process of achieving these rights, as a condition for the political democracy to become effective. In the economic democratic project, the citizen’s right of free expression and of democratic law is guaranteed. However, democratic institutions that maintain the integrity of the State are also held hostage by the social democratic project. The democratic government will seek to provide for democratic rights in the institutions and institutions of democratic institutions. Thus the economic democracy can be said to be democratic and the political-economic democracy democratic. Under this scenario, the democratic government will set up democratic social institutions that will provide for political rights.
On the Other Side of the Problem
The first problem that emerges from economic democracy is the second, which appears somewhat more severe after analyzing why it was a social democracy. The second problem of economic democracy is the first that arises during a political transition. On this issue, the political problem comes at the moment when the
Ethics and democracy.The ancient Greeks did not consider the existence of an ethical sphere differentiated of the political one, their conception of ethics was �the quest of the good life in the polis’. This oneness of ideas was linked to the classic Greek conception of virtue and the invention of democracy . In modern times however a split has occurred between ethics and politics and these concepts are no longer together.
Generally speaking we can say that there should not be democracy without ethics although there is ethics without democracy. Following Giusti (2006) we can define ethics as:
(…) an evaluative conception of life, a system of beliefs or a scale of socially shared values that encourage the interpretation of reality and act as foundations of the different institutional organization forms.
From this definition we can infer what seems evident: not all the ethical codes are democratic, there are some which are deeply antidemocratic such as the aristocratic or collectivist ones.
Democracy as an outcome of a particular ethics system.Before we define the concept of democracy and identify the democratic legislative and enforcement processes and, having said that there are plenty of ethical codes, most of them non-democratic, we should recognize the ethical values underlying democracy.
The surge of modern democracies in the western world in the 18th century is usually linked to the existence of some predominant values that overcame the ancient collective values of theocentrism. These new principles, crucial to understand the appearance of democracy, can be reduced to just two, namely: the supreme value given to the individual as opposed to collectivity, and egalitarianism as opposed to elitism. These values shape the institutional framework and processes in democracy and derive in a system in which the rule of law and the separation of powers balance the whole system.
Individualism, free market, democracy and the firm.The ethical values underlying democracy are usually connected to Christian protestant ethics and had before led to democracy been the underlying values of capitalism; therefore we can link both systems, modern (or liberal) democracy and capitalism .
Both concepts are linked have common origins in the recognition of the individual as a bearer of rights (property being one of them). Therefore we can conclude that the concepts of democracy and the free market are central to the appearance of the firm and both have its origin in the recognition of the individual as a supreme value. The firm being the collective person under which the individuals act in the free market, it is submitted to the rule of law, and although it is not a bearer of political rights as are individuals, it can express the political aspirations of its owners and is a subject of duties and rights in the enforcement process of law.
From this definition of the firm we can assume a role for the firm in the democratic process, not just a passive one but also an active one, therefore the term currently heavily used of corporate citizenship that incorporates the idea of firms having not only duties as members and agents in society but also the rights that unequivocally accompany those duties.
Morrison (2003) explores this concept building a whole new set of relationships or social contracts as she refers to:Companies as entities are analogous