Ethics, Morality or Justice?

[Judas]

Is a society with Ethics, morality ,and Justice possible?

Wouldnt Ethics and morality, prevent Justice?
Is it fair that a person that kills another one in selfe defense
gets prosecuted for involuntary man-slaughter?
Or the murderer that gets a lighter sentence because of
young age, or social background.

Im convinced you cant have Ethics, Morality ,and Justice

 

[SkinWalker]

I think its true that the three are separately defined, and that they can exist independently from each other (one's code of ethics isn't necessarily moral and justice is based on perspective of the issue).

However, I also think that at times they coincide, but it will depend upon your perspective.

In the case you present, if someone attacks me with a closed fist and I shoot that person, it could be considered self-defense, but also involuntary manslauter since I used a level of force significantly higher than perhaps necessary.

On the other hand, if I kill someone out of "self-defense" whom I goaded into an attack, and the levels of force were equal, again, a charge of involuntary manslaughter might be appropriate if it can be demonstrated that I willingly manipulated the opponent into the desired response of attacking so that I could kill him/her.

In each case, we are dealing with at least two separate codes of ethics, but perhaps one code of morality (the letter of the law and the cumulative beliefs of the jury). The resulting "justice" might be fair in the eyes of the jury, not in the eyes of the defendant, and perhaps unanswered in the eyes of the dead person's family.

Interesting topic.

 

[Persol]

I think ethics and justice go hand in hand. They are the 'tools' we use to judge others.

Morality on the other hand is the 'tool' we use to judge and control ourselves.

Hopefully, justice is based on ethics, not morality. Otherwise you get someone like Bush in the White House

 

[sargentlard]

Originally posted by Judas
Is a society with Ethics, morality ,and Justice possible?

Not to such an ideal state.

Wouldnt Ethics and morality, prevent Justice?

They already do in US court system.

Is it fair that a person that kills another one in selfe defense
gets prosecuted for involuntary man-slaughter?

Skinwalker made a excellent case on this. It depends on the true nature of such occurence. One could incite a act of aggresion towards them which, later, goes out of control.

Or the murderer that gets a lighter sentence because of
young age, or social background.

Elaborate on the social background part.

Im convinced you cant have Ethics, Morality ,and Justice

You can...just not side by side helping each other.

Justice works on utter objectivity. No proof, no punishment. Even if the judge knows a certain man to be a bloody murderer he/she still cannot pass judgement due to lack of evidence.

Ethics can corrupt the method of Justice. It is wrong to gather evidence without proper legislation, and if such is the case then the evidence is tainted and the criminal walks free.....all because unethical measures were undertaken to serve Juistice. Ofcourse this is one example of this. There are examples where ethics and justice work together.

Morality is more of a subjective issue on one's part and on socities. A lot of this depends on how a society uses to employ these practices.

 

[SwedishFish]

it really all depends on how you determine what makes ethics, morality and justice. it might be possible but there are people who are unethical, immoral and unjust. i don't necessarily believe that the american legal system is anywhere near just. scratch ethical and moral from that too. this is not the government to model justice after.

 

[and2000x]

What nags me:

Let's say a defense lawyer speaks with a man who has just stabbed another person. The client then tells the lawyer that he did it. By law he can't get thrown in jail because the court has no proof.

Wait a minute! If he openly admits it to the lawyer, or even in front of the whole court that he committed the crime in question, he should be thrown in jail*. Yet this is seen as unethical. In OJ Simpson's case, everyone knew he did it, yet they could not punish him for the crime because of inclusive evidence. Even worse...after the court he told his daughter that he did do it. By law, if he is charged as being not guilty and he later retracts his innocence status he won't get punished. Doesn't that sound like court ethics doing away with justice?

*This may be because someone could be forced to say they did it. I don't know.