Journal Entry # 73

May 25^th, 2010

This is a question of ethics.  

eth·ic (thk)

1. a. A set of principles of right conduct.

      b. A theory or a system of moral values: “An ethic of service is at war with a craving for gain” (Gregg Easterbrook).

2. ethics (used with a sing. verb) The study of the general nature of morals and of the specific moral choices to be made by a person; moral philosophy.

3. ethics (used with a sing. or pl. verb) The rules or standards governing the conduct of a person or the members of a profession: medical ethics.

Definition free online dictionary

What we determine to be right and wrong will widely vary from person to person, community to community and from country to country. This is the basis for morality which for many will be determined by religious doctrine from both the past and present. This of course is ridiculous because it is founded in a lie. The laws that exist hopefully will have all of humanities best interests at their core.

I was driving home yesterday from an appointment when I noticed two police cars moving towards me at very high speeds. They were weaving in and out of traffic but neither had their lights or sirens on. I assumed they were going to a call but it got me thinking. Can the police uphold the law without breaking the very laws they are enforcing? Is anyone above the law? Once you start thinking down this path you raise some incredible issues. I started talking about this with my son who is fresh from graduating from college. If you can relate to this you will understand that they finish strong and opinionated and this provides for lively discussions.

Let’s say I am speeding. I pass the police, they clock me and give chase but in order to catch me they also must speed. They stop me and give me the appropriate punishment. Now they also broke the law they were upholding. Should they get a ticket as well? If the answer is no then they are above the law. If the answer is yes then they are allowed to break the law to uphold it but where does this end?

I was involved with a volunteer Fire department for 5 years. In the course of the duty of driving to an emergency many times we broke the traffic laws. Although we were told that we must obey the laws we were also told to get there as fast as you possibly can because it was an emergency that could possibly be life threatening. This is what is known as a double standard. The laws we were breaking were in place for a reason, safety. What if we were involved in an accident and in the course of trying to save lives we did the opposite?

Can non violence be possible in a violent world? If a group of terrorist threaten to kill everyone and you have captured one is it ethical to use whatever means necessary to get the information to stop it? Can you break the law to achieve this? For that matter can you change the law to make it appear you are not breaking the law? This was done with the Patriot Act in the USA to justify certain activities.

Is self preservation more important than morals or a code of ethics? If you were the president and Russia just launched their nukes would you launch yours knowing that both of you are now going to be doomed? Would you want that revenge? How did Mahatma Gandhi inspire a nation to achieve their goal without violence?

If you are for the death penalty it is usually only implemented when a crime has been most heinous. No matter how you justify it someone is still being killed by another human being so where does it stop? Do you then in turn have to kill the person who pulled the switch because they are still killing another human being? Do ethics have limits?

Now that I have opened this fantastic can of worms I will give you my opinion after all that is what the internet is all about, opinions mixed in with a little fact. I would hope that I personally would take the high road on these issues but I will admit I would not be above violence for self preservation. I would hope that this would be the last resort but I would protect myself and others without remorse. When threatened with non negotiating violence I believe this to be the only option because I would rather be alive. I think the problem exists when we fail to acknowledge what we are doing. Yes the hangman is also committing a crime but we have established that as a society where it is accepted that we are Ok with that. There is no illusion that it is not also killing. We are Ok with the police being above the law as long as it protects society as a whole. They could not possibly fulfill their duty while not breaking the very laws they uphold. The idea is to not take advantage of this privilege. Unfortunately peace and safety will always have a price that we must be willing to pay and not lie to ourselves about it in the process.

Seek the truth always

Gary David Currie