I do not believe so. If that would be the case there would be no reason for the 'bending' of the examples and if done by accident it would be easily seen and admitted by you. You are 'bending' the examples, which points to a prior thought-object which needs to be satisfied. A conflict situation obviously exists which leads to a circulatory argument (and refutations).
There are no goals involved, not that I know at least Arjen, simply a judgment of both men being as bad as each other.
You are mistaken. Laws are a double standard. Breaking laws does not damage or hurt to others. Laws entail damage or hurt to others. That is why they were created in the first place. You should study the difference between the social contract and laws. We discussed it before.
Anyway, breaking laws can or cannot entail damage or hurt to others. It is not decisive in it.
A- breaks law (commits minor offenses)
B- breaks law (commits minor offenses)
These are a pair of unethical actions because they concern '
1) Everyone is subjected to the laws, and breaking them is a double standard
2) Breaking laws usually entails damage or hurt to others, hence why the actions are outlawed.
Now we are judging a second set of actions which are-
A- uses his position to excuse his actions
B- uses his position to excuse his actions
B does not use his position to excuse his actions; only A does so. Why 'bend' the example?
opening post wrote:
Discussion: A's attitude suggests an expectation that an additional breach of ethical behaviour is an expectation. B believes that full punishment should be expected and, therefore, willing to accept that. A can be seen to be less ethical due to the expectation that further unethical behaviour will occur should A be caught. Therefore, B is in a more ethical position than A.
A uses his position to alleviate the criminal charges but accepts the unethical charges.
B uses his position to alleviate the unethical charges but accepts the criminal charges.
A wills to use his position to create a situation in which ethical motivations in the narrow meaning will be blocked by law. B at no point uses his position to alleviate any unethical charges either. Why the 'bending'?
The breaking of the law is not under discussion, the intentions, hopes and actions of A and B when awaiting judgement are. Why the 'bending'?
They have both created double standards and endangered others by breaking the law and both have used there position, albeit there career position or their ethically superior position to excuse them self's in one way or another.
I am simply denying that it is ok to break the law if you accept the consequences; the real tragic hero (as apposed to B) is C who refuses to break the law at all out of fear of being caught and out of duty to act unethical and not endanger others, and he does this knowing full well that people like B are breaking the law and then getting some ethical respect for accepting what they did and people like A out there getting away with it. It is hard to follow an ethical code that is so easily exploited.
I take it you see things as black and white? Right or wrong and if not right, therefore wrong? That is the very definition of double morality. It points out why you like laws: you can hide behind them. This is your reason for the 'bending' I think: your definition of yourself as a 'good' lawobeying citizen.
To me the real hero is D. The man who has no preset judgements and tries to take every situation as a new one. The man who acts when acting is needed and accepts when accepting is needed. The tragedy of the D's is that those men will get in trouble 100% of the time because they will interfere with the double standards the laws impose on society.
The only goal here is that we should all follow the rules we define our countries conduct by, i.e. the laws that protect us from people like A and B who happily break the law and then make excuses afterwards to qualify there actions.
What happens when the laws are wrong?
Following your reasonings nothing can be done.
It is the same difference between empiricism and rationalism we discussed. In empiricism only circulatory arguments can exist: the thought-object is P and that is what the investigated will be about. At no point will the thought-object be questioned again. When following laws to the point you suggest they could never be broken; not even when millions will be deported to gas-chambers for instance. It seems to me no one in his right mind would accept that. I resist and will always resist such situations and at the same time hope that would become a universal maxim within the species.
It reminds me of this quote:
Pectore si fratris gladium juguloque parentis
Condere me jubeas, gravidaeque in viscera partu
Conjugis, invita peragam tamen omnia dextra.
Freely translated it means:
If you would command me to puncture the chest of my brother,
The throat of my father, And even the intenstines of my pregnant wife with my shortsword,
I will do all that, albeit it with revulsion.
In response to your second post I would like to say that it is a good one to use to show the circulatory reasoning:
Ethics must include behavior only, or the system of what is right/wrong when interacting with others would collapse under the weight of excuses and reasonings, like B who thinks he can commit crimes because of a specific attitude he has toward the law albeit a positive one.
The person who commits a crime should be punished for that, and if there is an opportunity for them to get off the hook, the person who offers to get them off the hook should be punished for that. The truly right thing for B to do would be to first blow the whistle on A and his actions and then turn himself in for the crimes he committed and commit no more.
If indeed the person getting another off the hook should be punished there would be no more investigations into a persons intent. I might kill a person who is pointing a knife at my child (I have no child btw). If the factor that I was protecting my child does not weigh into the punishment then all that would remain would be the act in itself. In that sense only actions would be judged and the intentions forgotten. The laws themselves would thereby lose their intentions and promote criminality because when defending onself or ones own one becomes a criminal. So either the criminal is given free way or the victim becomes a criminal as well.
You seem of a mind to think that following the rules is 'good' and therefore argue that following the rules is 'good'. There appears the circulatory argument. It refutes itself in the sense that indeed following the rules to the letter would create 'good' if and only if each and every individual would act accordingly. Seeing as it is not the case that everybody follows the rules (a more accurate account would be that nobody follows the rules, except when it appears to benefit them) the rest would have to be forced or ignored, which leads to acts would are against the law. Thereby refuting itself.
I make lots of excuses for myself all the time, but I try my hardest to recognize when I'm doing this and don't let them manifest in actions, this is where the duty is. Even though you may not want to do what is right- whether it be because of the effort it takes, or because you think your an exception to the rule, still doing it and leading by example to keep things moving is what duty entails.
The thing of it is that 'rules' have 'goals'. Things just are not black and white. In this case you are using 'the law' as a 'rulebase' to base your actions on. The reality of the matter is that any 'rulebase' can only be used for a double standard: either it is according to or against the 'rulebase'. The only possible solution to the dilemma is to wield an empty 'rulebase' so as to arrive at 'duty' instead of 'goal'. Laws therefore are by their very existance unethical in the narrow sense.
I hope this will shock everybody up a bit and make people realise what exactly is being asked of you when living in a society.