Friday, July 4, 2008
Respect for others
It seems clear that we have a duty not to throw litter in our neighbor’s yard, because it is well accepted that we should respect the rights of our neighbors to their privacy and property. If asked why we should respect the rights of other persons, we could refer to the arguments of Kant and Gandhi, or we might state a widely accepted moral principle, such as the Golden Rule: “Do to others, as you would have them do to you.”
This is, in fact, a text from Christian scripture[1] that has many parallels in other religious traditions,[2] and in the next section we will consider what it means to have a duty because a scripture says that God commands it. Yet, the Golden Rule is usually not invoked as being right because it is in the Bible, but because it makes sense. We do not want neighbors putting litter in our yard, so it is rational to treat our neighbors the way we want them to treat us.
This argument is less useful, however, in considering a law that would impose a penalty for littering along the highway. As the side of the road is not anyone’s property, tossing trash from a car window is not the same as throwing it into a neighbor’s yard. Littering a public space does not seem to violate the rights of others in the way that putting trash in their yard does.
Suppose, however, that the law against littering is an ordinance passed by a town meeting and, as citizens of the town, we were invited to participate in making this decision. Would these facts strengthen the argument that we have a duty to support the law? Even if only a majority of those voting favored the law, we would probably find it reasonable to conclude that a town has the authority to make such a law and, if it did, that everyone has a duty to obey the law.
Thus, our commitment to abide by rules made in a fair way for our community seems to generate a duty. If an issue is within the jurisdiction of the decision-making body, and the procedures used for making a law are fair, and the law itself is reasonable, then we accept that everyone has a duty to obey the law, whether or not they voted for it or took part in making it. This kind of reasoning supports the idea of citizenship (the duty of every citizen) and provides a rational basis for the rule of law and representative government.[3]
[1] Luke 6:31 in the New Testament.
[2] See Robert Traer and Harlan Stelmach, Doing Ethics in a Diverse World, 32.
[3] This reasoning also supports the social compact (or contract) theory of ethics.
This is, in fact, a text from Christian scripture[1] that has many parallels in other religious traditions,[2] and in the next section we will consider what it means to have a duty because a scripture says that God commands it. Yet, the Golden Rule is usually not invoked as being right because it is in the Bible, but because it makes sense. We do not want neighbors putting litter in our yard, so it is rational to treat our neighbors the way we want them to treat us.
This argument is less useful, however, in considering a law that would impose a penalty for littering along the highway. As the side of the road is not anyone’s property, tossing trash from a car window is not the same as throwing it into a neighbor’s yard. Littering a public space does not seem to violate the rights of others in the way that putting trash in their yard does.
Suppose, however, that the law against littering is an ordinance passed by a town meeting and, as citizens of the town, we were invited to participate in making this decision. Would these facts strengthen the argument that we have a duty to support the law? Even if only a majority of those voting favored the law, we would probably find it reasonable to conclude that a town has the authority to make such a law and, if it did, that everyone has a duty to obey the law.
Thus, our commitment to abide by rules made in a fair way for our community seems to generate a duty. If an issue is within the jurisdiction of the decision-making body, and the procedures used for making a law are fair, and the law itself is reasonable, then we accept that everyone has a duty to obey the law, whether or not they voted for it or took part in making it. This kind of reasoning supports the idea of citizenship (the duty of every citizen) and provides a rational basis for the rule of law and representative government.[3]
[1] Luke 6:31 in the New Testament.
[2] See Robert Traer and Harlan Stelmach, Doing Ethics in a Diverse World, 32.
[3] This reasoning also supports the social compact (or contract) theory of ethics.
Labels: dee.4.5
Subscribe to Posts [Atom]
