Such a result, a kind of red card that takes the country out of the “court of decency” by a criminal act, reflects the rot. In an attempt to correct the evil, different levels of society have proposed alternatives that would theoretically favor social recomposition: an additional tribunal? A referendum? Constitutional reform? These suggestions, with well-intentioned certainty, place the patch where pain is not found. Colombia lacks moral leadership. In any community, “best designed” control procedures are useless if those responsible are dishonest or cover their noses to ignore the stench. Groups need leaders who are beacons of decency. The correct behavior of presidents, governors, mayors and leaders of political parties, as well as managers of all public and private organizations, is the decent model of behavior of every society. Morality goes beyond procedures and regulations. A lawsuit is legal if it falls under what is required by law. An action is moral if it meets a person`s standards of good and evil. The legal has its origin “outside”, on the basis of what the applicable laws stipulate. Morality comes from “within,” from the inner essence of each individual. Not everything that is legal is moral. Let`s explain this with an example that, despite the banality, is timely.
In September 2016, Colombia celebrated with luxury and waste the outcome of lengthy negotiations on the peace agreement, which was supposed to end endless years of violence. The party to sign the final document with 2,500 guests cost more than 4,500 million pesos. There was certainly no fraud or payments under the table when ordering the services of the event, and payment approvals, I suppose, were in the approval levels of the Office of the President. Undoubtedly, the whole process was legal. But such waste was not moral. And it cannot be in a country where children are constantly dying of malnutrition and sick people are dying at the gates of hospitals. The peace treaty was a patriotic undertaking. Its completion, however, may well have been an act of humility, not an act of arrogance. I do not regularly participate in religious ceremonies, but I often participate in commemorations of human transitions – baptisms, communions, weddings, funerals. I always feel comforted as the strangers on the bench in front of me shake my hand and tell me that “there is peace with you,” a greeting that I return with joy.
One such thing could have been the signing ceremony of the peace agreement in Cartagena, perhaps at a mass in the church of San Pedro Claver, patron saint of slaves and defender of human rights. “Peace be upon you, Mr. President, and with the whole country you represent,” the rebel commander might have said; “Peace be upon you, Mr. Londoño, and with your rebel group that will leave its weapons,” President Santos replied. It would not have been a pompous celebration, but an exemplary event. The great feast of Cartagena was by no means a worthy example of the moral leadership that Colombian society needs. Corruption problems start with leaders. Any official approving a payment who has already undergone all the rigorous controls should ask himself a simple question: “Is this transaction moral?” It would be even better if the investigation did so from the beginning of each initiative.
The decent actions that result from the sum of honest answers would undoubtedly end in the foul smells that haunt every government. GUSTAVO ESTRADAAuttor of `Towards the Buddha of the West` Moral norms are codes of conduct that determine good behavior and are transmitted through customs and traditions. Although the ideal is that all people abide by these rules, those who do not are not necessarily punished by justice, which is hardly frowned upon by society. Legal norms are established by the bodies responsible for drafting laws. They define the duties and rights of all citizens and are transmitted through legal instruments such as civil codes or regulations. 2. Does it make a difference that westboro Baptist Church did everything legally right to make its actions acceptable? Should they respect certain ethical limits beyond the law? Why or why not? Through legal instruments such as civil codes, ordinances, constitutions, ordinances, etc. Theodore Roosevelt, President of the United States from 1901 to 1909, embodied what many scholars generally refer to as the “butler presidency.” In Roosevelt`s words, it is the president`s duty to “do whatever the nation requires, unless such act is prohibited by the Constitution or the law.” According to Roosevelt`s expansionist view, anything the president does is allowed unless it is expressly prohibited by the Constitution or laws passed by Congress. Roosevelt believed he was serving the American people, not just the government.
As president, he therefore took several steps that reached the limits of the executive, including the creation of national parks without regard to state jurisdictions and the support of a revolution in Colombia to be able to build the Panama Canal. Such discrepancies between the practices of the rich and the moral revulsion of ordinary citizens are commonplace. Some practice seems illegitimate, but it is legal. The opposite phenomenon can also be observed. A practice may be considered morally legitimate, but in reality it is prohibited. Cannabis use is illegal in most countries, where large sections of society consider it to be completely legitimate. Since legitimacy refers to moral beliefs that are not necessarily evenly distributed in society, society`s attitudes towards illegal products and services often vary considerably from one social group to another and at different times. Take the history of cocaine: it has evolved over the past hundred years from a medical breakthrough to a social scourge. It was discovered in Germany in the late nineteenth century and legally used as an anesthetic for several decades; Later, in the middle of the twentieth century, it was banned due to religious and moral concerns, especially in the United States. Currently, for example, British law classifies cocaine as a Class A drug, i.e.
its possession can result in seven years` imprisonment; Delivery and production are punishable by life imprisonment. Two of the case studies on this page provide more details about the cases mentioned in the video, and a third case study examines legal rights versus ethical responsibilities in relation to the president`s duty. “Snyder v. Phelps” investigates how the right to free speech was brought to justice when the Westboro Baptist Church protested the funeral of American sailor Matthew Snyder. “The Magic Stick of Dr. V.” explores journalist Calen Hannan`s ethical debate when his report revealed that Dr. V was a transgender woman. “Coming to the Presidency: Roosevelt & Taft” examines the ethical and legal dimensions of two extreme ways of harnessing the power of the president. For a case study examining legal rights and ethical responsibilities in medical care and informed consent, “Patient Autonomy and Informed Consent”. The law defines what people are free to do, regardless of the impact of those actions on others. Ethics describes what people should do, taking into account their responsibilities and the foreseeable consequences of their actions.
Just because the law allows you to do something doesn`t mean it`s the ethical thing. And conversely, you may have an ethical responsibility to do something, even if it`s not required by law. In most cases, it is clear that ethics require more than the law. Take, for example, Snyder v. Phelps. Members of the Westboro Baptist Church protested the funeral of U.S. Navy Matthew Snyder, who was killed in Iraq. Church members protested the funeral and condemned the deceased and his father, Albert Snyder, for raising his Catholic son. Snyder sued the church for defamation, invasion of privacy and emotional distress. Westboro Baptist Church said it invoked its right to free speech and followed all local picket regulations.
Initially, Snyder received millions of dollars in damages, but the Supreme Court eventually struck down the case and ruled in favor of the Westboro Baptist Church, arguing that free speech was protected by the First Amendment.