Consistency Above Ethics. Ethics Above Law.
Source
I would like you, the reader, to ponder this notion.
Think it over and tell me if these words do not ring true.
Consistency above Ethics. Ethics above Law.
If these words do ring true then let me spin it around just a little.
Law in the service of Ethics. Ethics in the service of Consistency.
Ask yourself if the so-called legal system that you are familiar with can truthfully claim itself to be living up to its service to either Ethics or Consistency.
Ask yourself what the consequences of any shortcomings may have been.
It may seem like an exercise of the metaphysical kind... but more-so it is one of the fundamental kind.
Also... could the legal system as we know it survive the embrace of this notion?
Who loses and who wins?
I would sincerely like to hear your views on this notion, and perhaps any relevant views or tellings of experiences that you yourself might hold. I am especially curious about views that challenge this notion but all views are welcome.
Do you have any comments that you would like to share? I look forward to getting into a discussion with you in the comments below below! :c)
Also, if you found this post interesting and would like to share this with your followers and friends then a resteem is always appreciated.
Sincerely,
Previous Post: An Astral Awakening At Cost (SWC)
I understand completely. I think that our drug laws especially those on the Federal level illustrate your point nicely. Consistency is lacking because the main argument against marijuana is that it is bad for your health. Cigarettes are bad for your health, so is alcohol, and probably 95% of the crap that you buy in the grocery store with their preservatives, high fructose corn syrup, etc, etc, so on and so forth. The loyalty to big pharma is blatantly obvious. And as far as ethics, how ethical is it to deprive someone of liberty because of a victimless crime. Yes I'm still talking drugs, possession of a drug does not victimize anyone, and even a drug dealer selling drugs to an addict, is a transaction between two consenting adults, no one is being deceived or misled. Prostitution is the same thing, two consenting adults engaging in sexual activity after money changes hands. The sex is not illegal, the transaction is, because if two adults meet at a bar married or single, and decide to have sex, no law is broken as long as it is consensual on both ends. These inconsistencies are disturbing and they expose our criminal justice system for the circus it is. Great question and great topic for discussion!
Thank you, @libertyordeath19, for your comment.
From what you've said I think you might find a couple of my earlier posts to make for a good quick look through - one concerning the nature of the war on drugs - and another concerning a real solution to such.
And yes, you do understand that my message is that the law is (designed to be) flawed.
It is one's view that the law is to be held accountable to its superiors - ethics and consistency respectively.
Now - you have elected to tweak our grey cells! Still, this does form a basic theory: the Law supports the theory and practice of ethics. It is interesting though that these are noted to be needed for ongoing or consistent theory or practice. These factors are needed for short- term as well as consistent or ongoing standards to be maintained. I guess it's true that the baseline factors are required to maintain standards.
This is very deep and I am overdue for dessert of some nature. I'll think about it again after the consumption of chocolate lol :)
Working one's mind is definitely harder without chocolate! :cP I hope that you are feeling all choco-ed up and ready to once again take on the principle being put forth. ^_^
There are seversal ways that the premise 'could' be challenged - and I'm looking forward to people exploring those dark passageways. :cP
Thank you, @mysecondself01, both for your upvote as well as for your comment! Enjoy that chocolate! :c)