Society and ethics, the legality of our actions

The contrast between the ethical and legal has made a long time since one of the "gray areas" more difficult to administer to humans personally and collectively. It is not, for example, a problem of quantification and application, which tries to determine an appropriate penalty for violations of various denominations. Nor is it to develop complex legal models for emerging fields ranging lattices more and more with daily life, such as the cyber-ethics. No, in this case it is the disjunction between the standard provided by the state and governs the behavior of human beings into nations, versus what is right from an ethical standpoint. Issues such as abortion, euthanasia, the death penalty or war are controversial for this very reason, because although it is clear a legal guideline about each other, the ethical aspect is much more difficult to consolidate between people, and has been since long. However, before considering the potential trade-off between what is ethical and what is legal, it must draw more deeply on our tool to measure for ethics awareness.

The consciousness of each person participates in any ethical value judgments, it is the human component that allows distinguishing between ethical alternatives to satisfy conditions given by a system of personal values. A conscience is questioning the motivation behind every action of an individual in an effort to force him to reflect on the ethical validity of that action, from a personal ideology about what is ethically correct. Where does then this ideology or set of values? Basically stems from the socialization experiences through the different roles that have a human being from birth and as it develops its scheme of values ​​enriched by planting ethical standards within him or her. Take for example a child of 6 years, his most prominent roles of son, student, brother and friend. As of shares in each of these roles, the adopted child values ​​that ethical manner; not copy the good student, good son does not steal, do not abuse the good brother, good friend supports. From these basic values, there is the associative process that allows the conscious rule in favor of one alternative or another more complex ethical situations, as is the focus of this essay.

A society which shares a minimum ethics to which all members abide by, is a company that streamlines and has a more competent in a globalized world in which every person is committed to its environment and complies with this series of apart from its peak minimum. As we said Adela Cortina (the ethic of civil society, 2001): "strengthening civil society requires as a condition of possibility, the empowerment of an ethic shared by all members of this society because without a minimum shared moral, evil will be citizens of one world.?.

The creation of legal rules is given pursuant to society progresses and becomes aware of errors to maintain order, an order that must abide by a company and maintained by the state, but morality comes into play when a person question whether the actions it performs are morally right and find a point of reference in which you can trust and qualify their actions in a very simple but good or bad is up to the individual taking into account the environment create the moral as we says Cortina (2001), "realize that we are citizens who have to make the moral world, and, therefore, who have to think about what is right and wrong, even seeking the help of appropriate advisors, the support of people who deserve our trust..? Up to each individual to realize that it is he who must decide between what is right and wrong, not only what is good and bad. A person must perform the actions that are supposedly given the correct environment and society which is at some point for which must be satisfied both by society and by himself from the actions taken or made are correct as Adela tells us: "It takes more than a casual coincidence that comes from outside: you need a common desire born from within individuals, although this will be limited to a minimum shared items?.

Realize that is right or wrong, just or unjust is one of the most difficult to complete because it requires a consensus of several "People? and as each of these has a vision of truth individually reach an agreement can be complicated and one of the ways to reach this consensus was the religion as a meeting between the parties says Cortina (2001): "Part of the population thought that without a religious foundation of morality had no moral sense to talk of any kind and, therefore, clung to the idea that the moral code of a society can not be more than that which is based in religious faith?. This social vision of morality gives a great degree of certainty in the individual who makes a decision so strong that if it thinks that all his actions are actually correct according to this morality based on religion all his actions are morally right. Once different religions came into disagreement arises the problem of knowing what is right and wrong becomes a problem of choosing a religion.

But morality is more than a religion and as discussed earlier, it must come to an agreement between a company that in the times we live should be a global consensus on the generation of minimum levels of living but you need to societies "also add to listen to dissenting voices is what helps both to form their own opinion as to cultivate tolerance, both of which it is impossible without a healthy pluralism.? (Cortina). To reach a level of coexistence "right? individuals need to stop looking after their own interests and start looking after the interests of others and a much larger vision than just the society that is as we said Cortina (2001): "the coexistence is possible when people share a moral minimum, including the conviction has to be respect the ideals of life of citizens, no matter how different they are from their own, provided that such ideals are based upon the minimal share..? The ethics of this society adopt minimum have to worry about is fair to understand that while the ethics of maximum a person should only worry about what is good in context.

Let us then that great disjunction between the legal and ethical. The laws are intended to act as behavioral constraints in order to maintain order in society, and yet do not apply on our conscience, so there is the question about the ethical issues behind some perfectly legal or illegal. For example, to a certain person, it is possible that killing another human being is completely wrong, from an ethical point of view. However, there are several conditions under which a state can legally approve the act, in self-defense, the line of duty, as does a soldier or police officer, and so on. Consciousness, then, is the internal organ of each individual that identifies the contrast between the ethical and legal, is the element of our argument that, regardless of what the state dictates, will establish a value-judgment on the case question, referring only to personal values ​​to determine a guideline. Victor Manuel Delgado Vallevictor.delgadov @ gmail.com