(May 22, 2015 at 11:15 am)Jörmungandr Wrote:(May 22, 2015 at 11:05 am)Anima Wrote: For example:
Under the natural law the rule is survival of the fittest. If I can kill it than I am allowed to kill it.
Under the ethical law the rule is what is best for the society. I can kill it if everyone is okay with it.
Under the moral law the rules is what I am okay with. I can kill it if I am okay with it.
I hope that explanation helps.
It does. So ethics and ethical law concern what is right by social convention. Whereas moral law is what is right by personal standard of right and wrong.
There is a close alignment between ethical law on your view, and legislative morality. It seems to me that applying the word 'ethical' to legislative morality you are endorsing a specific view of morals in which the consensus determines what is right or wrong. I would just point out that this is not the only secular theory of morals, there are moral realists, and anti-realists, who hold differing opinions to the somewhat anti-realist position of relativism. Codifying a specific moral theory into the language with which you describe right and wrong seems one step away from begging the question.
The maximum manifestation of ethics is in the law. However, not all ethical rules are manifested as law (think proper etiquette). Furthermore I did not state right or wrong in regards to ethics. Ethics does not determine what is right or wrong, rather it determines what is socially acceptable or legal (hence I can kill it if everyone is okay with it. That is not to say whether I should kill it or not.)
It is correct that the two overlap often enough, but we would be mistaken in holding them as the same; as the state may do for the sake of the whole that which is not morally acceptable.
When the moral law and ethical law conflict the ethical law is to prevail as it governs more than just our person. When the ethical law and the moral law conflict the natural law is to prevail because nothing can be in contradiction to the natural law.
