After reading the article, my initial perspective of the publication is that its arguments are ethically or philosophically correct. This is because I agree that laws should be created to serve people for extended periods. Additionally, they should not constantly be altered or amended in an effort to serve only a few persons or entities in the society. That is those persons or entities who have the capability of influencing policy changes through the lawmakers. Additionally, I can also support the argument that big corporations use their financial resources to hire teams of lawyers that are capable of influencing the amendments of the constitution. Such changes are sought by the corporations to eradicate barriers that may reduce their profitability in the market. In addition, it is true that some gigantic corporations offer financial incentives to politicians inform of campaign donations as a way of seeking favors in influencing law changes. Ultimately, this phenomenon can be characterized as an ethical or philosophical issue in the codes of conduct of both the politicians and business organizations concerned in influencing law changes in a nations constitution.
Ethical/Philosophical Consideration That Supports/Challenges The Articles Considerations
There are two primary ethical considerations that can be employed to support the considerations made by the article. First, business organizations have an ethical mandate to uphold integrity when interacting with all their stakeholders CITATION GHa13 \l 1033 (Hardy & Everett, 2013). Such stakeholders include the staff, customers, suppliers and the society at large. As such, by influencing politicians to change public policies, corporations act in contrast to their ethical mandate of upholding their integrity to the society. Second, the policy makers or politicians have an ethical or philosophical responsibility to uphold honesty and transparency when laboring in public offices CITATION Nic15 \l 1033 (Allen & Birch, 2015). As such, by receiving bribes from large corporations in order to influence legislation amendments, politicians fail to exercise honesty and integrity in their roles to the public. As such, if both the policy makers and influential corporations diligently exercise their ethical or philosophical mandates and considerations, unwarranted changes in legislations would not occur.
Arguments For Ethical Reasoning for Changing Laws
Laws should be changed if their imposition by the relevant authority body or the government is unjust to the public CITATION Col05 \l 1033 (Harte, 2005). This means that if an enacted legislation is oppressive to a certain group of persons in the society, it should be eradicated. Laws are structured to offer equal protection to all persons in the society CITATION Ann16 \l 1033 (Oakes, 2016). This should be irrespective of such persons economic background, gender and education status among others. Additionally, laws should be changed if the policy makers learn that there is a loophole in the constitution. Ordinarily, laws are enacted to protect all persons against any form of basic human injustice. Nevertheless, it is not ethically or philosophically wrong to change legislation that fails to protect all people or organizations from any form of injustice. Ultimately, it is ethically right to eradicate or amend some legislations so as to ensure that they retain their relevance in the society. This is in line with the changing values and attitudes towards crime, environment, economy and human rights among others.
Arguments Against Ethical Reasoning for Changing Laws
There are two fundamental reasons as to why it is ethically or philosophically right to retain laws in the society. First, laws are enacted to protect all persons equally and with no influence to externalities CITATION Dav091 \l 1033 (Sherwyn, 2009). This means that laws are designed to offer protection to people and entities the same way irrespective of their societal or economic position in the society. Lastly, laws are accompanied by relevant punishments for persons or entities that infringe such legislations CITATION Liv06 \l 1033 (Iacovino, 2006). This means that by retaining the same punishments for each legislation, the respect of laws like a tool of equalizing all in the society can be attained. Additionally, by not amending laws, policymakers can ensure that the provisions of laws are used unanimously and not for the protection of only a few persons or entities in the society.
BIBLIOGRAPHY Allen, N., & Birch, S. (2015). Ethics and Integrity in British Politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Hardy, G., & Everett, D. (2013). Shaping the Future of Business Education: Relevance, Rigor, and Life Preparation. New York: Springer.
Harte, C. (2005). Changing Unjust Laws Justly: Pro-Life Solidarity with "The Last and Least." Washington D.C.: CUA Press.
Iacovino, L. (2006). Recordkeeping, Ethics, and Law: Regulatory Models, Participant Relationships and Rights, and Responsibilities in the Online World. Berlin: Springer Science & Business Media.
Oakes, A. R. (2016). Controversies in Equal Protection Cases in America: Race, Gender, and Sexual Orientation. New York: Routledge.
Sherwyn, D. (2009). Employment Class and Collective Actions: Proceedings of the New York University 56th Annual Conference on Labor, Volume 56. New York: Wolters Kluwer Law & Business.
If you are the original author of this essay and no longer wish to have it published on the collegeessaywriter.net website, please click below to request its removal:
- Motivation Letter for Master's in Intellectual Property
- Thesis Proposal Sample on Anticorruption Laws
- Essay Sample on the Role of Court Administrators
- The Emergence of Interpretivism in IS Research - Article Review Paper Example
- Essay on Legalization of Marijuana to Combat the Teacher Shortage in Louisiana
- A Study on the Human Nature - Essay Example
- Essay Example on the Augustinian Theory