To Follow The Letter of The Law or To Follow The Spirit of The Law?

 To Follow The Letter of The Law or To Follow The Spirit of The Law? 

When people obey the letter of the law but not the spirit, they are obeying the literal interpretation of the words, but not necessarily the intent of those who made and signed the law. Conversely, when one obeys the spirit of the law but not the letter, one is doing what the authors of the law intended. In other words, the "letter of the law" is exactly what is printed on the papers and can't be argued. The “spirit of the law” is the reasoning behind why the law was enacted or what it was trying to achieve and it is more likely to be lenient. Therefore, it is possible to violate the “letter of the law” but not the “spirit of the law”. 

For instance, the letter of the law says "check the ID before you sell cigarettes to anyone". The spirit of the law is trying to ensure cigarettes are sold to adults, not teenagers or children. However, should I insist on seeing the ID of a person who is gray-haired and looks very old? Even though it does not violate the spirit of the law which is to ensure cigarettes are sold to adults, it violates the letter of the law since you do not check the ID. Checking the ID is the necessary action of the “letter of the law”.

Trying To Pick One?

When I consider picking only one among the two options, there are always pros and cons. As mentioned previously in the example of cigarettes merchants, if I try to obey the letter of the law but not the spirit. I can prevent anyone who is trying to fake their appearance or simply born with an older face from getting cigarettes. However, if you are already 50 years old and you are asked to bring your ID anywhere you want to buy cigarettes, you may feel it is a deliberate attempt to confuse you. The spirit of the law is why we make the law, but we have to describe it and write it down and record it for implementation. Although the spirit is to confirm the actual age of the buyers, there are many ways we can do it and this is what the words come in. I think the law was made to make the world a better place. A peaceful one. It is hard to pick one side of the two. Both should be carefully considered and kept updated. 

In What Circumstances Would You Believe The Opposite To Be True?

As I said, it is hard to pick one side of the two. There are always pros and cons. However, in some circumstances, such as a boy who wants to buy cigarettes for his disabled father. Does this violate the spirit of the law? His father is the actual buyer. But, to avoid making this exception to become another excuse for this illegal trade, maybe "check the ID" action is the right option. However, if he has his father's ID and then cheated the seller? I think we must consider the spirit and to describe it clearly.

How Does The Rule of Law Affect Business?

In the case of the cigarettes mentioned previously, the regulation seems to restrict their profits since they cannot sell their products to younger people. However, they also follow the rule to avoid being penalized, or even their licenses to sell this product will be revoked. The law takes away some of the private rights for the public good. It is the rule of the game. And, it is their obligation if they want to profit from it.

What Would Business Be Like In A Land Without Any Rule of Law System? 

The cigarettes again. What if those merchants can do anything they want to make profits? What happens if it is allowed to sell cigarettes to children? Without the rule of law, there are only private benefits. Wars and disputes are unavoidable since everyone is trying to "protect" their property. 

Reference

Wikimedia Foundation. (2021, October 16). Letter and spirit of the law. Wikipedia. Retrieved November 12, 2021, from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Letter_and_spirit_of_the_law. 

Managing Ethics

 Preface

This week, the topic focused on managing ethics. In the reading, I have learned what business ethics is, the benefits of managing ethics in the workplace, and codes of ethics and conduct in workplaces. They are important cornerstones of an organization and shape its ultimate contributions to corporate social responsibility. However, many business owners often make business decisions based on what they believe to be right and wrong to shape the moral standard of the organization through their actions. It is not that simple. Oftentimes, your decisions or what you think is right or wrong, are very different when you are in different positions. For example, if you are a knight on a chessboard, your consideration is limited by the rules you can move. If you are a player, your consideration is the overall progress and to win the game, eventually. Maybe, the rules of how we should move our pieces are the most obvious right thing here since you cannot move your pieces "illegally".

Trust and Values

Think of the Prisoner's Dilemma again. If these prisoners are trusting each other, their reactions will benefit both of them. However, don't misunderstand it. The concept does not mean we have to cooperate before doing anything bad. Without integrity, there can be no trust. If you are a lion, how can you convince others to believe that you are a vegan? Although how a lion does its all effort to persuade a buffalo and ensure they will be fine if lions open their mouths, it does not work anymore. I think sometimes, the values are like what we are trying to be. For businesses, the values are also what they trying to be. Set up ethic programs to be a socially responsible enterprise or to be a notorious company. 

Changes with Needs

While we are considering what is right or what is wrong, those things and facts will change over time. For example, AI, automatic production, and intelligent robots are replacing more and more jobs. Should we ban that development to protect those jobs? These technologies may benefit many businesses but they also put many people in danger while they lose their jobs. Some old school rules may not always fit as time passes. Even the most obvious thing, "doing good" can be doubtful. The definition of doing good is not always the same.

Good Person Is Always Good?

The answer is not. We can say that a good person who has always earned our trust is "highly unlikely" to do bad things. I think it depends on the situations the person confronts. During World War II, there was a group of prisoners in a camp built by Nazi Germany for the massacre of Jews. Many Jews were forced to send other Jews into toxic chambers. It seems like they are executioners. Actually, they are just victims and most of them are good people before. Even good people can take bad actions, especially stressed or confused. Have you ever watched the film "Joker"? Do you think the character "Joker" is a good guy or a bad guy? His background and his past can be sympathetic.

Case in Point

On April 15, 2018, two black men walked into a Starbucks in downtown Philadelphia in the afternoon and sat down. They asked to use the restroom but because they had not bought anything, an employee refused the request. They were eventually asked to leave, and when they declined, a Starbucks employee called the police after the men, who were waiting at a table, refused to leave. The men were arrested on suspicion of trespassing. But Starbucks did not want to press charges and the men were later released. The prosecutor’s office in Philadelphia also reviewed the case and declined to charge the men because of “a lack of evidence that a crime was committed,” Benjamin Waxman, a spokesman for the office, said. Then, Starbucks apologized on Twitter later on Saturday afternoon. 

Reference

Stevens, M. (2018, April 15). Starbucks C.E.O. apologizes after arrests of 2 black men. The New York Times. Retrieved October 25, 2021, from https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/15/us/starbucks-philadelphia-black-men-arrest.html.