Question

My question for you then, is “Do you agree with Ruggiero's assessment of the intimate relationship between ethics and the law?” I intend this question in a general sense, but especially in regards the two examples he gives concerning the laws against sexual harassment and Prohibition. That is, can you think of any other (non-ethical) explanations for why we (now/no longer) have these particular laws? If so, what would those reasons be if not “ethical” ones? And furthermore, what might that mean for Ruggiero's initial characterization of the relationship between ethics and the law in general? please type

Answer 1

Yes, I agree with Ruggiero's assessment, as both ethics and law are the same as they go hand in hand. By law it is a crime to rape and murder a person, and when we talk about ethics than it also wrong to rape and murder a person. In this case, I agree with him.

Laws are made to keep a human in control, and if humans are in control that means he is ethical. For example, if I do a robbery and kill that person than I am not following the rules and I am not an ethical person. And I am not under the control of any law, but if I get a caught than I will be jailed for my offence. Humans live on ethics and laws and if no one would have followed laws and ethics than entire populations would have vanished.

If we go in deep of ethics and laws, than ethics is morally and teach us right and wrong, while laws are the same but it keeps on changing when our senses of right and wrong change. Many countries have ban on abortion and homosexuality, but many countries have changed their law and accepted homosexuality and abortion in the society as the thought that it use against human.