Aspirational Ethics versus Mandated Ethics

Aspirational Ethics versus Mandated Ethics

When discussing ethics people talk sometimes about the letter of the law and the spirit of the law.  Sometimes, the frames are what is legal and what is right.  It seems common sense that what is legal is not always right.  Further, there are questions which test how ethical a person is by inquiring what one would do in the case that what is right is not legal.  Something along the line of, If your loved one was starving would you steal food?

I would suggest that these questions are one-dimensional and in no way capture the totality of human existence.  For example, if your loved one was starving HOW would you go about obtaining food?  There are food pantries, there are options for harvesting food, there are ways to grow food....  There are neighbors to ask and support networks to access.  There are so many other options than stealing.

Likewise, the discussion of the letter and the spirit of the law, of aspirational and mandated ethics.  An example of letter versus spirit - It is legal to pay someone minimum wage.  However, a business which depends on a workforce that has to access welfare in order to survive is not paying a living wage to its employees.  Therefore, it could be said that the wage is legal but not right, obeys mandated ethics, but does not meet aspirational ethics.

Mandated ethics are doing things in ways that meet the bare minimum, that comply with legal or other requirements, but that only barely do so.  Aspirational ethics extend mandated ethics into the realm of doing the best possible.  I believe that it is through aspirational ethics that society advances.

For example, during the civil rights movements - what was legal was not right.  Through use of aspirational ethics - that humans are equal and should have equal rights under law and in reality, the mandated ethics changed.  Now, in current American society, the laws exist to create equality in access.  However, the reality is that privilege continues to exist, various -isms divide us, and the trend toward soundbites limits our ability to have transformational discussion.

I would challenge you to approach your life with the idea of aspirational ethics as a guiding principle.  How can you not only follow the laws and requirements, but how can you exceed those in such a way that the society you leave to your descendants is better than the one you currently experience?  Further, I challenge you to consider how you can use aspirational ethics to challenge what is legal, but not right.