Does Ethics Drive Opponents of Same Sex Marriage to Disobey SCOTUS Ruling and Ignore Professional Ethics?

The Supreme Court of the United States ruled Friday the 26th of June, that same sex couples could enjoy the right to legally marry in Obergefell v. Hodges.  Great.  Let the weddings commence, lets see couples of all kinds go and proclaim their love for each other in front of clergy or magistrate and join the institution of marriage.  

Not so fast, says Judge Roy Moore, Chief Justice of the Alabama Supreme Court.  He has consistently fought it, and has told judges in his state's lower courts not to implement the federal court ruling that overturned the state's ban on same-sex marriage that was handed down earlier this year.  So he sees the ruling that took place on Friday as an affront to the Constitution, an affront to Alabama's constitution and he promises not to uphold it, as it is not the "law of the land" like the Constitution is.  He feels it is his ethical duty and moral obligation to not start marrying same sex couples, as he feels that the Supreme Court made the unethical and immoral choice on Friday.  

So does that mean that (whether you agree with Judge Moore) he is doing what is right, and following his ethics despite it causing him some professional grief?  He has a certain moral code, based on his Christian beliefs, so why should he go against those principals?  What about the professional ethics he swore to uphold; not not only uphold the Alabama Constitution, but following the US Constitution?  The Supreme Court is in the Constitution and the Supremacy Clause makes it so Federal Law trumps State Law, so is he ignoring those ethics?

Well, he can't ignore the US Constitution, so he has to follow the laws set forth federally, even if they come from SCOTUS and he disagrees with them. States cannot ignore Federal Laws - it is illegal - so Judge Moore is acting contra to what the laws of the US are.  So he can certainly pretend that he is allowed to ignore the ruling, but he will eventually have to either fall in line, or he will have to follow his personal ethics and be escorted off the bench (though he would have a great chance of being reinstated, as happened when he ignored a higher court's ruling to take down a monument to the ten commandments he had erected on the ground of the Alabama Supreme Court).

http://www.cnn.com/2015/06/26/politics/roy-moore-conservatives-gay-marriage-alabama-react/

Pope's Encyclical Says Taking Care of Environment is a Moral and Ethical Obligation

     

The leader of the Roman Catholic Church, Pope Francis, released a paper that discussed the environment addressed to "...every living thing on the planet", not just his Catholic flock (Peppard, 2015). In it he discusses the environment and how taking care of the earth is ethical. Greenhouse gases are put out by industrial nations, consumption of resources is higher in the first world, and countries like the United States should take the lead on agreements with other countries in improving the world environmentally.

"The goods of the earth, continues Francis, are not meant for abuse and exploitation, but rather for sharing and inclusiveness of the least among us..."

This is keeping with Catholic teachings on taking care of the "least among us", and help the poor and handicapped. (Peppard, 2015). So Pope Francis sees that taking care of the environment is an extension of the Catholic's cause to help those less fortunate, a key ethical tenet of their religion.  So we have the leader of the largest Christian denomination putting out a call for taking care of the Earth, and framing it in a way to make it an ethical and moral obligation - something that mainstream religions do not do.


http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/acts-of-faith/wp/2015/06/18/what-you-need-to-know-about-pope-franciss-environmental-encyclical/

Ethics Probe Into Trip of Congressmen Paid For By Foreign Interests

     Ten members of Congress are under investigation for a trip to Azerbaijan paid for by the State Oil Company of the Azerbaijan Republic (or SOCAR), contravening congressional rules on foreign governments from influencing US policy.  SOCAR hid the funding by "funneling the money through two Houston-based nonprofits that sponsored the trip" (Jackson, 2015).  Sounds pretty rough, and a clear violation of ethics, right? After all, the trip took place as Congress was looking at sanctions against Iran, which has a partnership with SOCAR, and one of the Congressman received gifts of a rug and some earrings while he was on the visit.  Seems like we hear of these things all the time - politician who breaks the rules (or the law), for their own gain.

     The only problem is that it isn't so cut and dried; N. J. Rep  Leonard Lance had his airfare paid for, according to the Office of Congressional Ethics (OCE), who are conducting a probe, but the Congressman's office says that the trip had been cleared in advance by the ethics office.  Also, since the funds for the trip were through third parties, how can the Congressmen be held liable? Not so fast - the OCE says that "ignorance of the true source of travel expenses is not an absolute shield from liability for receipt of travel expenses from an improper source" (Jackson, 2015).  What about that rug and the earrings? Rep Lance didn't want to offend the host, so he accepted them, but upon returning to the US, he paid for the earrings and sent the rug back.

     So is this a clear case of a lack of ethics?  Until the investigation is complete and if the OCE recommends further investigation and eventual sanctions, we can't say.  At this point, it looks like we have an organization in the OCE that is trying to keep our politicians doing the right thing, and these Congressmen were either duped or complicit, and complicity would be a sign of an issue with ethics.  But it is a good sign that we have people within the government that take their job seriously; we'll have to wait and see if the probe shows the usual problems with those in Washington making poor choices.

Jackson, Herb (May 13, 2015). "Trip by N.J. Rep. Lance, other Congressional members scrutinized in ethics probe". North Jersey.com.  Retrieved Jun 11, 2015.

As FIFA scandal unfolds, ethical body found to be without ethics

     My choice for this week's ethics discussion is the latest charges involving FIFA (an international governing body of soccer), where officials have been accused of bribery, money laundering and bribery from an unnamed sportswear manufacturer who were vying for outfitting Brazil's soccer team. 

     The governing body is there to ensure that numerous football leagues/teams are able to compete against each other using standards and rules, enacted fairly across the board, and to ensure that those who participate have a set of "judges" who can impartially decide questions between teams.  Anyone in their position who has to deal with rules and rule enforcement (as a governing body, rules are their reason for living), has an ethical obligation to enforce those rules impartially, and to also follow FIFA's own rules as set forth in their charter, and international law.  As the story unfolds, this does not seem to be the case.

     Obviously, if the allegations are true, then using the "moral rules that we follow" morality definition from "The Moral of the Story" (Rosenstadt, 2013) seems to point to those who are guilty of bribery as having no moral compass.  They used their position to enrich themselves, instead of looking out for the sport's best interest.  Certainly this is much more black and white than many ethical questions, but I thought it best to start from the cut and dried and eventually move into something more difficult to parse.

"Nine FIFA Officials and Five Corporate Executives Indicted for Racketeering Conspiracy and Corruption". United States Department of Justice. May 27, 2015. Retrieved May 27, 2015