(Note: In corresponding to your classmates posts, corcorrespond to twain Parts I and II of their primal posts.)
The knowledge that you gain deficiency for the primeval distribute of the discourse can be institute in Case 6J, p. 76; Case 8, p. 140; and Case 5, p. 46 of Thinking Critically Encircling Ethical Issues. For two of those cases (you enucleate), explicitly substantiate what you capture to be the distributeies and the intellectual children(s) that are at scapture in those cases.
In the very start of one of your textbooks size, Vincent Ruggiero corresponds to the inquiry “Why do we deficiency ethics if we keep laws?” (Ruggiero 4) in a rather surprising way by vindicationing, in issue, that ethics is required by the law consequently it underpins and informs our laws in some way. At one top Ruggiero goes so far as to avouch that, “...law is not potential outside ethics. The solely way for a law to be overbearing or rescissioned is for one or more nation to fashion a sentence encircling just and wrong” (Ruggiero 4). Ruggiero attempts to tail up this vindication by providing some examples that he sees as providing some obvious appearance for his position, one concerns the creation of a law counter sexual harassment and another concerns the rescission of the law of Prohibition. In this temper he writes, “The solely intelligent reason for a law counter sexual harassment is that the act is wrong” and he adds excite, “The Eighteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution made Prohibition the law of the land—until the Twenty-primeval Amendment rescissioned it in the spectry of justice” (Ruggiero 4, italics are mine).
My inquiry for you then, is “Do you consent delay Ruggiero's rate of the familiar intercommunity between ethics and the law?” I denote this inquiry in a public reason, but specially in compliments the two examples he gives of the laws counter sexual harassment and Prohibition. That is, can you ponder of any other (non-ethical) explanations for why we (now/no longer) keep these distributeicular laws? If so, what would those reasons be if not “ethical” ones? And excitemore, what susceptibility that moderation for Ruggiero's primal characterization of the intercommunity between ethics and the law in public?