At 01:45 PM 3/1/98 -0500, Bruce Fisher wrote:
 
 It is a very dangerous idea, but in
>our pluralistic and "nonjudgmental" world where no one seems willing to
>stick his/her neck out and say what is "right", we all seem to be looking to
>the sovereign for the "answer."  Given what transpires in Washington, D.C.
>and a number of state capitals, this has a disturbing aspect to it.
 
Frank Cross gives political campaign financing as an example of  what he
apparently considers to be an unethical practice, despite its compliance
with the law.  Bruce's thesis (with which I think I agree, though I must
confess I haven't read his paper), is that the idea that positive law is an
ethic is becoming increasingly acceptable in theory and in practice.
 
Assuming that both of them are correct, then what we have is this:
 
1.      Positive law is often the product of an unethical process (campaing
financing).
 
2.      Positive law is,  (by increasingly acceptable definition) an ethic.
 
Therefore, those who have the opportunity and inclination to participate in
an unethical process (and are therefore willing to behave unethically in the
interest of their own advantage) have increasing opportunity to define for
the rest of us what is ethical.  And what is ethical will therefore
increasingly be what is to their advantage.
 
And that, I would submi,t is one reason for the relaxation of restrictions
on usurious rates of interest, and the reason that the bankruptcy laws are
being attacked by Big Banking and others with equity interests in credit
card debt securities.
 
 
Kent Schenkel
University of North Carolina at Wilmington
[log in to unmask]