Societies hold members accountable to moral standards agreed upon as structures for promoting responsible socialism. Behavioral expectations and value alignment differ from one community to another, hence the concept of world cultures. However, when it comes to culture, ethics, and law, several other concepts arise, such as the criminal justice system’s role in determining right from wrong based on legal outlines. Whereas people derive common laws based on the prevailing behavioral codes and the overall cultural alignments, some schools of thought like relativism, subjectivism, ideal-observer, and supernaturalism tend to impose various views on human behaviors. This paper analyzes an incident involving two male adults charged with sexual indecency in the open, having practiced same-sex intercourse in Dubai. The primary direction taken in this discussion is to clarify that personal perceptions of ethical conduct may differ from region to region, influencing the constitutional principles used to judge criminality scenarios.
Case Summary
Two adults, aged 28 and 40, are charged for having drunken sex in public in Dubai. The individuals, both males, are foreigners, one from Britain and the other from Seychelles (Al Amir, 2012). The Dubai Misdemeanours Court charged the foreigners, who admitted to having had consensual sex after consuming alcohol at a previous party. The reason for the charges was that a Palestinian man had seen and reported the duo to the Dubai police. However, the suspects attempted an escape as law enforcement personnel approached the scene (Al Amir, 2012). Based on the brief report on the misdemeanor incident, the key issues to debate are the cultural differences among the characters in the case and the morality perception that led to the Palestinian report.
Cultural Relativism’s, Subjectivism’s, Ideal-Observer’s, and Supernaturalist Views
Cultural relativism’s view of man’s and woman’s actions defines crime as a sociological concept whose definition changes based on the prevailing culture. The implication is that one social context that views an action as morally deviant might differ from another culture that accepts the abhorred action (Park, 2021). The school of thought defining morality as a function of the social context is bound to differ based on shared values and various ethical standings among the world’s cultures. Absolute cultural relativism is an example of a school of thought safeguarding communities from external interference; proponents insist that however weird a man’s or woman’s action may be, it must never be questioned by outsiders (Park, 2021). However, critical cultural relativism determines the rationales behind every practice as depicted by a man’s or woman’s action, implying that proponents in this other school of thought must seek answers behind certain social behaviors before accepting them (Park, 2021). Applied to the two adults apprehended in public indecency, cultural relativists would argue that if the suspects’ cultures allowed public intimacy for same-sex individuals, they are not eligible for any moral accountability.
Ethical subjectivism relates to the common law concept by stating that collective moral opinions determine the rights and wrongs in society. According to the subjectivists’ school of thought, moral standards are real and defendable through valid consequences for taming deviance (Monroe et al., 2018). Subjectivism philosophy allows modifications of objectivist laws, arguing that communities can use solid reasoning to justify moral changes. An ideal observer’s philosophical perspective is a metaethical dimension for determining right from wrong (Ben-Moshe, 2021). The rationale is that moral judgments are based on the observer’s attitudes, which can lead to the approval or disapproval of an action. The school of thought applies to the Palestinian who called the cops on the two adults, indicating that the whistle-blower considered the intimacy unethical. Compared to subjectivism, which had to draw from Dubai’s prevailing cultural values to determine the ethicality of the drunk adult’s situation, the ideal observer’s perspective needs a single person to make the moral judgment.
The supernaturalism ethics considers man’s or woman’s action as either right or wrong depending on how God instructs humans to live. The school of thought considers a human’s life to be a flexible entity that must conform to what God wants (Leung, 2020). Therefore, since the supernatural being remains the foundation of all morality, cultural, individualist, and common laws’ views of morality must derive their reasoning from laws set by the most supreme (Leung, 2020). The Dubai Misdemeanor court must draw its legal principles from Godly moral teachings. Religious perspectives might differ on how societies implement supernaturalist ethics, hence the need to have a legal body determining the morality outcomes of such public misdemeanors and the right steps for issuing punishments.
Legality and Ethics
The men were legally wrong, based on the UAE penal codes for public conduct. The United Arab Emirates public decency law applies to the two foreigners charged with the public intercourse offense, Article 358 of the UAE, prohibiting citizens from committing obscenity by showing nudity in public. Anyone found guilty of such an offense is eligible for a jail term of not less than six months (Al Nahyan, 2020). Al Amir’s (2012) report of a teacher jailed for three years showcased a judgment derived from the UAE’s legal principles. Given that the two men were legally wrong; their actions are automatically unethical. Ethical subjectivism defines morality as the collection of agreeable standards enforced from solid reasoning by communities in a social context. Therefore, the two foreigners had to act in a way that preserved the ethic subjectivist views held by the prevailing cultures in the country they were visiting.
Separating Ethics and Law
Ethics and law are considered separate concepts due to the differences between authorities enforcing each concept. Whereas laws, rules, and regulations are deliberated and enforced by relevant authorities, moral ethics are principles and standards agreed upon by social communities sharing localities, resources, and values (Benzmüller et al., 2020). Therefore, a legitimate authority can determine rules of conduct within a society or country, pairing each rule with the consequence for non-compliance. Ethics and law can only intersect when the governing body derives promulgated rules from the basic values set by communities through ethical observations. Therefore, whereas the laws might set minimum standards of behavioral expectations, ethics go beyond by demanding extra values and agreeable conduct in areas not governed by the law.
Should and Ought in Ethics
The terms “ought” and “should” separate the ethical obligations expected of an individual when judging an action outcome. Whereas “ought to” refers to the moral obligation or duty of the person of reference, “should” explains the individual’s duties and responsibilities, especially what should have been the best action in a scenario (Sisk et al., 2020). The other key difference is that “ought to” refers to when a person is obligated to action but only when it is possible to act. Therefore, “ought to” has a comparatively higher emphasis on an ethical obligation than “should.”
Conclusion
Legality, morality, and ethics govern human behavior to promote peaceful coexistence through standardized values and punishment. The Dubai duo charged with misdemeanor were culpable to the accusations based on legal laws and the subjectivist view of their action in the United Arab Emirates. Although subjectivist ideals allow humans to modify laws based on solid reasoning on accommodating human rights, citizens must abide by established behavioral minimums regardless of the observer’s or cultural relativist views of their actions. Ethics and legality may differ based on value promulgation and enforcement by legitimate authorities. However, constitutional principles used to judge criminality scenarios override every other reasoning when individuals are held culpable of deviance.
References
Al Amir, S. (2012). Teacher jailed for drunken public sex with another man. The National. Web.
Al Nahyan, K. Z. (2020). Federal decree law no. (15) of 2020: Amending certain provisions of the federal law no. (3) of 1987 concerning the penal code. Web.
Ben-Moshe, N. (2021). A defence of modest ideal observer theory: The case of Adam Smith’s impartial spectator. Ethical Theory and Moral Practice, 24(2), 489-510. Web.
Benzmüller, C., Parent, X., & van der Torre, L. (2020). Designing normative theories for ethical and legal reasoning: LogiKEy framework, methodology, and tool support. Artificial Intelligence, 287, 103348. Web.
Leung, K. H. (2020). The technologization of grace and theology: Meta-theological insights from transhumanism. Studies in Christian Ethics, 33(4), 479-495. Web.
Monroe, A. E., Dillon, K. D., Guglielmo, S., & Baumeister, R. F. (2018). It’s not what you do, but what everyone else does: On the role of descriptive norms and subjectivism in moral judgment. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 77, 1-10. Web.
Park, S. (2021). Cultural relativism vs. cultural absolutism. Cultura International Journal of Philosophy of Culture and Axiology, 18(2), 75-91. Web.
Sisk, B. A., Mozersky, J., Antes, A. L., & DuBois, J. M. (2020). The “ought-is” problem: An implementation science framework for translating ethical norms into practice. The American Journal of Bioethics, 20(4), 62-70. Web.