Morality, Ethics, and Law:

Introductory Concepts
Jennifer Horner, Ph.D., J.D.1

ABSTRACT

Downloaded by: Universidad Autonoma de Nuevo Leon. Copyrighted material.

The purpose of this article is to differentiate morality, ethics, and
law. Morality refers to a set of deeply held, widely shared, and relatively sta-
ble values within a community. Ethics as a philosophical enterprise in-
volves the study of values, and the justification for right and good actions,
as represented by the classic works of Aristotle (virtue ethics), Kant (duty-
based ethics), and Bentham and Mill (utilitarian and consequentialist
ethics). Applied ethics, in contrast, is the use of ethics principles (e.g., re-
spect for autonomy, beneficence, and nonmaleficence, justice) in actual sit-
uations, such as in professional and clinical life. Finally, law is comprised of
concrete duties established by governments that are necessary for main-
taining social order and resolving disputes, as well as for distributing social
resources according to what people need or deserve.

KEYWORDS: Morality, ethics, law, ethics principles

Learning Outcomes: As a result of this activity, the participant will be able to (1) differentiate morality, ethics,
and law; (2) recognize the contributions of classic ethics philosophers; (3) identify the essential features of
duty-based and utilitarian (consequentialist) ethics theory; (4) define the principles of respect for autonomy,
beneficence, nonmaleficence, and justice; and (5) distinguish administrative, statutory, common, and constitu-
tional law.

MORALITY hardt, “community is used to identify a body of

Morality refers to a set of values that are widely
shared and relatively stable within a community.
To understand this definition, let us being by ask-
ing, what is a community? According to Engle-
men and women bound together by common
moral traditions and/or practices around a shared
vision of the good life, which allows them to
collaborate as moral friends” (p. 7).1 The “ex-
emplar moral community” (p. 6)1 has uniform

Ethical, Moral, and Legal Issues in Speech and Language Pathology. Editors in Chief, Nancy Helm-Estabrooks, Sc.D.,
and Nan Bernstein Ratner, Ed.D.; Guest Editor, Jennifer Horner, Ph.D., J.D. Seminars in Speech and Language, volume
24, number 4, 2003. Address for correspondence and reprint requests: Jennifer Horner, Ph.D., J.D., Medical University of
South Carolina, College of Health Professions, 77 President Street, Suite 117, P.O. Box 250700, Charleston, SC 29425.
E-mail: hornerj@musc.edu. 1Medical University of South Carolina, College of Health Professions, Charleston, South
Carolina. Copyright © 2003 by Thieme Medical Publishers, Inc., 333 Seventh Avenue, New York, NY 10001, USA. Tel:
+1(212) 584-4662. 0734-0478,p;2003,24;04,263,274,ftx,en;ssl00171x. 263
264 SEMINARS IN SPEECH AND LANGUAGE/VOLUME 24, NUMBER 4 2003
values. But, what happens when diverse moral
communities come together within larger soci-
ety and their goals and values clash? The solu-
tion is a morality that is broad (and tolerant)
enough to bind both moral friends and moral
strangers (p. 15).1 This morality must be com-
prised of a core set of values—or, alternatively, a
set of guiding principles—upon which all can
agree. At least, this morality must be com-
prised of a core set of procedures to resolve dis-
agreements—to allow respectful discussion, me-
diation, and resolution—when values collide.
Whether values, principles, or procedures pro-
vide the core of society’s morality, both the in-
tegrity of individual moral agents and civility
among them are requisite to moral discourse.2,3
Thus, a morality that is broadly conceived
as complementary values, principles, procedures,
and character virtues can accommodate diverse
cultural, ethnic, familial, and individual inter-
ests. After all, when one looks for humankind’s
deepest values, it becomes apparent that people
worldwide have common interests. Consider the
following examples. All societies, from ancient
times to the present, know that in order to sur-
vive, we must cooperate.4 To live productive,
meaningful lives, we must try to be good to each
other. All civilized societies agree that it is wrong
to take a life, except for the most compelling
reasons (e.g., self-defense). Most people agree
that, before doing something to others, we
should get their permission, and, at least as a
prima facie rule, it is wrong to lie.5 Most people
agree, depending on the circumstances, that it
is wrong to divulge secrets entrusted in us (for
example, details of one’s medical history).6 With
some of these ideas in mind, Beauchamp and
Childress wrote: “The term morality refers to
social conventions about right and wrong human
conduct that are so widely shared that they form
a stable (although usually incomplete) commu-
nal consensus” (p. 4).7
Moral values are those pertaining to what
is right or wrong, good or bad. Moral values
are the foundations of our obligations (our du-
ties) toward one another. To the extent that we
are able to act according to our moral values,
we are able to live lives with purpose, dignity,
and integrity. To the extent that we are able to
act on behalf of others according to our moral
values, not only can we foster our own “good”
(including happiness, well-being, security, and
the ability to flourish), but also we can foster
the “good” of others. In turn, if others behave
morally toward us, we receive the benefit of their
moral actions. Thus, moral values guide our rea-
soning, our judgments, and our actions that have
in mind the good of everyone in our community.
This is the essence of moral cooperation; in-
deed, the essence of morality itself.
But what else makes values moral? First,
moral values are “ultimate.” The idea of ultimacy
means that the value is of greatest importance,
and usually cannot be overridden by lesser val-
Downloaded by: Universidad Autonoma de Nuevo Leon. Copyrighted material.
ues, interests, or preferences (p. xx).8 Second,
moral values are “universal.” The idea of uni-
versality means that the moral value or princi-
ple applies to everyone within the particular
community (p. xx).8 Third, moral values are
“impartial.” The idea of impartialism means that
“moral evaluations must treat the good of every-
one alike” (p. xx).8 A fourth, related, concept is
that moral actors are other-regarding; that is,
they place the good of others above their self-
interests. In the words of Beauchamp and Wal-
ters,9 “[i]ndividuals do not create their moral-
ity by making their own rules, and morality
cannot be purely a personal policy or code” (p.
1). It is our actions toward, and in considera-
tion of, others’ interests that makes our actions
moral.
From foundational values emerge moral
principles. Moral principles do not tell us what
to do, when to act (or refrain from action), or
why some actions are appropriate (or not).
Rather, moral “[p]rinciples are general guides that
leave considerable room for judgment in specific
cases . . . “ (p. 38).7 Decisions regarding the
what–when–why of actions lie in the realm of
moral or ethical evaluation and reasoning. The
next section defines ethics, reviews the classic
sources of contemporary ethics theory, and de-
fines four contemporary ethics principles.
ETHICS
Ethics is “a branch of philosophy, which through
formal and systematic analysis, attempts to crit-
ically examine human conduct focusing on the
rightness and wrongness, goodness or harm-
 INTRODUCTORY CONCEPTS/HORNER 265

fulness of actions” (p. 7).10 In other words, the
philosophical study of morality is “ethics” (p. 1).11
Philosophical ethics focuses on normative is-
sues that address “what is morally right and
what is morally wrong with regard to human
action” (p. 2),11 as well as what should be done,
and why (p. 7).10 Philosophical ethics also en-
compasses meta-ethics; that is, the study of
“the nature of moral judgments . . . and . . .
methods for the justification of particular moral
judgments” (p. 2).11
In contrast, the scientific study of morality
is “descriptive ethics” (p. 1).11 Descriptive ethics
In summary, the study of ethics includes
philosophical ethics (normative ethics, and meta-
ethics), and descriptive ethics (Table 1). These
levels of inquiry inform our reasoning when we
are faced with moral quandaries in professional
life—the realm of applied ethics. To appreciate
the sources of contemporary applied ethics, the
next section briefly describes virtue ethics, duty-
based ethics, utilitarian and consequentialist
ethics, and justice.
Classic Philosophies of Ethics

Downloaded by: Universidad Autonoma de Nuevo Leon. Copyrighted material.

examines moral values, attitudes, and actions
empirically to discern how individuals (and com-
munities) actually act, what values they actually
hold, and why they act (or refrain from acting)
as they do.
VIRTUE ETHICS
Aristotle was born in 384 B.C. in ancient Greece;
at the young age of 17, he moved to Athens to
study with Plato. Aristotle is best known for

Table 1 Morality and Ethics (and Types of Ethics)

Morality Ethics

Widely held values of a community Philosophical ethics studies the meaning of right/wrong,
Broad principles or guidelines focused on good/bad, as well as the nature and justification
human happiness, well-being, security, of normative standards and moral judgments
flourishing, and fairness
Ultimate Applied ethics describes and prescribes standards of
Universal conduct for individuals and groups, so as to prevent
Impartial and resolve moral problems
Other-regarding Principle-based
Other-regarding
Types of Ethics

Normative ethics What should or ought be done

Meta ethics The nature and justification of moral judgments
Descriptive ethics Actual values and actions
Professional ethics Applied to particular scientific, technical, and health professions with a focus
on protecting the interests of the clients and patients served
Clinical ethics Applied to individual patients in complex clinical situations involving uncertainty
to assure that clinicians act for the good of their patients, while respecting
patients’ rights to self-determination and dignity
Public health ethics Applied to public health officials and agents who are concerned with population-
based health and safety regulations (e.g., vaccinations, contagious diseases,
addiction, counter bioterrorism measures)
Research ethics Applied to those who conduct research involving human (or animal) participants, to
assure the integrity of the research process and to protect the interests of
participants
266 SEMINARS IN SPEECH AND LANGUAGE/VOLUME 24, NUMBER 4 2003
his moral philosophy that emphasized the im-
portance of personal virtues. In his view, there
are two kinds of virtue: intellectual and moral.
Intellectual virtues evolve from one’s learning,
experience, and maturity (p. 181).12 Moral virtues
“are traits that make a person good and enable
him to do this work well” (p. 5).13 Aristotle de-
scribed virtues as natural (inborn) dispositions
that we must nurture—meaning that we learn
to be virtuous by exercising virtues. In Ross’s14
words, “we become just by doing just acts, tem-
perate by doing temperate acts, brave by doing
brave acts” (p. 22). Thus, one of Aristotle’s main
teachings is that virtue is something we must
nurture through practice. Virtue is “a habitual
disposition to act well” (p. 5).13
Central to Aristotle’s view of virtue is that
each individual is a moral agent. Our moral
agency stems from the facts that we are capable
of intellectual reasoning and we have free will.
As moral agents, therefore, we have a choice
whether to be immoral (e.g., to lie, cheat, and
steal) or to be moral (to be truthful, generous,
and trustworthy).13 In short, virtue is a matter
of choice (p. 25).14 Finally, the complementary
concepts of virtue (good character) and agency
(free will) imply that when we act freely, we
must take responsibility for the moral successes
(and failures) of our actions.
DUTY-BASED MORALITY
Immanuel Kant was born in 1724 in Prussia.
In his classic work The Groundwork of the Meta-
physics of Morals (1785), he explained that ethics
was concerned with “the laws of freedom, that
is, the laws governing the conduct of free be-
ings” (p. ix).15 For Kant, it was not enough that
humans have the freedom and ability to act
morally. Rather, he emphasized that free agents
have an obligation to act morally. Two moral
obligations (or “imperatives”) comprise the
essence of Kant’s moral philosophy: the uni-
versality of moral rules and respect for persons.
The first moral imperative—the universality of
moral rules—is the idea that any duty that you
would will to become a moral duty, applies to
you, just as it applies to everyone else (p. 31).15
We violate this moral imperative if we assert
that others have an obligation to tell the truth, to
act altruistically, or to be accountable for their
actions, but make exceptions for ourselves, by
lying, acting selfishly, or avoiding responsibility.
The second moral imperative—respect for
persons—is the idea that because humans have
inherent worth, we must respect persons as per-
sons (both ourselves and others). The essence of
respect for persons is explained as follows: “So
act that you use humanity, whether in your own
person or in the person of any other, always the
same time as an end, never merely as a means”
(p. 38).15 We violate the principle of respect,
for example, if we do not tell a patient the truth
about his or her diagnosis, ostensibly to spare
Downloaded by: Universidad Autonoma de Nuevo Leon. Copyrighted material.
the patient the pain of knowing. By withhold-
ing the truth from the patient, we disrespect his
or her right to know intimate details about his
or own life and health, thereby using the pa-
tient as a means to an end that we believe to be
desirable. In contrast, we uphold the principle
of respect if we promise to keep someone’s se-
cret, and we, in fact, keep that secret, even though
it might be to our disadvantage.
In summary, Kant espoused a duty-based
(deontological) philosophy. Core Kantian no-
tions are the free will of rational persons (moral
agency), the universality of moral rules, and
respect for persons because of their inherent
worth.
UTILITARIANISM AND CONSEQUENTIALISM
Another important philosophical and political
ethicist is Jeremy Bentham, who was born in
1748, in London. In 1789, he published Intro-
duction to the Principles of Morals and Legisla-
tion.16 Bentham grounded his moral philoso-
phy in the idea of “utility,” which he defined as
a property that tended to produce benefit, ad-
vantage, pleasure, good, or happiness. In his
view, actions are moral if they produce moral
“goods” (p. 44).16 Bentham’s theory disavowed
Kant’s emphasis on moral duties; instead, he
emphasized that, when we decide to act, we
must analyze whether our conduct will produce
a good result (or will avoid a bad result). To
achieve utility we must balance both good and
bad effects, recognizing that estimating the con-
sequences of our moral choices involves uncer-
tainty.
Bentham’s student John Stuart Mill ex-
panded on the idea of utility in his classic work

Utilitarianism (1861).17 Mill believed that ra-
tional people will choose actions that produce
“good.”17 Therefore, morality requires that we
(rational agents) act in ways that maximize good
consequences (happiness, in the moral sense)
and minimize bad consequences (unhappiness;
p. 50).17 A key to this theory of ethics is that
the moral standard for utility “is not the agent’s
own greatest happiness, but the greatest amount
of happiness altogether” (for the greatest num-
ber of persons in society).17,18
In summary, Bentham and Mill espoused
a utilitarian, or consequentialist (teleological)
philosophy. The core utilitarian notion is that
actions are moral to the extent that they pro-
duce the greatest good, or happiness, overall (see
also Beauchamp and Walters9).
JUSTICE
In addition to duty-based moral theory and
utilitarian or consequentialist theories, moral
and political philosophers also considered the
meaning of justice. Drawing from Aristotle,
justice means “[e]quals must be treated equally,
and unequals must be treated unequally” (p.
328).7 This quotation shows that justice does
not assume everyone is literally “equal,” but rather
that people differ according to what they need
or deserve, and that all people should at least
be given an equal opportunity. When goods are
scarce, moral agents must strive to distribute
societal goods according to what people desire,
need, or deserve because it would be “unfair” to
deprive individuals of resources or opportuni-
ties that are necessary for their well-being. In
addition, to be just, society must have a fair pro-
cedure for deciding who gets what, and how
much, of society’s resources7 (see also A Theory
of Justice by Rawls19).
In summary, justice as a moral notion takes
several, overlapping forms: substantive (the ac-
tual rights), procedural (the decision-making
process), and distributive (allocation of bene-
fits and burdens). Decisions are just (fair) to
the extent that persons are treated equally, de-
pending on what they need and deserve. In a
just society, benefits and burdens are distributed
fairly, and people are given similar opportuni-
ties to fulfill their life goals.
INTRODUCTORY CONCEPTS/HORNER 267
Contemporary Principles
These complementary moral philosophies give
expression to several principles that we use to
solve moral problems that arise in clinical prac-
tice, typically in complex or uncertain situations.
The principles articulated in The Belmont Re-
port subsequently have become prominent no-
tions in clinical, professional, and research ethics
in the United States.20 The four main princi-
ples are respect for autonomy, beneficence and
nonmaleficence, and justice7,8 (Table 2).
The principle of respect for autonomy recog-
Downloaded by: Universidad Autonoma de Nuevo Leon. Copyrighted material.
nizes the worth and dignity of other persons and,
therefore, recognizes the right of all persons “to
hold views, to make choices, and to take actions
based on personal values and beliefs” (p. 125).7
Respect for autonomy means that we should re-
spect the right of all individuals to determine for
themselves about personal matters. A corollary to
the principle of autonomy is the idea that, when
we interact with others who are vulnerable or who
have impaired autonomy, we have a moral obliga-
tion to protect their interests and to foster their
autonomy to the extent possible. The importance
of autonomy, according to Cassell, is not what de-
cisions we make, but the fact that we make them.
In his article, “Life as a Work of Art,” he ex-
plained that it is the process of choosing that gives
each person’s life its unique meaning.
From an aesthetic point of view . . . auton-
omy is not important in itself, but rather for its
function in the self-creation of a person, of a
lived life. . . . [It is in] the moment-by-moment
choices that determine the person, that auton-
omy has true meaning. Choice is the essence of
the process (pp. 35–37).21
Beneficence means we should act to pre-
vent or remove harm, as well as take positive
actions to do good for others (p. 192).7 Non-
maleficence means we should avoid acting in ways
that might harm others (p. 192).7 Both benefi-
cence and nonmaleficence require that we look
to future consequences (albeit, with uncertainty),
weigh potential goods and harms, and use good
judgment when choosing actions, particularly
when those actions affect others.
Justice refers to acting in ways that are fair
and appropriate, and that will distribute soci-
268 SEMINARS IN SPEECH AND LANGUAGE/VOLUME 24, NUMBER 4 2003

Table 2 Guiding Ethics Principles

Principle Description

Respect for autonomy Act so as to enhance others’ self-determination; refrain from

(auto, self; nomos, rule) interfering with free choice; protect vulnerable persons; and foster
self-determination (self-governance) as much as possible
Beneficence Act to benefit others; balance good results over potential harms
(bene, good)
Nonmaleficence Act to avoid harm; balance risks and seriousness of potential
(mal, bad) harms against potential benefits
Justice Act to distribute the benefits and burdens of society fairly
(fairness) Substantive justice: give others what they need or deserve
Procedural justice: use impartial decision-making procedures

Downloaded by: Universidad Autonoma de Nuevo Leon. Copyrighted material.

Allocative justice: distribute societal resources (such as
health care) equitably

etal “goods” according to fair procedures, de-
pending on what a person deserves or needs (p.
327).7 (See also Mill’s On Liberty.22) Pellegrino
and Thomasma distinguish justice as an ethical
principle from justice as a virtue. For these
philosophers, justice as an ethics rule requires
actions that “render[-] what is due to others”
(p. 92).13 In contrast, justice as a virtue “ . . . is a
character trait, a habitual disposition to render
to each person what is due. As a principle, it
ordains that we act in such fashion that we ren-
der to each what is due her and that we treat
like cases alike . . . “ (p. 96).13
Types of Moral Dilemmas
The first step in analyzing a situation is to de-
termine whether the problem in front of us is a
moral problem. Beauchamp and Childress iden-
tify two basic types of moral problems: moral
uncertainty and conflict of values (or principles).
The conflict between a moral value and self-
interest is not a true moral dilemma, but is in-
cluded in Table 3 for the purposes of contrast.7
When solving moral problems, it is often
useful to think in terms of the basic princi-
ples of respect for autonomy, beneficence, non-
maleficence, and justice. Virtues are in the back-
ground and relate to the personal integrity of
each of the actors (moral agents). The reader
should be aware that there are other moral the-
ories, principles, and modes of reasoning that
have not been mentioned here (see Mappes
and DeGrazia for a comprehensive review11).
The approach that emphasizes principles is per-
tinent to biomedical ethics (as applied to issues
in the biological sciences, medicine, and clini-
cal practice), professional ethics (as applied to
the rules of conduct governing the health pro-
fessions), clinical ethics (as applied to specific
patient-related quandaries), research ethics (as
applied to researchers, research participants, and
others involved in the conduct of research), and
public health ethics (as applied to policies af-
fecting the health of populations).11
Principles are guidelines for action, not
rules of conduct. Principles do not solve prob-
lems. Only we, as moral agents, can grapple
with the facts of each case to determine the
appropriate course of action. To solve real-life
moral quandaries, we must use not only princi-
ples, but also sound reason, good judgment, and
virtues of character. Ethical decision making re-
quires that we consider questions such as the
following: What are the roles of the partici-
pants? What are the effects of alternative courses
of action? What are the means of alternative
courses of action? What are the risks and bene-
fits to patients, clinicians, families, and institu-
tions? What is my role, what are my duties, and
have I set aside my self-interests when making
decisions on behalf of someone else (usually
someone vulnerable who depends on me)? Is the
course of action social acceptable? Finally, is the
course of action legally acceptable?23,24 The next
section very briefly highlights the basic structure
and function of the law.
 INTRODUCTORY CONCEPTS/HORNER 269

Table 3 Types of Moral Problems

Type of Problem Dilemma Example

Moral uncertainty An agent believes, on moral grounds,
that he or she both ought and ought
not to perform act x. Some evidence
indicates that act x is morally right,
and some evidence indicates that
act x is morally wrong, but the
evidence on both sides is
inconclusive
A clinician is grappling with whether she
should recommend that a child undergo
a particular type of surgery for
velopharyngeal incompetence. Surgery
has permanent effects on anatomy, and
may or may not help the child’s speech.
Furthermore, because of the child’s
developmental status, deferring the
surgery to a later time may limit any
potential beneficial effect. The principle

Downloaded by: Universidad Autonoma de Nuevo Leon. Copyrighted material.

of beneficence applies to either choice,
but the clinician is uncertain about
which course of action (doing surgery,
or not doing surgery) is most appropriate
Two moral “oughts” The agent has obligations to do both A clinician must make a decision
conflict; or two x and y, but cannot do both regarding a feeding tube for an elderly
moral principles patient. The patient has refused to have
conflict a feeding tube. The clinician believes the
feeding tube will prolong the patient’s
life. The clinician must choose between
two actions. Respect for autonomy
dictates one course of action;
beneficence, another, and the clinician
faces a quandary because she cannot
do both
Moral issue versus The agent has obligations to the patient A clinician receives financial incentives
self-interest (not (respect for autonomy, beneficence, from her employer for limiting the
a true moral nonmaleficence, justice) but her self- amount of treatment rendered to
dilemma) interest conflicts with the patient’s beneficiaries (i.e., she receives bonuses
interests at the end of the year). For this reason,
she fails to tell her patients about all of
the available treatment alternatives. A
conclusion that the clinician has
behaved immorally stems from her
disrespect for patients’ rights to be
informed and to choose for themselves
what is in their own best interests
Adapted from Beauchamp and Childress,7 p. 11.

LAW One of the most important differences is that

In modern civilization, law and morality estab-
lish the ground rules for good behavior. Law
is distinguished from morality, in part, by the
fact that it is written by legislatures and courts,
and it is enforceable. Other differences between
morality and law are summarized in Table 4.
morality helps us decide what we should do,
whereas law tells us what we must do.
The purposes of law are to maintain order,
to punish wrongdoers, to resolve disputes fairly,
and to distribute benefits (and harms) justly
according to what people need or deserve.18,25
To be moral, law must be just. The law is just if
270 SEMINARS IN SPEECH AND LANGUAGE/VOLUME 24, NUMBER 4 2003
Table 4 Morality, Ethics, and Law
Morality*
Law
Defined by government
Based on concepts of justice and equality
Formal rules resolution of complex problems
Uniform
Minimum standard of behavior (“at least”)
Coercive (penalties for misconduct)
Rules of law enforced by regulatory
authorities and courts
“Must”
*Widely held societal values (universal, ultimate, impartial, other-regarding).
it punishes those who deserve to be punished,
and compensates those who have been harmed.26
Similarly, the law is just if it gives (or takes away)
“goods” (privileges, freedom, or property) from
persons according to what they deserve (or do
not deserve) (p. 302–306).26
The law involves a mix of both rights and
obligations. On the one hand, the government
writes and enforces laws for the good of soci-
ety-at-large, even if this means imposing oblig-
ations on, or limiting the freedom of, individ-
ual citizens. For example, the government may
establish rules to protect the privacy of your
medical records; it may also permit access to
your medical records if it will help solve a crime.
Or, the government may write guardianship
statutes that protect the right of parents to make
decisions for their children; it may also termi-
nate a parent’s right to raise a child if there is
substantial evidence demonstrating that the par-
ent is unfit.
On the other hand, citizens enjoy several
basic rights under both the federal and state
constitutions, which means that individuals have
a right to ask the government to leave them
alone in certain spheres of activity. These rights
include the freedom to speak freely, to practice
a chosen religion, and to marry and have chil-
dren. Among these fundamental personal rights,
or “liberty interests,” is the right to choose (or
refuse) particular medical treatments. Courts of
law, for example, have established that citizens
have the right to know the risks of alterna-
Ethics
Defined by individual and community
Based on how we define a “good,” worthwhile, or
meaningful life
Informal guidelines for resolution of complex problems
Some uniformity; respectful of diversity
Ideal or aspirational (“better” or “best”)
Noncoercive (“dictates of conscience”)
Standards and exhortations by custom, professionals
standards, discussion and persuasion
Downloaded by: Universidad Autonoma de Nuevo Leon. Copyrighted material.
“Should”
tive medical treatments before they voluntarily
choose which treatment fulfills their personal
goals and interests. This so-called right to in-
formed consent triggers a corresponding “duty
of disclosure” on the part of healthcare profes-
sionals. The government (including the courts)
will override constitutionally protected personal
freedoms only if conduct unduly impairs the
rights of other citizens or if there is an impor-
tant societal interest at stake.
Finally, the law requires citizens to live up
to their obligations—to the law, to their fami-
lies, and to other citizens. When citizens engage
in everyday activities, they are required to take
reasonable care. When they engage in profes-
sional activities, they are required to act as rea-
sonably and prudently as other professionals with
similar knowledge and skills, in similar circum-
stances, would act. To enforce this basic obliga-
tion or “duty of care,” the law allows a citizen
who is harmed by someone else’s negligence to
sue the careless person for compensation.
Types of Law
In modern society, there are several types of law:
statutory, common, administrative, and consti-
tutional27 (Table 5). The type of dispute, the
applicable law (state or federal), and the geo-
graphic region (a state, or a federal district within
a federal circuit) will dictate which court has
jurisdiction to hear a case.
 INTRODUCTORY CONCEPTS/HORNER 271

Table 5 Types of Law

Type Description

Statutory law Written by state legislatures and the U.S. Congress (elected by the majority of
voters)
Administrative law Pertaining to agencies of government and includes administrative codes,
agency policies and procedures, and regulations
Common law (“case law”) Opinions written by judges entailing the interpretation of statutes, and the
application of legal principles to individual cases (legal disputes). Within a
particular jurisdiction, interpretations of law by higher courts serve as
precedent for future cases and are binding on lower courts
Constitutional law Opinions by the highest state courts, federal appellate courts, and the U.S.
Supreme Court that relate to questions of interpretation of state and

Downloaded by: Universidad Autonoma de Nuevo Leon. Copyrighted material.

federal constitutions
Opinions of the U.S. Supreme Court establish precedent for all the courts
(state and federal) in the United States and its territories

STATUTORY LAW statutes and follow proper rule-making proce-

Statutory law is written by state legislatures, and
by the U.S. Congress. At the state level, statutes
are recorded in the state’s code of laws; at the
federal level, statutes are recorded in the U.S.
Code. For example, statutes pertaining to crimes
give everyone in society advance notice about
which behaviors are not acceptable in an or-
dered society and what penalties will attach to
illegal behavior. Statutes pertaining to social wel-
fare tell citizens whether they qualify for cer-
tain types of benefits and the nature of those
“entitlements” (e.g., to veterans benefits or to
healthcare benefits under the Social Security
Act). Another type of statute articulates cer-
tain rights and protections for special groups.
For example, the principle of nondiscrimina-
tion is embodied in the Americans with Dis-
abilities Act and the Individuals with Disabili-
ties Education Act.
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW
Administrative law refers to law created by
executive agencies (at both state and federal lev-
els) and includes federal and state administrative
codes, state agency policies and procedures, and
agency regulations. The legislature (for the states)
and the U.S. Congress (for the federal govern-
ment) first write statutes that give power to the
agencies (so-called enabling statutes). If the
agencies stay within the bounds of the enabling
dures, the resulting codes and regulations pro-
mulgated by those agencies have the force of law.
Executive orders are also a type of administrative
rule making (pp. 9, 10).27 For example, the U.S.
Congress wrote and periodically amends the So-
cial Security Act of 1965, which created Medi-
care and Medicaid entitlements. Congress em-
powered the U.S. Department of Health and
Human Services to execute these statutes. Within
the Department of Health and Human Services,
the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services
have “delegated authority” to write regulations to
clarify beneficiaries’ rights and to distribute tax-
payer funds to pay for those benefits.
COMMON LAW
Common law (or case law) is law that emerges
from the resolution of public and private dis-
putes in courts of law. Common law, in short,
is written by judges. The interpretations of law
by high court judges (at both state and federal
levels) serve as precedents for future cases within
the particular jurisdiction of the court.27 The
benefit of using precedents is that it lends pre-
dictability to legal disputes (e.g., malpractice).
It is important to note that most cases pertain-
ing to the professions and to medical decision
making are decided by state courts. Each state
has jurisdiction to decide cases as it wishes, and,
therefore, the law may vary from state to state.
272 SEMINARS IN SPEECH AND LANGUAGE/VOLUME 24, NUMBER 4 2003
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW
Constitutional law refers to the decisions of
state and federal courts that involve issues per-
taining to the state constitution or the federal
constitution, respectively. The U.S. Constitution
establishes the legislative, executive, and judi-
ciary branches of the federal government, which
make, enforce, and interpret law, respectively.
Federal constitutional law governs issues such
as disputes pertaining to copyright and patent,
maritime and military law, taxation, and inter-
state commerce. Federal constitutional law also
governs rights of citizens as articulated in the
amendments to the U.S. Constitution. A few
examples of these rights are the freedom of
speech; the right to trial by jury; and the right
not to be deprived, by the governments, of life,
liberty, or property without due process of law.
The Fourteenth Amendment is particularly
important, because it incorporates the rights
we enjoy as citizens of a state into the fed-
eral constitution, which governs the rights and
privileges we enjoy as citizens of the United
States.
To appreciate the “reach” of a decision by
any particular court, it is important to recognize
both the jurisdiction of the court and the level
of the court. When the high court of a state de-
cides a constitutional issue, the judicial opinion
is binding on all lower courts of that particular
state. When the court of appeals of a federal cir-
cuit decides a constitutional issue, the judicial
opinion is binding on all lower courts (U.S. Dis-
trict Courts) in that particular federal circuit.
Finally, when the U.S. Supreme Court decides a
constitutional issue, the opinion of the Court is
binding on all courts within the United States.
LAW AND MORALITY
Are legislative enactments and judicial opinions
designed to enforce morality? Yes. The main
purposes of law are to create and maintain an
ordered society, and to ensure the safety and
welfare of all citizens. To accomplish this, the
legislative branch (both state and federal) writes
statutes, the courts interpret statutes, and the
executive branch executes/enforces statutes—in
each case, to ensure equal protection under the
law and to protect substantive rights (e.g., non-
discrimination and other liberty interests). In
essence, the law is intended to reflect society’s
values and to render justice impartially. Although
imperfect, law can be thought of as “social
morality”: When a government enunciates the
moral posture of a society, it creates policy
through law. In a democratic society, that law
ostensibly reflects the moral beliefs of the ma-
jority of the nation.
In summary, law reflects the minimum
standards of behavior—the foundational societal
norms, if you will—upon which we strive to
build good, moral lives. In addition to reflect-
ing the beliefs of the majority of the nation, both
morality and law are respectful of diverse moral
Downloaded by: Universidad Autonoma de Nuevo Leon. Copyrighted material.
interests, and attempt to protect the interests
of all citizens. Constitutional law helps ensure
that the rights and interests of all citizens are
respected.
APPLIED ETHICS
Ethics in everyday, practical life refers to rules
and principles (based in values) that we abide
by or least strive to abide by. Some hold that
morality and ethics are synonymous. Most cer-
tainly they are related. Morality encompasses
the values that are shared by, and form the un-
derpinning of, communities.4,28,29 Ethics are the
more specific rules of conduct that govern spe-
cific individuals or groups.28,30
To act ethically is to do what is appropriate
and morally required. An ethic, then, is a value-
based rule of action—encompassing prescrip-
tive and aspirational notions—that requires and
exhorts individuals in specific groups or situa-
tions to do “the best” he or she can when it is
uncertain what to do, or when there is a conflict
between values, principles, or courses of action.
To “do one’s best” implies using reason, using
prudence (good judgment), and acting impar-
tially (fairly) toward all concerned. Ethical rules
of conduct are grounded in moral values, and
for most purposes, the terms “morality” and
“ethics” can be used synonymously.
SUMMARY
This article defines morality as a set of values
that are widely shared and relatively stable within
a community. These values reflect core beliefs

about what is right or wrong, good or bad. Moral
values are ultimate, universal, impartial, and
other-regarding. Ethics was defined in three
ways: first, as the formal examination of human
conduct to understand why some actions are
right, and others are wrong (philosophical ethics,
both normative ethics and meta-ethics); sec-
ond, as the empirical examination of actual val-
ues, attitudes, and actions (descriptive ethics);
and third, as precepts we use to guide us when
solving real-life problems (applied ethics). This
article briefly reviews the contributions of clas-
sic philosophers to contemporary morality.
Today in the United States, four basic guid-
ing principles of ethics have been integrated into
biomedical, professional, clinical, research, and
public health ethics: respect for autonomy, bene-
ficence, nonmaleficence, and justice. Concepts
of moral agency and virtue bolster these basic
principles when quandaries arise, and we must
decide how, when, and why to act.
Finally, this article provides an overview of
different types of law—statutory, common, ad-
ministrative, and constitutional. In the United
States, federal law and state law exist side by
side; both function to establish the obligations
of all citizens, while protecting basic individual
freedoms. The law tells us what we must do;
morality tells us what we should do. Law is the
floor upon which moral agents walk. Both law
and morality exhort us to respect our neighbors
and to act in ways that foster well-being within
our communities.
REFERENCES
1. Englehardt HT Jr. The Foundations of Bioethics,
2nd ed. New York: Oxford University Press; 1996
2. Carter SL. Integrity. New York: Harper Collins; 1996
3. Carter SL. Civility: Manners, Morals, and the
Etiquette of Democracy. New York: Basic Books;
1998
4. Gewirth A. Community of Rights. Chicago: Uni-
versity of Chicago Press; 1997
5. Bok S. Lying. New York: Random House/Vintage;
1989
6. Bok S. Secrets: On the Ethics of Concealment and
Revelation. New York: Vintage; 1989
7. Beauchamp TL, Childress JF. Principles of Bio-
medical Ethics, 4th ed. New York: Oxford Univer-
sity Press; 1994
INTRODUCTORY CONCEPTS/HORNER 273
8. Veatch RM, Flack HE. Case Studies in Allied
Health Ethics. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-
Hall; 1997
9. Beauchamp TL, Walters L. Ethical theory and
bioethics. In: Beauchamp TL, Walters L, eds. Con-
temporary Issues in Bioethics, 5th ed. Belmont CA:
Wadsworth; 1999: 1–32
10. Grodin MA, ed. Meta Medical Ethics: The Philo-
sophical Foundations of Bioethics. Boston: Kluwer
Academic Publishers; 1995
11. Mappes TA, DeGrazia D. Biomedical Ethics, 5th
ed. New York: McGraw-Hill; 2001
12. Ross WD, trans. Nicomachean ethics. In: Kaplan
JD, ed. The Pocket Aristotle. New York: Washing-
ton Square Press; 1958:158–274
Downloaded by: Universidad Autonoma de Nuevo Leon. Copyrighted material.
13. Pellegrino ED, Thomasma DC. The Virtues in
Medical Practice. New York: Oxford University
Press; 1993
14. Ross WD, trans. Aristotle: Nicomachean ethics.
In: Bonevac D, ed. Today’s Moral Issues: Classic
and Contemporary Perspectives, 3rd ed. London:
Mayfield Publishing; 1999:20–25
15. Kant I. Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals
(Gregor M, trans, ed.). London: Cambridge Uni-
versity Press; 1997
16. Bentham J. An introduction to the principles of
morals and legislation (1789). In: Bonevac D, ed.
Today’s Moral Issues: Classic and Contemporary
Perspectives, 3rd ed. London: Mayfield Publishing;
1999:43–49
17. Mill JS. Utilitarianism (1861). In: Bonevac D, ed.
Today’s Moral Issues: Classic and Contemporary
Perspectives, 3rd ed. London: Mayfield Publishing;
1999:50–58
18. Warnock M, ed. John Stuart Mill. New York:
Meridian/Penguin Books; 1962:7–31
19. Rawls J. A Theory of Justice. Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University, 1971. In: Bonevac D, ed.
Today’s Moral Issues: Classic and Contemporary
Perspectives, 3rd ed. London: Mayfield Publishing;
1999:59–65
20. U.S. Department of Health, Education and Wel-
fare, National Commission for the Protection of
Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral
Research. The Belmont Report: Ethical Principles
and Guidelines for the Protection of Human Sub-
jects of Research. National Research Act, Pub. L.
93–348. Washington, DC: April 18, 1979
21. Cassell EJ. Life as a work of art. Hastings Cent
Rep 1984;Oct:35–37
22. Mill JS. On Liberty (1859). In: Warnock M, ed.
John Stuart Mill. New York: Meridian/Penguin
Books; 1962:126–250
23. Jonsen AR, Siegler M, Winslade WJ. Clinical
Ethics, 4th ed. New York: McGraw-Hill; 1998
24. Horner, J. The language of ethics. J Med Speech
Lang Pathol 2000;8:137–153
274 SEMINARS IN SPEECH AND LANGUAGE/VOLUME 24, NUMBER 4 2003
25. Austin, J. The province of jurisprudence deter-
mined. In: Warnock M, ed. John Stuart Mill. New
York: Meridian/Penguin Books; 1962:322–342
26. Mill JS. Utilitarianism (1863). In: Warnock M, ed.
John Stuart Mill. New York: Meridian/Penguin
Books; 1962:251–321
27. Dickson DT. Law in the Health and Human Ser-
vices: A Guide for Social Workers, Psychologists,
Psychiatrists, and Related Professionals. New York:
The Free Press; 1995
28. Bernat JL. Ethical Issues in Neurology. Boston:
Butterworth-Heinemann; 1994
29. Gert B. Morality: A New Justification of the Moral
Rules. New York: Oxford University Press; 1988
30. Pfaff DW, ed. Ethical Questions in Brain and Be-
havior. New York: Springer-Verlag; 1983
Downloaded by: Universidad Autonoma de Nuevo Leon. Copyrighted material.