ABSTRACT
What is just often seems context-sensitive, depending on the particular rules governing the institution in question. A nonvicious relativism prevails, so that what is appropriate in one domain is not so in another. We pay factory workers by the hour, but salespersons by commission and building contractors by the amount agreed upon in advance. In sit-down restaurants we pay for our food after we receive our meals, but in fast-food restaurants we pay before we receive our food. We pay one standard fare for a ride on the New York City subway regardless of distance traveled, but we pay according to distance when riding the London underground or the Washington, D.C. Metro. A salesperson working on a commission who makes 40% of his company’s sales has a clear claim to 40% of the funds set aside for commissions, but a political candidate who loses an election by a 40:60 ratio does not have a legitimate claim to occupy the office 40% of the time. He has no right to occupy it at all. In the Supreme Court of the land, clerks write briefs for the Justices, which would be considered plagiarism in an academic setting. Similarly, anonymous speech writing is permitted and even applauded in politics, whereas students could face expulsion for having another person write their speeches, term papers, or dissertations. What is considered immoral cheating when students or academic teachers engage in it is permitted when politicians, generals, and Supreme Court Justices engage in it. The American Medical Association code of ethics prohibits breaches of confidentiality by a physician except as the law requires, for gunshot wounds and contagious diseases, but the British Medical Association code of conduct leaves the matter up to the individual discretion of the doctor in relation to his or her patient, whereas the World Medical Association treats confidentiality as an absolute duty. A 35% average is excellent for a batter in baseball but disastrous for an airplane pilot.
