Mixing
Is ethics distinct from law?
Clash Royale CLAN TAG#URR8PPP
up vote
2
down vote
favorite
In fact, it seems which laws are adopted depends on what ethical views legislators hold. Therefore it seems the answer on my question seems "no". At the same time moral responsibility is assumed to be distinct from legal responsibility. There is seemingly a contradiction here.
How is this issue resolved? Or where am I wrong?
ethics political-philosophy philosophy-of-law
edited 1 hour ago
Eliran H
3,81621032
asked 1 hour ago
rus9384
1,0032418
add a comment |Â
up vote
2
down vote
favorite
In fact, it seems which laws are adopted depends on what ethical views legislators hold. Therefore it seems the answer on my question seems "no". At the same time moral responsibility is assumed to be distinct from legal responsibility. There is seemingly a contradiction here.
How is this issue resolved? Or where am I wrong?
ethics political-philosophy philosophy-of-law
edited 1 hour ago
Eliran H
3,81621032
asked 1 hour ago
rus9384
1,0032418
"Therefore" suggests a logical relation between the first sentence and the second, but I do not see it. Ethical views legislators hold are not identical with ethics, and for that matter they have no ethical views as a group, so what they end up adopting is not what any of them holds. Ethics applies to how people should behave individually as well, and it is not enforced by a justice system, etc. So the answer to the title question is trivially yes, beyond that I do not know what is being asked, maybe read Law versus Morality as Regulators of Conduct.
– Conifold
12 mins ago
@Conifold, not everything is that simple. Probably you got used to definitions you have on your mind. But even more probably I didn't get used to definitions you have on your mind. If you think ethical position and ethics are unrelated, you are already making some presupposition I can disagree with. What they end up adopting is something two thirds (varies from country to country) of them agree to some degree.
– rus9384
2 mins ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
2
down vote
favorite
up vote
2
down vote
favorite
In fact, it seems which laws are adopted depends on what ethical views legislators hold. Therefore it seems the answer on my question seems "no". At the same time moral responsibility is assumed to be distinct from legal responsibility. There is seemingly a contradiction here.
How is this issue resolved? Or where am I wrong?
ethics political-philosophy philosophy-of-law
edited 1 hour ago
Eliran H
3,81621032
asked 1 hour ago
rus9384
1,0032418
In fact, it seems which laws are adopted depends on what ethical views legislators hold. Therefore it seems the answer on my question seems "no". At the same time moral responsibility is assumed to be distinct from legal responsibility. There is seemingly a contradiction here.
How is this issue resolved? Or where am I wrong?
ethics political-philosophy philosophy-of-law
ethics political-philosophy philosophy-of-law
edited 1 hour ago
Eliran H
3,81621032
asked 1 hour ago
rus9384
1,0032418
edited 1 hour ago
Eliran H
3,81621032
asked 1 hour ago
rus9384
1,0032418
edited 1 hour ago
Eliran H
3,81621032
edited 1 hour ago
Eliran H
3,81621032
edited 1 hour ago
Eliran H
3,81621032
3,81621032
asked 1 hour ago
rus9384
1,0032418
asked 1 hour ago
rus9384
1,0032418
asked 1 hour ago
rus9384
1,0032418
1,0032418
"Therefore" suggests a logical relation between the first sentence and the second, but I do not see it. Ethical views legislators hold are not identical with ethics, and for that matter they have no ethical views as a group, so what they end up adopting is not what any of them holds. Ethics applies to how people should behave individually as well, and it is not enforced by a justice system, etc. So the answer to the title question is trivially yes, beyond that I do not know what is being asked, maybe read Law versus Morality as Regulators of Conduct.
– Conifold
12 mins ago
@Conifold, not everything is that simple. Probably you got used to definitions you have on your mind. But even more probably I didn't get used to definitions you have on your mind. If you think ethical position and ethics are unrelated, you are already making some presupposition I can disagree with. What they end up adopting is something two thirds (varies from country to country) of them agree to some degree.
– rus9384
2 mins ago
add a comment |Â
"Therefore" suggests a logical relation between the first sentence and the second, but I do not see it. Ethical views legislators hold are not identical with ethics, and for that matter they have no ethical views as a group, so what they end up adopting is not what any of them holds. Ethics applies to how people should behave individually as well, and it is not enforced by a justice system, etc. So the answer to the title question is trivially yes, beyond that I do not know what is being asked, maybe read Law versus Morality as Regulators of Conduct.
– Conifold
12 mins ago
@Conifold, not everything is that simple. Probably you got used to definitions you have on your mind. But even more probably I didn't get used to definitions you have on your mind. If you think ethical position and ethics are unrelated, you are already making some presupposition I can disagree with. What they end up adopting is something two thirds (varies from country to country) of them agree to some degree.
– rus9384
2 mins ago
"Therefore" suggests a logical relation between the first sentence and the second, but I do not see it. Ethical views legislators hold are not identical with ethics, and for that matter they have no ethical views as a group, so what they end up adopting is not what any of them holds. Ethics applies to how people should behave individually as well, and it is not enforced by a justice system, etc. So the answer to the title question is trivially yes, beyond that I do not know what is being asked, maybe read Law versus Morality as Regulators of Conduct.
– Conifold
12 mins ago
"Therefore" suggests a logical relation between the first sentence and the second, but I do not see it. Ethical views legislators hold are not identical with ethics, and for that matter they have no ethical views as a group, so what they end up adopting is not what any of them holds. Ethics applies to how people should behave individually as well, and it is not enforced by a justice system, etc. So the answer to the title question is trivially yes, beyond that I do not know what is being asked, maybe read Law versus Morality as Regulators of Conduct.
– Conifold
12 mins ago
@Conifold, not everything is that simple. Probably you got used to definitions you have on your mind. But even more probably I didn't get used to definitions you have on your mind. If you think ethical position and ethics are unrelated, you are already making some presupposition I can disagree with. What they end up adopting is something two thirds (varies from country to country) of them agree to some degree.
– rus9384
2 mins ago
@Conifold, not everything is that simple. Probably you got used to definitions you have on your mind. But even more probably I didn't get used to definitions you have on your mind. If you think ethical position and ethics are unrelated, you are already making some presupposition I can disagree with. What they end up adopting is something two thirds (varies from country to country) of them agree to some degree.
– rus9384
2 mins ago
add a comment |Â
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
up vote
3
down vote
Yes. Otherwise, there would be no such thing as an unjust law.
answered 51 mins ago
elliot svensson
1,88115
This can be just where two incompatible systems of values meet. Two groups of people can argue against each others' values. So, your case is when one group is a government and another group are citizens.
– rus9384
42 mins ago
What is an unjust law?
– elliot svensson
37 mins ago
(sorry, previous question "what is an unjust law?" directed @rus9384.)
– elliot svensson
28 mins ago
Are you asking me what is an unjust law when you yourself involved this notion here? Justice is related to ethics, primarily deontological ones.
– rus9384
26 mins ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
2
down vote
The distinction between something like legal culpability, and something like moral guilt, can be made by observing the distinction between local laws, e.g., the laws of the early Romans, say under Numa, at Rome, and, on the other hand, a philosophic inquiry into the nature of Justice as such. The laws of Rome have to do with what is good for Rome. What is Just simpliciter, without qualification, is Just in itself. For instance the theoretical statement: that which makes human beings better is just. This is not quite the same as a distinction between the expedient thing, what gets something done at all costs, and the moral thing. Since doing what is largely considered morally wrong brings shame on the country, on the local entity, and therefore is not (as it were, truly) expedient in many cases.
The question of the ethics of the legislator's could read: the universal values, as established by the lawmaker's art, i.e, by Political Philosophy as conceived under the influence of Plato, is brought to the legislative process, to the political process. For instance, consider the issue of the Federalists in the American founding, and the Anti-federalists, they had different ultimate views about what the best regime (politiea, i.e., the subject matter of Plato's Republic) was. This had to be put into actually existing laws which did not perfectly agree with the ethics of either group. The issue is thus resolved by the political process de facto, but not in any way satisfactory to the ownmost convictions of those who hold with regimes of ultimate values.
This is all complicated by the notion of "deliberation", as opposed to dealing and deal making, the contrast between so-called Liberal Democratic government (as imagined, for instance, by James Madison or Thomas Jefferson), i.e., rational deliberations towards the "good of the whole", as against an interest politics (i.e., political process, which speaks of a"political branch" and names the Federal Legislature, Article III, or the Parliament in most countries other than America), which is de facto always in play and means a contest between factions involving compromise (or, stated honorificly, as it were, a "coalition government", where all are invaded by inconsistencies) rather than rational persuasion.
These two disjointed notions would be almost the same in a theoretically perfect situation of rational deliberation towards Justice, with the issue added on of the cleavage of the local and universal, amidst the rising sense in which all deliberation is not local, because one has constant dealings with and news from all parts of the planet.
Carl Schmitt is good authority on these issues as a start.
Note:
A deeper investigation would have to treat with the following difficulty: There's a question about whether the subject matter of the Euthyphro, holiness, the gods, which basically corresponds to the personal conscience, the native sense of doing something wrong, can be brought into harmony with a rationally derived statement of Justice, as in the Republic, or, at length, in Catholicism which becomes Universal Human Rights under the sway of the secularist age. There's a double contrast with the positive law, i.e., with the law on the books here or there.
answered 36 mins ago
Dwarf
67617
add a comment |Â
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
up vote
3
down vote
Yes. Otherwise, there would be no such thing as an unjust law.
answered 51 mins ago
elliot svensson
1,88115
This can be just where two incompatible systems of values meet. Two groups of people can argue against each others' values. So, your case is when one group is a government and another group are citizens.
– rus9384
42 mins ago
What is an unjust law?
– elliot svensson
37 mins ago
(sorry, previous question "what is an unjust law?" directed @rus9384.)
– elliot svensson
28 mins ago
Are you asking me what is an unjust law when you yourself involved this notion here? Justice is related to ethics, primarily deontological ones.
– rus9384
26 mins ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
3
down vote
Yes. Otherwise, there would be no such thing as an unjust law.
answered 51 mins ago
elliot svensson
1,88115
This can be just where two incompatible systems of values meet. Two groups of people can argue against each others' values. So, your case is when one group is a government and another group are citizens.
– rus9384
42 mins ago
What is an unjust law?
– elliot svensson
37 mins ago
(sorry, previous question "what is an unjust law?" directed @rus9384.)
– elliot svensson
28 mins ago
Are you asking me what is an unjust law when you yourself involved this notion here? Justice is related to ethics, primarily deontological ones.
– rus9384
26 mins ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
3
down vote
up vote
3
down vote
Yes. Otherwise, there would be no such thing as an unjust law.
answered 51 mins ago
elliot svensson
1,88115
Yes. Otherwise, there would be no such thing as an unjust law.
answered 51 mins ago
elliot svensson
1,88115
answered 51 mins ago
elliot svensson
1,88115
answered 51 mins ago
elliot svensson
1,88115
answered 51 mins ago
elliot svensson
1,88115
1,88115
This can be just where two incompatible systems of values meet. Two groups of people can argue against each others' values. So, your case is when one group is a government and another group are citizens.
– rus9384
42 mins ago
What is an unjust law?
– elliot svensson
37 mins ago
(sorry, previous question "what is an unjust law?" directed @rus9384.)
– elliot svensson
28 mins ago
Are you asking me what is an unjust law when you yourself involved this notion here? Justice is related to ethics, primarily deontological ones.
– rus9384
26 mins ago
add a comment |Â
This can be just where two incompatible systems of values meet. Two groups of people can argue against each others' values. So, your case is when one group is a government and another group are citizens.
– rus9384
42 mins ago
What is an unjust law?
– elliot svensson
37 mins ago
(sorry, previous question "what is an unjust law?" directed @rus9384.)
– elliot svensson
28 mins ago
Are you asking me what is an unjust law when you yourself involved this notion here? Justice is related to ethics, primarily deontological ones.
– rus9384
26 mins ago
This can be just where two incompatible systems of values meet. Two groups of people can argue against each others' values. So, your case is when one group is a government and another group are citizens.
– rus9384
42 mins ago
This can be just where two incompatible systems of values meet. Two groups of people can argue against each others' values. So, your case is when one group is a government and another group are citizens.
– rus9384
42 mins ago
What is an unjust law?
– elliot svensson
37 mins ago
What is an unjust law?
– elliot svensson
37 mins ago
(sorry, previous question "what is an unjust law?" directed @rus9384.)
– elliot svensson
28 mins ago
(sorry, previous question "what is an unjust law?" directed @rus9384.)
– elliot svensson
28 mins ago
Are you asking me what is an unjust law when you yourself involved this notion here? Justice is related to ethics, primarily deontological ones.
– rus9384
26 mins ago
Are you asking me what is an unjust law when you yourself involved this notion here? Justice is related to ethics, primarily deontological ones.
– rus9384
26 mins ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
2
down vote
The distinction between something like legal culpability, and something like moral guilt, can be made by observing the distinction between local laws, e.g., the laws of the early Romans, say under Numa, at Rome, and, on the other hand, a philosophic inquiry into the nature of Justice as such. The laws of Rome have to do with what is good for Rome. What is Just simpliciter, without qualification, is Just in itself. For instance the theoretical statement: that which makes human beings better is just. This is not quite the same as a distinction between the expedient thing, what gets something done at all costs, and the moral thing. Since doing what is largely considered morally wrong brings shame on the country, on the local entity, and therefore is not (as it were, truly) expedient in many cases.
The question of the ethics of the legislator's could read: the universal values, as established by the lawmaker's art, i.e, by Political Philosophy as conceived under the influence of Plato, is brought to the legislative process, to the political process. For instance, consider the issue of the Federalists in the American founding, and the Anti-federalists, they had different ultimate views about what the best regime (politiea, i.e., the subject matter of Plato's Republic) was. This had to be put into actually existing laws which did not perfectly agree with the ethics of either group. The issue is thus resolved by the political process de facto, but not in any way satisfactory to the ownmost convictions of those who hold with regimes of ultimate values.
This is all complicated by the notion of "deliberation", as opposed to dealing and deal making, the contrast between so-called Liberal Democratic government (as imagined, for instance, by James Madison or Thomas Jefferson), i.e., rational deliberations towards the "good of the whole", as against an interest politics (i.e., political process, which speaks of a"political branch" and names the Federal Legislature, Article III, or the Parliament in most countries other than America), which is de facto always in play and means a contest between factions involving compromise (or, stated honorificly, as it were, a "coalition government", where all are invaded by inconsistencies) rather than rational persuasion.
These two disjointed notions would be almost the same in a theoretically perfect situation of rational deliberation towards Justice, with the issue added on of the cleavage of the local and universal, amidst the rising sense in which all deliberation is not local, because one has constant dealings with and news from all parts of the planet.
Carl Schmitt is good authority on these issues as a start.
Note:
A deeper investigation would have to treat with the following difficulty: There's a question about whether the subject matter of the Euthyphro, holiness, the gods, which basically corresponds to the personal conscience, the native sense of doing something wrong, can be brought into harmony with a rationally derived statement of Justice, as in the Republic, or, at length, in Catholicism which becomes Universal Human Rights under the sway of the secularist age. There's a double contrast with the positive law, i.e., with the law on the books here or there.
answered 36 mins ago
Dwarf
67617
add a comment |Â
up vote
2
down vote
The distinction between something like legal culpability, and something like moral guilt, can be made by observing the distinction between local laws, e.g., the laws of the early Romans, say under Numa, at Rome, and, on the other hand, a philosophic inquiry into the nature of Justice as such. The laws of Rome have to do with what is good for Rome. What is Just simpliciter, without qualification, is Just in itself. For instance the theoretical statement: that which makes human beings better is just. This is not quite the same as a distinction between the expedient thing, what gets something done at all costs, and the moral thing. Since doing what is largely considered morally wrong brings shame on the country, on the local entity, and therefore is not (as it were, truly) expedient in many cases.
The question of the ethics of the legislator's could read: the universal values, as established by the lawmaker's art, i.e, by Political Philosophy as conceived under the influence of Plato, is brought to the legislative process, to the political process. For instance, consider the issue of the Federalists in the American founding, and the Anti-federalists, they had different ultimate views about what the best regime (politiea, i.e., the subject matter of Plato's Republic) was. This had to be put into actually existing laws which did not perfectly agree with the ethics of either group. The issue is thus resolved by the political process de facto, but not in any way satisfactory to the ownmost convictions of those who hold with regimes of ultimate values.
This is all complicated by the notion of "deliberation", as opposed to dealing and deal making, the contrast between so-called Liberal Democratic government (as imagined, for instance, by James Madison or Thomas Jefferson), i.e., rational deliberations towards the "good of the whole", as against an interest politics (i.e., political process, which speaks of a"political branch" and names the Federal Legislature, Article III, or the Parliament in most countries other than America), which is de facto always in play and means a contest between factions involving compromise (or, stated honorificly, as it were, a "coalition government", where all are invaded by inconsistencies) rather than rational persuasion.
These two disjointed notions would be almost the same in a theoretically perfect situation of rational deliberation towards Justice, with the issue added on of the cleavage of the local and universal, amidst the rising sense in which all deliberation is not local, because one has constant dealings with and news from all parts of the planet.
Carl Schmitt is good authority on these issues as a start.
Note:
A deeper investigation would have to treat with the following difficulty: There's a question about whether the subject matter of the Euthyphro, holiness, the gods, which basically corresponds to the personal conscience, the native sense of doing something wrong, can be brought into harmony with a rationally derived statement of Justice, as in the Republic, or, at length, in Catholicism which becomes Universal Human Rights under the sway of the secularist age. There's a double contrast with the positive law, i.e., with the law on the books here or there.
answered 36 mins ago
Dwarf
67617
add a comment |Â
up vote
2
down vote
up vote
2
down vote
The distinction between something like legal culpability, and something like moral guilt, can be made by observing the distinction between local laws, e.g., the laws of the early Romans, say under Numa, at Rome, and, on the other hand, a philosophic inquiry into the nature of Justice as such. The laws of Rome have to do with what is good for Rome. What is Just simpliciter, without qualification, is Just in itself. For instance the theoretical statement: that which makes human beings better is just. This is not quite the same as a distinction between the expedient thing, what gets something done at all costs, and the moral thing. Since doing what is largely considered morally wrong brings shame on the country, on the local entity, and therefore is not (as it were, truly) expedient in many cases.
The question of the ethics of the legislator's could read: the universal values, as established by the lawmaker's art, i.e, by Political Philosophy as conceived under the influence of Plato, is brought to the legislative process, to the political process. For instance, consider the issue of the Federalists in the American founding, and the Anti-federalists, they had different ultimate views about what the best regime (politiea, i.e., the subject matter of Plato's Republic) was. This had to be put into actually existing laws which did not perfectly agree with the ethics of either group. The issue is thus resolved by the political process de facto, but not in any way satisfactory to the ownmost convictions of those who hold with regimes of ultimate values.
This is all complicated by the notion of "deliberation", as opposed to dealing and deal making, the contrast between so-called Liberal Democratic government (as imagined, for instance, by James Madison or Thomas Jefferson), i.e., rational deliberations towards the "good of the whole", as against an interest politics (i.e., political process, which speaks of a"political branch" and names the Federal Legislature, Article III, or the Parliament in most countries other than America), which is de facto always in play and means a contest between factions involving compromise (or, stated honorificly, as it were, a "coalition government", where all are invaded by inconsistencies) rather than rational persuasion.
These two disjointed notions would be almost the same in a theoretically perfect situation of rational deliberation towards Justice, with the issue added on of the cleavage of the local and universal, amidst the rising sense in which all deliberation is not local, because one has constant dealings with and news from all parts of the planet.
Carl Schmitt is good authority on these issues as a start.
Note:
A deeper investigation would have to treat with the following difficulty: There's a question about whether the subject matter of the Euthyphro, holiness, the gods, which basically corresponds to the personal conscience, the native sense of doing something wrong, can be brought into harmony with a rationally derived statement of Justice, as in the Republic, or, at length, in Catholicism which becomes Universal Human Rights under the sway of the secularist age. There's a double contrast with the positive law, i.e., with the law on the books here or there.
answered 36 mins ago
Dwarf
67617
The distinction between something like legal culpability, and something like moral guilt, can be made by observing the distinction between local laws, e.g., the laws of the early Romans, say under Numa, at Rome, and, on the other hand, a philosophic inquiry into the nature of Justice as such. The laws of Rome have to do with what is good for Rome. What is Just simpliciter, without qualification, is Just in itself. For instance the theoretical statement: that which makes human beings better is just. This is not quite the same as a distinction between the expedient thing, what gets something done at all costs, and the moral thing. Since doing what is largely considered morally wrong brings shame on the country, on the local entity, and therefore is not (as it were, truly) expedient in many cases.
The question of the ethics of the legislator's could read: the universal values, as established by the lawmaker's art, i.e, by Political Philosophy as conceived under the influence of Plato, is brought to the legislative process, to the political process. For instance, consider the issue of the Federalists in the American founding, and the Anti-federalists, they had different ultimate views about what the best regime (politiea, i.e., the subject matter of Plato's Republic) was. This had to be put into actually existing laws which did not perfectly agree with the ethics of either group. The issue is thus resolved by the political process de facto, but not in any way satisfactory to the ownmost convictions of those who hold with regimes of ultimate values.
This is all complicated by the notion of "deliberation", as opposed to dealing and deal making, the contrast between so-called Liberal Democratic government (as imagined, for instance, by James Madison or Thomas Jefferson), i.e., rational deliberations towards the "good of the whole", as against an interest politics (i.e., political process, which speaks of a"political branch" and names the Federal Legislature, Article III, or the Parliament in most countries other than America), which is de facto always in play and means a contest between factions involving compromise (or, stated honorificly, as it were, a "coalition government", where all are invaded by inconsistencies) rather than rational persuasion.
These two disjointed notions would be almost the same in a theoretically perfect situation of rational deliberation towards Justice, with the issue added on of the cleavage of the local and universal, amidst the rising sense in which all deliberation is not local, because one has constant dealings with and news from all parts of the planet.
Carl Schmitt is good authority on these issues as a start.
Note:
A deeper investigation would have to treat with the following difficulty: There's a question about whether the subject matter of the Euthyphro, holiness, the gods, which basically corresponds to the personal conscience, the native sense of doing something wrong, can be brought into harmony with a rationally derived statement of Justice, as in the Republic, or, at length, in Catholicism which becomes Universal Human Rights under the sway of the secularist age. There's a double contrast with the positive law, i.e., with the law on the books here or there.
answered 36 mins ago
Dwarf
67617
edited 19 mins ago
answered 36 mins ago
Dwarf
67617
answered 36 mins ago
Dwarf
67617
answered 36 mins ago
Dwarf
67617
67617
add a comment |Â
add a comment |Â
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fphilosophy.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f55785%2fis-ethics-distinct-from-law%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
"Therefore" suggests a logical relation between the first sentence and the second, but I do not see it. Ethical views legislators hold are not identical with ethics, and for that matter they have no ethical views as a group, so what they end up adopting is not what any of them holds. Ethics applies to how people should behave individually as well, and it is not enforced by a justice system, etc. So the answer to the title question is trivially yes, beyond that I do not know what is being asked, maybe read Law versus Morality as Regulators of Conduct.
– Conifold
12 mins ago
@Conifold, not everything is that simple. Probably you got used to definitions you have on your mind. But even more probably I didn't get used to definitions you have on your mind. If you think ethical position and ethics are unrelated, you are already making some presupposition I can disagree with. What they end up adopting is something two thirds (varies from country to country) of them agree to some degree.
– rus9384
2 mins ago