3 ms·

I’m generally surprised at how rarely a lawyer’s Bar punishes their members for acting in a way that is immoral. Acting against your peers or breaking confiden

by bertil 7y ago

I’m generally surprised at how rarely a lawyer’s Bar punishes their members for acting in a way that is immoral. Acting against your peers or breaking confidentiality gets you out rapidly; having personal problems, say drugs, does to — and I’m not challenging that. But defending things that really should not seems to fail to trigger any reaction. I guess that bad people need lawyers more but I’m curious if there is a line or a reasoning that would help there.

naasking 7y ago
> I’m generally surprised at how rarely a lawyer’s Bar punishes their members for acting in a way that is immoral. Who decides what's immoral? Not too long ago, interracial dating was also considered "immoral" by plenty of people. Plenty of injustice was perpetrated by pushing moral agendas. I frankly think it's crazy to be so ready to lynch others for working within robust systems that evolved over centuries because these systems sometimes violate their personal sensibilities. These systems have their own (evolving) standards of ethics, and unless you understand them and the reason they exist, don't be so quick to cast aspersions.
- pbhjpbhj 7y ago
  >I frankly think it's crazy to be so ready to lynch others for working within robust systems // And I think it's crazy to excuse people for abject immorality simply because they can lawyer their way around legal claims. Moral consensus might get us bad decisions: I'd be interested to know how many lawyers private life would be deleteriously effected if the bar upheld a standard that accorded with the overwhelming moral tide of society at the time. Sure the tide moves, but the deleterious effect of that tide beyond the deleterious effect of the laws those people make would seem to be naturally curtailed. In short if the overwhelming majority found something to be immoral then it would seem a reasonable standard to apply now. Of course in the fullness of time we might reject those moral standards, but equally we might reject legislation - or conversely begrudge not having been more stringent in our moral arbitration of the deleterious actions of rogue elements in society. In short your argument is impotent, and swings both ways in its impotency. The main problem is defining what is abjectly immoral, what amounts to an overwhelming majority, etc.. If we pushed a high moral standard at each lawyer's bar, and excluded those who actually had some moral probity (false negatives for taking actions "highly contrary to public morality") then would it be too much cost if we then removed for more people whose actions were shocking to public moral mores?
  - naasking 7y ago
    > In short if the overwhelming majority found something to be immoral then it would seem a reasonable standard to apply now. Majority consensus does not entail truth of any kind. Your "reasonable standard" would have seen no lawyer able to defend Rosa Parks. > The main problem is defining what is abjectly immoral, what amounts to an overwhelming majority, etc. A deceptively pleasant sounding summary of two problems so deep that they've had no resolution despite millennia of philosophical debate. And you call my argument impotent.

by bertil 7y ago

naasking 7y ago

> I’m generally surprised at how rarely a lawyer’s Bar punishes their members for acting in a way that is immoral. Who decides what's immoral? Not too long ago, interracial dating was also considered "immoral" by plenty of people. Plenty of injustice was perpetrated by pushing moral agendas. I frankly think it's crazy to be so ready to lynch others for working within robust systems that evolved over centuries because these systems sometimes violate their personal sensibilities. These systems have their own (evolving) standards of ethics, and unless you understand them and the reason they exist, don't be so quick to cast aspersions.

pbhjpbhj 7y ago
>I frankly think it's crazy to be so ready to lynch others for working within robust systems // And I think it's crazy to excuse people for abject immorality simply because they can lawyer their way around legal claims. Moral consensus might get us bad decisions: I'd be interested to know how many lawyers private life would be deleteriously effected if the bar upheld a standard that accorded with the overwhelming moral tide of society at the time. Sure the tide moves, but the deleterious effect of that tide beyond the deleterious effect of the laws those people make would seem to be naturally curtailed. In short if the overwhelming majority found something to be immoral then it would seem a reasonable standard to apply now. Of course in the fullness of time we might reject those moral standards, but equally we might reject legislation - or conversely begrudge not having been more stringent in our moral arbitration of the deleterious actions of rogue elements in society. In short your argument is impotent, and swings both ways in its impotency. The main problem is defining what is abjectly immoral, what amounts to an overwhelming majority, etc.. If we pushed a high moral standard at each lawyer's bar, and excluded those who actually had some moral probity (false negatives for taking actions "highly contrary to public morality") then would it be too much cost if we then removed for more people whose actions were shocking to public moral mores?
- naasking 7y ago
  > In short if the overwhelming majority found something to be immoral then it would seem a reasonable standard to apply now. Majority consensus does not entail truth of any kind. Your "reasonable standard" would have seen no lawyer able to defend Rosa Parks. > The main problem is defining what is abjectly immoral, what amounts to an overwhelming majority, etc. A deceptively pleasant sounding summary of two problems so deep that they've had no resolution despite millennia of philosophical debate. And you call my argument impotent.