Professional Ethics, Notes Week 12 Part 1
Professional Ethics, Notes Week 12 Part 1 PHI 1120, Professional Ethics
Popular in Professional Ethics
PHI 1120, Professional Ethics
verified elite notetaker
Popular in PHIL-Philosophy
verified elite notetaker
This 2 page Class Notes was uploaded by Chloe Luyet on Thursday April 7, 2016. The Class Notes belongs to PHI 1120, Professional Ethics at Wayne State University taught by Dr. Ryan Fanselow in Winter 2016. Since its upload, it has received 29 views. For similar materials see Professional Ethics in PHIL-Philosophy at Wayne State University.
Reviews for Professional Ethics, Notes Week 12 Part 1
Report this Material
What is Karma?
Karma is the currency of StudySoup.
You can buy or earn more Karma at anytime and redeem it for class notes, study guides, flashcards, and more!
Date Created: 04/07/16
Reading Quiz Donagan’s Thesis: o “Lawyers should sometimes break confidentiality even when there’s not a crime in progress” I. Beige and Armani Case a. PROS to breaking confidentiality i. give parents/families of victims peace of mind/closure ii. could’ve negotiated a different sentence for the client iii. waste of police resources b. PROS to keeping confidentiality th i. client has 5 Amendment right, and to reveal info would violate this ii. they’re already dead…the crime is completed 1. if the crime is in progress, lawyers should break confidentiality iii. it’s the job of the lawyer to keep confidentiality in order to do his/her job correctly (idea of role- differentiated behavior) c. Best for public: reveal; break confidentiality d. Best for client: don’t reveal; keep confidentiality e. Donagain says that there’s no “free pass “ for lawyers. If a regular person would be morally obligated to reveal certain information, then lawyers should also be obligated to reveal said information and break confidentiality! There is still such promises as confidentiality, however, II. Promises a. the argument: i. Lawyers promised to preserve confidentiality about the whereabouts of bodies, etc. ii. One must keep their promises iii. Therefore, lawyers should keep confidentiality about the whereabouts of bodies, etc. III. Self-Incrimination a. the argument: i. As an attorney, one acts as the client’s alter ego ii. One has a right against self-incrimination iii. Attorneys have a right to not reveal the whereabouts of bodies, etc. b. concept that, as a representative of the client, if an attorney reveals information about his/her client, he/she is also, in a sense, self-incriminating his//herself c. Donagan says that #2 premise confuses moral w/ legal rights. i. Sometimes, self-incrimination is better (morally, speaking). ii. You have a legal right to not confess to a crime, sure; however, you don’t have that moral right. Instead, your moral obligation is to confess to the crime! IV. Dignity a. the argument: i. Respecting the dignity of persons requires that lawyers be able to ascertain everything their clients know about the case ii. Lawyers can only learn everything their clients know if there’s confidentiality iii. Respecting the dignity of persons requires confidentiality b. flaws to argument: i. premise #2 is an exaggeration? There are probably more ways to obtain the information. c. Donagan’s Reply: i. Does respecting human dignity require a lawyer to be able to ascertain that his/her client is committing a crime? 1. If yes, then given premise #2, the argument is too generalized 2. If no, then premise #1 is false ii. EITHER the 1 premise is false or the argument proves too much, so the argument DOESN’T WORK!
Are you sure you want to buy this material for
You're already Subscribed!
Looks like you've already subscribed to StudySoup, you won't need to purchase another subscription to get this material. To access this material simply click 'View Full Document'