Professional Ethics, Notes Week 2
Professional Ethics, Notes Week 2 PHI 1120, Professional Ethics
Popular in Professional Ethics
PHI 1120, Professional Ethics
verified elite notetaker
Popular in PHIL-Philosophy
verified elite notetaker
This 4 page Class Notes was uploaded by Chloe Luyet on Friday January 15, 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 128 views. For similar materials see Professional Ethics in PHIL-Philosophy at Wayne State University.
Reviews for Professional Ethics, Notes Week 2
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: 01/15/16
Learning Objectives 1) Lewis’s Thesis 2) Identifying Thesis Statement strategies 3) Interpreting Lewis’s Thesis 4) Strategies for interpreting Thesis statements 5) Understanding how Lewis thesis statement supports hard view 6) Define role-differentiated behavior (RDB) 7) Understand the standard argument for RDB 8) Understand Wasserstrom’s criticisms on this argument Review of Last Week Customer versus professional relationship is asymmetrical Why do we think they might act wrongly and deceive clients? o comforting view: they’re bad people; we dismiss their actions because we would never do that o scarier view they’re not that different than us and we could still do it I. Objective 1 “My main purpose is to convince you that [the desire to belong to an Inner Ring] is one of the general permanent mainsprings of human action” II. Objective 2 Finding thesis strategies o look for trigger statements like: “I will argue that…” “I believe…” “My main purpose is…” III. Objective 3 Everyone has the desire to belong to the Inner Ring for the entirety of their lives Desire for the Inner Ring makes men who aren’t yet bad do bad things (working up to the scoundrel level) To avoid being a bad person, you must work really hard to prevent it because it’s human nature Inner Rings are: o hierarchies, groups of people, cliques o “exclusion is no accident; it is the essence” (p.22) without exclusion, Inner Rings cannot exist o they have no name however, they’re still easy to refer to. We refer to them by saying “John and them…”, “we”, “us”, “they”, etc… it’s clear who and what you’re talking about o their borders are inconsistent and fluid people come and leave their Inner Rings; it’s always changing o if you don’t think you belong to one or don’t have the desire to, you’re wrong. Snobbery is only one of the reasons (sense of community as well). It’s pull doesn’t have to bee power or success or fame there’s always someone you want to “hang out with”. It doesn’t have to be motivated by popularity IV. Objective 5 How bad people become bad people: o moral decisions may not be obvious or dramatic like the climax of a movie o it will happen over time; over a “cup of coffee”, etc. (p.21) o decisions to do the wrong thing aren’t normally for power or money you want to appease someone to get to know them better what they suggest at first may not be that far outside the rules How does Lewis present his argument? o through examples/evidence of our personal experiences that he knows relates to his audience o he makes it seem like an inevitable phenomenon, so he’s not criticizing his audience and belittling them. (phenomenon is morally neutral) says their existence isn’t bad, but the desire for Inner Rings is bad example: money itself isn’t bad (just paper), but the desire to have it is. o he gives the possibility/opportunity of redemption: you can avoid desire through hard work and sticking to your morals. says there’s a “right kind” of Inner Ring that results from focusing on what’s really important (your craft, etc). You’ll fall into Inner Rings naturally; DON’T CHASE THEM Lewis’s Thesis supports the Hard View (see week 1 notes) o Hard view’s take is that everyday decisions are significant moral questions Lewis says that the decision you make to be a good or bad person may not be urgent or demanding o Probably doing something wrong even if it’s legal and what everyone around you is doing Lewis says that those in Inner Rings do what others in the Inner Ring do; what they do may not be morally right example: people at Goldmann Sachs liked colleagues and wanted to work with them and make them happy Quiz Question What does Wasserstrom believe? o role-differentiated behavior is justified for criminal defense lawyers, but not for any other kind of lawyer V. Objective 6 Lawyers are criticized for doing too much for their clients, unlike doing to little for clients (Goldmann Sachs case) Views for defending the guilty Views against defending the guilty it’s the job of the lawyer setting a criminal back out system: even the guilty into the world is immoral need an advocate laws need to be enforced to be respected (cannot get it’s not the lawyer’s job to decide if their client is guilty away with breaking the law) client decides Some have limits to the extent to which one can defend some guilty person (murder is different from fraud and theft) Role-differentiated Behavior Definition: o a person engages in RDB if and only if they’re asked to set aside considerations that would normally be morally important/relevant to everyday people in the same situation because of the role/job of the lawyer VI. Objective 7 A Defense of RDB o A defense lawyer is only a small part of the overall justice system o It’s important that the legal system as a whole is just; not if one particular part of it is just o The best way for the institution as a whole to be just is for the defense lawyer to engage in RDB o So…lawyers should engage in RDB professional malpractice if you don’t (could lose license to practice law) system works better if not ever part is thinking of justice devil’s advocate role of the lawyer assures that a criminal doesn’t get an unjust punishment that doesn’t reflect the crime committed opposite for prosecuting attorneys normally VII. Objective 8 you must know as a lawyer that the system is just in order to engage in RDB; otherwise, the system will not correct the mistake you made it’s not possible to develop competitive, ruthless characteristics temporarily at work and not have those same characteristics carry into your everyday life (works of becoming a bad person) His conclusion: o Wasserstrom still thinks that defense attorneys should defend the guilty because those against you (the prosecution) have tons of resources against those accused of a crime o other lawyers should not engage in RDB
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'