New User Special Price Expires in

Let's log you in.

Sign in with Facebook


Don't have a StudySoup account? Create one here!


Create a StudySoup account

Be part of our community, it's free to join!

Sign up with Facebook


Create your account
By creating an account you agree to StudySoup's terms and conditions and privacy policy

Already have a StudySoup account? Login here

Professional Ethics, Notes Week 2

by: Chloe Luyet

Professional Ethics, Notes Week 2 PHI 1120, Professional Ethics

Chloe Luyet

Preview These Notes for FREE

Get a free preview of these Notes, just enter your email below.

Unlock Preview
Unlock Preview

Preview these materials now for free

Why put in your email? Get access to more of this material and other relevant free materials for your school

View Preview

About this Document

These are the second week of notes for Professional Ethics. This set of notes covers what was discussed in lecture on Tuesday 1/19/16 and Thursday 1/21/16.
Professional Ethics
Dr. Ryan Fanselow
Class Notes
25 ?




Popular in Professional Ethics

Popular in PHIL-Philosophy

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.

Similar to PHI 1120, Professional Ethics at WSU


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


Buy Material

Are you sure you want to buy this material for

25 Karma

Buy Material

BOOM! Enjoy Your Free Notes!

We've added these Notes to your profile, click here to view them now.


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'

Why people love StudySoup

Steve Martinelli UC Los Angeles

"There's no way I would have passed my Organic Chemistry class this semester without the notes and study guides I got from StudySoup."

Kyle Maynard Purdue

"When you're taking detailed notes and trying to help everyone else out in the class, it really helps you learn and understand the I made $280 on my first study guide!"

Bentley McCaw University of Florida

"I was shooting for a perfect 4.0 GPA this semester. Having StudySoup as a study aid was critical to helping me achieve my goal...and I nailed it!"

Parker Thompson 500 Startups

"It's a great way for students to improve their educational experience and it seemed like a product that everybody wants, so all the people participating are winning."

Become an Elite Notetaker and start selling your notes online!

Refund Policy


All subscriptions to StudySoup are paid in full at the time of subscribing. To change your credit card information or to cancel your subscription, go to "Edit Settings". All credit card information will be available there. If you should decide to cancel your subscription, it will continue to be valid until the next payment period, as all payments for the current period were made in advance. For special circumstances, please email


StudySoup has more than 1 million course-specific study resources to help students study smarter. If you’re having trouble finding what you’re looking for, our customer support team can help you find what you need! Feel free to contact them here:

Recurring Subscriptions: If you have canceled your recurring subscription on the day of renewal and have not downloaded any documents, you may request a refund by submitting an email to

Satisfaction Guarantee: If you’re not satisfied with your subscription, you can contact us for further help. Contact must be made within 3 business days of your subscription purchase and your refund request will be subject for review.

Please Note: Refunds can never be provided more than 30 days after the initial purchase date regardless of your activity on the site.