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

REUPLOADED Notes Week 12, Professional Ethics

by: Chloe Luyet

REUPLOADED Notes Week 12, Professional Ethics PHI 1120, Professional Ethics

Marketplace > Wayne State University > PHIL-Philosophy > PHI 1120, Professional Ethics > REUPLOADED Notes Week 12 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 notes that were covered in lecture last week 4/5 and 4/7/16. There were some formatting problems with what I uploaded last week? Hopefully, the problems are fixed now.
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 Tuesday April 12, 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 42 views. For similar materials see Professional Ethics in PHIL-Philosophy at Wayne State University.

Similar to PHI 1120, Professional Ethics at WSU

Popular in PHIL-Philosophy


Reviews for REUPLOADED Notes Week 12, Professional Ethics


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: 04/12/16
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! I. Whistleblowing a. a certain type of action b. revealing of previously unknown information about an organization’s current practices c. done by a certain type of person i. a member of the organization d. done in certain circumstances i. when the organization’s practices are wrong/harmful to the general public 1. EX/ a. a reporter reporting info about an organization engaging in harmful behavior is not whistleblowing b. sharing already widely-known info about my company’s harmful practices is not whistleblowing c. sharing info about harmful practices my company did years ago is not whistleblowing d. if I reveal info that my organization is currently engaged in harmful practices to get famous, it is whistleblowing i. the motivation for the whistleblowing on the behalf of the whilstleblower is not relevant to the definition e. Engineers Codes i. evolution 1. 1912 – an engineer should consider the protection of a client or employer’s interest first in professional obligations a. disapproves of whistleblowing 2. 1947 a. weighs the interest of the general public and the employer equally…Makes whistleblowing a Prima Facie duty 3. 1974 – an engineer should hold paramount the safety, health and welfare of the public a. favors whistleblowing f. Whistleblowers not only often lose their jobs, but have trouble finding a new one b/c of their previous disloyalty. Companies do not want to hire someone who is “disloyal” even if for the right reasons g. EX/ Ford Pinto – Frank Camps (an engineer) worried (correctly) that the Pinto had an unsafe windshield and a gas tank that would explode upon impact. So, he went to his boss, who refused to do anything about it and fired Camps instead. HE DID WRONG HE DID RIGHT 1) He didn’t save any lives or 1) Takes a hit to the Ford PR change anything and they couldn’t cover up 2) He owes some kind of what they did loyalty to his company 2) He did everything he could first (went through manager/proper chain of command) before taking it publically – IMPORTANT to try internal resolution before whistleblowing h. EX/ Joseph Rose was a lawyer. The organization he worked for was making illegal payments to Nixon’s reelection campaign. He went to the board of directors and ended up fired. Ends up writing later that “white collar” crime is not really important to companies/society as a whole as long as it yields a profit i. PROS TO WHISTLEBLOWING i. Protects society ii. Can protect the workers/employees j. Loyalty to a company has to be a “Prima Facie” duty i. certain things, in particular Prima Facie Duties, require justification. If you don’t have a good reason for whistleblowing, people aren’t going to agree w/ you k. 2 MAIN REASONS TO NOT WHISTLEBLOW: i. Loyalty to employer ii. Risks you take to yourself (the stability/security of your own job) iii. ALSO: must take into consideration what the general public is going to do w/ the information you whistleblow. It could put others at risk w/ the information out there and how much would the public actually profit from the info?


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

Jim McGreen Ohio University

"Knowing I can count on the Elite Notetaker in my class allows me to focus on what the professor is saying instead of just scribbling notes the whole time and falling behind."

Amaris Trozzo George Washington University

"I made $350 in just two days after posting 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!"


"Their 'Elite Notetakers' are making over $1,200/month in sales by creating high quality content that helps their classmates in a time of need."

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.