Week Eleven, Part 3 - Legal Ethics: Supreme Being

In Ethics, Dean David Link introduces the major approaches to right and wrong. He lists them as utility theory, rights theory, and justice theory.

“You may have a feeling of ‘this is the right thing to do’ or ‘it's wrong to lie,” Link says. “But you can also reason to what is right and wrong.”

We look first at utilitarianism, defined as “the greatest good for the greatest number.” Link says, “You evaluate actions by balancing the benefits and costs. Therefore, you might label utility as ‘net benefit theory.’”

He adds, “Aside from being intuitive, it’s an efficient system. Just line everything up and subtract. And utility conforms to political theory. As a general rule, government ought to produce the greatest good for the greatest number of people.”

We discuss the obvious problems of utility theory. “Some costs or benefits are impossible to measure,” Link says. “In fact, sometimes it’s even hard to decide whether something is a cost or benefit.”

The second approach to ethics is justice theory. Distributive justice. Capitalist justice. Socialist justice. Libertarian justice. Compensatory justice. Retributive justice. Link says a few words about each, a Cliff Notes overview.

Link says there are moral conditions put on whether someone may administer retributive justice. “You can't be punished for ignorance or inability. There must be a certainty that the person has done wrong. And any punishments imposed must be consistent and proportionate.”

Hmmm. “You can’t be punished for ignorance.” I’m going to make sure my answer on the final exam includes this phrase, underlined.

The final theory of ethics is rights theory. This rubric includes legal, moral, human rights. Under moral rights, we examine Immanuel Kant’s categorical imperative. “An action is morally right in a situation if the reason for carrying it out is such that you would want every other person to act in the same way with the same reason.” It’s analogous to the golden rule: “do unto others as you would have them do unto you.”

As to human rights, Link says the best listing is the Universal Declaration by the United Nations. On the board Link catalogs the basics: the right to life, self-determination, freedom of movement, food, shelter, clothing.

There are economic rights as well: property, work, just remuneration, even a right to rest and leisure.

“Of course,” Link says, “this final right does not attach during your first year at Notre Dame Law School.”

Link closes. “Beyond the reasoning of philosophy is theology. It provides another way to decide whether an action is right or wrong. Theology is based on the idea of a Supreme Being who cares whether we do right or wrong. Now, various religions have different moral traditions. Judaism is rules orientated; Christianity talks of love. But both these theologies give a prioritization. Utility is down here. Above that justice theory. Then moral rights. This is the order based upon reasoning and belief in God.”

As class ends, I shut down my computer. It was a good lecture, I think. Link cares about the topic and has given it some thought. I like that we started out with the big picture instead of simply looking at the Model Rules of Professional Conduct.

What I’m most concerned with is whether becoming a lawyer will change my approach to right, wrong, and the gray area in between. The temptations are great, I’m sure, given the money and power that accompany the legal profession. I don’t want to become skilled in double-talk, capable of a tax dodge, or inclined to pad my billables. It seems far off, but someday I’ll be an attorney looking in the mirror. I hope I won’t regret what I see.

* * *