Although the existence of moral obligation cannot be denied, the question as to whether we have moral obligation to legal norms is controversial. It seems quite true that there is no moral obligation to obey a law simply because it is a law. However, I agree that laws have an important function of social stability and order, in determining what is just and moral. This also brings cases where certain action is not immoral in itself, but laws could make it so. I was especially persuaded by the Raz's claim that the reasons for obeying the law must come from the reasons for having that law.
Virtue ethics is more about ‘being’ whereas moral ethics is more about ‘doing’ (Rondall, 2014). In order to act and behave in a morally correct way, one has to have a character and virtues that will support it. Being a virtuous person will enable you to act according to moral principle; however you cannot act according to moral principle and do your duty if you do not have the virtues that allow for this. Kant suggests that good will is achieved through intent, contributing to the argument that one cannot act morally if their intentions have ulterior motives (Rondall, 2014). The motivation behind duty is having the respect for moral law, thus inferring that one has to have respect which is gained through practice, learnt by habituation and taught from example (Johnson & Cureton, 2016).
Ethics is described as the moral believes by which a person will conduct a specific activity. It is these moral believes between the client and legal professional that need to agree to decide the outcome of the case. This essay will handle with legal ethics regarding to being a fit and proper person, the clients needs, professional conduct, professional responsibility and the legal system in South Africa. Before being admitted as a legal professional a person needs to be regarded as being a fit and proper person to practice the noble and precise field of law. The requirement of being fit and proper is seen as one of the most important characteristics of the legal profession but is not to be found in legislation nor is it defined.
A law’s validity is one of the most hotly debated subjects among the natural law and positivist thinkers. The natural law theorists claim that principles and morality are the basis of a valid law, whereas the positivist thinkers believe that a law is based on social facts and institutions . Within both schools of thought, each scholar has a different basis for his theory. This debate between the natural law and positivist theorists is related to the interpretation of laws. Many positivist scholars believe that interpretation of laws should be based on legal text alone, whereas other scholars view external sources as necessary tools for interpretation.
However, there are many qualifications the good will depends on, and not just the inclination to do your duty because it is your duty. The good will may not be the only thing good without limitation, as it must be acted on by something. For example, If Kant’s theory were true, it would mean that it would be very difficult to be a good person because utilitarianism does not allow for acts that go above duty. First, there must be a distinction between what is right and what is good. Doing what is right means more about in conformity with fact, correct in judgement, or truth.
Behaviors that are can be considered moral are those that are determined by high level moral reasoning. Lying, cheating, and stealing are considered immoral for it follows low-level conceptions of morality. However, such behaviors are not considered moral or immoral by definition (Krebs & Rosenwald, 1994). As individuals achieve higher cognitive ability, they are more capable of more complex reasoning about moral issues.
Positivist says that there is no obligation to follow a law morally. But in some cases for example (MURDER) it is good to obey law due to its moral content. Another place where it is good to follow law is to solve a coordination problem for example (driving on your right side). In most of the cases our own moral judgements helps us in deciding to obey law or not. The main issue here is how we should view the law morally, whether law in itself is generally a good thing?
The laws that the people establish in their constitutions are intended to protect everyone according to rule of law: the rich, the poor, the majority, the minority, the powerful, and the powerless. In other words, judges should be independent enough to uphold the rule of law, even when the law is unpopular. If the constitution is flawed, the solution is for the people to amend it. The solution is not to intimidate a judge into declaring that the law says something it does not because that will serve only to undermine the rule of law.
The role of a solicitor, apart from providing legal advice, is to behave as a professional; with an ethical and disciplinary conduct. They are obliged to acquire a moral attitude, for a good example of the society. As Professor Rodell identified, it is the lawyers who run our civilisation for us. Achieving this, they ought to obey the SRA Code of Conduct 2011, which including principles and indicated behaviours. This essay will analyse a problem scenario which regards to a solicitor’s omissions, lacking to follow specific principles of the code.
First and foremost, they are both conscious of the rights of the citizens. Everything that planners do has to be within the rights of citizens. Both do not allow favors to be accepted by the planner and they should only advocate for a client if the goals are not illegal and do not interfere with the citizen’s wellbeing (Ethical, n.d.). Nonetheless, they do differ in certain ways. The Ethical Principles in Planning does not mention any consequences for a planner that does not follow these rules, but the AICP Code of Ethics does.
Matt Goetz, the committee chairman of the bill, declares that criminals will now be on notice because; people now have the right to defend themselves (Cohen). Criminals now have to wonder who is going to protect themselves, who might be concealing a weapon. Finally, the right to protect ourselves has never been the Stand Your Ground Law’s place to give; it is a law of nature. Jonathan Emord, a writer for USA
Such tasks include establishing attorney-client relationship, discussing/setting fees, and signing initial case evaluation letters. Rule 5.3(b) states that a supervising attorney having direct supervision over a paralegal must make judicious efforts to assure that the paralegal’s conduct is in compliance and compatible with the professional responsibilities of the lawyer (ABA, 2016). Paragraph (c) of Rule 5.3 clarifies that the lawyer is accountable for the conduct of a paralegal who violates the Rules of Professional Conduct. Violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct by Peter Paralegal and his supervising attorney is considered misconduct and a violation of Rule 8.4 which prohibits lawyers from knowingly aiding or making another to violate or attempt to violate the Rules of Professional
Working in the field of law enforcement and being ethically sound is important. It is important within our professional career that we are able to maintain a standard that doesn’t cross any ethical lines. Even in our academic we have to hold ourselves to an ethical standard, because we are trusted to do what is right. If we violate the academic integrity it put a mark on our ability to be trusted. Just as Dr. Steven Davis stated if someone is will to cheap to get ahead how can they be trusted