Law 368 Ethics And Professional Responsibility

2016 Words9 Pages
LAW 368 ETHICS AND PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY –S2/2014
ASSIGNMENT - CASE STUDY

1. The type of values and reasoning to which our client, Lance, is appealing with his stance of ‘I never settle for second place’ is a good example of virtue ethics.
According to this belief system morality stems from the identity and/or character of the individual rather than the consequences of his/her actions. What makes actions right or wrong depends on whether they are performed in accordance with moral principles. Such actions, according to their perpetrators, ought to be considered as an end in themselves and never merely as a means to an end.
That is, the ethical system is directed by the decision maker’s perception of the morality of their action
…show more content…
2. The type of values and reasoning Mr Surly is appealing to with his stance of ‘The customer is always right and we always give them what they want’ can be framed in terms of deontological (duty-based) ethics.
This belief system is the normative ethical position that judges the morality of an action based on the action 's adherence to a rule or rules and is based on the ‘categorical imperative’ theory of German philosopher Immanuel Kant. That theory states that one should; “Act only on the maxim through which you can, at the same time will that it should become a universal law.”
However, when viewed in this light one can see that Mr Surley’s maxim is flawed as it cannot be applied to all cases universally. The customer isn’t always right (if they were why would they need the advice and services of a professional?) and their needs may be subservient to those of other stakeholders. That subservience is certainly the case in this instance as an examination of the WA Law Society’s Legal Profession Conduct Rules (PCRs) 2010 shows: “A practitioner’s duty to the court and the administration of justice is paramount and prevails to the extent of inconsistency with any other duty, including but not limited to a duty owed to a client of the practitioner.”
Mr Surly’s attitude indicates he may be using inductive (bottom up) reasoning in an attempt to justify
Get Access