Fawziyya Fox
One of the major questions about morals melding with philosophy for me is how do we all determine what is moral. Morals are not a completely objective, tangible ideal. Professor Thane Rosenbaum (author of The Myth of Moral Justice: Why Our Legal System Fails to Do What’s Right) asserts that the law should have a moral revamping. I completely agree that the legal system is void of morals and human characteristics such as emotional complexity. I do believe that the system is based on morals and we must strive harder to continually adhere to the morals. David Hume is a prominent philosopher who analyzed a wide range of questions regarding morals and law. He discusses morals and how the virtues affect social life, matters of justice and law. He argues that there are artificial and natural virtues. Natural virtues are ones that are instinctive such as friendship or generosity and artificial virtues are the ones that are more socially constructed such as justice and allegiance. Though he calls justice an artificial virtue, he considers it a dilemma whether something about justice is more intuitive, “The dilemma seems obvious: As justice evidently tends to promote public utility and to support civil society, the sentiment of justice is either derived from our reflecting on that tendency, or like hunger, thirst and other appetites, resentment, love of life, attachment to offspring, and other passions, arises from a simple original instinct in the human breast, which nature has implanted for like salutary purposes….If the latter be the case, it follows, that property, which is the object of justice, is also distinguished by a simple, original instinct.” Hume asserts that justice has some roots in our natural instincts and consequently, political systems including laws are created because people want to preserve justice, their own interests, and morality. He claims tha tlaws/rules are not just based on facts but are rooted in some moral relationships, “Crime indeed consists not in a particular fact, of whose reality we are assured by reason: But it consists in certain moral relations, discovered by reason, in the same manner as we discover, by reason, the truth of geometry or algebra.” This analysis is born of the truth that laws that prescribe or forbid behaviors, and even business activities (as contract law) are stemming from some moral belief that a society had which in turn prescribed those behaviors. Most societies fundamentally agree that stealing is immoral, and this view is reflected in theft laws but also in consumer protection laws, contract laws- one can’t collect money for a construction job and then not complete the job, that is like stealing. The tax code, which could seem arbitrary is in line with the views that people are a part of a structure which bestows upon them- the benefits of roads, a military, emergency services and it is moral to pay for benefits we receive.
The intersection between law and morals is evident in the analysis of legal systems and the roots therein. The necessity is to discover if the legal system abides by morality as it instinctually should be.

One of my favorite books is the colonial African tale of Things Fall
Apart by Chinua Achebe. The underlying theme and message of is one
that transcends time and place. Okonkwo, the protagonist of the
story, is a character motivated mainly by fear and apprehension.
Okonkwo’s tale illustrates that things can truly fall apart if one
lives their life motivated by a vice such as fear and is unable to
adapt to a constantly changing world.

To Okonkwo, men are supposed to be physically strong, providers to
their family, and brave. There is no doubt that Okonkwo was a strong
man. He was renowned as a wrestler and respected by all for his
physical strength. Unlike his father, Okonkwo did everything he could
to provide food and shelter for his many wives and children. He was a
man that always put his family first. However, Okonkwo had a terrible
temper and ruled his household by enslaving his children wives with
fear. Okonkwo almost received some sort of pleasure out of scaring
his wives and children. It made him feel like more of man to have so
much control over other peoples’ lives. One can not be considered
brave if they take advantage of people weaker than their self as
Okonkwo often did. To further understand why Okonkwo behaved in such
a way, we must only look at his early family life.

Okonkwo was a man “possessed by the fear of his father’s contemptible
life and shameful death” (Achebe, 18). Many of Okonkwo’s actions were
a direct result of this fear. Okonkwo disowned his son Nwoye because
he reminded him too much of his father. Okonkwo killed his adopted
son Ikemefuna because he was afraid of appearing weak like his father.
Even after accidentally killing a young boy and being banished to his
mother’s village, Okonkwo fails to adapt to great change and fails to
realize how destructive his way of life has become.

We can see just how destructive Okonkwo has become when he talks to
his children about his son Nwoye. “You have all seen the great
abomination of your brother. Now he is no longer my son or your
brother… If one of you prefers to be a woman, let him follow Nwoye
now while I am alive so that I can curse him. If you turn against me
when I am dead I will visit you and break your neck” (Achebe, 172).
These are strong words for someone to use in casual conversation with
anyone, let alone their own kids. As the story progresses, Okonkwo
becomes so stubborn in his ways that he fails to realize the
consequences or his behavior and actions. Without realizing it,
Okonkwo alienates his wives and children because he is so mean to
them.

Essentially, Okonkwo was a man afraid of change. When the white
settlers came, Okonkwo saw his established way of life being
challenged. The new religion that white people brought was a direct
threat to Okonkwo’s power and way of life. Okonkwo reacted to this
threat by inflicting fear in the hearts of those he loved. That was
the only way he knew how to fight the threat the white men presented.
Unfortunately, Okonkwo’s fear eventually got the best of him. Okonkwo
was so afraid of the alternative lifestyle that the white people
presented, that he killed himself rather than live in a world full of
change. By killing himself, Okonkwo became exactly what he wanted to
avoid. He became a man that abandoned his family and responsibility,
just like his father.

Achebe’s tale leaves the reader with the lesson that no one should
live their life motivated entirely by fear. Life is nothing but a
series of change and no one should be afraid to adapt to such change
if completely unavoidable and necessary. Okonkwo was afraid of the
change the white man brought and could not adapt to their threat. The
result of his actions was death by suicide. Achebe leaves us with the
advice that if we can identify the underlying factor that motivates
our actions, we may be able to save ourselves from a fate similar to
Okonkwo’s.

HWB

BY MAUDE (AUDIE)  FUGETT

During my first week of my summer job, I was fortunate enough to be
able to meet with two ambassadors at the United Nations in New York.
During my lunch in the “delegates dining room”, a group of 8 met to
discuss the Millennium Development Goals. Luckily enough I was
informed about the topic of discussion prior to the lunch so that I
could learn more about the MDG.

The MDGs are a set of goals that were compiled by the United Nations
with the objective of making efforts at certain changes by year 2015.
Some of those goals include halving extreme poverty, halting the
spread of HIV/AIDS and producing universal primary education.  Many
nations have come together and agreed to dedicate resources to this
cause, and do what it takes to achieve the common goals of several
countries.

Another interesting topic that was mentioned during the lunch was the
idea of microfinance. This was interesting to me, because I never
thought about how giving underprivileged countries access to banks and
savings accounts could really change our markets. There are several
barriers, however, that keep this goal from being implemented right
away. The first obstacle is that most countries that these objectives
would be aimed at helping, do not possess the requisite identification
system. Without an identification system, it seems like the
possibilities of fraud will be heightened. One suggestion at solving
this problem is to allow the initiation of the banking program to be
the beginning of the identification program.

People would be able to come to a bank, give their finger print, and
get issued a picture identification card with their name, and
nationality on it. The need for identification systems is emerging in
several third world countries, and these countries are close to
implementing new systems. India for instance is currently taking
bidders from different companies that have plans on how to begin to
tackle this identification problem.

Solving the identification problem would also bring an answer to other
issues. In theory, if people are traveling all over the country to
register the citizens, there are obviously some basic questions that
will be asked to put on their ID card. Besides basic name and physical
characteristics, it would be possible for the people asking the
questions to also include questions similar to our census questions.
This would be a source of obtaining information about farmers, what
they produce, how much land they own, what kind of crops they grown,
how much they usually grow, how many children they have and so on.

The next step from this would be to use this information would be
putting together farmers and buyers so that they could stimulate the
market better. How, you may ask, will people be able to access this
information? The answer is cell phones. In countries such as Africa,
cell phone use is increasing. The people use their phones on a
pre-paid basis, where the cellular air time is purchased on scratch
off cards. These cell phones also have internet access. This is how
the banking system will be rooted.

Another problem that stands in the way of the idea of banking for
under developed countries is the lack of roads and infrastructure
available. As cell phone use is increasing in Africa, it is possible
that “online” banking could solve the problem of people having to
commute long distances by foot in order to obtain these services. In
an entirely cash based country, people are still needing to travel to
banks for certain things. Often school tuition is paid at a bank, and
often if people want to send money transfers. This could all be done
on a cell phone which would save the trip and the hassle. There are
many ideas floating around regarding some of the objectives of the
MDGs. From what I have seen so far, however, there have not been much
efforts at achieving these goals. Hopefully by 2015, the world will be
able to have something to show for these efforts, and we will be on
our way to a better world.

For the general public the answer to such question is unsurprising: “another lawyer” (http://jokes4all.net/hell.html). There are numerous similar kind of jokes through which the public express their frustration and mistrust of the legal profession. Lawyers are seen as individuals that “like to show no emotion, and possess a particular disdain for the emotions that are found in others, which has the quality of making them seem inhuman.” (Thane Rosenbaum, The Myth of Moral Justice 295) Indeed all professions are subject to scrutiny and criticism, however, rarely is an occupation directly associated with such a malevolent spirit.

As depicted in many literary works, society’s experiences with attorneys are generally described as negative. As K states in the Trial, he has heard that great lawyers exist, but he has never seen one. Moral attorneys such as Atticus Finch in the eyes of the public are a rare breed that mainly exists in fiction.

Through literature and films, the traditional lawyers are portrayed as possessing traits that are not particularly humanitarian. Lawyers such as Ed Concannon, the attorney for the Archdiocese in the film the Verdict, are viewed in the courtroom as zealous advocates while to the viewer they oblivious to human decency. The public sees the lawyer as an individual whose main functions are to bribe, manipulate and maintain the bureaucracy of the legal system in pursuit of their client’s interests in lieu of advancing his moral obligations to society.

The public’s discontent with lawyers has become such that they easily accept that there is some sort of link between attorneys and demonic entities. For instance, during the entire duration of the television series Angel, which ran from 1999 to 2004, the main villain was a major law firm with international and interdimensional offices. The lawyers working at the firm literally had to forfeit their souls by signing a “perpetuity clause” in their contracts that forced them to remain with the firm even after their deaths. The law firm operated by demonic forces, defended rich, powerful and unscrupulous clients, both human and supernatural. However, even though their client base was mainly atypical, the attorneys at the firm relied on ordinary legal methods to conceal the immoral actions of their clients.

In the first episode a lawyer is introduced, the client, after murdering a woman, somewhat remorseful tells his attorney that he’s sorry to have killed her so soon to which the lawyer replies “actually you haven’t seen her in several weeks, you were on a conference yesterday with your contract lawyers when the unfortunate incident occurred.” Although this incident occurs in fiction it is undoubtedly rooted in reality. A lawyer is seen not too worried with discerning what is morally right but instead determine what is legal. Our legal education encourages objectivity, strict adherence to the law and utmost loyalty to our client. Rules of professional responsibility require us as lawyers to zealously defend our client; however do they demand that we compromise our morality to advance our client’s interest? Can an attorney not be both responsible and moral in the performance of his duties to the same?

In the public view a lawyer both morally and professionally responsible is the exception not the rule. Prestige and praiseworthiness in the legal profession is generally correlated to the amount of victories in the courtroom. However, legal and moral triumphs are not necessary one of the same. The public image of lawyers can only be improve by reintroducing the qualities that make us human, such as emotional receptiveness and moral accountability, inside the courtroom.

–Walter Osuna

By Bernard Ozarowski

            Recently the film Kick-Ass, directed by Matthew Vaughn,
was released in theaters. It received a mixed reception from critics,
some offended by the vigilante justice depicted in the film. In
particular some critics were offended by the fact that children are
the vigilantes. Well-known film critic Roger Ebert wrote: “Shall I
have feelings, or should I pretend to be cool? Will I seem hopelessly
square if I find “Kick-Ass” morally reprehensible and will I appear to
have missed the point?” So did Roger Ebert miss the point, or is
Kick-Ass as morally repugnant as Mr. Ebert and other critics have
found it?

            Kick-Ass is a satire of the superhero movie genre. In the
film a young high school student poses the question why hasn’t anyone
tried to be a superhero. So without the aid of a radioactive spider
bite or a mutation, Dave Lizewski turns himself into a masked hero
called Kick-Ass. At the same time, Damon McCready is training his
daughter Mindy to be a superhero. Mindy goes by the superhero name
Hit-Girl and is the source of most of the controversy surrounding the
film. Not only is the character only eleven years old, but she has a
number of scenes in the movie where she kills various bad guys often
in the most brutal manner possible. She also receives a brutal beating
at the hands of the film’s main villain – who had been responsible for
the murder of Hit-Girl’s mother.

            So is Roger Ebert correct? Is Kick-Ass a morally
reprehensive exercise in brutality, something like Saw, or is there
more to the movie? At a visceral level the sort of punishment that the
characters in Kick-Ass dish out is extremely appealing. The film’s
heroes deal with villains free of lawyers and technicalities. They are
meeting a dark desire of society for vengeance against those that
break the rules and harm the innocent. But, moral justice is not that
simple. The sort of vengeance the film’s heroes engage in lacks any
sort of moral grounding. There is no release for the individuals who
have been harmed by the villains. Face-to-face justice for an
aggrieved party is very different than a carte blanche revenge scheme.
More than that, there is no truth telling or truth seeking in the
process. There is no opportunity for the victims of the perpetrators
to express their stories of pain and loss. There is no opportunity for
the story of the pain caused to be completed. It is because of this,
not the violence of the film, that makes Kick-Ass exist in a realm
that fails to reflect moral justice.

Roger Ebert’s Kick-Ass Review:
http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20100414/REVIEWS/100419986

By Jennifer Taler

I read an interesting article today:
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/experiments-in-philosophy/201005/sex-the-bench-do-women-and-men-have-different-moral-values.

In it, Jesse Prinz, Ph.D., speculates on the ramifications of
President Obama’s equal-gendered Supreme Court nominations. He cites
numerous psychological studies that seem to indicate that women, for
all our sympathy, empathy and emotion, have a keener moral capacity
than our “rational,” principled male counterparts. The implication is
that with more women in the legal decision-making process, the law
should be headed toward a more caring, moral form of justice.

But then Prinz goes on to say something troubling—“The fact that men
and women differ subtly in moral outlook does not entail that male and
female judges would make different judgments.” Prinz ultimately
concludes that gender might matter on the bench—as women are more
likely to take extreme, liberal viewpoints, and punish criminal
assault defendants more severely, and male judges tend to shift toward
the female position when deliberating with female judges – but it was
the rationale behind his sidebar that struck me: “After all, judges
are instructed to interpret the law, not deliver moral verdicts, and
women who pursue legal careers might have different patterns of moral
reasoning than the women poled in these studies.”

The part about moral verdicts aside, why would women who pursue legal
careers have different patterns of moral reasoning than the typical
female cross-section? This got me thinking—maybe the dearth of
morality in the legal system isn’t an issue of gender, after all.
Maybe it’s the end product of centuries of hard-wired individuals
(male and female) making principled, emotionless decisions (the kind
they are innately capable of making) on behalf of the justice system.

So maybe it’s us. We lawyers have been sitting here for hundreds of
years, blaming the law for beating us soulless (think: Melville’s
Bartleby), but maybe we were always the type of people less likely to
have a soul to begin with. We blame the law for conforming to rigid
principles of formalism, but didn’t the Constitution grant judges
(former lawyers) the power of interpretation? Wouldn’t this imply that
we are the ones who are calculated, unfeeling, and rigid? After all,
they say lawyers are more likely to marry other lawyers. Why is that?
It’s certainly not because we are the most attractive group of people
alive. But perhaps we understand each other better than other,
non-lawyers could—because we are all built from the same (a)moral
mold, and exist separately from the feeling, compassionate lot.

But then again—remember Kitty Genovese? Remember the homeless man from
Waynice Green’s earlier blog post? Certainly, lawyers and judges are
responsible for developing the law against the duty to rescue—but
didn’t we do so to avoid punishing the masses of people (a whole city
street’s worth in the case of Kitty Genovese) who already took it upon
themselves not to save a stranger? So tell me—what is compassion? What
is morality? Have we allowed the law to develop around the
shortcomings of society? That is our fault—we have created a law that
holds its citizens to the average, reasonable man standard, when it
should be creating a pillar of justice and morality to which citizens
should strive. This is what people expect from our justice system, and
it is in this that we, and our justice system, have failed.

            As I sit here playing Modern Warfare 2, a “first person
shooter” that lets the player fight a simulated war against other
players around the world, I wonder if this type of video game has a
desensitizing effect on its players.  For years, the media has touted
that violent video games may be correlated to violent behavior,
especially among adolescents.  In the aftermath of the Columbine
tragedy, one of the main talking points among media correspondents was
that the perpetrators had enjoyed playing “shoot’em up” video games.
At the time, I dismissed these claims as fear mongering by an older
generation that simply did not understand the new electronic medium.
However, a recent study has made me second guess my early
presumptions.

            According to the results of an Iowa State University
psychology study analyzing the desensitization of violence caused by
games, “playing violent video games, even for just 20 minutes, can
cause people to become less physiologically aroused by real violence.”
 In fact, individuals who played violent video games showed
significantly lower “skin response measurements” than those who played
non-violent games.  Members of the violent video game group also
displayed lower heart rates while viewing real-life violence – an
indication that they had become increasingly numb to actual violence.

            While I will not go so far as to say that video games
inspire their users to commit acts violence, it is enlightening to see
a controlled study that directly correlates virtual violence to a
desensitization of real violence.  Video game sales are rising every
year and they are predominantly being marketed to and purchased by
young people.  As a result, we might be witnessing the growth of a
generation that is less sensitive to depictions and acts of violence
than any other in the history of mankind.  It does not take much of an
imagination to see the worry in that.

Evan Raciti

Citation: http://www.physorg.com/news73230545.html

What does it mean to be your brother’s keeper? Are we, as humans, accountable for each other? Should we feel a sense of responsibility if we witness our neighbor in danger’s way? On April 24th, 2010, a homeless man was stabbed while saving a woman from a knife-wielding attacker. As he lay slowly dying in a pool of his own blood for over an hour, several New Yorkers walked past without calling for help. These people were caught on video surveillance blatantly disregarding the dying man. Not everyone ignored the man, eventually one man took the time out of his day to take out his phone and take a picture of the dying man while another shook him. Both walked away, neither made any attempt to hail aid. How is it possible in this day an age, when almost everyone is in possession of a cell phone, that not one person made the effort to call 911?
Sadly, stories like this have become rather prevalent in the news these days. I remember an episode in the sitcom Seinfeld, when the cast goes to another state and sees someone in need of help, instead of assisting him, they laugh and even worse video record him struggling. Little did they know, in this particular state there were Bad Samaritan laws, in which it was a crime to not help your fellow man. Due to their inaction they were put on trial and jailed. In the real world it would not have happened like it did in Seinfeld. In the show, the defendants are receiving a criminal sanction for their moral wrongdoing. Though some states have Bad Samaritan Laws, no one has ever been prosecuted under this law. Good Samaritan Laws also exist, where individuals are protected against lawsuits for harms that occur as a result of trying to help someone in need. If this law were actually enforced it would be a large step for society in achieving some sense of
moral justice. But unfortunately we live in a society where autonomy and predictability reign.
As a society we have gotten to comfortable with settling for this “reasonable man” standard. This low standard works on the premise that the reasonable person is too much of a coward to rescue. Most people would not help a person in need, especially when rendering aid may compromise their own health or security. Like we see in the case of the homeless man, many people chose turn a blind eye to human suffering. We live in a world where if it does not benefit me, than I am not doing it. We cannot force people to do what the law does not require of them. And even if the law did mandate helping a person in trouble, without enforcement, it would have no effect.
This man made the ultimate sacrifice to save another human being. What happened to that homeless man was reprehensible. This homeless man has more honor than most people, yet had to suffer the most undignified death. This man was emotionally complex, irrational, unreasonable, and idiosyncratic, and thank goodness that he was! It shows that there still is hope for society. He knew what it meant to be accountable for his fellow man. It is sad to see the lack or respect people have for human life. All someone had to do was call 911, but that apparently was too much to ask.

By: Waynice Green

Although others have discussed Law Abiding Citizen, I thought
I’d focus on a few quotes from the movie which speak to the issues
presented in class. The onset of the movie introduces us to Clyde, a
man whose wife and daughter were killed in a home invasion. With the
two suspects on trial, the District Attorney informs Clyde that he’s
accepted a plea which would give one defendant the death penalty and
the other a relative petty 3rd degree murder conviction. The District
Attorney states, “Some justice is better than no justice at all,”
referencing his prosecutorial opinion that a trial could lead to a
false acquittal. Clyde begs him, “please don’t do this,” to which the
prosecutor responds, “the deal is done, I know you don’t think it now,
but this is a victory for us.”
This exchange is at the heart of the tension between moral justice
and the legal convention legal paradigm. The district attorney’s
personal drive for perfection, the movie makes a point of referencing
his near perfect conviction rate, and the value the legal system
places on efficiency, inflicts untold spiritual damage to Clyde. Our
legal system views crimes as committed against the state, rather than
the actual victim. Prosecutors are given unbridled discretion to
pursue plea bargains and decide which charges to bring. The victim is
relegated to being an observer, at most a witness, subject to a legal
standard of innocent until proven guilty which places the burden on
the victim to prove his trauma. The man who pleaded guilty to 3rd
degree murder eventually goes free after ten years. Clyde is, as far
as the legal system is concerned, left with no recourse. Anyone could
acknowledge he’d been wronged, but the legal system has provided its
only deficient remedy. But the sense of moral injustice, the feeling
of being wronged, of wanting revenge, does not dissipate from victims.
It broods. It becomes a notion of vengeance which consumes a person.
It becomes channeled into malignant aggression. At one point in the
movie, midway through Clyde’s Rambo and inspector gadget-esque killing
spree, he tells the prosecutor, had they gone to trial and lost, “I
could have lived with that.” But he was never given the option, the
process was taken out of his hands, and the moral injustice he felt as
a result drove him to aggression. One simply cannot live with
injustice and humiliation.
Of course, the movie does end in typical Hollywood style. The
prosecutor undergoes a revelation similar to that from The Accused,
and ultimately tells Clyde, “I don’t make deals with murderers
anymore; you taught me that.”

-Stanislav Gutgarts

The interview of Dr. Jack Kevorkian by AndersonCooper at the Time Warner Center touched on many themes discussed in the Lawand Literature class. One of the themesin our class was the split between the moral and the legal in our legalsystem. Dr. Kevorkian discussed his viewon physician assisted suicide as doing what is right. His famous line is that “dying is not acrime.” Most of his patients were eitherdiagnosed with a terminal illness or an illness that would dramatically changeone’s life permanently. In addition, hispatients sought Dr. Kevorkian. Theywanted to die. Therefore, Dr. Kevorkianargues that people should not be deprived of their free will simply because ajudge decides so. People should be ableto do what they want to do with their own lives. Therefore, Dr. Kevorkian did not split hispersonal life from his career. He didnot believe in the split between the legal and the moral.
However, I was surprised at how Dr.Kevorkian caved into the rigid, legalistic view. The Ninth Amendment states, “The enumerationin the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny ordisparage others retained by the people.” Dr. Kevorkian made the argument that the right to physician assistant suicideis a right retained by the people. Simply because the right was not specificallystated in the other Amendments does not necessarily mean that people do nothave the right to do what they want with their own bodies. This legal argument, void of a moraldimension, is most likely the result of his trial before the Supreme Court of theUnited States. However, Dr. Kevorkianshould not disperse with his moral view that physician assisted suicide may bethe right thing to do regardless of its legal repercussions.
Dr. Kevorkian has been caught by thelong arm of the legal machine. He hasbeen accused and stuck in the grinding gears of the rigid legal system similarto Joseph K. in The Trial. Hislife is forever changed. Dr. Kevorkianhowever chose to meet the legal system head on. He knew that once he hit the button to assist someone with suicide, hewould then be prosecuted. However, hewanted to be prosecuted to share his story. While he may have received a “guilty” verdict, he most likely stillfeels triumphant because he had the opportunity to tell his story and speak tothe community about his view on physician assisted suicide.

by Samantha Levin