Ethics Case

Discuss the case where a lawyer can save an innocent man from execution only by betraying his own client (who is guilty). What are the moral pros and cons here?

According to Richard T. De George, "to speak of ethics in business is neither nor any different from speaking of ethics in any other area of human endeavor". The framework of an organization is to consider the people within the organization and those that their business will reach because there is not clear definition as what business ethics involves. According to Ann Lawrence business ethics is define "as the application of general ethical ideas to business behavior". Ethics is a grey area when it comes to business ethics because it is difficult to determines the rules that ought to govern human, as it seems to relevant in this case. I will discuss and utilize theories, principles and class discussion where applicable.

The lawyer in this case is face with his own personal moral values, business ethics and code of conduct. Let's examine the moral and ethic responsibility of the lawyer. The deontological approach says, "One's duty is to do what is morally right to avoid what is morally wrong, regardless of the consequence of so doing". In other words the lawyer actions should be based on his ethics of duty and obligations for his clients regardless of the consequences of his behavior. Although the behavior itself maybe morally wrong it should not out weigh his obligation as an attorney. The pros of the lawyer upholding his duty in this case to the client is that he gets to represent his client, who is guilty and not worry about the consequence of his actions. The disadvantage would be that the lawyer has to be able deals with the fact of letting an innocent man die.

The lawyer using the deontological approach will not based his decision on those values that are often taught in our homes and community and passed on from generation to generation. The disadvantage of such approach is that it will not clear the lawyer's conscious and advantage is that his ethical oath as an attorney will not be violated. Laws have been established by the governing bodies so that all clients can receive fair representation. Therefore, it's the responsibility of the opposing attorney to gather all vital information that will ensure a favorable outcome of his client. The advantage of the lawyer concluding that he should act in the best interest of it's his client and withhold the information would be justify by his moral, ethical business principles and code of conduct. The attorney has to weight all the outcomes and choose to look at the moral issue of the process and decide what is morally required of them.

The formalist approach says that an action must have moral, it doesn't state the content of the action. In other words the formalist approach deals with rational behavior. The advantage of the formalist approach