A Modern Legal Ethics: Adversary Advocacy in a Democratic Age

By Daniel Markovits | Go to book overview
Save to active project

Chapter 6
INTEGRITY AND THE FIRST PERSON

LAWYERS’ PROFESSIONAL obligations to lie and to cheat threaten their integrity. Moreover, impartialist moral arguments such as the adversary system excuse—which justify the lawyerly vices only indirectly and as necessarily evils rather than directly refuting that adversary advocates display them—cannot relieve this threat. Indeed such arguments entrench the attack on lawyers’ integrity by increasing the pressure on lawyers to honor the professional obligations at its source. Accordingly, insofar as integrity is a substantial value, the ethical burdens associated with the lawyerly vices require independent attention, of a sort that the impartialist tradition in legal ethics cannot provide, before the legal profession may be rendered all-things-considered worthy of commitment.

This makes it natural for legal ethics to develop the unconventional themes toward which I have been gesturing and which I take up in earnest in Part III. The idea of integrity suggests that living an ethical life involves more than responding impartially to the claims of others, whether these arise in the third person (through the contributions they make to overall value) or in the second person (through the demands they make for individuated justification). Instead, persons also have a deep and distinctively ethical interest in living a life that can be seen, from the inside, as an appealing whole and, moreover, a whole that is authored by the person who lives it. Insofar as integrity is ethically important, therefore, a person who forms ambitions and plans—who undertakes to author her own moral life—thereby (in a way) creates ethical reasons for herself. As I have been saying, integrity, and the plans and ambitions through whose recognition and pursuit integrity arises, involve not third- or even second- but rather first-personal ethical ideals.*

*A more common usage, which refers to “agent-relative” and “agent-neutral” instead of to first-personal and impartial reasons, tends to obscure the important point that firstpersonal ideals have as much claim to be called ethical as impartial ideals, instead making it natural (although not required) to associate agent-relative with prudential reasons and to reserve ethics for agent-neutral reasons. This natural association diminishes agentrelative reasons and elevates agent-neutral reasons and therefore makes it difficult to credit that the former may sometimes outweigh the latter in all-things-considered practical deliberations. My slightly unusual usage is designed to counteract this tendency and to emphasize that first-personal ambitions may involve serving others and can be as ethical as

-134-

Notes for this page

Add a new note
If you are trying to select text to create highlights or citations, remember that you must now click or tap on the first word, and then click or tap on the last word.
Loading One moment ...
Project items
Notes
Cite this page

Cited page

Style
Citations are available only to our active members.
Sign up now to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

Cited page

Bookmark this page
A Modern Legal Ethics: Adversary Advocacy in a Democratic Age
Settings

Settings

Typeface
Text size Smaller Larger
Search within

Search within this book

Look up

Look up a word

  • Dictionary
  • Thesaurus
Please submit a word or phrase above.
Print this page

Print this page

Why can't I print more than one page at a time?

While we understand printed pages are helpful to our users, this limitation is necessary to help protect our publishers' copyrighted material and prevent its unlawful distribution. We are sorry for any inconvenience.
Full screen
/ 361

matching results for page

Cited passage

Style
Citations are available only to our active members.
Sign up now to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

Cited passage

Welcome to the new Questia Reader

The Questia Reader has been updated to provide you with an even better online reading experience.  It is now 100% Responsive, which means you can read our books and articles on any sized device you wish.  All of your favorite tools like notes, highlights, and citations are still here, but the way you select text has been updated to be easier to use, especially on touchscreen devices.  Here's how:

1. Click or tap the first word you want to select.
2. Click or tap the last word you want to select.

OK, got it!

Thanks for trying Questia!

Please continue trying out our research tools, but please note, full functionality is available only to our active members.

Your work will be lost once you leave this Web page.

For full access in an ad-free environment, sign up now for a FREE, 1-day trial.

Already a member? Log in now.

Are you sure you want to delete this highlight?