Sunday, September 06, 2009
Yes, I'm aware that I've been having blog diarrhoea lately lately.
Blame it on the fact that I have a big, fat, stupid, mean, wouldn't-go-away-no-matter-for-how-long-I-close-my-eyes-and-wish-that-it-was-a-nightmare essay for Legal Ethics due, imminently.
I have hardly any quarrels with the way law subjects are taught in the past, but this one seriously stretches the limits of my tolerance. What is the point of having an ASSESSMENT (hypothetical style) in a subject called legal ethics, when everyone knows that geting a H1 does not mean you are a shiny, sparkly, pure as snow person, and getting a P does not automatically deem you fit only to work in the gutter. What is the point of teaching theory after theory after theory puffed up with big words (deontological, teleological, post-professionalism, cognitive dissonance) when it teaches you nothing about what to do when you suspect your client has been abusing his/her children but has to decide whether or not to break your professional obligation of client confidentiality and report to the police? And why is there even such a dilemma in the first place? I mean, shouldn't it be obvious that you should say "To hell with professional responsibility, better be safe than sorry" and report your suspicions? Apparently not. And the scary thing is, I am being taught to understand why not.
What is the point of trying so hard to work out what is the 'right' thing to do - hypothetically - when you know you are no better equipped to deal with such dilemmas in real life, and have only a hope and a prayer that they do not happen to you, that you can somehow find a nice cushy job and fly under the radar, for the rest of your life?
Is this going to help me become a 'better' person, whatever that means?
No.
Is this going to clear my dusty conscience and help me sleep better at night?
No.
Is this going to make me appreciate the 'noble character' of my 'chosen profession' more?
Hell No.
..signing off..
3 dropped by
