Profesional Ethics

The issues discussed by Thomas Nagel in “Ruthlessness in Public Life” are that continuities and discontinuities exist between the public and private morality. Public officials need to recognize that there are clear limitations on actions which conflict with morality concerns. Nagel explored how public and private sectors need to adhere to certain ordinary moral standards.

To rectify these issues of construed morality, Nagel explores a few options. Nagel states that “If one of them takes on a public role, he/she accepts certain obligations, certain restrictions, and certain limitations on what he/she accepts” This statement incurs that public officials have distinct authority over the public which maybe construed by personal interests. A plausible theory is to prevent impersonal forces created by institutions. The next option recognizes the discontinuity between individual mortality and public mortality, which will provide either an addition or restriction within varying institutions. Nagel indicated that in his own opinion is that morality should be based on acceptability to each individual responsible for the actions and not hold the whole institution or all parties liable.

The conclusion presented by Nagel is that the theory of obligation can explain special features of public morality. Also those individuals can take steps to restrict certain choices. Nagel also concluded that the institutional structure shields individualism causing impractical characters of public obligations.

Some of the rationale leading to these conclusions is that individuals will exercise the institutions power to effectively satisfy their own personal needs. This action creates neglect and abuse of the institutions proper purpose. The holder of public office needs to become aware of the distinct obligations assigned to their role. Another reason Nagel discusses is that impersonal morality arises when institutions basically over extend themselves by establishing many jobs that serve no actual context.

Nagel presented many valid issues however there are a few unstated assumptions. Throughout the paper Nagel refers to an “institution” he described the word institution as “public crimes are committed by individuals who play roles in political, military, and economic institutions”. The assumption is upon the reader to realize that Nagel is referring to any institute which affects public roles. It is easy to point a finger towards political, economic and military institutions, but there are a lot of other institutions outside of this scope. Nagel refers to an individual in the “Ruthlessness in Public Life” as a person which plays a role within an institution. Under this definition is it correct that the reader can assume that the mail carrier, secretary or janitors are capable of causing public immorality. Nagel should polish this term for the reader a little more by specifying that individuals refers to a person of certain assigned authority, or a decision maker.

Criticisms of lawyers are the topic in Richard A. Wasserstrom’s article “Layers as Professionals: Some Moral Issues.” Wasserstrom broke this topic into two main areas of discussion. The first suggests that lawyers operate with essentially no regard