Best professional & law ethics books according to redditors
We found 32 Reddit comments discussing the best professional & law ethics books. We ranked the 21 resulting products by number of redditors who mentioned them. Here are the top 20.
We found 32 Reddit comments discussing the best professional & law ethics books. We ranked the 21 resulting products by number of redditors who mentioned them. Here are the top 20.
Ethics for the Junior Officer
It's a good book for any midshipman to read about the possible ethical challenges they may face as a JO.
I highly suggest you read up more on the adversial system and why it is so important to our system. Reading "The Moral Compass of the American Lawyer" completely changed how I look at the role of the lawyer in our judicial process.
I'm not in law school, but I would recommend The Moral Compass of the American Lawyer, especially if you want to go into criminal defense. A short, easy read that will highlight some of the moral issues involved in the practice.
I've posted this elsewhere but will re-post here for your convenience:
The first time I took the MPRE I used Kaplan and I failed by 8 points. Granted, I barely studied because I had just finished my professional responsibility course a few weeks prior and was under the belief that the course would prepare me (spoiler alert: it didn't). The second time I took the MPRE I used Themis and passed. I only studied 4 hours a day for two days and my score increased by 12 points. I'm not a video lecture person, so I just read the outline a few times and stuck to practice problems and explanations. There's just something about Themis that makes it more effective. I feel like they provide just the right amount of material in short, narrow doses that are easy to comprehend. Kaplan and Barbri tend to overload you with too much information, ultimately forcing you to pick and choose what's important and leaving you with a broad and weak understanding of the material. In addition to using Themis, I also found my PR supplement to be really helpful. The supplement has multiple-choice practice problems in the back of the book that are very similar to the questions on the actual MPRE (they might even be real problems from past exams; I'm not sure). I also read the comments to the rules, which were enormously helpful. In the days leading up to the exam, I kept the supplement by my toilet and skimmed the comments as "bathroom reading material." I noticed that many of the situations posed in the comments to the rules ended up appearing on the actual exam. Finally, when taking the MPRE, I used the "What Would Jesus Do? Minus 1" [WWJD-1] method for questions that I had to guess on. This method basically requires you to identify the most pious, ethical answer and then choose the answer that is the 2nd most ethical to that one. Only use WWJD-1 in situations where you REALLY do not know the answer. If you have even a small inclination that you might know the answer, then go with your gut. If I had to go back and take the MPRE again, the only thing I would change would be to spend a little more time learning the rules for judges (e.g., whether they can run for office, accept gifts, write letters of recommendation, etc.). I skimmed over the rules on judges because all of the courses made it seem like there would only be a handful of questions on the topic, but I felt like there were a ton of questions regarding judges on the actual MPRE. Best of luck!
Surprised to see Martha Nussbaum not mentioned yet. Here's some of her books to give you an idea of her thought.
Upheavals of Thought: The Intelligence of Emotions
> Starting with an account of her own mother's death, she argues that emotions are intelligent appraisals of a world that we do not control, in the light of our own most significant goals and plans. She then investigates the implications of this idea for normative issues, analyzing the role of compassion in private and public reasoning and the attempts of authors both philosophical and literary to purify or reform the emotion of erotic love. Ultimately, she illuminates the structure of emotions and argues that once we understand the complex intelligence of emotions we will also have new reasons to value works of literature as sources of ethical education.
Political Emotions: Why Love Matters for Justice
> Martha Nussbaum asks: How can we sustain a decent society that aspires to justice and inspires sacrifice for the common good? Amid negative emotions endemic even to good societies, public emotions rooted in love―intense attachments outside our control―can foster commitment to shared goals and keep at bay the forces of disgust and envy.
Anger and Forgiveness: Resentment, Generosity, Justice
> Studying anger in intimate relationships, casual daily interactions, the workplace, the criminal justice system, and movements for social transformation, Nussbaum shows that anger's core ideas are both infantile and harmful.
> Is forgiveness the best way of transcending anger? Nussbaum examines different conceptions of this much-sentimentalized notion, both in the Jewish and Christian traditions and in secular morality. Some forms of forgiveness are ethically promising, she claims, but others are subtle allies of retribution: those that exact a performance of contrition and abasement as a condition of waiving angry feelings. In general, she argues, a spirit of generosity (combined, in some cases, with a reliance on impartial welfare-oriented legal institutions) is the best way to respond to injury. Applied to the personal and the political realms, Nussbaum's profoundly insightful and erudite view of anger and forgiveness puts both in a startling new light.
Hiding from Humanity: Disgust, Shame, and the Law
> Nussbaum argues that the thought-content of disgust embodies "magical ideas of contamination, and impossible aspirations to purity that are just not in line with human life as we know it." She argues that disgust should never be the basis for criminalizing an act, or play either the aggravating or the mitigating role in criminal law it currently does. She writes that we should be similarly suspicious of what she calls "primitive shame," a shame "at the very fact of human imperfection," and she is harshly critical of the role that such shame plays in certain punishments.
Given the breadth and depth of the discipline it's been a while since any students attempted this that I'm aware of. I recommend this collection.
https://www.gq.com/story/donald-trump-jeffrey-epstein
https://www.insider.com/jeffrey-epstein-everything-we-know-about-his-relationship-with-trump-2019-7
https://life.shared.com/donald-trump-raped-me-at-epsteins-parties-s-13-year-old
https://www.amazon.com/Credible-Evidence-Trump-Raped-13-Year-Old/dp/1797839098
Archives for the links in comments:
----
I am Mnemosyne 2.1, I once archived a hundred links single-handedly... To me, you are nothing more than screenshots. ^^^^/r/botsrights ^^^^Contribute ^^^^message ^^^^me ^^^^suggestions ^^^^at ^^^^any ^^^^time ^^^^Opt ^^^^out ^^^^of ^^^^tracking ^^^^by ^^^^messaging ^^^^me ^^^^"Opt ^^^^Out" ^^^^at ^^^^any ^^^^time
http://www.amazon.com/Professional-Responsibility-Problems-Materials-University/dp/1599418541/ref=sr_1_4?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1370370752&sr=1-4
Terrible. All problems, no explanations, and it didn't even define the rules properly.
Try this book.
> He doesn't ask "how should society be founded?" or any kind of abstract ethical question. He simply points out particular examples of ethical inconsistencies.
I'm curious as to how you came to this conclusion. Although Chomsky very clearly prefers to deal with concrete situations, he has recommended the work of John Mikhail, who attempts (correct me if I'm wrong) to draw normative conclusions from empirical work regarding a kind of "moral grammar."
Furthermore, based on a brief email exchange with him some time ago, I asked him if he saw any merit in any particular ethical theories. He said the following:
> There’s very interesting recent work on these topics, particularly John Mikhail’s Elements of Moral Cognition, Marc Hauser’s Moral Minds, and some others. But progress in understanding is far short of dealing with the action problems of real life. That should not surprise us. Even in vastly simpler areas like engineering, it took millennia of very intensive work before theoretical science had a great deal to contribute.
It's clear that he prefers to deal with the immediate, concrete issues of social and political life, but he seems to abstain from ethical theory because the questions are too difficult to answer right now, rather than worthless.
No, there isn't a negative consequence.
Just take the friggin' test. I studied for 4–5 hours (no drugs or Adderall, Jesus, Christ) and passed with a score of 111. I did not study for any more than that.
Review your outline from your professional responsibility course. Read this book's first couple of chapters from your law library.
The gist is this: (i) know the Rules as well as possible and (ii) the answers have one, clearly-correct answer. Eliminate each one you can, of course.
Best practice tip I can give is ID'ing the mental state of the actor. "The lawyer (reasonably) believed/knew this-and-that." Pick out the lawyer's or judge's state-of-mind and you're golden on most questions; those states-of-mind will match up (or not) perfectly with the Model Rule's requirements for mental states.
http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/468080?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents
https://nyti.ms/1m19EkC
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Posner
It's relevant when you assert something doesn't even exist. Crenshaw and Derrick Bell were lawyers. Critical Race Theory was a field of legal scholarship before it was imported to sociology. Posner gives direct quotes and you accuse him of not engaging in the material.
Here's the whole book.
https://www.amazon.com/Beyond-All-Reason-Radical-American/dp/0195107179#productDescription_secondary_view_div_1504554558198
Idiot
>There is a shortage of lawyers....that an average person can afford
FTFY. See this. The fact is your profession is imploding from the inside out in multiple ways. But the trail of broken glass leads right back to law schools that have faculty who demand six digit yearly salaries (for what is essentially part time employment). And then there is the whole issue of it unnecessarily being a three year degree, instead of two.
You guys are killing yourselves. Really.
http://www.amazon.com/Professional-Responsibility-School-Legends-Audio/dp/031417964X
Also these:
http://www.youtube.com/user/supremebar#p/u
SJWs have been doing this to the law for decades. I suggest everyone read Beyond All Reason which explains the origins of SJWism and their attack on the law in particular. You're going to be depressed at how deep the SJW cancer goes.
Hey - glad you're interested in the philosophy behind Veganism. The literature is truly thought-provoking, and to answer one of your later questions, it was precisely what spurred my decision to go vegan. After reading Paola Cavalieri's 'The Animal Question' (which is informed by Singer's work) I realized that what morality required was veganism and an end to the exploitation of animals. I personally have not read much Francione, however I am much more familiar with other authors, such as the aforementioned Cavalieri, as well as Garner, Donaldson & Kymlicka, and have a passing grasp on Singer, Ragan, and Nussbaum. So here are my two cents, you may or may not find this helpful!
Veganism is radical. Meat consumption and use of animal products in every aspect of our daily life is ubiquitous; so much of human culture incorporates animal exploitation in some way or another. Viewed in this light going vegan is an extremely radical departure from human history and the status quo - it is understandable to be intimidated by this fact. With that being said, once you make the change, it really stops becoming so difficult. Learning to cook new recipes and incorporating new items into your repertoire is exciting and will make you a better cook, not mention that you'll feel amazing. I've been vegan for about a year now, and avoiding animal products, in food or in commercial products, is becoming more and more unconscious as time passes. I rarely feel like I am abstaining from anything or depriving myself of anything. Also this subreddit is great if you ever get in a rut with motivation or commitement, or you just want a new recipe to try out.
Regarding your question about the right to life of sentient beings and our obligations to them - I'm not sure precisely what Francione's view is, but the abolitionist argument is somewhere along the lines of: provided you accept the inviolability of human rights (right to life, right to not suffer, etc), and provided you can't find any morally relevant distinctions between humans and non-human animals, then there is no justification for the differential treatment of humans and non-human animals when it comes to said rights. Abolitionists claim there are no morally relevant distinctions; they reject species membership (imagine that membership to a specific race or gender was enough to justify differential treatment b/w individuals), rationality (we accord rights to non-rational humans e.g. infants, cognitively impaired humans; in the literature this is referred to as The Argument From Marginal Cases), and intrinsic value or natural right (these are metaphysical claims w/ arbitrary justification) as possible justifications. I would like to note this is a painfully brief survey of the abolitionist position, and I assure you in the animal rights literature the examples and arguments I have mentioned are infinitely more fleshed out.
Peter Singer is a utilitarian/consequentialist - which means that whether an act is deemed morally good or bad depends solely on the consequences. So therefore no act is intrinsically bad - on Singer's view, anything can theoretically be permissible provided the ends justify the means. This allows that non-human animals, or even humans, can be used instrumentally provided the consequences justify it.
Regarding whether we have an obligation to protect the right to life of animals - this question is only somewhat addressed in traditional accounts of animal rights theory. They acknowledge we have a duty protect animals within our care and not to harm animals generally, but don't really progress any further. If you're interested in this topic, I would direct you to Donaldson & Kymlicka's Zoopolis, which is an endlessly insightful and novel approach to the animal rights question, and it moves forward where a lot of animal rights theory falls short. The arguments in the book are couched in a moral and political philosophy framework, whereas often animal rights theories stay within the boundary of moral philosophy and applied ethics.
I just realized I wrote a WALL of text, sorry! What can I say, I'm procrastinating on writing a paper, and I guess this isn't the least productive thing I could be doing. Hope this was somewhat helpful :)
Edit 1: missing words and typos.
Not only kantians, but many ethicists would say you are obligated to keep promises to the dead, since it seems like a shittiness of breaking a promise doesn't change depending on whether the person died.
Daniel Sperling wrote a book about our obligations to the dead that is worth a read if you're interested in that sort of thing.
I haven't read more than the freely available stuff on Amazon, but even that little of this book gave me a lot to think about.
http://www.amazon.com/Ethical-Problems-Practice-Law-Two-Credit-ebook/dp/B00CAXK7G2/ref=tmm_kin_title_0?_encoding=UTF8&sr=&qid=
Sure
Heck there's a book about it.
I also took it the summer after 1L. I studied the Barbri Professional Responsibility book for a few hours one week and did the practice questions. The book can be found on amazon super cheap: http://www.amazon.com/Barbri-Multistate-Professional-Responsibility-Examination
Assuming you fed ct class allows for an outline, I would spend 3 days working on your Fed Ct outline and skimming over the parts of the reading you haven't finished. Then spend the next 4 days doing PR - making flashcards/writing out rules/whatever memorization tricks work for you and doing tons of practice multiple choice questions. Check your library for MPRE books, they should have them. Then after you're PR final, day 1 work on your 3rd exam. Day 2 and 3 work on your Fed Ct final and then after your Fed Ct final, work on your 3rd exam.
​
PS some tips about PR - look for a free MPRE course from Kaplan or Barbri to get practice questions. PR, and more importantly, the MPRE are about practicing multi's until you can see the pattern/tricks that the test makers use to confuse you. I'm hoping that your teacher is doing a closed book PR exam to mimic the MPRE. Also, get this book. It will help you understand how PR questions are written and how multi's can trick you for every sub-section of PR rules.
​
What worked well for me for PR was to be in a study room and to write out the rules on a white board, but obviously do whatever works best for you in terms of memorization. Unfortunately, PR is one of those subjects where you will need to memorize the rules. With that being said, understand that some rules are probably going to be tested more often than others. Also, don't neglect studying the prosecutor's rules and the judge's rules. I made that mistake and my exam had ~5-6 questions on those rules.
If you think it's still possible to expand upon what you already know, you could start here. You can even pick your favorite discipline:
* Philosophy: Stephen Hicks, Explaining Postmodernism: Skepticism and Socialism from Rousseau to Foucault.
* Literature: John Ellis, Literature Lost: Social Agendas and the Corruption of the Humanities.
* History: Keith Windschuttle, The Killing of History.
* Science: Noretta Koertge, editor, A House Built on Sand: Exposing Postmodernist Myths About Science.
* Law: Daniel Farber and Suzanna Sherry, Beyond All Reason: The Radical Assault on Truth in American Law.
​
Or you could just accept that one does not need advanced degrees in philosophy to study, understand, analyze and interpret it - not to mention TO philosophize - and read this: https://jordanbpeterson.com/philosophy/postmodernism-definition-and-critique-with-a-few-comments-on-its-relationship-with-marxism/
> Trump raped a 13 year old with Epstein.
Pick one....
https://www.gq.com/story/donald-trump-jeffrey-epstein
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/assault-allegations-donald-trump-recapped
https://www.amazon.com/Credible-Evidence-Trump-Raped-13-Year-Old/dp/1797839098
Ohhh, I'm sorry..... your hero.... is a Pedophile.
(1) Some police departments literally have a cap on how intelligent its officers can be:
(2) Police officers are, on average, dumber than the average citizen.
(3) Many scholars who study the police have determined it does not constitute a profession because of their low entry, training and recertification programs.
(4) You do understand that a clip is a detachable magazine, right?
(5) Oh I understand you receive training on deescalation, what I'm saying is you're not actually properly trained in it. You may go to your two hour class twice a year, but it's not beaten into you.
(6) I've been in much more scary situations than being a cop buddy. I've had a handheld gun pointed in my face, and been attacked with a knife twice. In the first situation, I was able to deescalate. In the later two, defuse. All without killing a person. So yeah, I'm pretty sure I could handle being a cop where the chance of having a gun pulled on you pointblank is pretty fucking slim.
(7) We're not done here. You are. But you're a cop, so you're too fucking stupid to realize you just got dropped.