by Gene Howington, Guest Blogger
I had in interesting argument the other night. Not interesting because of the content precisely. It was old ground about the rationale for being in Iraq and Afghanistan and this person took the position of the post hoc rationalization “to contain Iran” and that – and this was a new one, funny but new – that our reason for being there was based on our need as driven by the hostage crisis of the 70’s. It wasn’t a match against a skilled opponent. He was about as smart and skilled at argumentation as a house plant and that is really an insult to house plants. But what was interesting was when the topic turned to the idea of just wars and ethical relativism. I’ll summarize the just war argument to give some context and then show how ethical relativism came into the conversation because it got me thinking about ethical relativism (and its natural cousin moral relativism). Is it a good idea or a path to anarchy?
Summary of the just war argument:
A’s Primary Contention: We went to war in Iraq to contain Iran because we’re on a 70’s style revenge mission for the hostage taking. (Ed. Note: Seriously. That was the claim.)
B’s Primary Contention: The rationale given the public for invading Iraq was “to disarm Iraq of weapons of mass destruction, to end Saddam Hussein’s support for terrorism, and to free the Iraqi people.” In the end, there were no WMDs, no support of terrorism, and the Iraqis were a lot better off before we removed the only stabilizing force holding their secular country together and destroyed their infrastructure. The just war would have been to attack those who attacked us on 9/11, the Saudis with help from Afghani terrorist training bases. It would have given us the same benefits as invading Iraq (oil, common border with Iran) and come at a substantially lower cost to materials and troops when combined with an in and out strategy in Afghanistan (which history has proven to be fairly immune to long term occupation because of geographic and societal factors).
A: There is no such thing as a just war. Name one.
B: I can name two. American entry into WWII and the Revolutionary War come to mind, but there are other examples of just war through history.
A: We went to war to make rich men richer.
B: Really. And that is a reason to wage war that is just?
A: I haven’t heard the term “just war” since Medieval History class. You’re a (*#$#($*#head.
B: That’s all very interesting but I think you don’t know what a just war is. %$*($%$.
A: I know there is no such thing.
B: I can think of a couple of examples. Coming to the defense of your allies in the face of outside aggression, in defense of attack or in retribution of an attack by foreign forces.
A: There’s no such thing as a just war. Just depends on your perspective.
B: No. It doesn’t. There are some ethical absolutes.
A: No there aren’t.
B: Saying there aren’t and proving there aren’t are two separate things.
A: You *()$(#)($#) $)#$()#$ ()$#$!
B: That’s still not proving there aren’t, )($#)()@head. Are there are are there no ethical absolutes? Yes or no.
A: That’s a stupid question.
B: It’s not stupid just because you can’t answer it. It’s a simple question.
[Much back and forth of “stupid” and/or ($#_)#@$#% combined with a rebuttal of “non-responsive, try again”.]
A: People make ethical judgements all the time.
B: That’s not what I asked. Are there ethical absolutes or not?
A: Have your ethics changed over time?
B: Yes they have but that is irrelevant to the question here: are there ethical absolutes or not?
A: You’ve got nothing!
B: You saying I’ve got nothing is not the same as you proving I’ve got nothing. Are you an ethical relativist?
A: Give me an example of an ethical absolute.
B: Human life has value. Protecting it is a good thing.
A: That’s true, but I just want to see some people die.
B: Then you are an ethical relativist and we really don’t have much more to discuss.
A: You’re jumping to conclusions.
B: No I’m not. If human life has value except when you “want to see someone die”, then you are an ethical relativist.
The rest of the conversation was basically A drunkenly ranting about how I (B) didn’t know $*(# and that he had me just where he wanted me (on my knees) before he called me a little girl and proclaimed victory. I was very not impressed. I’d say it was embarrassing for him, but he proudly proclaimed that “ignorance was not a problem for him” and that he thought “retrograde drunken Neanderthal” was a compliment. But I digress . . .
It all got me thinking about ethical relativism though.
What is ethical relativism? It is the philosophical theory stating that ethics are relative to the norms of one’s culture; whether an action is right or wrong depends on the ethical and moral norms of the society in which it is practiced. There are no universal ethical or moral standards and the only standards against which a society’s practices can be judged are its own. The implication of this is there can be no common framework for resolving moral disputes or for reaching agreement on ethical matters among members of different cultures. We know from history that this is not the case. Some acts are considered to by universally wrong or right among the human species. Most ethicists reject ethical relativism because while the practices of societies may differ, the fundamental ethical and moral principles underlying these practices do not. Consider cultures where euthanasia is practiced like some Eskimo tribes when parents declare they are ready to die because of old age or illness, their families would kill them directly or leave them on the ice to die at the hands of nature. This would be frowned upon in our culture, but if you look at the underlying principle – taking care of one’s parents – both societies hold this principle as valuable.
Secondly, it’s an important topic because a kind of ethical relativism is encouraged in law schools under the guise of giving all comers adequate representation and ensuring a fair trial. It’s also something you see more often now in public behavior than in the past: rationalizations of bad behavior based on personal desire rather than ethical or moral principle. “I wanted to feel what killing someone felt like,” said 17 year old killer of 9 year old Elizabeth Olten. Truly a sign of someone with a broken ethical compass probably based in mental illness, but it illustrates the first problem with ethical relativism. It injects ego into the equation.
Consequently and concurrently we cannot remove ego from the equation altogether. If the ethical rightness or wrongness of an action depends on a societal norms, then the logical implication is that to be ethical that one must obey the norms of one’s society because deviance would be unethical or immoral. This leads to an interesting conundrum. If a member of a society that believes that racial or sexist practices are ethically wrong but they are permissible within that society, then one must accept those practices as morally right. This view is both oppressive and narrow in promoting unthinking social conformity and leaves no possibility for ethical and/or moral reform or improvement within a society. Consider that a lack of uniform majority though on a matter may not have created an ethical or moral standard to follow with the members of a society holding different views. Consider the example of the United States. Need I say more than “abortion” or “animal testing” or “medical marijuana” to provide examples of such unsettled ethical questions?
One of the strongest arguments against ethical relativism comes from the assertion that universal ethical and/or moral standards can exist even if some practices and beliefs vary among cultures. In other words, it is possible to acknowledge cultural differences and still find that some of these practices and beliefs are wrong. Consider that although the Aztec had a society that was in some ways more advanced that their contemporary European counterparts, that their practice of human sacrifice is simply wrong. Just so, the barbaric treatment of the Jews, Roma, homosexuals and the mentally handicapped by Nazi society is ethically and morally reprehensible regardless of the beliefs of the Nazis. Ethics are an intellectual inquiry into right and wrong through applying critical thought to the underlying reasons of various ethical and/or moral practices and beliefs. Ethical relativism fails to recognize that some societies may have better reasons for holding their views than other societies.
However, although ethical relativism has much going against it, it does remind us to examine and consider that different societies have different ethical and/or moral beliefs and invites us to examine those forces influence within our own culture. The only way to reach universal ethical truths whenever possible is through examining and challenging our own ethical systems by comparing them to other systems.
Can ethical relativism lead to anarchy? When everything is relative, there are no true stable standards, so I think the answer is yes.
Should ethical relativism be discouraged in our educational systems and society as a whole or do you teach it with the proper caveats and perspective to make it a useful tool instead of a dangerous tool?
Is ethical relativism a good thing or a bag thing?
Or is it like most tools dependent upon the user’s intent and application?
What do you think?
~submitted by Gene Howington, Guest Blogger.
” [A]nother choice I make to ignore an entire area of study and centuries of misguided philosophy based upon fantasy and non-literal metaphors.”
You’ve never actually read Rousseau or Locke or any of the others that form the foundation of the theory behind social compacts, have you? They have a remarkable lack of spooky language. Philosophy is not theology and to dismiss it as such is a false equivalence. The origin of rights (which can devolve into theology if you start talking about Creators) and the legitimacy of government (which requires no spooky language to either define or discuss) are distinct and separate although tangentially related issues. Your refusal to accept the value of metaphors (and by extension I’m going to assume analogy) because they are non-literal (i.e. imprecise corollary) is simply flying in the face of the history of logical argumentation, dismissing fuzzy logic (which I know you do believe in) and embracing the Nirvana fallacy of rejecting solutions for not being perfect.
“my problem is the arguments are childish and counter-factual; ”
Really.
Then anarchy and lawlessness among social creatures is not a real phenomena? And there is no distinction between the state of lawlessness and a state of civil order? Because those are the two real states the metaphor of the state of nature is addressing.
That’s very interesting, Tony.
However, the questions here are not about subjective standards of fairness, but rather objective standards of fairness for it is objective standards that are at the heart of defining just and equitable laws. That’s why we have laws as guidelines instead of just going to the shaman and getting a ruling based on his feelings. Law is about objective standards and (by applying stare decisis) consistent results.
@Gene: whether or not a social order is a legitimate grant and use of the coercive power of governance is rooted in the fairness doctrine, too. Every proposed change to the law on this blog (to my recollection) by Turley, a guest, or a discussion participant has been rooted in the author’s perception of what is fair; even the libertarian nonsense about abolishing regulations and taxes is rooted in their perception of fairness. Commentary on aggressive use of force by police, on fair pay for women doing equal work, on the unconstitutional denial of habeas corpus or unconstitutional assassination or unconstitutional suppression of free speech, all of that and more, has been about fairness.
I am also an atheist, another choice I make to ignore an entire area of study and centuries of misguided philosophy based upon fantasy and non-literal metaphors. Religion is also a powerful factor in the ruling of the world, but its acceptance in the world and deference to it does not make it in any way a correct view of reality.
My problem with the ‘state of nature’ argument is not ignorance of it, any more than my rejection of religion is based upon ignorance of its magical claims. For both, my problem is the arguments are childish and counter-factual; if anything it is my familiarity with those arguments that causes me to reject them. The ‘state of nature’ is no more critical to a philosophy of government than a belief in God is critical to the understanding of biology.
Tony,
“I do not think it applies because I do not believe in absolute freedom in the first place;”
Then the point is moot.
You have a persistent problem with understanding the theory of the social compact but that does not change that it is the underlying philosophical theory that shapes the modern analysis of the legitimacy of government. Some day something may come along to replace it, but it is highly unlikely. The idea has considerably background and is highly evolved compared to some of the previous frameworks for analyzing the legitimacy of government such as divine right or other rationales based upon magical thinking and/or force. These are de facto rationales for legitimacy.
Legitimacy in the modern sense is a question as applied to civil societies and focuses on originating consent (with joining consent being express or tacit). Legitimacy is at the core of the social compact and it recognizes the very real political fact that ultimately the governors rule only at the consent to the governed absent tyrannical despotic oppression – and even that is a numbers game. That primates are inherently social creatures is irrelevant to the fact that being a social creature and having ordered lawful societies are not mutually inclusive states. History shows that anarchy and lawlessness among social creatures is a real phenomena. So the question remains: when is a government legitimate or not? That you fail to grasp the utility of the philosophical metaphor of the state of nature for describing the states of lawlessness and ordered society because you are trapped by literalism is your failing and nobody else’s. I suspect that is simply rooted in your hard sciences background where metaphors are of much more limited use than in law or in its constituent area of study, philosophy. That some rights are in themselves fully formed ethical absolutes and some are ethically relative is immaterial to the exchange of limitations on behavior for mutual benefit.
The choice to ignore the foundation of an entire area of study based upon your literalist dogma (which may serve you well in science but less so in philosophy) that because we are social creature that lawful ordered society is a natural result is not rationally related to the question of whether or not a social order is a legitimate grant and use of the coercive power of governance (and, again, that is the heart of the social compact question). Your refusal to understand this is stubborn, but does not illustrate that you completely grasp what the social compact means. Yet. You’re getting there in increments from your first blanket refusal to believe in the idea, but you still haven’t quite reached understanding.
@Gene: I do not think it applies because I do not believe in absolute freedom in the first place; I believe the ethical absolutes are derived from inherent brain states. We are a social animal because we are evolved to be that way; we are born helpless with a dearth of instincts and rely upon other humans to feed and protect us for years. Reliance upon a society is our evolved state, all the way to our chimp-like ancestors, there was never a ‘state of nature’ or ‘absolute freedom’ to give up for normally developed homo sapiens; by the time our ancestors were capable of making a conscious decision between a social and solitary life (probably around Homo Heidelbergensis, the common ancestor of Homo sapiens and Neandertal man) their brains had built in societal rules, guilt, and the concepts of fairness and fair play that can be found even in modern chimps.
There was never any ‘state of nature’ for our species before there was society and a sense of fair play and punishment for unfair play; we see those senses already present in socialized cousin apes, including gorillas and chimpanzees.
The sense of fairness predates language; when human societies were formalized using language, people were not giving up some imaginary absolute freedoms they never experienced for the benefit of communal action or protection. They were formalizing in abstract terms what their three million years of evolved emotional states had dictated to them, and what had been proven effective (or fittest) by survival: That fair play was paramount and unfair play would be punished, even if it resulted in a net loss to both parties. Even chimps will do that, when they feel cheated. And even chimps will share, and feel empathy, and care for their sick and injured. That stuff is built into our psyche.
There was never an “exchange” or “trade” or “decision” or any kind of rationality that formed a society. We are in societies because we are emotionally driven to them, and two of those emotions, the desire for fair treatment and the urge to punish unfair treatment even if it results in a net loss, are best satisfied by societies that can exert overwhelming power on cheaters. Your “key defining trait” is not the key at all because there were never any “absolute rights” to convert. If chimps and gorillas pummel each other over unfair treatment (and more recently have been observed in the wild to console those unfairly treated (beaten by a bully), but not those hurt by fair treatment (hurt by picking a fight)), why would we think that homo sapiens ever lacked it? It was never a rational choice between a ‘state of nature’ and society, the evidence (such as it is) suggest the formalization of society was an emotional demand for more fair play and more punishment of unfair play.
Your “key defining trait” is circular reasoning; you assume absolute freedoms exist in order to justify the ‘state of nature’ which consists of absolute freedoms. Those never existed. Our species has a finite beginning, and at the beginning it was already endowed, like chimpanzees and gorillas, with all the emotional machinery needed to compel it to live in familial tribes with rules. The formalization of those rules with language and the development of a full blown society of many families was a reflection of that emotional machinery, not a rational choice but the rational codification of what was already self-evident to them; the doctrine of fair treatment.
Tony,
“Just like the ‘state of nature’ premise, my claim is about the beginning of a social compact, and why people would be motivated to subjugate themselves to one in the first place”
“The fallacy of composition only applies if you can correctly identify a feature I have assumed is true of the WHOLE when in fact it is only true of a PART: In this case, the “whole” is the “state of nature” premise as the driving force behind the forming of a society.”
It applies because you have assumed one parts particular nature (absolutes) somehow impairs that initial decision to subjugate themselves to restrictions on absolute freedoms for mutually derived benefit. The key is that cost for benefit, not that those costs are of unequal or differing quality. That’s where the fallacy arises. The key defining trait is that absolute rights are converted to ethical rights in exchange for mutual benefit. That some of these rights are in themselves fully formed ethical absolutes and some are ethically relative is immaterial to the exchange.
@Gene: Again with the fallacy of composition. You are off your game today.
Again with the incorrect charge; I committed no such fallacy. You will have to provide some detail as to precisely what feature of a subset I confused with a feature of the whole, because I do not believe I did.
What I said commits no such fallacy, what I said was that the logic for the social contract does not require a state of nature if something can replace the state of nature, and something can. Maxwell did not commit a “fallacy of composition” in replacing the whole of electric and magnetic theory with electromagnetism; Darwin did not commit a “fallacy of composition” in overthrowing all of biology, Heisenberg (and others) did not commit a “fallacy of composition” in producing the mathematical underpinnings of quantum physics and overthrowing all of particle physics.
The fallacy of composition only applies if you can correctly identify a feature I have assumed is true of the WHOLE when in fact it is only true of a PART: In this case, the “whole” is the “state of nature” premise as the driving force behind the forming of a society.
While I am rejecting the whole of that premise, I do not do so by apprehending it in error, I claim there is no need for the premise because something else can replace it: An inherent desire for fairness and justice built into the normal human psyche by evolution as a survival mechanism.
@Gene: You are also contradicting your earlier statement of “I do believe in a small core of ethical absolutism”. If there is a small core of absolutes, what exists outside that small core? Non-absolutes.
That is a misunderstanding on your part. I believe in a small core of ethical absolutism the same way I believe in Euclid’s five axioms of plane geometry; what is outside that core is “propositions” and “proofs” that are the consequences of those axioms and logic. LIKE Euclid’s geometric axioms, I believe that principles of ethics must be derived from axiomatic absolutes.
The shortest distance between two points, in Euclidean geometry, is always a straight line; that is an inviolable absolute. Parallel lines never meet; that is an inviolable absolute. Right angles are always equal; that is an inviolable absolute.
@Gene: The social compact must consider these [non-absolute] situations as well. (my added qualifier, which is in context.)
And it can, but a non-corrupt argument will indeed be grounded in the absolutism of “what is fair” and the human sense of fair dealing and fair punishment.
But let me stick to the logic: Just like the ‘state of nature’ premise, my claim is about the beginning of a social compact, and why people would be motivated to subjugate themselves to one in the first place. So my claim is about what people first want from a society, and I believe the reason we willingly formed societies (most likely predating homo sapiens; there is evidence the common ancestor of us and Neandtertals, Homo Heidelbergensis (HH), had society and religion) is for the collective protection from both hardship and unfair treatment by others.
It has been postulated (with much evidence in how it has been used) that Religion itself was an invention used to prevent unethical treatment; the entire idea that dead ancestors, ghosts, or supernatural forces would magically punish one for unethical transgressions is essentially a prescription used to counter unethical deception and betrayal that could not otherwise be detected.
That may well parallel what is claimed by the ‘state of nature’ argument, as the results of quantum physics parallels 99.99% of Newtonian physics, but (like quantum physics) my formulation solves conundrums that the previous paradigm does not address.
Namely, it addresses why people would want the benefits of belonging to a tribe in the first place with its restrictions, rituals and responsibilities.
I think the answer is to address what we call ethical issues; issues of fair play, undeserved punishment or the opposite, escaping deserved punishment. Also issues of theft, betrayal, self-serving lies, concealment, endangerment, and a host of other immoral acts.
@Gene: Dispute resolution is necessary for any society of size. Not all disputes are going to revolve around absolute principle.
That just isn’t true; the resolution of all disputes revolves around the issue of what is fair. That is the difference between a good law and a bad law, a bad law results in unfair treatment, a good law results in fair treatment.
I concede that the details of what society considers “fair” and “unfair” may change with culture. For example, until recently it was considered justifiable and fair to fight to the death over a slight to one’s honor, and many a gender issue once considered “fair” is now considered a crime.
Those are examples of disputes the social compact must address that do not revolve around absolutes, but changing societal norms.
What I claim is absolute is the demand for fairness itself; the demand that people will play by the rules. That demand is absolute and inherent in the (normally developed) human psyche.
The ethical absolutes, the Euclidean axioms, are few. They do not have to do with specific acts, but with principles. We are opposed to murder but not every taking of a human life is unethical. We are opposed to theft but not every seizure of property is unethical. We are opposed to rape but not every sexual act is unethical. We are opposed to fraud and perjury but not every untruth is unethical. We are opposed to betrayal and disloyalty but not every betrayal is unethical (in fact some such betrayals of criminals are driven by ethical considerations).
With such an extensive list of acts that are not always wrong, we need a guiding principle for determining what is and is not wrong. That is provided by the ethical absolutes and reasoning from them to current situations with current societal norms. Just like Euclid’s axioms, a finite set can be used to analyze an infinitude of truths.
I think ONE of those ethical absolutes is the principle that what is unfair is unethical. I am not happy with my formulation of any other such ethical absolutes; this one is the obvious one to me. I have neither the time or intellect of Euclid; but I do believe a finite set exists. I also believe that, even with this one member, it provides a superior rationale for the formation of society in the first place, that an inherent desire for greater fairness, enforced by collective power, was the motivation for agreeing to be bound by rules in order to be protected by those rules: The social compact.
Bron,
A pleasant surprise is always the best kind. While I’m not surprised that you thought I was an ethical relativist to a certain degree, I am a little surprised you thought that degree was 100%. I’ve always thought it was readily apparent that while I think some situations require the flexibility that relativism allows to derive equitable and just outcomes, that I also think there are – as Tony framed it – a small set of universally applicable absolutes that span the species regardless of culture (not that all cultures apply these absolutes the same way if at all).
As to the rest? Thanks. I’ll keep that in mind. I may expand to cover other philosophical and ethical subjects as well.
However, the propaganda series isn’t finished yet. Just on hiatus. Over the last six months some really interesting discoveries have been made in psychology and neurophysiology I wanted to incorporate into the next installment, but it’s a fairly impressive stack of material I need to go through and there are only so many hours in a day. I had intended the next installment to be a pivot point followed by a couple of installments on the history use of propaganda to various ends (military, advertising, etc.) but I may just end the series at the next installment. I am undecided on this point.
Well what is really strange is that there is supposedly a huge supply of lawyers, lots of lawyers unemployed, lots of lawyers working at non law minimum wage jobs, and their expertise hasn’t come down in price.
There’s been a lot of talk about unemployment and public works jobs. Meanwhile there are a lot of people out there complaining about their cold case legal problems. See LawlessAmerica.com. Why can’t some of these “cold” legal cases be reopened through legal clinics? I understand the statutes of limitations, but where a case was filed and served, there is potential to reopen, and some cases that were never filed or never served have equitable tolling.
It would be interesting if some legal consortium went to the LawlessAmerica.com website and offered to evaluate the situations people are complaining about.
There’s talk about “frequent filers”. To me that means that the filer is convinced they have a case.
Look at Brandon Moon. He filed multiple petitions to have his rape conviction overturned on the basis that the eyewitness identification evidence was not credible. And every time it was denied until he got a lawyer to plead the same arguments that he had been pleading. There’s a New York Times article about Brandon Moon that was just deleted from pro se Wikipedia.
Mike Spindell:
“Try to treat other humans as you would like to be treated, all else is what evolves from that ethical absolute and how it informs your applications of that principle.”
That is the bottom line, well actually the bottom line is that human life has great value, the rest stems from that.
Gene H:
thanks, I was actually surprised that I agreed with you and had thought, due to our many “debates”, that you would be an ethical relativist to a certain degree.
Very good, thought provoking article.
This is a very good subject and I hope you continue to explore it in future blog posts. This is a much deeper vein to mine than propaganda and while your posts on propaganda were very good and instructive, I think this subject has far greater capacity for instruction.
Mike S.,
I am happy with any gratification these days! 🙂
Gene,
Another gem. I’ve been busy all day canvassing for Obama, which some here might say is an example of my own ethical relativism. 🙂
I ‘ve read all the comments on the thread thus far and for the most part we ‘ve got a great discussion going.
My own opinion is that defining ethical absolutes is a difficult proposition fraught with dangers, as your examples and others here have illustrated. Yet I to am uncomfortable with ethical relativism because of its pliability. I believe that an important stage in maturity is the person coming to define their own ethical absolutes, because without them one remains as a child seeking only instant gratification.
The obvious difficulty is when this is translated into a society’s morays, values and rules, there can be much stultification of many individuals own ethics.
As an old fart, my absolutes spring from a basic principle, paraphrasing Confucius, Buddha, Rabbi Hillel and Jesus : Try to treat other humans as you would like to be treated, all else is what evolves from that ethical absolute and how it informs your applications of that principle.
Woosty, you wrote:
I may be misunderstanding you, but I read that as the fact lawyers are not available for free, or for low (read ‘affordable’) fees, as being “unethical.” I based that on your reference “…to socioeconomic conditional standards of the practitioners.” If that was not your intention, help me understand what you meant.
Oh, I’ve already told mespo’s joke to two other people and they both got a good laugh out of it.
Mespo,
I am not sure that I should laugh! 🙂
Here is an interesting story that invites bringing the cultural differences issue back into the fold: Mah Gul, Young Afghan Woman, Beheaded For Refusing To Become A Prostitute
Note that while arrests were made, this tragic event was enabled by the local cultural ethical norms regarding the treatment of women essentially as chattel. If slavery is wrong as an ethical absolute, should any form of “propertizing” – from indentured servitude to open slavery – be considered a violation of an ethical absolute? Or is this ethically relative due to cultural differences?
Tony,
I’m still interested in hearing how you want to address the absolute/non-absolute set problem. I would agree with your logic but for that particular issue. The social compact must deal with ethical matters in a holistic manner to be effective. Maybe I think you are overstating the “damage”? But at the core, it’s the exclusivity trait you want to assign to absolutes when the compact needs to deal with the two sets mutually inclusively.
Otteray Scribe
1, October 21, 2012 at 10:26 pm
Woosty, I am not sure how an attorney charging for his or her time is unethical.
—————————————————
I don’t recall the need for renumeration being a part of my statement but ok, we can go there for a hoot. What are the accepted standards of payment for Lawyers?
My Steamboat attorney William Hibbard advised me to sue them in Federal Court. He advised me to send them a notice under the Colorado Governmental Immunity Act and I did so. If I was going to do my life over I wouldn’t have moved to Steamboat Springs, or at least not to Princeton Ave., but I can’t undo that.
Just what facts do you think I am “not accepting”? I didn’t accept the idea that I was vexatious for saying that I heard my neighbor was a convicted drug dealer and then he admitted he pled guilty to transporting drugs with intent to sell, a felony charge, and was in jail for 4 months. I didn’t accept the fact that the City could not enforce the ordinances and now they have a form saying they will actually check out complaints. This is because a man died because the ordinances weren’t enforced.
My husband and I had a business called Friendly Plastic and I didn’t accept that we should go bankrupt so we licensed the product, it got up to $11 Million and we made about $1 Million. Much better than going bankrupt. I didn’t accept the fact that no one loved me and I found someone who did.
It’s like I’ve been crossing a wide river. Now I am almost to the other side and it is much better to keep going than to drown. I can’t go back.
Legal services don’t take any lawsuits for damages except for one place that is looking for eminent domain cases and the ACLU which gets thousands and thousands of people begging them to read their situation.
Most of the pro bono services are looking to save someone on death row or they are doing landlord tenant or domestic violence cases.
I want to help a lawyer by organizing and footnoting so they can fulfill their Rule 11 obligations without spending a lot of time. And I want to base my damages on Rule 804(6). I could put together my evidence to prove my prima facie case. The Rule 804(6) is a new rule. It is a case of First Impression.
I know a lot more about law than I used to. I’ve spent more than 3 years studying law. I’m a resource even if I had a lawyer. I did publish a book on municipal bond analysis, I did get a masters degree from MIT, and I have some recent recommendations.
Woosty, I am not sure how an attorney charging for his or her time is unethical. Consider that one has to complete a Bachelor’s degree with top grades, pass the admissions screening for law school, then three or so years of law school, then having to pass the bar exam. Now how is that newly minted lawyer supposed to pay back all those loans, make some money to live on, and make up for all those years of not making any money?
However, there are free legal services in most communities, if they have not been defunded by conservatives. They can help with some legal problems. There are public defenders for truly indigent defendants in criminal cases. Legal services can only take certain kinds of cases, so Kay may fall between the cracks. I do suspect that if she does talk with a lawyer, the lawyer is going to tell her the same thing she has heard here. We are back to her being unwilling to accept the facts. Kind of like Orly Taitz.