Debate Mansion

India-Forums

   
Debate Mansion
Debate Mansion

Lawyers are Liars (Page 4)

Roadrunnerz Goldie
Roadrunnerz
Roadrunnerz

Joined: 09 August 2008
Posts: 1723

Posted: 24 December 2010 at 8:08am | IP Logged
Originally posted by souro

Originally posted by Mindbender

Originally posted by souro


Now there might be some reason why that guy suddenly decided to jump off the train but there may not be any reason other than helping the person who has fallen off. I'd prefer to believe it's the latter, though I'll not be able to prove it with certainty.

The point here is why did he want to help that other person.

I think, even in the most "selfless" of persons, there are some reasons as to why they are doing a particular kind of work and which makes it 'less selfless'. Some, which i can think of-

-> Afraid of god/power.

-> Belief in karma.

-> To prove to oneself and hence self satisfaction,etc.


But can it be proved conclusively. Remember, although what the boy did was brave, it can also be called foolish. He could've been killed too. Is fear of god or belief in karma so strong that it'll make him disregard his own safety or fear of getting hurt or even killed?
The third reason yes plausible, but can we conclusively prove or atleast beyond reasonable doubt, that within the few seconds that he took to jump off the train, he thought through everything and determined this is my one chance to prove myself? And can we prove that everyone thinks through all the consequences and how he is going to benefit before helping someone?


A similar discussion on similar lines took place a few days earlier over here, though the topic for that was particularly about selfless help and whether it exists.

I would say that it was an impulsive act. would you consider that as noble?
What about our armed forces who are ready to kill and be killed in turn?

return_to_hades IF-Sizzlerz
return_to_hades
return_to_hades

Joined: 18 January 2006
Posts: 23325

Posted: 24 December 2010 at 8:37am | IP Logged
Originally posted by xobile


I think nursing is a noble profession because it is not very lucrative from a financial perspective - not in the UK anyway. The pay is low, hours long and pressured and union activism is not helpful. But still people work hard to join the profession. Of course, they do it because it is a vocation and they must feel immense satisfaction from their work. So it's not strict selflessness, but I'd say the willingness to give up financial rewards for vocational satisfaction is praiseworthy.

And yes, people can do much great and noble work outside of their professions. But certain professions require the above sort of diluted 'selflessness' from their best members. And marketing cigarettes or other demerit goods is a job that by itself requires people to do something that has negative consequences for society.


Yes society does tend to perceive certain jobs as 'noble'. Nursing, medicine, teaching etc are considered noble. However, I do agree with Souro and Cloddy, it is the people who are noble - not the professions. As I said in my previous post, there are good lawyers and bad lawyers. Similarly any profession can have people who do it with nobility and people who don't.

I don't think it is fair to consider cigarette marketers and likes to be at some lower strata. I guess society does harbor such notions. But in the end these are also just people who took a job to care for their family, pay bills, and yes to an extent fulfill their own life goals.

Have you seen 'Thank You for Smoking'? Incredible comedy, with a cigarette spokesperson as the main protagonist.
souro Moderator
souro
souro

Joined: 27 January 2007
Posts: 14419

Posted: 24 December 2010 at 8:47am | IP Logged
Originally posted by crazy_sunny

Originally posted by souro

Originally posted by Mindbender

Originally posted by souro


Now there might be some reason why that guy suddenly decided to jump off the train but there may not be any reason other than helping the person who has fallen off. I'd prefer to believe it's the latter, though I'll not be able to prove it with certainty.

The point here is why did he want to help that other person.

I think, even in the most "selfless" of persons, there are some reasons as to why they are doing a particular kind of work and which makes it 'less selfless'. Some, which i can think of-

-> Afraid of god/power.

-> Belief in karma.

-> To prove to oneself and hence self satisfaction,etc.


But can it be proved conclusively. Remember, although what the boy did was brave, it can also be called foolish. He could've been killed too. Is fear of god or belief in karma so strong that it'll make him disregard his own safety or fear of getting hurt or even killed?
The third reason yes plausible, but can we conclusively prove or atleast beyond reasonable doubt, that within the few seconds that he took to jump off the train, he thought through everything and determined this is my one chance to prove myself? And can we prove that everyone thinks through all the consequences and how he is going to benefit before helping someone?


A similar discussion on similar lines took place a few days earlier over here, though the topic for that was particularly about selfless help and whether it exists.

I would say that it was an impulsive act. would you consider that as noble?
What about our armed forces who are ready to kill and be killed in turn?

Yes what he did was an unplanned and instantaneous reaction. My point is, then how can we say with confidence that no action is completely selfless. The boy had nothing to gain from this act of his whatsoever (unless you consider that there was a chance of getting some kind of reward and it crossed his mind at that moment... he did not receive any reward though), he didn't get time to think things through and he had much to lose.
If we consider everything then, at best we can say that some actions to help others are not selfless as has been proved many times, however there are some actions to help others where no apparent selfish motive is observed but chances of some selfish motive, physical or pshychologial, can't be ruled out altogether either.

Coming to the part of whether we can call an unplanned act as noble or not. Noble is a relative term and is also an emotional term. So, it's in the realm of personal interpretation. However, what we can prove is whether it helped someone or not.
So, someone might take all unplanned acts for granted and may not think very highly of them but at the same time someone might consider acts which helped someone without harming others as a good deed irrespective of whether it was planned or unplanned. In both opinions though, one thing remains constant, someone was helped and noone was harmed (atleast not directly or intentionally).
Now, it's upto each individual to decide whether someone being helped is good or not.
Roadrunnerz Goldie
Roadrunnerz
Roadrunnerz

Joined: 09 August 2008
Posts: 1723

Posted: 24 December 2010 at 10:31am | IP Logged
Originally posted by souro

Originally posted by crazy_sunny

Originally posted by souro

Originally posted by Mindbender

Originally posted by souro


Now there might be some reason why that guy suddenly decided to jump off the train but there may not be any reason other than helping the person who has fallen off. I'd prefer to believe it's the latter, though I'll not be able to prove it with certainty.

The point here is why did he want to help that other person.

I think, even in the most "selfless" of persons, there are some reasons as to why they are doing a particular kind of work and which makes it 'less selfless'. Some, which i can think of-

-> Afraid of god/power.

-> Belief in karma.

-> To prove to oneself and hence self satisfaction,etc.


But can it be proved conclusively. Remember, although what the boy did was brave, it can also be called foolish. He could've been killed too. Is fear of god or belief in karma so strong that it'll make him disregard his own safety or fear of getting hurt or even killed?
The third reason yes plausible, but can we conclusively prove or atleast beyond reasonable doubt, that within the few seconds that he took to jump off the train, he thought through everything and determined this is my one chance to prove myself? And can we prove that everyone thinks through all the consequences and how he is going to benefit before helping someone?


A similar discussion on similar lines took place a few days earlier over here, though the topic for that was particularly about selfless help and whether it exists.

I would say that it was an impulsive act. would you consider that as noble?
What about our armed forces who are ready to kill and be killed in turn?

Yes what he did was an unplanned and instantaneous reaction. My point is, then how can we say with confidence that no action is completely selfless. The boy had nothing to gain from this act of his whatsoever (unless you consider that there was a chance of getting some kind of reward and it crossed his mind at that moment... he did not receive any reward though), he didn't get time to think things through and he had much to lose.
If we consider everything then, at best we can say that some actions to help others are not selfless as has been proved many times, however there are some actions to help others where no apparent selfish motive is observed but chances of some selfish motive, physical or pshychologial, can't be ruled out altogether either.

Coming to the part of whether we can call an unplanned act as noble or not. Noble is a relative term and is also an emotional term. So, it's in the realm of personal interpretation. However, what we can prove is whether it helped someone or not.
So, someone might take all unplanned acts for granted and may not think very highly of them but at the same time someone might consider acts which helped someone without harming others as a good deed irrespective of whether it was planned or unplanned. In both opinions though, one thing remains constant, someone was helped and noone was harmed (atleast not directly or intentionally).
Now, it's upto each individual to decide whether someone being helped is good or not.
helping anyone without harming someone would be considered good. In case of a lawyer this often does not happen as one party gets affected adversely .
return_to_hades IF-Sizzlerz
return_to_hades
return_to_hades

Joined: 18 January 2006
Posts: 23325

Posted: 24 December 2010 at 10:41am | IP Logged
Originally posted by crazy_sunny

helping anyone without harming someone would be considered good. In case of a lawyer this often does not happen as one party gets affected adversely .


On what basis would you say someone is 'harmed'. Assuming a fair trial with the right person convicted. Would you consider a murderer being sentenced to life imprisonment or capital punishment is 'causing them harm'? Would getting justice for the family of a murdered victim be 'causing harm' to the convicted murderer.

I think lawyers unnecessarily get a bad reputation. Many lawyers work pro bono only. There are plenty of lawyers who exclusively help non profits, discriminated goods, or towards reforming existing laws that are flawed. The percentage of lawyers who work for the mob, serve myopic corporate interest, high dollar torts or high dollar crimes is actually small compared to the vast number of lawyers actually doing very simple, non glamorous and even charitable legal work.

The following 1 member(s) liked the above post:

blueice1

Roadrunnerz Goldie
Roadrunnerz
Roadrunnerz

Joined: 09 August 2008
Posts: 1723

Posted: 24 December 2010 at 10:54am | IP Logged
Originally posted by return_to_hades

Originally posted by crazy_sunny

helping anyone without harming someone would be considered good. In case of a lawyer this often does not happen as one party gets affected adversely .


On what basis would you say someone is 'harmed'. Assuming a fair trial with the right person convicted. Would you consider a murderer being sentenced to life imprisonment or capital punishment is 'causing them harm'? Would getting justice for the family of a murdered victim be 'causing harm' to the convicted murderer.

I think lawyers unnecessarily get a bad reputation. Many lawyers work pro bono only. There are plenty of lawyers who exclusively help non profits, discriminated goods, or towards reforming existing laws that are flawed. The percentage of lawyers who work for the mob, serve myopic corporate interest, high dollar torts or high dollar crimes is actually small compared to the vast number of lawyers actually doing very simple, non glamorous and even charitable legal work.
Justice usually comes at a very high price and mostly delayed . Dont know any lawyer who does charity work but I know lots who charge more than Rs.1 lakh per hearing in the court. Most of these lawyers are quite well known and carry a lot of clout . Their presence in the courtroom is enough to tilt things in favour of their client atleast temporarily. No wonder people are forced to shell out that kind of money. There are many lawyers who are responsible for delaying cases for decades on flimsy grounds. More the number of hearings more the money they can make.
return_to_hades IF-Sizzlerz
return_to_hades
return_to_hades

Joined: 18 January 2006
Posts: 23325

Posted: 24 December 2010 at 11:31am | IP Logged
Sunny - that is a popular misconception about lawyers because only the high profile and high value cases get publicized by media.

Law is a very vast field. Criminal and tort law is just a small fraction of law. High value crime and tort cases are just a small fraction of that. Most lawyers are just ordinary professionals, doing their jobs. Unfortunately, the media emphasis on these high profile cases has completely tainted the perception of law.

Pro Bono Network - http://www.internationalprobono.com/
You can read up on various legal organizations across the world helping people in need too.


Edited by return_to_hades - 24 December 2010 at 11:31am

The following 1 member(s) liked the above post:

blueice1

-Believe- IF-Stunnerz
-Believe-
-Believe-

Joined: 03 December 2005
Posts: 27243

Posted: 24 December 2010 at 11:22pm | IP Logged

I think 99% of all lawyers give the rest a bad name. Approve

The following 3 member(s) liked the above post:

blueice1mr.assxobile

Go to top

Related Topics

  Topics Author Replies Views Last Post
Poor govt, cops, lawyers, or are they?

Author: persistence   Replies: 7   Views: 603

persistence 7 603 07 June 2007 at 3:43am by -Believe-

Forum Quick Jump

Forum Category / Channels
Forums

Debate Mansion Topic Index

Disclaimer: All Logos and Pictures of various Channels, Shows, Artistes, Media Houses, Companies, Brands etc. belong to their respective owners, and are used to merely visually identify the Channels, Shows, Companies, Brands, etc. to the viewer. Incase of any issue please contact the webmaster.

Popular Channels :
Star Plus | Zee TV | Sony TV | Colors TV | SAB TV | Life OK

Quick Links :
Top 100 TV Celebrities | Top 100 Bollywood Celebs | About Us | Contact Us | Advertise | Forum Index