The Law is Not Enough

     As a future law school student, I was drawn to the section that covered why simply obeying the law is not sufficient. I, and hopefully all people agree with this point, but I wanted to consider some situations where obligations to simply follow the law could be acceptable. The examples given (the American South in the 1800’s, Nazi Germany, Apartheid South Africa) are all easily clear instances where following the law is not enough; however, I will argue using a few significantly less serious examples of when law or rule breaking may indeed be enough, or at least must be addressed by the author of this passage. 

     I first considered sports and the saying “if you ain’t cheating you ain’t trying”. Obviously cheating is breaking the law that governs whatever sport you are playing, but if for the purpose of this argument we conclude that the ultimate goal of sports is to win, I argue that simply following the rules is enough. Consider the “unwritten rules” of baseball. Though not technically law, many athletes consider breaking these “rules” as unethical. Stealing a base late in a blowout or laying down a bunt in that same are examples of breaking these unwritten rules, but in the context of winning as the ultimate goal, is it really wrong to commit these “sins?” A manager has the ability to decide when enough is enough, and if he chooses to advance a runner late in a blowout, which will put his team in a better place to win, he should not be concerned about ethics.

     The next example is closely related to the law. If we agree that sole purpose of a defense attorney is to serve his client, then I argue that attorneys must follow the law, and should not feel obligated to adhere to some higher code of ethics. Using techniques to either exaggerate or downplay evidence or asking difficult questions to undeserving witnesses or victims may be considered unethical, but as long as the attorney follows the rules of the court, it is simply enough.