Arguing The Unarguable

17 January 2022, Version 1
This content is an early or alternative research output and has not been peer-reviewed by Cambridge University Press at the time of posting.

Abstract

This article is about legal ethics. It analyses the debate on Lord Brougham in Queen Caroline’s Case in 1820. The eminent Professor Monroe Freedman argued in the article ‘Henry Lord Brougham, Written by Himself’ that: "[A]n advocate, in the discharge of his duty, knows but one person in all the world, and that person is his client". As to whether Lord Brougham fulfilled his moral duty in line with Kant’s Ethics of Duty to defend his client to attain a 'Good Will' is indeed a dilemmatic question. According to many critics, he had resorted to derogatory tactics considered as being unethical from the standpoint of Virtue Ethics in order to attain that 'Good Will'. Which is which as far as this paradox is concerned?

Keywords

Lord Brougham
Queen Caroline’s Case
Law and ethics
Monroe Freedman
Virtue Ethics
Kant’s Ethics of Duty

Comments

Comments are not moderated before they are posted, but they can be removed by the site moderators if they are found to be in contravention of our Commenting and Discussion Policy [opens in a new tab] - please read this policy before you post. Comments should be used for scholarly discussion of the content in question. You can find more information about how to use the commenting feature here [opens in a new tab] .
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy [opens in a new tab] and Terms of Service [opens in a new tab] apply.