Glover, I'll clarify my points. I did not mean to imply that there is a causal relationship between the nature of law and the nature of morality. What I was trying to express is that if you buy into the argument that law, and all of its underlying principles, doctrines, definitions, structures, etc. is simply window dressing for the realities of human behavior and the imposition of power (see AnatoleFrance for a growing discussion on law as power), morality lends itself to a similar critique.

I am mildly disappointed that you think Sartre is less compelling than the categorical imperative of Kant. I suppose we'll have to agree to disagree.

Still, while you may not especially care for the moral relativism of Sartre, I think existentialism is useful for approaching things from a realist perspective. And I think it has particular relevance to this discussion. That morality resides in the individual is, to me, a recognition that people invent their own moral compasses. By that token, the only form of reckoning that is certain in life is that a person must live with the consequences of their choices.

As law students at Columbia, we have the necessary free agency to choose our career path. There are reasons in favor of taking firm jobs, and reasons against. Morality may play a part in our choice, depending on what we choose to believe. My point was simply that there was no need to get bogged down in hashing out the particular morality of working for a firm, because where one draws the line will vary. What won't change, to borrow from Sartre, is the anguish of choice. Whatever decision is made will come with a certain set of results, and if one chooses poorly, the consequences of the choice nevertheless remain. This isn't a recipe for letting lawyers' souls rest easy--nothing in life has greater permanence than our choices and their effects.

-- RonMazor - 07 Feb 2010