Legalism v. Thoughtful Responsibility

I wasn't sure if this was the appropriate forum, so mods please feel free to move as needed.

I have been considering the cult of "legalism" in contemporary American society. I'm not sure how long it has existed, but I suspect its first virulent emergence appeared with the post-1970's broadening of litigation powers in our legal system.

By "legalism", I mean the attitude that conduct is permissible as long as it's legal. This appears to be a politically neutral attitude in terms of whether the left or right (as understood in the U.S.) is more prone to carry it. Former President Clinton's famous hair splitting over the meaning of "is" in his deposition is a good example. The more recent example that has galvanized my questioning on this is the position that it was legal for the Bush administration to fire the DOJ lawyers at will. They serve at his pleasure.

My question is, does this attitude to prescribing our actions as a society benefit or harm us? For instance, even if it is constitutionally legal for a president to fire DOJ lawyers at will, is this the best way to administer justice, and keep our legal system running? Does the attitude that if it's legal it's ok provide the best framework by which a healthy society runs its self?

Perhaps my radar on this issue is set a little high because I work at a law school and see the very best and worst in our emerging attorneys. I thought I would put this question to the board to see if my question had an resonance or has been skewed.

I think that is where Morality comes into play...

The problem with Morality, is the extreme variance between culture groups as well as the ever changing nature of morals in general...

Time and time again society has attempted to legislate and criminalize immoral behavior, Drug war, Prostitution, Gambling and Prohibition all come to mind. While there remain laws being enforced in regards to all of those topics, I think everyone can agree the success of those legal actions varies from limited to null and void.

The actions of the President in regards to the DOJ attorneys is an action that has been mirrored by presidents in the past. Although the detractors of the current President have made an issue of this, they have also made issue with his drinking beer, rubbing someones shoulders and riding horses. I am guessing his underwear is next on the agenda.

Regardless of whether you or I think it best for the country, the "jobs" of those attorneys were, are and for the near future, shall remain at the "pleasure of the President". The man elected to make those decisions.

I worked a number of years, part time for extra money, with the County Sheriff's Department. It was routine for a new Sheriff to be elected and dismiss all the deputies that had supported the previous Sheriff. Even if those deputies had 8, 10 even 20 years of service. Happens all the time, why? Because they work at the "pleasure of the Sheriff."

I think that when discussing "appropriate conduct" and speaking of morallity, one is within boundaries of understanding. When you toss in the mix an action that is perfectly acceptable except to those that are feeling villainous towards one man, you are discussing a completely different situation...

Just my .02 cents

Semper

That's a great response that highlights how unclear I was. I guess I'm not so interested or concerned about a particular action that is taken, whether it's firing or splitting hairs in a deposition. I'm more interested in the reasoning and justification for these actions. When someone says, "I can do X because it's not against the law," should we ask whether action X, although legally permissible, is of help or harm to a society at large?

For example, let's say that Nancy Pelogi, through purely legal means, funnels money to buddies for war work. The question is does this promote the health of our society, even though that action was technically legal? Or, are these sorts of socio-political considerations so saturated in situated ethical considerations that the only way we as a society have to adjudicate the proper conduct of civil society is by legislating what can and can't be done?

What your saying is a wonderful concept, but quite impossible in a society of 300 million +..

In a Representative Republic we elect those persons we feel best represent our interests. Those we expect to do things "the correct" way, not just the legal one. If they fail in their endeavors, we simply vote them out of office...

"We" can not question each and every action taken by this administration, or any administration, quite simply because the "we" consists of 300 Million souls.

The checks and balances inherent in a "Tri" system such as ours, was placed there by the founding fathers for the very reasons you bring to light...

That is not to say that "we". being you and I, can not and should not question those actions when and how we see fit. But to expect any action based on our observations is pure fantasy....

Semper

I didn't know I had a concept. What would that be? Are you saying that it's impossible to raise these questions in a 300 million + society?

NO

Read more carefully my post please..

I support your right to raise questions...

It is very clear actually..

All ideas that are written down are conceptual by nature...

You were supposing an idea with the OP were you not? Or am I mistaken and you were writing simply to pass the time?

Semper

Actually I was just raising questions for which I haven't developed well thought answers to yet. I don't have any thesis involving the questions whatsoever. I was hoping to hear from more people, but since you've already given your perspective on the answer perhaps others will join in.