Knowing When To Pronounce Moral Judgment

I will confine my answer to a single, fundamental aspect of this question. I will name only one principle, the opposite of the idea which is so prevalent today and which is responsible for the spread of evil in the world. That principle is: One must never fail to pronounce moral judgment….

The policy of always pronouncing moral judgment does not mean that one must regard oneself as a missionary charged with the responsibility of ‘saving everyone’s soul’ -nor that one must give unsolicited moral appraisals to all those one meets. It means: (a) that one must know clearly, in full, verbally identified form, one’s own moral evaluation of every person, issue and event with which one deals, and act accordingly; (b) that one must make one’s moral evaluation known to others, when it is rationally appropriate to do so.

This last means that one need not launch into unprovoked moral denunciations or debates, but that one must speak up in situations where silence can objectively be taken to mean agreement with or sanction of evil. When one deals with irrational persons, where argument is futile, a mere ‘I don’t agree with you’ is sufficient to negate any implications of moral sanction. When one deals with better people, a full statement of one’s views may be morally required. But in no case and in no situation may one permit one’s own values to be attacked or denounced, and keep silent.” (The Virtue of Selfishness “How Does One Lead a Rational Life in an Irrational Society,” https://courses.aynrand.org/works/how-does-one-lead-a-rational-life-in-an-irrational-society/)

I read this article when I was about 15 or 16 years old. It’s been over thirty years now, and I’ve re-read it many times.

I’ve tried to live by it, but I’ll admit there have been times when I’ve failed to pronounce moral judgment where I should have. Usually, this was when I was lapsing into some form of altruism, and “felt sorry” for someone, or when I was just afraid for no good reason.

But, even when I try to live by it, I never quite know when it is necessary to make my moral evaluations known to others. Sometimes, it’s clear that I do not need to pronounce any sort of moral judgment. For instance, my online Spanish tutor is quite religious, and during our conversations in Spanish, she will sometimes talk about going to church every Sunday. In that circumstance, I don’t think it’s necessary, or appropriate, to tell her I think Christianity is an institution that has caused 2,000 years of irrationality and human misery.  I also don’t consider this a moral breach on her part. She is from a poor country, with people who are generally less educated, and everyone is quite religious. I consider her religiosity to be a genuine error of knowledge, and our relationship is so delimited, that it would make no sense to try to change her mind. When she talks about church, I just engage in the conversation, and ask her questions about it. For instance, she once said she goes to a Church online, and I asked her, genuinely curious: “How do they handle communion?” (She told me that they pull out their own bread and wine, and the preacher blesses it from a distance -makes as much sense as in person, I guess.)

At other times, I don’t always know where that line is -of when I need to speak out, and say something. I recently had something happen, which I cannot discuss, where I did speak out, but I still don’t know if it was right, or if I should have remained silent. Unfortunately, the older I get, I realize that it is sometimes very hard to apply the virtues, especially when I’m acting on less than perfect knowledge, and I am under an extreme “time crunch”, where I have to make a decision quickly. It also takes me time to “process” certain facts, and it can be months later before I realize the implications of something.

I will say that, even today, it can still cause me a lot of anxiety to pronounce moral judgment. It is sometimes an extreme act of will to proceed with the right course. It seems so contrary to everything that many people in society implicitly and explicitly pressure us to do, whether those people are authors, journalists, teachers, intellectuals, religious figures, or, quite frequently, lawyers.

 

What I Want Right Now

If I could do anything right now, without issues of cost or practicality, this is what I would want:

(1) I would move to another state, probably California.

Reasons: I am tired of living in Texas, and the isolation that I sometimes feel here. Specifically, I’m tired of being in this state as an atheist.  (I’ve blogged about some of my problems being an atheist here before, and I don’t want to mull over bad memories.)

(2) I would open up my own law practice.

Reasons: I want to give practicing law on my own another go. I am happiest when I can entirely control choice of client and choice of cases. Over the past year, I’ve had a client threaten me. I’ve had opposing counsel file a motion for sanctions against me, personally, that was completely unjustified (the judge rightly denied their motion). Now, this might have all still happened if I was out on my own, since some clients and attorneys are just nutty, but I’d like to think I could at least filter out some of the crazy clients, and charge more for dealing with difficult counsel.

The above is what I want, without taking into account any factors that would be obstacles. Now I will talk about the impediments:

(1) Moving to another state would likely lead to my having no sources of income for an indefinite period of time.

Reasons: As an attorney, you tend to be somewhat “tied” to the particular state you have practiced law in for a while. Some attorneys at major national or international firms can go anywhere. But “rank and file” lawyers like me tend to practice in state courts, and get to know the rules of procedure in those particular courts. It would be a learning curve going to another state and learning its courts, assuming, I could even get admitted to that state’s bar without taking another bar exam. (Some states offer reciprocity, and others do not.)

(2) Being a solo practitioner is a daunting task.

Reasons: Filing motions to withdraw for non-payment by clients will be the most common motion you file when solo.  That’s another little “fun fact” of practicing law: you cannot just quit when a client doesn’t pay you. You have to ask permission from the court. The court may say it will prejudice the client’s case if you withdraw, so you have to keep working -for free.

You have to become a debt collector, constantly calling up clients, saying: “Where’s that money you owe me?” Not only do you have to practice law as a solo practitioner, you also have to run a business. Make no mistake about it, the practice of law is a business, and must be approached as such. You have to market, advertise, and manage the back-end accounting, personnel, and other software systems. You need to have a business plan. You need to have sufficient start-up capital to pay for the business, with the assumption that you will not have any income for some time. That means you have to have some way to support yourself while you build up a sufficient “pipeline” of paying clients. Jay G. Foonbert, author of “How to Start and Build a Law Practice”, said:

Regardless of inflation, recession, boom, or depression, the answer to this question remains the same: You need enough cash (or guaranteed income) to support yourself and your family for one year. In other words, assume that even though your practice grows, you will not be able to take any cash out for one year…I cannot emphasize strongly enough the necessity of starting with adequate capitalization for your living expenses….If I had to choose between opening my doors immediately with only six months’ living expenses, or working as a laborer for two years to have enough living expenses for a year, I would choose the latter course of conduct.” (How To Start and Build A Law Practice, “How Much Cash Do You Need to Start Your Practice?”, Jay G. Foonberg)

In my case, I haven’t even been able to retire all of my student loan debt, yet. The past seven years, I worked steadily at a single law firm. I lived frugally and had low spending habits. I was able to retire a sizeable chunk of my student loan debt, but an even more sizeable chunk remains. I took a job recently with the thought that the additional income could be used to retire my student loan debt in about a year and a half, but that job has not worked out.

I tried practicing law on my own from about 2004 to 2012 before realizing it was not going to work, given my negative wealth from law school. (The choices I made at 23, on going to law school, and my particular choice of law school, were poor, but that is water under the bridge at this point. My situation is what it is, and agonizing about choices made 25 years ago will not change present facts.) From 2012 to 2016, I spent my time mostly in a sort of under-employed “purgatory” for lawyers, known as document review, which is essentially contract work, paid on an hourly basis. The work is not steady, I learned to hate the other lawyers working there, and I walked off several projects because of poor treatment by managers. I was not earning enough money to even pay the interest on student loans, which meant they actually went up instead of down during this time period. After being insulted one too many times by a manager on a document review job, I walked off for the last time, not knowing exactly what I would do. I only knew I wouldn’t do document review anymore. I started applying to advertisements on craigslist by law firms looking for attorneys. That was how I got my seven-year law job in 2016, which I enjoyed quite a bit. I primarily switched jobs because I needed to make more money to compensate for the inherent risks of being a lawyer. (Those risks being clients potentially filing groundless bar grievances against you, and opposing counsel filing frivolous motions for sanctions against you, personally.)

A possible compromise that would give me more of what I want:

(1) Move to Austin, Texas

Reasons: Austin is the closest to California that you can get in Texas. I lived there from 1993 to 1998, and I am generally familiar with the culture. With the university and the tech industry there, Austin tends to be more open to atheists. I know it won’t be utopia, and Austin has its own set of problems, but at least I can become annoyed with a different set of problems for a while. I would still be in Texas, and practicing in Texas courts in Austin. There is still some local variety from county to county, but it wouldn’t take me long to get familiar with those courts and judges. The laws and rules of procedure would be the same.

(2) Open my own practice in Austin

Problems: The problem is that this doesn’t really solve the impediments to having my own law practice. Austin has a smaller economy, and therefore has fewer people capable of paying for legal services. I’d still need enough money to (a) support myself for at least a year, and (b) to pay the start up costs of a law practice. I haven’t really figured out how this would be doable.

This is still a roadblock that I do not know how to solve. I refuse to go into more debt, so the only way I see to solve this is to continue working for others for at least another three to five years, in order to get my debts paid off and also build up sufficient savings.