GULU UNIVERSITY

FACULTY OF LAW

PROFESSIONAL ETHICS AND ADVOCACY

GROUP TWO

NAME REGISTRATION NUMBER

AJUNA CHARLOTTE 23/U/1505/GBL/PS

AKELLO GRACE DANIELLA 23/U/ 1506/GBL/PS

AGENANGA PRISCA LINDA 23/U/1502/ GBL/PS

AKELLO MERCY 23/U/1507/GBL/PS

ALEGORWOT THEODORA 23/U/ 3667/GBL/PS

OKEMA WILFRED 23/U/4012/GBL/PS

RACKARA DANIEL 23/U/1592/GBL/PS

TOPIC 2: PHILOSOPHICAL FOUNDATION OF ETHICAL REASONING.

Ethical reasoning is the process of systematically analyzing and evaluating

moral issues to determine what is right or wrong. It involves applying critical
thinking to questions of morality drawing on philosophical principles, ethical
theories and practical consideration to guide decision making. Ethical
reasoning involves three key dimensions for evaluating actions that is
intentions where the moral wealth of an action may depend on the agent’s
reasoning behind it. There are also consequences or outcomes and lastly
character which shows the moral character of a person. Ethical reasoning
brings about what ethics are. In simple terms ethics are set of moral
principles, values and guidelines that determine what is considered right or
wrong, just or unjust and good or bad behavior for individuals and groups.
Philosophical foundations of legal ethics are rooted in principles that guide
lawyers in navigating their professional responsibilities, balancing duties to
clients, the legal system and society. Below are the key philosophical
underpinnings and their application to legal ethics.

ETHICAL THEORIES.

Teleological theories.

The word teleology comes from the Greek word “telos” meaning end or
purpose. Teleological theory is also known as consequentialist ethics and this
basically evaluates the morality of an action based on its outcomes or ends
rather than the action itself. This theory posit that an action is right if it
produces desirable results. For example, in public policy during pandemics
where lockdowns justified if they save more lives, this really prioritizes a
greater good and thus a better ending. Teleological theory brings about
utilitarianism which we shall see in detail but it is basically a theory
advocating that actions are right if they maximize overall happiness or
pleasure for the greatest number of people. It was championed by Jeremy
Bentham (1748-1832) which evaluates each action based on its specific
consequences. John Stuart Mill (1806-1873) who advocated rules that
generally produce the greatest good. Teleological theories provide a
framework for decision making in complex systems. It is also flexible that is
decision making in complex systems. It is also flexible that is decision
makers always prioritize different goods.

This theory brings about utilitarianism theory which was developed by

Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill. It posits that actions are right if they
maximizes overall happiness for the greatest number of people. It also brings
about what ethical egoism which is a self-focused variant where actions are
moral if they advance the individual’s own interests.

The teleological theory carries critics though it offers a practical framework

for decision making, it faces substantial philosophical and practical critics,
and they include,

There is justification of immoral means. A core objection is that the ends

justify the means potentially allowing unethical actions if they yield positive
outcomes. For example, executing an innocent person to prevent riots could
be deemed moral under strict utilitarianism but this violates intuitive notions
of justice and rights which goes against Article 28 of the Revised 1995
Constitution of Uganda. There will be conflict with justice and rule of law.
Law aims at justice not just utility.

The theory also neglects the rights and duties by focusing solely on
consequences. Therefore, duties like telling the truth, respect others can be
ignored if breaking them produces a better consequence. It overlooks
individual rights, duties or justice. The lawyers have ethical duties like
upholding to the rule of law, maintaining confidentiality, acting with honesty
and integrity and many more and here a layer might ignore these duties if
breaking them seems to achieve a better social result.

The theory also is over demanding in nature because it requires constant

sacrifice for the greater good, potentially eroding personal autonomy or
leading to burnout. It may also fail to account for special relationships like
favoring family over strangers.

In conclusion regarding to teleological theories, though these theories

provide a results driven lens for ethics, influential in law for promoting
societal good but their emphasis on consequences often invites critics for
side lining rights and predictability.

DEONTOLOGY THEORY

Deontology ethics is derived from the Greek word “Deon” which means
“Obligations”, “Duty”. This theory states that people should adhere to their
obligations and duties when analyzing an ethical dilemma. This means that a
person will follow his or her obligation to another individual or society
because upholding one’s duty is what is considered ethically correct.

It is an approach to ethics that focuses on the rights and wrongness of

actions themselves as opposed to the rightness or wrongness of the
consequences of those actions. “Let justice be done through the heavens
fall” is one of its proud slogans. According to Immanuel Kant (1724-1804), a
German philosopher, deontology is an ethical approach centered on rules
and professional duties. Kant’s theory of ethics is considered deontological
for several different reason.

Firstly, Kant argued that to act in the morally right way, people must act
according to duty (Deon). Secondly, Kant argued that it was not the
consequences of actions that make them rights or wrong but the motives of
the person who carries out the action. Kant’s argued that to act in the
morally right way, one must act from duty, begins- with an argument that
the highest good must be both good in itself and good without qualification,
something is good in itself when it is intrinsically good’, and ‘good’ without
qualification when the addition of that thing never makes a situation ethically
worse. Kant then argues that those things that are usually thought to be
good, such as intelligence, perseverance and pleasure for example, appears
to not be good without qualification because when people take pleasure in
watching someone suffering, this seems to make the situation ethically
worse. He concludes that there is only one thing that is truly good, “nothing
in the world can be possibly be conceived which could be called good without
qualification except a good will.” Kant then argues that the consequences of
an act is willingly, cannot be used to determine that the person has a good
will, good consequences could arise by accident from an action that was
motivated by a desire that cause harm to an innocent person, and bad
consequences could arise from an action that was well-motivated. Instead,
he claims, a person has a good will when he or she act out of respect for the
moral law. People act out of respect for the moral law when they act in some
way because they have a duty to do so. Thus, the only thing that is truly
good in itself is a good will, and a good will is something because it is that
person’s duty. Hence according to Kant, good will depends on rightness.

Deontology and consequentialism are different because deontology requires

that people follow the rules and do their duty unlike teleological theory which
judges actions by their results, deontology doesn’t require weighing the
costs and benefits of a situation. This avoids subjectivity and uncertainty
because you only have to follow set rules.

Despite its strengths, rigidity, following deontology can produce results that
many people find unacceptable for example, a deontologist will always keep
his promises to a friend and will follow the law. A person who follows this
theory will produce very consistent decisions since they will be based on the
individual’s set duties. For example, a deontological approach would require
employees to follow company set rules and regulations, even if doing so
would cause financial loss to company. Therefore, the intention behind an
actions is considered more important than its consequences involved. The
focus is on acting in accordance with universal moral laws. Deontology is
often defined in opposition to consequentialism, which evaluates actions
based on their results or outcomes or greatest good for the greatest number.
Even in situations where lying might seem beneficial example to save a life,
a strict deontology perspective would forbid lying because it violates a
fundamental moral duty and erodes trust.

Despites deontology’s strength, it also carries criticism as follows:

Moral absolutism and rigidity.

The major critic is that deontology can be too rigid, strict adherence to moral
rules as it does not allow for exceptions or changing circumstances to rules
even when it might lead to a morally unacceptable outcome. This was
criticized by John Mill who believed morality should be judged by the
consequences, not rigid rules for example to him, lying to save a life of an
innocent person is morally justified. So critics argued that deontology lacks
flexibility and failed to accommodate moral nuance, especially in complex
real-world dilemmas.

Conflict of duties.

Deontologists may face situations where they have to choose between

conflicting duties, which can complicate moral decision making for example
the duty to tell the truth verse the duty to protect someone. A Philosopher
[Link] believed Kant’s theory was too rigid and didn’t allow for balancing
competing duties.

Information and Moral duty.

Holly Smith critiqued subjective deontological theory for failing to address

whether agents should gather more information before acting. He argued
that deontology doesn’t adequately guide agents in morally uncertain
situations for example if you don’t know whether your action will harm
someone, should you investigate further? Deontology is often silent on this.

Deontology forbids certain actions, for example, lying, killing and others
even if committing them could prevent greater harm, for instance, suppose
you could kill one person to save fifty others. Deontology says no, even if the
outcome is better. This led to what Huemer Micheal called a “paradox for
weak deontology” where minimizing violations seems morally preferable, but
deontology resists this logic. He explored how rigid rule following can conflict
with moral intuition and practical reasoning.

Application to Legal Ethics.

Lawyers have a duty to uphold client confidentiality, this duty persists even
when the outcome might seem unfavorable, for example defending a guilt
client and maintaining confidentiality even if disclosing information could
prevent harm, unless under the exception of court order and imminent
danger. For example, under Section 7 and 10 of The Advocates
(Professional Conduct) Regulations, which provides non-disclosure of
client’s information and Advocate’s fiduciary relationship with clients
respectively.

CASUIST THEORY.

Casuist is an ethical theory that includes analyzing moral dilemmas by

applying general ethical principles to specific cases or situations. It focuses
on resolving practical ethical problems through a case by case approach,
drawing on precedents and analogies from past decisions. In this method,
ethical judgments are made by comparing the current situation to similar
historical or hypothetical cases, allowing for nuanced decisions making that
considers contextual factors.

Casuists aim to balance universal ethical norms with the unique

circumstances of each case. For example, a casuist might evaluate whether
a lie is permissible by examining cases where honesty conflicts with a
greater good such as protecting someone’s life.

Casuistry’s methodology closely mirrors the common law tradition where

legal decisions are built on precedents rather than abstract codes making it
particularly applicable to legal ethics and adjudication. It serves important
approach by using analogical reasoning to interpret statutes or resolve
ambiguities in Continental European Systems. For example, the case of
Donoghue V Stevenson 1, this was the landmark case in negligence case
in tort law exemplifies casuistic reasoning by establishing the “neighborhood
principle” through analogy to prior cases involving duty of care. Lord Atkin
drew on Biblical and ethical precedents to extent liability from manufactures
to consumers resolving the specific dilemma.

Despite its practicality, casuistry has faced critiques and they are;

Modern critics argue that it lacks a strong theoretical foundation potentially

leading to relativism where outcomes vary based on casuists’ biases or
selective precedents without examining underlying intuitions or achieving
consensus.

Immanuel Kant critiqued casuistry indirectly in his deontological framework

viewing it as undermining perfect duties allowing situational sub maxims
that dilute moral absolutes.

It is also criticized for requiring artificial uniformity among cases, yielding

inconsistent conclusions and failing to articulate general norms, making it
vulnerable to manipulation in complex fields like law.

VIRTUE.

Virtue ethics emphasizes the moral character of an individual rather than the
consequences of actions. It focuses on developing virtues such as courage,
justice, temperance and wisdom as the foundation for ethical behavior. This
was rooted in the works of philosophers like Aristotle where virtue ethics
posits that a good person will naturally act ethically because their character
is shaped by these virtues. The goal is to cultivate a virtuous disposition
through practice and habit enabling individuals to make sound moral
choices. For example a virtuous person might demonstrate generosity by
helping others, without expecting reward, reflecting an inner commitment to
1
[1932] AC 562
goodness. Another example is can be a virtuous person tells a friend a
difficult truth e.g. about a harmful habit not out of duty or avoid
consequences but because honesty is integral to their character fostering
trust and growth.

In the case of Nix V Whiteside 2

, where a lawyer refused to present
perjured testimony, virtue ethics praises the attorney’s honesty and
professional integrity as virtuous essential for the legal system’s flourishing
beyond mere rule following. As discussed in legal theory, virtue ethics
implies laws should aim to make citizens virtuous, contrasting with liberal
views focused on autonomy. For instance, it supports laws promoting civic
virtues like tolerance or environment stewardship as explored in theories by
scholars like Lawrence.

Critics argue virtue ethics lacks clear action guidance, potentially leading to
relativism (virtues vary by culture) or egoism (focusing on personal
flourishing). It also faces the situation challenge from psychology,
questioning stable character traits and struggles with resolving virtue
conflicts.

Ethical Principles.

Beneficence.

This is the principle of acting to promote good and benefit others, essentially
“doing good”. It is a fundamental moral obligation to enhance well-being,
prevent harm and protect other’s interest. It is the cornerstone principle in
the field like health care and research. Beneficence involves not only positive
actions to help others but also taking care to minimize risks and ensure that
the benefits of an action out weight the potential harms.

In the health care, it means actively caring for patient’s best interests, which
may involve balancing risks and benefits to achieve a positive outcome. The
principle goes beyond merely avoiding harm and instead obligates one to
2
475 U.S.157(1986)
take positive action to help others, for example the principle can be seen in
charitable acts, providing assistance to someone in need or taking actions to
improve a community’s wellbeing.

The Principle of respect for autonomy.

The philosophical underpinning for autonomy as interpreted by philosophers

Immanuel Kant (1806-1804) and John Stuart Mill (1806-1873) and accepted
as an ethical principle, is that all persons have intrinsic and unconditional
wroth, and therefore, should have the power to make rational decisions and
moral choices and each should be allowed to exercise his or her capacity for
self-determination.

Autonomy is derived from Greek word “autos meaning “self” and “nomos”
meaning “rule” governance or law. Autonomy emphasizes respecting
individual’s rights to make informed decisions about their own lives, free
from coercion. It is connected to Liberal Political philosophy (John Mill) on
“Liberty” which defends the freedom of individuals to choose than own path
as long as it doesn’t harm others. This means recognizing a person’s
capacity to think, form judgments, and act on their own values, preferences
and belief, particularly in context of health care where it forms the basis of
informed consent for treatment.

Autonomy requires informed consent in the medical context, it is central to

the process of obtaining informed consent from competent patients before
any investigation or treatment takes place.

This ethical principle was affirmed in the court decision by Justice Cardozo
(1914) with the epigrammatic dictum “every human being of adult years and
sound mind has a right to determine what shall be done with his own body.

In the Re Quinlan case 3. The case is directly connected to the principle of

autonomy, establishing that patients (or their surrogates) have the right to
refuse life-sustaining medical treatment based on their constitutional rights
3
(1976)
to privacy and personal self-determination. The New Jersey Supreme Court
ruled that a person’s right to privacy extended to the right to decide when to
forgo extraordinary medical treatment, making the right to self-
determination a central tenet of medical ethics and law.

However, there are some exceptions to the principle of respect of

autonomy.

Emergency situations.

The respect for autonomy can be taken away by the court order for example
during the COVID-19 period, where people who contracted the virus were
quarantined to protect the general public and people’s rights to movement
were limited to only specific time and even work place, people were not
allowed to work in certain areas which would be over crowded.

Incapacity to make decisions.

Mental health laws can also over ride an individual’s autonomy by mandating
treatment if the individuals pose a threat of harm to themselves or others. In
this case, decisions are generally made by Health Authorities, designated
surrogate or guardian based on the patient’s best interest like in the case of
minors. For example, individuals with cognitive impairments, dementia, or
severe mental illness may not have the capacity to make autonomous
decisions. Their ability to understand information, appreciate their situation,
and reason through their options may be compromised.

Coercion and undue influence.

Any decision is not considered truly autonomous if it is the result of coercion,

manipulation, or undue influence from an external source. If a person is
pressured into a choice, such as by a family member or physician, it is
ethically invalid and legally void. Also a person who is unconscious under the
influence of drugs or alcohol, or in a state of delirium may be temporarily
unable to make autonomous choices.
THEORY OF RIGHTS.

The theory of rights in legal ethics examines how rights natural, legal, moral
shape the ethical obligations of legal professionals. In the Ugandan context,
the 1995 Constitution (Article 28) and the Advocates (Professional
Conduct) Regulations, which balance individual client’s rights with societal
and systemic duties. Theories of rights provide a philosophical foundation for
legal ethics, defining the entitlements advocates must respect and the duties
they owe. Key theories include;

Natural Rights Theory. This theory was proposed by John Locke He argued
that Rights to life, liberty and property are inherent and inalienable. In legal
ethics, this translates to Advocates respecting clients’ autonomy for
example, advocates' respect for client's choice of representation under
Article 28(3) (d) of the Constitution and confidentiality as extensions of
personal dignity. Natural and legal rights theories emphasize the clients’
entitlements to competent representation under Section 56 of the
Advocates Act, confidentiality in Regulation 7 and loyalty. In Roe V Wade 4,
the U.S Supreme Court recognized a woman's right to privacy rooted in the
concept of personal autonomy as a fundamental right. Although not explicitly
citing natural law, the decision reflects the idea of inherent rights to bodily
autonomy, a principle aligned with natural rights theory. Lawyers must
respect client's autonomy in decision making and they must respect clients’
inherent rights. For example informed consent in legal representation.
Illustration, a lawyer defending a client accused of a crime must uphold the
clients’ right to a fair trial, and natural right tied to justice, even if public
opinion demands conviction. This reflects the ethical duty to prioritize
inherent rights over societal pressures.

Legal Positivism

4
(1973)
Legal positivism asserts that rights are created and granted by positive law
(statutes, Constitution or judicial decisions) rather than inherent or moral
principles. Rights exist only when recognized by a legal system. The key
scholar H.L.A. Hart (The Concept of Law 1961), argued that rights and
obligations arise from social rules within a legal system, not from moral or
natural sources. John Austin with his command theory views rights as derived
from the commands of a sovereign, enforceable through sanctions.

In Uganda, the Advocates Act and the Advocates (Professional Conduct)

Regulations define an advocate’s duties, such as maintaining integrity,
confidentiality, and upholding ethical conduct to statutory rights like fair trial
under Article 28 of the Revised 1995 Constitution of Uganda.

In Centre for Legal Aid Assistance V Attorney General , advocates

5

challenged restrictions on legal aid providers, arguing they impeded access

to justice for indigent clients. The court ruled that bureaucratic barriers
violated Article 28, affirming advocates’ ethical duty to provide pro bono
legal services under Regulation 31. Ethical implication of the case: The
court emphasized collective rights to a just legal system, lying ethical
conduct to statutory rights like fair trial under Article 28 of the 1995
Constitution of Uganda.

Uganda is closely linked to the principles of justice and fairness enshrined in

the Constitution. Article 28 of the 1995 Constitution of Uganda provides
for the right to a fair hearing. It states that every person is entitled to a fair,
speedy, and public hearing before an independent and impartial court or
tribunal in the determination of civil rights and obligations or any criminal
charge.

This article promotes ethical legal practice by ensuring accountability,

transparency, and respect for human dignity. It prohibits arbitrary decisions
and upholds justice as a moral duty. For instance, any person accused of an

5
(High Court Miscellaneous Cause No. 125 0f 2016)
offence must be presumed innocent until proven guilty, must be informed of
the charges, and given adequate time and facilities to prepare a defense.

In this sense, Article 28 enforces ethical conduct both in governance and in

the administration of justice, ensuring that fairness and due process are
maintained for the collective good, a reflection of utilitarian reasoning that
prioritizes overall societal welfare while protecting individual rights.

Utilitarian Rights

Utilitarianism is a moral theory associated with Jeremy Bentham and John

Stuart Mill. Bentham’s theory emphasized overall societal happiness and
minimizing pain, while Mill refined the idea, arguing that rights are justified
only if they promote the greatest good for the greatest number.

The scholars Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill (An introduction to the
principles of Morals and Legislation 1989) viewed rights as a tools to achieve
societal utility, rejecting natural rights as “nonsense upon stilts”. And John
Stuart Mill (on Liberty 1859), emphasized individual liberty as a right, but
only in so far as it contributes to societal well-being and essential only if it
contributed to overall happiness.

In Buck v. Bell 6, where the U.S Supreme Court upheld forced sterilization of
individual deem “unfit”, justifying it on utilitarian grounds of societal
benefits. This controversial decision highlights the risks of prioritizing
collective welfare over individual rights.

Also in Centre Constitutional Governance V Uganda Communications

Commission 7, the court upheld media regulations on utilitarian grounds of
public order, despite free expression claims, showing how utility justifies
limiting rights for collective security.

Per Legal Ethics and Professionalism: A Handbook for Uganda, lawyers

evaluate actions by outcomes for example, withdrawing from cases harming
6
(1927)
7
[2024] UGHC
public interest, aligning with Rule 3 on Professional Misconduct. Illustration,
in environmental litigation, a lawyer prioritizes community welfare over a
client’s polluting factory, invoking utilitarian calculus to seek broader
ecological benefits.

Also in Advocates Coalition for Development and Environment V

Attorney General ,
8
the court recognized collective welfare and
environmental protection over individual convenience, reflecting utilitarian
alignment in environmental litigation.

MORAL RIGHTS.

This was coined by Immanuel Kant. He argued that moral actions stem from
a sense of duty and good will, not from potential consequences or personal
desires. According to this theory, Rights stem from human dignity, requiring
advocates to treat clients and courts as ends, not means. This underpins
duties of Candor under Regulation 9 and fairness, ensuring ethical conduct
aligns with moral imperatives.

In Miranda V Arizona , US Court warnings ensure informed consent in

9

interrogations, treating suspects as rational ends (not means to confession).

This deontological safeguard prevents coerced “truth”, prioritizing dignity
over efficient policing.

Rights as Triumphs (Ronald Dworking)

The theory posits that individual rights over ride collective goals unless
justified by compelling public interest. In legal ethics, this prioritizes client
loyalty but allows exceptions. For example, in situation where the lawyer
must disclose the crime or fraud committed by the client to protect societal
rights.

8
(Misc. Cause No.100 of 2004)
9
(1966)
In Centre for Legal Assistance V Attorney General , the Court
10

emphasized protection of the dignity of marginalized clients. Dworkin’s

triumphs theory supports the indigent’s right to counsel as paramount.

THE PRINCIPLE OF JUSTICE.

Justice is generally interpreted as fair, equitable and appropriate treatment

of persons. Of the several categories of justice, the one that is most
pertinent to clinical ethics is distributive justice. Distributive justice refers to
fair, equitable and appropriate distribution of resources, retributive justice
which is fair punishment, compensatory justice, which is fair compensation
for harm and others.

Justice has been a central concern since Aristotle who defined as giving each
person their due treatment. It also finds expression in Rawl’s theory of
justice which argues that principles of justice must be chosen under a veil of
ignorance, ensuring fairness and equality without bias. Justice in ethics
requires fair distribution of benefits and burdens, impartially and respect for
rights. In the case of Brown V Board of Education 11
, where the decision
outlawing racial segregation in U.S public schools is a land mark case of
justice. It established that a separate but equal was inherently unjust,
affirming equal access to education as a moral and constitutional principle.
Under article 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights prohibits
discrimination, institutionalizing justice as fairness. Article 21 of the
constitution provides for equality before the law and equal protection hence
illustrating justice.

THE PRINCIPLE OF LEAST HARM.

It is also known as lesser harm principle. Similar to beneficence, least harm

deals with situations in which no choice appears beneficial. In such cases
decision makers seek to choose to do the least harm possible and to do harm

10
(High Court Miscellaneous No. 125 of 2016)
11
(1954)
to the fewest people. Student might argue that people have a greater
responsibility to simply walk past a teacher in the hallway rather than to
make derogatory remarks about the teacher as she walks past even though
the student had failed that teacher’s class.

The principle of choosing the option that will cause the least amount of
suffering or negative consequences when all available choices involve some
degree of harm it emphasizes minimizing negative impacts on individuals
and society and is a core concept in moral decision making, especially when
direct benefit isn’t possible. Thus this is a moral guideline often used in
ethical decision making. It suggests that when faced with a situation where
all possible actions or outcomes will cause some harm, one should choose
the action that will result in the least amount of harm. For example in public
health the distribution of covid 19 vaccines illustrated this principle
governments prioritized vulnerable populations to minimize harm. Similarly
in the case of Roe V Wade 12
, debates around abortion centered partly on
the principle of minimizing harm both the mother and the fetus. Ethical
evaluation required balancing harms in a way that reduced overall suffering.

CRITERIA FOR EVALUATING ETHICAL CHARACTER OF ACTION

Intention or motive

One of the primary criteria for evaluating the ethical character of an action is
the intention behind the action. Ethical evaluation often considers why
someone acted rather than merely what they did. A good intention generally
indicates a morally praiseworthy action, while a bad intention can render an
otherwise good act unethical. For example, consider where a doctor
administers a treatment to save a patient’s life. If the intention is genuinely
to heal the patient, the act is ethically commendable. Conversely, if the
doctor administers the same treatment to experiment on the patient without
consent, the action becomes ethically impermissible despite the outcome.

12
(1973)
A case study is the Tuskegee Syphilis Study (1932–1972), where the U.S.
public health officials withheld treatment from Black men in Alabama
infected with syphilis to study the disease’s progression. Although framed as
scientific research, the malicious intention to deceive participants made the
actions ethically indefensible because participants were misled into believing
they were receiving treatment for “bad blood” and were denied effective
treatment such as penicillin once it became available. The study ended only
after a journalist exposed it to the public, leading to official apologies and
compensation for the victims and their families.

Consequence or Outcome

Another crucial criterion are the consequences of an action. From the

consequentialist or utilitarian perspective, an action’s ethical worth is judged
by its results, whether it maximizes good and minimizes harm. For example,
government policy providing free vaccination programs can be ethically
justified because it benefits public health, reduces disease, and saves lives.

The Bhopal Gas Tragedy 13

, illustrates this clearly. Union Carbide’s
negligence in maintaining safety measures led to thousands of deaths and
permanent disabilities, highlighting that harmful consequences render
actions morally wrong regardless of corporate or economic intention.

Means or Method used

This is a deontological perspective, focusing on duties rather than the

outcome of the actions

Evaluating Ethical Character.

Evaluating ethical character also involves scrutinizing how an action is

carried out. Deontological ethics, as proposed by Immanuel Kant, stresses
that certain actions are inherently right or wrong, irrespective of the
outcome. This perspective emphasizes adherence to moral duties, rules, or

13
(1984)
principles. For example, telling the truth is considered ethically right even if
it leads to a temporary inconvenience, while lying is considered wrong
regardless of any positive consequences it may produce. In the case of
United States v. Alvarez , the court upheld free speech protection even
14

when statements were false, highlighting the ethical importance of

respecting procedural and moral duties over purely outcome based
reasoning.

Consistency and Universality

This is the criterion used to evaluate whether an action can be universally

applied without contradiction. Kant’s categorical imperative suggests that
ethical actions are those that can be consistently applied to everyone in
similar circumstances. For example, if a person justifies stealing because
they need something, this action fails the universality test if everyone were
to steal whenever they needed something, social order would collapse
Ethical evaluation therefore includes asking can this action be morally
acceptable? This approach quantifies everyone do it? standards and
selective against double promoting fairness and justice.

Context and circumstances.

An action cannot be evaluated in isolation from their context situational

factors, such as urgency, social norms and available information play a
critical role. For example, a soldier may take a life during war time under
orders or in self-defense. Morally, this may be justified under certain ethical
frameworks, but condemned during peace time. Similarly, in corporate
ethics, whistle blowers exposing corruption actions or act, it is ethically good
even if they breach company rules, because the broader context or public
good versus internal loyalty justifies the action.

14
(2012)
A historical example to is about Edward Snowder, whose disclosure of
classified government information sparked debates on ethical responsibility
verses legal obligation.

Virtue ethics, which originates from ancient philosophers like Aristotle,

evaluates character rather than focusing on consequences or rules alone.
Ethical actions are those that virtuous person performs actions that are
assessed through voluntariness criteria the action must be voluntary,
conscious, and a product of deliberate intention not force.

In conclusion.

The criteria for evaluating ethical character varies depending on the ethical
framework (like virtue ethics, deontology, consequentialism). Evaluating is a
process of assessing an individual’s consistent behavior, decisions making
and motivations against specific moral standards to understand their moral
qualities.
References.

The Revised 1995 Constitution of Uganda.

The Advocate Act, Cap 295.

The Advocates (Professional Conduct) Regulations, Statutory Instrument 267-2.

The Advocates (Disciplinary Committee) (Procedure) Regulations, Statutory Instrument 267-6.

Legal Ethics and Professionalism, A Handbook for Uganda, by [Link] Dennison/ Pamela
Tibihikirra-Kalyegira.

[Link]

[Link]

Case Laws.