Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
April 9, 2007
Prompt #2
There are far too many moral and ethical decisions that were made in The
Conscience of the Court to properly describe and analyze all of them in the space of this
essay. The judge presiding over the court case had to decide how to handle the situation
he was faced with, regarding the leniency that he showed in the case, and realizing that as
Laura Lee said, “I don’t reckon [a lawyer] would do me a bit of good” that she had
realized that it was her against the world. Also for the judge to even allow the expert
testimony of Laura Lee about her background with Mrs. Clairborne itself, that took a
good deal of commitment to not allow the objection of the plaintiff. The most prominent
of these, and more decisions however, was made by the main character herself, Laura Lee
Kimble, who had to choose whether or not to let the plaintiff, Clement Beasley, enter the
The first move that Laura Lee makes during the time that she knew Beasley was
to give him the benefit of the doubt. This first response is one that would be
characteristic of a well-meaning housekeeper, one who may or may not care for her lady
of the house at all. It was a response of someone who would be a prime target of today’s
telemarketers and scam artists. She appears as someone who means well, but would not
folks’s cares in front of her own” (687). In this case, this trait of hers extends ironically
1
all the way to Beasley himself, who seems to have a real genuine need of getting in touch
with Mrs. Clairborne. She went and got the letter Mrs. Clairborne had sent so to her, so
that Beasley could reach Mrs. Clairborne. Sadly for him, Beasley’s intentions were not
The next decision that Laura Lee had as far as ethics goes, was a much easier one
to make. In fact, she really didn’t have much of a say in her response to the events that
took place following the first day that Beasley had come by. Her response was a very
simple “watch-dog” response (691). She was struck as a direct result of not backing
down and allowing a white man to enter. This would usually be enough to send most
people either into the fight or away from it. Laura Lee actually gave Mr. Beasley time to
kick her before she retaliated and refused him entry. I am still confused as to where she
got this vast amount of strength from, that she could knock a full-grown man to the
ground with one punch. I can understand him being immobilized after she hit the porch
railing with his head, but to knock him down with one hit, and also, to carry him from the
porch to the gate and throw him over the yard fence, I am very skeptical as to how this
actually happened. It is obvious to the reader that she loved Mrs. Clairborne too much to
let someone come and haul off her very fine antiques without at least putting up a fight in
her stead. However, it is not my opinion that Laura Lee acted out of the ordinary in this
instance.
It is my opinion that she did what anyone hired to guard anything in any similar
situation would have done. She guarded the merchandise and protected the house. While
I do not think her response was extraordinary, I do think it is extraordinary that she took
on a man, in principle, who also had two other men with him, and she did not back down
2
even after being struck twice and kicked. This is where the morality of the story comes
into question. There were many allusions to the Bible and God made in this story by
Laura Lee, but the Bible’s teachings say to turn the other cheek when someone strikes
you, and basically, to not fight back. Therefore, one could argue that Laura Lee did not
act morally in this instance. But the court found her not guilty. So how then can a
judicial system, which was founded on Biblical principles, pardon an individual for
Even further than this, the Bible says to give to all those who ask, including when
a man steals your jacket, offer him your shirt as well. So Laura Lee ended up NOT
choosing the morally correct action in this instance, as per her beliefs, but what about
ethics? Ethics says to protect all that she has been paid to be in charge of. No one would
say anything negative about Laura Lee after she put her own safety on the line protecting
what she knew she was in charge of, but would morality agree with ethics here? The
Bible says to turn the other cheek when struck, but there was also a parable of the talents.
This parable was to demonstrate guarding what you have been entrusted with, and
making good use of everything you have. Doesn’t this seem a little contradictory then, to
say, protect what you are entrusted with, until someone strikes you or asks for it?
There is no contradiction made here between ethics and morality, because the
context that we are told to give to those who ask is to give to those who are in need.
Clearly, Beasley was not in need of all those very valuable antiques, and therefore should
not have been entitled to them. So then, the only argument about morality left would be
for Laura Lee to have turned the other cheek. This is one place in our justice system that
3
So we come to the conclusion that for this particular decision, Laura Lee had
decided to make the ethical choice and protect all that belonged to Mrs. Clairborne,
Now let us suppose that Laura Lee had acted morally, but not ethically, and had
let her lady Mrs. Clairborne’s fine collection of antiques be taken by Mr. Beasley. What
would have happened? Undoubtedly, Mrs. Clairborne would have been deeply saddened
for her loss, but I’m sure her love for Laura Lee would have quickly overtaken that initial
superficial reflex that we humans have, and redirected her attention to Laura Lee and
questions of are you hurt, and what happened, followed by responses of well I’m just
glad you’re okay. Further, Beasley would have successfully gotten rich on the pretense of
claiming the collateral shown to him to have a $600 loan approved. Laura Lee would
now not have as much of her lady Mrs. Clairborne’s trust as she does at the present, but
the issue never would have gone to trial, and the judge never would have had a rebirth or
rejuvenation of his career because of Laura Lee’s testimony. Laura Lee would not have
the conviction or the self-assuredness that she has now, she would not really have faith in
the justice system as it pertains to black people, simply from her experience of being
taken advantage of, and she would forever feel like she did not do what she should have
Which is more important, morality or ethics? In the prompt they were mentioned
as substitutes, different words for different definitions of what people think morality
really is I suppose. Why is it so hard to define morality? When did it become okay for
there to be more than one right or wrong? How is the justice system supposed to
distinguish between some of these cases if they are moral for some, but not for others?
4
This story had a perfect example of this, the justice system deemed it admissible to
defend oneself physically when one is being attacked. However, if one were to follow
the Bible explicitly, as Laura Lee seems to do, one would see that we are morally
Laura Lee ultimately decides she would rather protect the items she has been
entrusted with, and deal with the moral consequences later. We are not told that she
weighed all these options before she took action, and it is highly unlikely that these
passages of Scripture crossed her mind just before she made her decision. It is also not
probable that she recognized the battle between morality and ethics in the decision she
was about to make. It is most likely that she was angered, threatened, and more than
happy to teach Mr. Beasley a lesson in manners and in the end assert herself and her