Can anyone think of an instance where the truth seeking should take precedence over priveliged communication and why? (or the opposite)
Priv. comm. being attourney/client, psychiatrist/patient, priest/confessor
and try to frame it in a courtroom setting (this is the current LD topic by the way). Currently policy is that you can’t breach priv. comm. in the search for truth. So this post’s point is to give philosophical reasons and arguements to prove that either the policy is currently correct, or that the spirit of the law should prevail over the letter.
in a perfect world i would say that the government should be able to override privledged information in the search for truth. because in a perfect world that information wouldnt be abused… but there is the possibility that in our imperfect world that privlidged info might be used in the wrong way.
in a perfect world the only people who would have to anything to hide should be worried. about their privacy ever being breached. however… it aint a perfect world.
In a perfect world there wouldn’t be life, because what we define as perfect is contrary to most of life’s definitive fundamental instructions for survival, without which it would die.
I have found only one instance where the search for truth should override privileged communication. That is where the information revealed in privliged communication endangers lives or way ofl ife on a national or regional scale. In such a case the personal right of privliged communication would infringe upon the personal right of safety/security. As your rights extend only as far as another person’s begins, this information can no longer be contained/protected by privliged communication since it violates another person’s rights. (It voids itself)
Someone PLEASE point out ANY POSSIBLE problems in this case since it’s going as one of my main contentions
A second contention i hope to put forth, but need help crystalizing my point is:
FOllowing up on that thought is the idea of social contract. Everyone in a society is bound by a social contract. Whether or not they are aware of it isn’t an issue (ignorance is no excuse) and they are all bound by it by nature of being in that society. The social contract ensures personal rights. If intent to harm society were divulged in a privliged communication then that person’s end of the social contract has been broken (by showing intent to harm society). Thus their rights under the social contract have been waived. Clarification: If one breaks a contract, one has chosen to exist outside of it. Existing outside of the social contract, you cound not be covered by the rights due those within it (such as prvilileged communication). Thus they NO LONGER have the right to the protection of information revealed in proviliged communications.
EDIT: I’m also looking for a strong value premise to put these under.
