WHOSE RIGHT TO LIFE?
Life is the first thing protected by law. Without it, there is no liberty or pursuit of happiness. But whose life should be protected in a situation in which, in order for one person to live, another must die or be exposed to deadly danger? By what criteria can the law prefer one life to another? The ethical soundness of of the law's answer to such questions will affect the respect commanded by the law as an authentic response to the need of people to be well-governed.

ENDING LIFE:
When confronted with grave, incurable illness or unbearable pain, sometimes hastening death seems to be a human option. Can the law contenance any choice to end life in such situations? What are the underlying principles that unable us to decide whether active or passive methods of ending life can be employed? How can the law protect the helpless from those who would end their lives for their own advantage or comfort? With an increasingly aged population, and with the side effects of modern medicine, we are faced with end of life dilemmas with increasing frequency. What solid ethical principales guide law to respect and protect life and protect while still maintening humaneness?

THE BEGINING OF LIFE:
What is the status of the unborn? Does fetal life enjoy the full protection of someone who has been born? If not, what sort of protection does it enjoy? By virtue of which principles can we make these distinctions? How does Jewish law and precedent compare to contemporary american law? What does its ethics of responsibility offer to a system that focuses on rights? The debate over abortion continues to divide the american body politic. Exploring the ethic of the protection of unborn life can offer the possibility of a stable, legal consensus that commands public allegiance.

FALSEHOOD:
Must the truth always be told? Much as truth is the foundation of justice, are there situations in which it is permissible or even meritorious to stray form the truth? Or might truth have several dimensions? If so, by what criteria can we prioritize which dimension of truth we must first honor? finding an ethic of truth frees us from those who would use the display of petty truths to escape criticism and restraint in human affairs.

ETHICS OF SPEECH:
Slander is a recognized offense both in American and Jewish law. What considerations must we make to protect privacy and reputation? Is adherance to truth the only consideration that we need to make, or must we actively take into account the effect of the communication upon the person being talked or written about? How does this affect the practice of law and the transaction of business? The power of speech is fundamental to our humanity. An ethic of the use of speech strengthens the reputation of individuals of the institutions they represent. Especially in the case of those who are agents of the court and the face of the law to the world, there is a great responsibility to use speech in a responsible way.