21st May 2006, 07:26 PM
Which bit have I misunderstood then? It is quite clear that the analogy was meant to illustrate Why consultants are duty bound to advise on the minimum legal requirement, and nothing else.
If the legislation is inadequate, and I think most archaeologist would agree that it is, then of course it is not any consultant's fault, but they probably benefit from it. I suspect that tighter planning regulation and more clear cut guidance with regard to archaeological remains would remove some of the grey areas that consultants so successfully exploit.
What I'm curious about is the ethical dilemma facing a consultant who knows what best practice is in a certain situation, but can then recommend something else to a client because the law is not good enough? Is it like being a defence lawyer for someone who is clearly guilty? (Maybe that's a terrible analogy as well?)
As a contractor I face similar situations but very seldom have to do anything I'm ethically not happy with. But then we are not trying to build an empire that exploits lax regulation.
If the legislation is inadequate, and I think most archaeologist would agree that it is, then of course it is not any consultant's fault, but they probably benefit from it. I suspect that tighter planning regulation and more clear cut guidance with regard to archaeological remains would remove some of the grey areas that consultants so successfully exploit.
What I'm curious about is the ethical dilemma facing a consultant who knows what best practice is in a certain situation, but can then recommend something else to a client because the law is not good enough? Is it like being a defence lawyer for someone who is clearly guilty? (Maybe that's a terrible analogy as well?)
As a contractor I face similar situations but very seldom have to do anything I'm ethically not happy with. But then we are not trying to build an empire that exploits lax regulation.