Moral Philosophy
\Riots\MacArthur Park.wmv
\Police pursuit\Pursuit Van Nuys.wmv
\Police pursuit\Two deadly chases.wmv
Definitions:
Morals, ethics, values, concepts




Morals
– General standards of conduct (e.g., “thou shalt not kill”)
– Vary across societies
Ethics (actually, “applied ethics”)
– Elaborating and refining moral rules to determine what is proper
under specific circumstances
– How should the moral rule against killing apply when self-defense is
involved? In police work? In war?
Values
– Basic, irreducible statements that set out desirable personal qualities
o Loyalty, honesty, duty, fairness, etc. (see text, p. 15)
Concepts
– Complex abstractions that incorporate values and can be useful
guides to behavior
– Examples: Due process, proportionality, equality under the law,
conflicts of interest, etc.
Professional ethics –
Criminal justice ethics


Each profession has its own formal and informal values and concepts
– Laws, regulations, codes of conduct, expectations
A few values and concepts in criminal justice
– Exchange agreement (“social contract”)
– Special power and authority
o Limitations on use of force
– Due Process
o Objectivity, accuracy, impartiality
– Equal Protection
o Freedom from bias, equal treatment
– Public service
o Accountability – openness and truth
o Democracy – responsive to political oversight
– Law enforcement code of conduct
Criminal justice ethics –
Legal concepts

Can laws be immoral? Should they be always applied?
–
–

Who is legally culpable?
–
–
–
–
–

Police and prosecutorial discretion
Judicial discretion, sentencing options
Intent
Negligence v. recklessness
Mental disease or defect
Juveniles
Battered spouses
Who is morally culpable?
–
–
–
Can acquitted persons be morally blamed?
Circumstances (poverty, lack of opportunity)
Relative culpability (white collar –v- blue collar criminals)
Ethical dilemma


Conflict between values/concepts/professional standards
Conflict between these and internal/external forces
Internal forces
Bias, desire for
promotion, anger,
frustration, etc.
External forces
Arrest and ticket
quotas, citizen and
agency pressures,
political climate, etc.
Ethical dilemma

While on patrol you pull over a car that is
weaving all over the road. You walk up to the
driver’s side and discover the driver is your
father-in-law. He is drunk as a skunk.
What do you do?
A common dilemma:
Conflict of interest

Most common dilemma
–
–

Vet
–

Run it by someone else
Recuse
–

Our needs vs. public needs
Can we serve two masters?
Let someone else decide
Cheating and its consequences
–
–
Us
Others
Discovering and analyzing ethical
dilemmas




Review all the facts
Identify relevant values for each party
– Loyalty, honesty, duty, fairness, etc.
Identify relevant concepts
– Due process, proportionality, equality, accountability, etc.
– Be sure to include relevant laws, agency regulations, professional
codes and workplace standards
Identify all significant ethical dilemmas suggested by this particular set
of facts (potential conflicts between internal/external forces and
values/concepts). Don’t wander off this specific scenario!
– Is there a dilemma at a key decision point?
– Who is the principal “actor” – the person responsible for making
the decision and carrying it out?
– Are there other “actors” who might influence this decision?
A process for resolving dilemmas will be covered after we
review ethical theories
Resolving ethical dilemmas using
ethical systems



How do we apply values and concepts to resolve ethical dilemmas?
– Are there absolute values and concepts that must never be violated?
– Or is it a balancing act? If so, how do we weigh the relative importance of
certain values and concepts against others?
– Should we favor society? Individuals? Under what circumstances?
Ethical systems
– Process for applying values and concepts to resolve ethical dilemmas
– Some are “one-stop” shopping (include favored values and concepts)
Two types
– Deontological: only concerned with the nature of the act
 Best example: ethical formalism
– Teleological: also take into account judge the consequences of an act
(“Bad” acts can under certain circumstances be “good”)
 Best example: utilitarianism
Absolutism -vmoral relativism



Absolutism – norms of behavior are universal
– If rules don’t always apply, why should someone conform to
his/her culture’s standards?
– Slippery slope: without rules can deteriorate from “grass
eating” to “meat eating”
Relativism – norms of behavior set by groups and societies
– What some societies find good, others find bad
Cultural relativism
– What is good is that which contributes to the social welfare
 Example - euthanasia of burdensome elderly
– Definition of criminal behavior varies across societies
 Example - Indian father who sold a 14-year old daughter
into marriage
Ethical system:
Ethical Formalism

Immanuel Kant: acts should always conform to the principle that they could be
a universal law of nature

Called a “categorical imperative” because acts are judged without concern for
their purpose or consequences
–
Killing and lying are always wrong
–
As long as act is done in “good will”, it is moral even if even tragic
consequences result
–
“Good will” means that an act is taken because doing so is right - not
because it might yield a reward
–
Serious weakness - why leave out the potential consequences of an act
when assessing its moral worth?
Ethical system:
Utilitarianism




Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill
Act to produce the greatest benefit for all concerned
Types
– Act utilitarianism: consideration limited to the utility gained
from a specific act
– Rule utilitarianism: also consider an act’s precedential
and rule-setting values
 Example - abortion
Difficulties
– Measuring benefits
– Predicting consequences of acts
– Little concern for individual rights
 Example - throwing out an occupant of a lifeboat
because it might otherwise sink
Ethical system:
Natural Law

Morality is part of the natural order
–

What is good is what conforms to the “natural order of things”
–
–
–
–
–

Preserving life
Maintaining the species
Prohibiting needless killing
Promoting socialization through altruism and generosity
Pursuit of knowledge and understanding about the universe
Natural human rights
–
–

There are universal rights and wrongs
Balance between personal rights and societal obligations
Social contract – give up something to the group to gain a greater
benefit
Difficulty: what is natural?
Ethical system:
Ethics of Virtue - Aristotle


Concerned with character - not with acts per se
Rejects use of reason to judge the morality of acts
–




Does “seek a good end”
Some attributes of a “good person”
– thrift
– temperance
– humility
– industriousness
– honesty
“Golden mean”: moral choices reflect the midpoint of extremes
– Example - thrift lies between being a miser and a spendthrift
Might explain a lot of behavior (we usually do the right thing without
thinking about it)
Difficult to apply to individual moral dilemmas because virtues might
sometimes be in opposition
– Example - honesty and loyalty
Ethical system:
Ethics of Care

What is good meets the needs of everyone
concerned
–
–

Tries to maximize benefits for all
BUT: the individual is never sacrificed
Emphasis on promoting empathy and
compassion
–
–
Resolve situations through personal relationships
Less concerned with securing “rights”
Ethical system:
Egoism

Everything that contributes to individual happiness
and survival is good
–

Individual comes before everything else
Enlightened egoism
–
–
–
–
Treat others in a way that we would want to be treated to
ensure their cooperation
Selflessness and altruism are egoistic because they give
self-satisfaction
Individuals should focus on the long term
Basis for capitalism
Ethical system:
Situational Ethics


Attempt to reconcile relativism and absolutism
– Unlike relativism, recognizes basic norms and principles
of human behavior
 Sources: natural law, the golden rule, ethics of care
– Applies these to “illuminate” moral dilemmas
– Tempers the application according to its impact on all
concerned
 Example - arranged marriages may be OK if all agree
and motives are consistent with care for the individual
Very close to:
– Rule-based utilitarianism
– Flexible application of Kant’s categorical imperative
– Consistent with ethics of care
– Consistent with the “golden rule”
Resolving ethical
dilemmas




After identifying the dilemma by doing the
work in the preceding slide , pick the one|
ethical system that best fits the facts, values
and concepts of this particular dilemma.
– Danger! Remember that you have already identified the exact
dilemma and where it arose – stick to it! Don’t wander off!
What is the ethically correct decision? Be specific – what should the
actor do, or what should he have done?
What can be done to encourage or insure that others faced with this
dilemma follow your advice?
Note: Your job is to apply ethics as a preventive tool, to come in as an
outsider and suggest how to use ethics in resolving a particular
dilemma. We are NOT interested in using ethical systems to excuse
or explain away misconduct.
Ethical dilemma



You have no evidence against the “number one man” of a criminal
organization. You do have barely enough to arrest the “number two
man”. He is weak-willed, and if he winds up in handcuffs, away from
the “gang”, he might be sufficiently scared to confess and implicate his
boss. Naturally that could get him in a lot of legal and personal
trouble.
What should you do?
– Review all the facts. Who is/are the “actors” – the C.J.
professionals who will make the key decisions?
– In this scenario, what values (e.g., duty, honesty, etc.), concepts
(e.g., probable cause, proportionality), policies, etc. does the actor
face?
– What is the most immediate ethical dilemma that the actor must
resolve?
– What ethical system seems best equipped to resolve this
dilemma?
Resolve the dilemma. What should the actor do (or have done, if
action was already taken?)