ETHICAL DILEMMAS AND DECISIONS

IN CRIMINAL JUSTICE5th Edition

By Joycelyn M. Pollock

CHAPTER 2:

DETERMINING MORAL BEHAVIOR

Lecture Slides prepared by Mark Kellar to Accompany

A set of underlying premises that:

–Form the basis for moral judgments–Are the source of moral beliefs–Are beyond argument

–Are internally consistent–Possess a type of “moral common sense”

They can be defined (Harris) as the “systematic ordering of moral principles”

Ethical Systems (I)

Are described by Baelz as:

• Prescriptive• Authoritative• Logically impartial or universal• Not self-serving

Ethical Systems (II)

MOTIVATION MATTERS.

Some acts are inherently good. Others are inherently bad.

The consequences of the act are irrelevant.

Example: Charity is a moral act.

Giving money to a poor person is morally correct.If the poor person buys drugs with the money,

the original act of charity is still moral.

Deontological Ethical Systems

RESULTS MATTER.

An act is “good” or “bad” depending on the results it brings about.

The consequences of the act are what is judged.

Example: An act of charity might not be moral.

If drug abuse is an immoral consequence, and an act of charity supports drug abuse,

the act of charity could be considered immoral.

Teleological Ethical Systems

According to German philosopher Immanuel Kant:

–Good will (motivation) is the only thing that is intrisically good.

–Duty is required behavior. It is self-imposed and necessary to morality.

Ethical Formalism / Absolutism (I)

Two kinds of imperatives (commands) drive human behavior.

Hypothetical imperatives Drive us to achieve certain ends.

Are consequential in nature. Are neither “moral” nor “immoral”.

Categorical imperatives Are absolute.

Are based on good will.Determine morality.

Ethical Formalism / Absolutism (II)

1. Act only on that maxim through which you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law.

3. Act in such a way that you always treat humanity, whether in your own person, or that of any other, never simply as a means but always at the same time as an end.

5. Act as if you were, through your maxims, a lawmaking member of a kingdom of ends.

How to meet the requirements of the categorical imperative:

The wording of maxims is critical in ethical formalism and could lead to confusion or abuse.

(Example: Kant distinguishes “lies” from “untruths”.)

It might not apply to extreme circumstances. If an action is “wrong”, it is always wrong, regardless of the good consequences that might result.

It does not provide guidance for resolving conflicting duties.

It can be used to justify a position after it has been adopted, but it may give little help in forming a position.

Criticisms of Ethical Formalism

(A teleological system—the consequences are judged.) One of its founders was Jeremy Bentham.

•An action’s morality depends on how much it contributes to the overall good of society.

•Humans are hedonistic.

•They seek to maximize pleasure and avoid pain.

•An ethical system should be consistent with this.

Utilitarianism (I)

If an act benefits many people and causes pain to a few,

it is still good because

“the greatest good for the greatest number”

is more important than the pain of the smaller number.

Utilitarianism (II)

An act can be “calculated” as good or bad based on the total good it produces

vs. the total pain it causes.

If total benefit (good)

>

total liability (pain or loss)

then the act is good.

Act Utilitarianism

If a principle were to become a universal rule in society,

what would the social consequences be?

Rule Utilitarianism

•It assumes that consequences can be accurately predicted.

•In emphasizing the “greatest number,” it is not just towards the few.

•The rights of the few might be sacrificed for the “greatest number.”

•How can an ethical system be supported if it is not just or fair?

•Justice is absolute and must always apply.

Criticisms of Utilitarianism

A common basis of ethical systems.

BUT:

People hold different opinions about which religion is the “true” religion.

People within a religion often disagree on how to interpret its principles.

Many religious principles are based on revelation as opposed to logic.

Religious controversies are often difficult to resolve.

RELIGION

Morality is a force of nature, like gravity.The idea of the social contract has a basis in nature.

Philosophers like Thomas Hobbes and John Locke were influenced by natural law theory.

Their ideas are reflected in our system of government.

But—how do we know exactly what the natural law is?

Most social interactions are influenced by natural human tendencies, but can they be considered a “law”?

And does that make them RIGHT?

Natural Law

First taught by the Greek philosopher Aristotle :

True virtue is the median between extremes of character: the golden mean.

People develop moral virtues through practice,

just like any other strength.

The more one practices moral virtues, the more virtuous one becomes.

The Ethics of Virtue

Most Western philosophers have been male.

Most Western ethical systems focus on issues like rights, laws, and universalism.

A more “feminine” agenda might emphasize care, nurture, and empathy.

The Ethics of Care (I)

Relevant Criminal Justice issues:

–Rehabilitation

–Restorative justice

–Peacemaking

The Ethics of Care (II)

What benefits the individual is good… regardless of its effect on others.

Psychological Egoism : People behave in their own best interests. (Not an ethical system – an observation.)

Enlightened Egoism : People behave in their own best interests, but think of long-term consequences rather than immediate gratification.

The Ethics of VirtueEgoism

Ethical Relativism:Moral systems are products of an individual or group.

“Good” and “bad” may depend on an individual situation.

If people believe different things are good and bad, how can you define what is good?

Cultural Relativism: “Good” depends on the norms of each society.

What is acceptable in one society might not be in another.

Who is to say which society is right?

Relativism

Principle of ForfeiturePeople who violate the rights of others, forfeit their own rights.

An attacker cannot argue self-defense.

The “absolute” right to a defense is not absolute, but conditional.

RelativismAbsolutism

A compromise between relativism and absolutism:

– There are basic principles of right and wrong.– They can be applied to ethical dilemmas and

moral issues.– They may call for different results in different

situations.

Situational Ethics