Download slide show


They are public servants, with
public duties and responsibilities
(more on this later)

They use discretion – can choose
from different courses of action

They have authority and power
 Use force and coercion
 Their actions can have major
impacts on people’s lives

Talking point  the 23-year old cop
(meaning chronological age, not years on the job)
Morals
 Principles of right and wrong
 What a society considers good conduct
▪ Taking care of elderly, being kind to strangers, avoiding violence
 Ethics
 Discipline of determining good and evil
 Study of how society defines good and bad conduct
 Behaving morally
 Duties: specific behaviors required by one’s role (e.g. parent: provider)
 Imperfect duties: general obligation; no specific conduct set out
(i.e., generosity)
 Superogatories: commendable acts that go beyond what’s required
 Values
 Desirable or important qualities - loyalty, honesty, wealth, etc.
 Not all values are of equal worthiness

Meta-ethics - the scientific study of ethics
 What is the meaning of the terms used in ethics?
 Are ethical systems relative or universal?
 Are they real? How can they be verified?
 Normative ethics
 What people ought to do
 Definition of proper conduct and moral obligations
 Applied ethics
 Applying ethical principles to specific issues
 Professional ethics
 Applying ethical principles to occupations


Office is a public trust

Accountability – truth and transparency

Democracy – responsiveness to political oversight

Objectivity, freedom from conflicts of interest

Exchange agreement (“social contract”)

Obligations of CJ professionals
 Due Process - Objectivity, accuracy, impartiality
 Equal Protection - Freedom from bias, equal treatment
To judge there must have been…
 A human act, of free will, that affects others
 Legal v. moral culpability
 Different concepts
 Exemptions from legal and/or moral culpability
▪ Juveniles - too immature to appreciate consequence of their acts
▪ The insane - mentally incapable of appreciating consequences
▪ Lack of free will - someone was coerced or acted in self-defense
 Mitigations - “culpable but with an explanation”
▪ Intent - negligent (bad), reckless (worse), purposive (worst)
▪ Life circumstances such as poverty & lack of opportunity
▪ Relative culpability (hanger-on v. ringleader)
▪ Provocation (e.g., battered spouse lashes out)



Ethical issue
 Broad social questions or policy decisions, not
resolvable by individuals (death penalty, three-strikes,
citizen oversight, broken windows, immigration law,
etc.)
Ethical dilemmas
 Individual faced with a decision what to do
 Situation is complicated because…
▪ Ethically correct thing to do is unclear
▪ Taking the ethically correct action may have costs negative consequences for the actor or for others
Critical thinking is key
 Separate facts from concepts
 Identify underlying assumptions
 Process
1. Identify the facts. What happened? What is known?
2. Identify relevant values (e.g., loyalty, duty, honesty, fairness)
and concepts (e.g., due process, proportionality, equality)
3. Identify all moral dilemmas for each person involved. Be sure
to identify relevant laws, agency regulations, professional
codes and workplace standards.
4. Decide on the most immediate moral or ethical issue
5. Use an ethical system or other means to resolve the ethical or
moral dilemma

What are they?
 Set of principles that define what is moral
 Underlying premises for making judgments
 Beyond argument
 Characteristics
 Prescriptive - demand certain behavior
 Authoritative - not debatable
 Logically impartial or universal - rules apply to all
 Not self-serving - what is good for all, not just the actor
≈
Ethical system  Moral rules (limit drinking, put children first) 
Moral judgment (parents who drink and neglect kids are bad)






What makes a good person?
 People not born good but become good
by following habits of a moral exemplar
Focus on character - not actions
 Intellectual virtues (e.g. wisdom, understanding)
 Moral virtues (e.g. self-control, generosity)
Josephson Institute’s six “pillars of character”: Trustworthiness,
respect, responsibility, fairness, caring, citizenship
“Golden mean”: moral choices reflect moderation or the midpoint
 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 (e.g., honesty and loyalty)
Morality is part of the natural order
 There are universal rights and wrongs
 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
 Balance between personal rights and societal obligations
 Social contract – give up something to the group to gain a greater
benefit
 Difficulty: what is natural?

Moral guidelines for how to live one’s life
God’s will is beyond question
Many religions have similar moral principles
 A version of Christianity’s “Do unto others”
Golden Rule can be found in Hinduism, Buddhism,
Confucianism and Judaism
 Issues
 Is God’s command to not do something based on an act’s
inherent wrongfulness, or on God’s own judgment?
 Determining God’s will (Barry)
▪ Individual conscience
▪ Religious authorities
▪ Holy scriptures







A “deontological” ethical system
 Concerned only with the nature of an act
 Only truly good thing is a “good will”
Acts should always conform to the “categorical imperative”
 Could an act become a rule of nature? If so, it is good
Acts are evaluated without concern for their purpose or
consequences
 Killing and lying are always wrong
 As long as an act is done in “good will”, it is moral even if
tragic consequences result
 “Good will” means that an act is taken because it is inherently
right - not because it might yield a reward
Serious weakness - why leave out the potential consequences
of an act when assessing its moral worth?
Teleological ethical system: measures an act’s
“goodness” according to its consequences
 Purpose: to produce the greatest benefit for all concerned - the
best ratio of good to evil
 Types
 Act utilitarianism: consideration limited to the utility gained
from a specific act
 Rule utilitarianism: also consider an act’s precedential and rulesetting values (e.g., 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

What is good meets the needs of everyone
concerned
 Tries to maximize benefits for all
 The individual is never sacrificed
 Emphasis on empathy and compassion
 Resolve situations through personal relationships
 Less concerned with securing “rights”
 In criminal justice, represented by rehabilitation instead of
punishment
 Peacemaking justice (Braswell and Gold)
 Connectedness with each other and the Earth
 Caring for each other
 Mindfulness of others when making decisions

Everything that contributes to individual
happiness is good
 Individual comes before everything else
 Psychological egoism
 Humans naturally egoistic, unnatural to be otherwise
 Even running into a burning building is egoistic
 Enlightened egoism
 Treat others in a way that you would want to be treated and you
will benefit in the long term
 Selflessness and altruism are actually egoistic because they give
self-satisfaction
 Individuals should focus on the long term
 Basis for capitalism







Imperative principle
 Act according to a fixed rule
Utilitarian principle
 Compares good and bad consequences
Generalization principle
 “What would happen if everyone acted this way?”
Absolutism / Universalism
 Absolutism: If something is wrong, it’s always wrong
 Universalism: Rules apply to everyone, everywhere.
▪ If rules don’t always apply to everyone, why should people conform?
Relativism
 No moral absolutes - what is good depends on individuals and groups
Cultural relativism
 What is good is that which contributes to the health and survival of a
society (e.g., depending on resources, euthanasia of elderly can be OK)
 Definition of criminal behavior varies across societies
Attempt to reconcile relativism and
absolutism
 Hinman’s “moral pluralism”
 There are basic principles of right and wrong
 These principles can be applied to ethical dilemmas & moral issues
 Different results in different situations
 Situational ethics applies basic ethical principles to resolve moral
dilemmas
 Adjusts according to the 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”

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
future father-in-law. He is drunk as a skunk.
Your wedding is (was?) in three days.
Use the process on the next slide to resolve the
dilemma.
What should you do?
Critical thinking is key
 Separate facts from concepts
 Identify underlying assumptions
 Process
1. Identify the facts. What happened? What is known?
2. Identify relevant values (e.g., loyalty, duty, honesty, fairness)
and concepts (e.g., due process, proportionality, equality)
3. Identify all moral dilemmas for each person involved. Be sure
to identify relevant laws, agency regulations, professional
codes and workplace standards.
4. Decide on the most immediate moral or ethical issue
5. Use an ethical system or other means to resolve the ethical or
moral dilemma


Ethics of Virtue (Aristotle)



Natural Law



Measures an act’s “goodness” according to its consequences
Purpose to produce the greatest benefit for all concerned - the best ratio of good to evil
Ethics of care



Concerned only with the nature of an act, not its consequences
“Categorical imperative”: Could an act become a rule of nature? If so, it is good
Utilitarianism (Bentham and Mill)



Moral guidelines for how to live one’s life. God’s will is beyond question.
Ethical formalism (Kant)



Morality is part of the natural order; there are universal rights and wrongs
What is good is what conforms to the “natural order of things” (e.g. preserving life)
Religion


People not born good but become good by following a moral exemplar
Focus on character - not acts
What is good meets the needs of everyone. But the individual is never sacrificed.
Emphasis on empathy and compassion
Situational ethics


Attempt to reconcile relativism and absolutism
Apply basic principles of right and wrong; takes into account effects on all concerned