Use of Utilitarianism and Deontology Theories in Law Enforcement

Use of Utilitarianism and Deontology Theories in Law Enforcement
Name
Institution
Use of Utilitarianism and Deontology Theories in Law Enforcement
Introduction
For the past two decades, research on professional ethics has risen significantly. Business ethics, medical ethics, and environmental ethics are all thriving as a part of the curriculum in most institutions of higher learning. Despite this reality, until recently, higher education courses in criminology and criminal justice have largely shunned the methodical learning of ethics. This is regrettable since the ethical challenges that crop up in the field of criminal justice are important and intricate. And, despite the fact that majority of the ethical issues that crop up in criminal justice are inherent to other professions, there are other factors that are specifically coined to criminology and criminal justice. The most notable example, that is specifically notable to the law enforcement is the decision on whether to use force and under what conditions the officers are supposed to use it. The paradox of using harm to prevent harm is a major ethical issue for law enforcers. Since the use of force is central to law enforcement, this sets apart criminal justice from other professions (Cassidy, 2006). Understanding the ideologies of utilitarianism and deontological moral theories is crucial to comprehending and defining how law enforcers should go about their duties.
The issue of using force is inherent in the criminal justice system. Apart from this, criminal justice decisions are made on behalf of society as a unit, a communal moral judgment set in trust by a solitary person. That would involve a far higher responsibility as compared to what is assigned for other professions. In addition to this, the decisions taken by criminal justice officers are not just incidental but are largely ethical decisions. While an engineer can design a building that may or may not harm people, the decision is mostly a physical one and only incidentally an ethical one. On the other hand, the moment a police officer makes the decision to arrest someone and the moment a judge decides to sentence that individual, the decisions are largely ethical ones. This makes the ethical issues that emerge in law enforcement both unique and noteworthy (Cassidy, 2006).
In order to solve certain definite ethical issues, it is important to pose certain general, theoretical questions. This is crucial as having a grasp of theoretical issues is the only way through which they can be applied to definite ethical problems. For that reason, in relation to law enforcement, the best way to commence is by posing general questions on the nature of justice. The existing theories of justice deal with wide social issues such as human rights, egalitarianism, and the allocation of material goods. Certain theorists have even indicated that justice itself is an extension of ethics (Cassidy, 2006).
Normative Ethics
Normative ethics is defined as the learning of what is right and what is wrong. A normative ethical theorist would try to comprehend whether there are any underlying, primary principles of right and wrong. If such principles are realized, they are treated as the basis of all of our moral judgments. For example, we habitually say that dishonesty, deceitfulness, robbery, raping, and murder are wrong. The ethical theorist would seek to establish the link that makes deceit, theft, and murder all wrong. Establishing the link between these social ills is crucial in deciding the right approach for law enforcement officials. One of the most notable theorist in the history of Western philosophy, Socrates, was well-known for establishing the common in moral matters. In short, when Socrates tried to establish the meaning of justice or virtue, he was not merely asking for the naming of examples but he was instead in search of the universal characteristics of all honorable actions. Just in the same manner that all the sides of the square have something in common, so are all morally right actions to the ethical theorist (Singer, 2000).
Utilitarianism
The most notable account of utilitarianism was created in Great Britain in the late eighteenth and mid-nineteenth centuries by Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill. Utilitarianism is categorized as an ethical theory on consequences. In short, the utilitarian believes that the morality of an action can only be judged by its final product. Mill notes that every human action is for the sake of some end. For this reason, every rule of action must assume its whole character and color to which they are acquiescent. The understanding that guides consequentialism is that moral actions produce good things while immoral actions bring about bad results. Law enforcers following this moral reasoning simply conclude that cheating, murder, and theft are all wrong since they generate bad or harmful results while charity and benevolence are all good since they generate something valuable. The law enforcement consequentialist would, therefore, conclude that the morality of an action is guided by the consequences of that action – actions that are moral create good consequences while immoral actions create bad consequences (Ristroph, 2006). At this point, the law enforcement officer would want to define what is meant by good consequences, as well as the aspect of consequences for whom. Ideally, actions have consequences for different groups of people. The aspect of the group of people whom the law enforcement officer should consider when contemplating the consequences of the offenders actions, therefore, becomes an important issue. By establishing the right answers for these issues, the utilitarian law enforcer carves out a unique and certain version or type of consequentalist moral theory (Ristroph, 2006).
In order to establish how a law enforcement officer uses utilitarianism to make moral decisions, it is important to examine the various aspects of the utilitarianism theory. The most prominent version of utilitarianism is the one advocated by Bentham and Mill, which is commonly referred to as the hedonistic utilitarianism. According to Mill, the common thing that human beings seek is happiness. The view proposed by Mill is that all people seek to have happiness, whose main characteristic is pleasure. The result of happiness is often pleasure and the absence of pain while unhappiness is characterized by pain and the withholding of pleasure. Mill believes that this pleasure is not just anything to do with food and sex but it also incorporates scholarly and aesthetic pleasures (Elkana, 2014).
Consequentialism holds the view that the ethic of an action is established by the consequences that are brought about by the action. For the utilitarian law enforcement officer, the morally ...