Ethics of a Good Person

 

Essay Needed:

If someone were to ask you, “Are you a good person?” what would you say, using concepts from the lesson, to prove that you are? Additionally, describe an ethical dilemma (which you have faced personally or seen someone experience firsthand). Which category of ethical theories do you feel would best describe the dilemma you faced and why? Explain whether you would have solved this dilemma differently. Include key concepts discussed so far in this course.

There are three categories of ethical theories:

  1. Normative ethics
  2. Meta ethics
  3. Applied ethics (use this one)

 

Video

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T-Lm0LuXJ68&list=UUNGdqrH7APgOdHaiWiDp7Ng

Material to incorporate in Essay;

Making Ethical Decisions A Practical Model.

Authors:

Schafer, John R.

Source:

FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin. May2002, Vol. 71 Issue 5, p14. 5p.

Document Type:

Article

Subjects:

LAW enforcement ethics
ETHICAL decision making
POLICE

Abstract:

Discusses decision-making strategies police officers must develop before they confront ethical dilemmas. Details on a code of ethics; Solutions for ethical dilemmas; Conclusion.

Full Text Word Count:

2286

ISSN:

0014-5688

Accession Number:

6658356

Choose Language الإنجليزية/العربية английски език/български 英语/简体中文 英語/繁體中文 angličtina/čeština Engelsk/dansk Engels/Nederlands Anglais/Français Englisch/Deutsch Αγγλικά/Ελληνικά English/Hausa אנגלית/עברית अंग्रेज़ी/हिंदी angol/magyar Inggris/bahasa Indonesia Inglese/Italiano 英語/日本語 영어/한국어 Engelsk/Norsk انگليسی/فارسی angielski/polski Inglés/Português English/Pashto Engleză/română Английский/Русский Inglés/Español English/Serbian Angleški/Slovenski Angličtina/Slovenčina Engelska/svenska อังกฤษ/ไทย İngilizce/Türk Англійська/Українська انگریزی/اردو

MAKING ETHICAL DECISIONS A PRACTICAL MODEL

Contents

  1. IDENTIFYING ETHIC CODES
  2. Mandatory Ethics
  3. Aspirational Ethics
  4. Personal Orientation
  5. Ethical Decision-Making Process
  6. Short-term Solutions
  7. Long-term Solutions
  8. FINDING RESOLUTIONS
  9. AVOIDING THE ETHICAL TRAP
  10. CONCLUSION
  11. Endnotes

Full Text

Listen                     American Accent Australian Accent British Accent

ETHICS

A rookie police officer smelled alcohol on his partner’s breath as he entered the squad car at the beginning of the shift. The senior officer admitted he drank one glass of wine with dinner but insisted that he could drive safely. To avoid a confrontation, the rookie did not protest. Shortly thereafter, the squad car driven by the senior officer collided with another vehicle. The driver of the other vehicle died 3 weeks later from the severe injuries sustained in the accident. The traffic officer investigating the accident smelled alcohol on the senior officer’s breath but did not report this fact nor did he ask the senior officer to take a breath test. A subsequent lawsuit alleged that the senior officer caused the accident because he drove under the influence of alcohol. During the internal affairs inquiry, the rookie faced a high-stakes ethical dilemma, tell the truth or lie to protect the senior officer. Because the rookie failed to take action when he encountered his first ethical dilemma, he struggled with an even greater ethical quandary. If the rookie lies, he gains immediate trust and acceptance from fellow police officers. If the rookie tells the truth, he risks alienation and the possibility of administrative action.

Ethical conflicts arise when the actions of one person or a group of people interfere with the interests of another person, group of people, or the community as a whole. Unfortunately, ethical decision-making models, no matter how elaborate, cannot adequately portray the complexity of ethical dilemmas.(n1)

Contrived scenarios in the classroom differ significantly from real-life ethical dilemmas. In the classroom, detached participants review facts, calmly discuss options, and provide idealized solutions that neatly fit a prescribed code of ethics. Choosing the right answer in an artificial setting requires little effort. On the other hand, making the right decision in real life demands strength of character because the reality of circumstances often blurs the line between right and wrong. Police officers must develop decision-making strategies before they confront ethical dilemmas. The process officers use to make ethical decisions does not differ from the decision-making process used by ordinary people who face ethical dilemmas in their everyday lives.

IDENTIFYING ETHIC CODES

Ethic codes and guidelines protect professionals from themselves, as well as from those who, they perceive, abuse the power of their profession.(n2) Nonetheless, the inherent power of a code of ethics rises no higher than the collective moral character of those who subscribe to the code. Theoretically, a code of ethics sets guidelines for ideal behavior. However, in reality, it represents minimum standards of behavior. These minimum standards often become the goal, rather than a “trip wire” to signal unacceptable behavior.(n3) Typically, after achieving minimum standards, motivation to achieve higher moral and ethical standards becomes less ardent.

Ethic codes encompass a wide range of issues but cannot include every possible scenario. Necessarily vague guidelines provide flexibility for individual interpretations and for unique circumstances.(n4) Nonspecific issues confound the ethical decision-making process because individuals must rely on objective standards, as well as subjective values when seeking solutions.

Mandatory Ethics

The foundation of ethic codes rests either on the rule of law or administrative policies. Federal, state, and local governing bodies enact legislation to ensure a minimum standard of legal conformity. Ethic codes based on the rule of law carry legal sanctions. Administrative policies, often based on the rule of law, impact employment status or violate the values of the group that agreed to the set of self-imposed ethical standards. In either case, violating mandatory ethics can trigger legal or administrative sanctions, a change in job status, the permanent loss of employment, or any combination thereof.

Aspirational Ethics

Aspirational ethics represent the optimum standard of behavior.(n5) Unlike mandatory ethics, aspirational ethics differ among individuals depending on their personal values, cultural influences, and sense of right and wrong. Aspirational ethics serve as an internal standard against which an individual judges personal behavior. For example, no law obligates a person strolling on a beach to save a child drowning 50 feet from shore. Conversely, a person may feel a moral obligation to assist the drowning child because aspirational ethics compel a person to strive for optimal moral and ethical outcomes.(n6)

Personal Orientation

Personal orientation takes into account individual values, cultures, religious beliefs, personal biases, and other idiosyncrasies.(n7) The degree to which outward behavior differs from internal behavior expectations contributes to the amount of intrapersonal conflict experienced as a result of making an ethical decision. Conflicting feelings regarding a perceived duty and the need for peer acceptance also contribute to intrapersonal stress.(n8)

Ethical Decision-Making Process

The ethical decision-making process consists of three questions: What should I do? What will I do?(n9) How does the decision I make comport with my personal orientation?(n10) Ethical decisions engender fear–a fear of change in the status quo. People strive to maintain equilibrium in their lives and seldom act in a manner that disrupts this equilibrium.(n11) When confronted with an ethical decision, a person’s ability to make objective decisions often becomes warped by this inherent tendency to maintain equilibrium.

In a classroom setting, anyone who answers other than, “The rookie should tell the truth,” risks indignation and ridicule. In reality, however, an array of emotions clouds the answer. When making an ethical decision, a person conducts a personal risk-benefit analysis.(n12) Many ethical dilemmas present both short- and long-term solutions. An inverse relationship exists between short-term and long-term ethical solutions. Short-term solutions often benefit the individual and harm society, while long-term decisions tend to hurt the individual and benefit the community.

Short-term Solutions

Reporting the senior officer carries certain short-term risks. The rookie not only brings into question the senior officer’s ability to drive but, by inference, his suitability for duty. The rookie places himself in an awkward position when he reports the senior officer. Ideally, the rookie makes the right ethical decision; however, in reality, he most likely will lose the trust of his fellow officers and suffer certain social sanctions, including ostracism. In this scenario, the personal risks of confronting the senior officer far outweigh the personal benefits. The rookie knew the answer to the question, “What should I do?” but chose not to act accordingly. Studies confirmed that people confronted with ethical decisions do less than they believe they should do.(n13) People tend to choose a course of action that benefits themselves first over the benefit of others or the community at large.

Long-term Solutions

Long-term ethical solutions present a more complex set of circumstances with higher personal risks and an intangible measure of worth. For example, the rookie may save a life if he reports the senior officer; however, the life spared becomes immeasurable because, in reality, the loss never happened. Without knowing the true impact of his ethical decision, the rookie’s words, “Because of my actions today, I saved a life,” ring hollow to police peers and especially to the senior officer. In reality, the rookie exposes himself to detrimental consequences without realizing the rewards of the sacrifice rendered. More likely than not, the rookie will second-guess his decision to knowingly place himself in a precarious social and professional predicament.

People who make bad initial ethical decisions often get caught in the “ethical trap.” As a result of a primary ethical decision with an adverse outcome, a secondary ethical dilemma results. Solving a secondary ethical dilemma becomes inherently more difficult because not only does the secondary decision need a resolution but the primary decision, now judged as errant, requires justification. If the rookie tells the truth, he faces both administrative sanctions for failing to report the senior officer and, ironically, the same social sanctions he feared when he decided initially not to report the senior officer. If the rookie lies, he may save himself and the senior officer from legal and administrative action, but, depending on the rookie’s personal orientation, he may experience life-long guilt and regret. The life lost from the accident never can be recovered, and, in retrospect, a decision to report the senior officer becomes blatantly obvious. The rookie now must face the consequences of his decision and wonder, “If I only had the courage to make the right decision in the first place, I could have saved a life.” Once ensnared in the ethical trap, few people escape.

FINDING RESOLUTIONS

People compare the “fit” of various ethical decision-making options to their personal orientation.(n14) A good fit maintains personal equilibrium; whereas, a bad fit increases intrapersonal conflict, stress, and guilt. Rationalization hastens the return of intrapersonal equilibrium. Primary ethical decisions with good outcomes resolve more easily. For example, if the senior officer completes his shift without incident, the rookie can rationalize his decision to allow the senior officer to drive under the influence of alcohol because nothing happened. Primary ethical decisions with bad outcomes take an extra measure of rationalization to resolve. In extreme cases, no amount of rationalization brings equilibrium. Making appropriate primary ethical decisions may cause some degree of discomfort in the short term but may save a lifetime of guilt, remorse, and shame.

AVOIDING THE ETHICAL TRAP

Living an ethical life reduces the number of ethical dilemmas a person faces. Unethical people instinctively refrain from inappropriate behavior in the presence of an ethical person, especially a person who holds unethical people accountable. If the rookie historically made ethical decisions regarding both large and small unethical acts, then the probability of the senior officer coming to work intoxicated lessens significantly. In the event the senior officer came to work intoxicated, the rookie could offer the senior officer two options, take the day off and go home or face the consequences. If the rookie habitually made ethical decisions, the act of reporting the senior officer will meet the expectations of the rookie’s peers. In fact, the other officers probably would experience more shock if the rookie did not act ethically. In this event, the senior officer likely would become the victim of his own bad decision, rather than the victim of betrayal.

Modeling ethical behavior can motivate others to act ethically. The next time a merchant offers a police officer a free cup of coffee or a meal, the police officer could say, “I appreciate your generous offer, but I’ll pay my way this time.” Learning how to tactfully make ethical decisions may provide the necessary courage for others to act in a similar manner. Practicing ethical decision making on small matters renders larger ethical decision making less formidable.

Time constraints also may restrict clear thinking.(n15) When circumstances limit the time available to evaluate ethical decisions, officers should seek temporary solutions.(n16) For example, after the rookie first smelled alcohol on the senior officer’s breath, he could excuse himself to make an urgent telephone call. This temporary solution provides additional time for the rookie to review more permanent solutions. During this reprieve, consulting a trusted friend, ethic codes, or legal guidelines could provide a more objective perspective. Officers should avoid making ethical decisions when time prevents a thorough review of the available options. Notwithstanding, sometimes, no amount of thorough analysis can lift the burden of the decision.(n17)

CONCLUSION

An ethical decision consists of a series of choices, not simply one decision. Making bad primary ethical decisions increases not only the number of choices but also the future impact of those choices. More important, a bad primary ethical decision spring-loads the ethical trap, resulting in an increased potential for legal or administrative action or unresolved intrapersonal conflict.

Ethical dilemmas challenge the intellect because of the conflicting answers to the questions, “What should I do?” and “What will I do?” If a person must choose between two options that do not oppose one another, selecting an option becomes a matter of choice and not a decision between right and wrong. In most cases, choosing right over wrong takes courage because people who make ethical choices often subject themselves to social and professional ridicule. Ethical decisions build personal character, but not without pain.

Thinking Ethically

  1. Home
  2. Markkula Center for Applied Ethics
  3. Ethics Resources
  4. Ethical Decision Making
  5. Thinking Ethically

 

Manuel Velasquez, Claire Andre,Thomas Shanks, S.J., and Michael J. Meyer

Moral issues greet us each morning in the newspaper, confront us in the memos on our desks, nag us from our children’s soccer fields, and bid us good night on the evening news. We are bombarded daily with questions about the justice of our foreign policy, the morality of medical technologies that can prolong our lives, the rights of the homeless, the fairness of our children’s teachers to the diverse students in their classrooms.

Dealing with these moral issues is often perplexing. How, exactly, should we think through an ethical issue? What questions should we ask? What factors should we consider?

The first step in analyzing moral issues is obvious but not always easy: Get the facts. Some moral issues create controversies simply because we do not bother to check the facts. This first step, although obvious, is also among the most important and the most frequently overlooked.

But having the facts is not enough. Facts by themselves only tell us what is; they do not tell us what ought to be. In addition to getting the facts, resolving an ethical issue also requires an appeal to values. Philosophers have developed five different approaches to values to deal with moral issues.

The Utilitarian Approach
Utilitarianism was conceived in the 19th century by Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill to help legislators determine which laws were morally best. Both Bentham and Mill suggested that ethical actions are those that provide the greatest balance of good over evil.

To analyze an issue using the utilitarian approach, we first identify the various courses of action available to us. Second, we ask who will be affected by each action and what benefits or harms will be derived from each. And third, we choose the action that will produce the greatest benefits and the least harm. The ethical action is the one that provides the greatest good for the greatest number.

The Rights Approach
The second important approach to ethics has its roots in the philosophy of the 18th-century thinker Immanuel Kant and others like him, who focused on the individual’s right to choose for herself or himself. According to these philosophers, what makes human beings different from mere things is that people have dignity based on their ability to choose freely what they will do with their lives, and they have a fundamental moral right to have these choices respected. People are not objects to be manipulated; it is a violation of human dignity to use people in ways they do not freely choose.

Of course, many different, but related, rights exist besides this basic one. These other rights (an incomplete list below) can be thought of as different aspects of the basic right to be treated as we choose.

  • The right to the truth: We have a right to be told the truth and to be informed about matters that significantly affect our choices.
  • The right of privacy: We have the right to do, believe, and say whatever we choose in our personal lives so long as we do not violate the rights of others.
  • The right not to be injured: We have the right not to be harmed or injured unless we freely and knowingly do something to deserve punishment or we freely and knowingly choose to risk such injuries.
  • The right to what is agreed: We have a right to what has been promised by those with whom we have freely entered into a contract or agreement.

In deciding whether an action is moral or immoral using this second approach, then, we must ask, Does the action respect the moral rights of everyone? Actions are wrong to the extent that they violate the rights of individuals; the more serious the violation, the more wrongful the action.

The Fairness or Justice Approach
The fairness or justice approach to ethics has its roots in the teachings of the ancient Greek philosopher Aristotle, who said that “equals should be treated equally and unequals unequally.” The basic moral question in this approach is: How fair is an action? Does it treat everyone in the same way, or does it show favoritism and discrimination?

Favoritism gives benefits to some people without a justifiable reason for singling them out; discrimination imposes burdens on people who are no different from those on whom burdens are not imposed. Both favoritism and discrimination are unjust and wrong.

The Common-Good Approach
This approach to ethics assumes a society comprising individuals whose own good is inextricably linked to the good of the community. Community members are bound by the pursuit of common values and goals.

The common good is a notion that originated more than 2,000 years ago in the writings of Plato, Aristotle, and Cicero. More recently, contemporary ethicist John Rawls defined the common good as “certain general conditions that are…equally to everyone’s advantage.”

In this approach, we focus on ensuring that the social policies, social systems, institutions, and environments on which we depend are beneficial to all. Examples of goods common to all include affordable health care, effective public safety, peace among nations, a just legal system, and an unpolluted environment.

Appeals to the common good urge us to view ourselves as members of the same community, reflecting on broad questions concerning the kind of society we want to become and how we are to achieve that society. While respecting and valuing the freedom of individuals to pursue their own goals, the common-good approach challenges us also to recognize and further those goals we share in common.

The Virtue Approach
The virtue approach to ethics assumes that there are certain ideals toward which we should strive, which provide for the full development of our humanity. These ideals are discovered through thoughtful reflection on what kind of people we have the potential to become.

Virtues are attitudes or character traits that enable us to be and to act in ways that develop our highest potential. They enable us to pursue the ideals we have adopted. Honesty, courage, compassion, generosity, fidelity, integrity, fairness, self-control, and prudence are all examples of virtues.

Virtues are like habits; that is, once acquired, they become characteristic of a person. Moreover, a person who has developed virtues will be naturally disposed to act in ways consistent with moral principles. The virtuous person is the ethical person.

In dealing with an ethical problem using the virtue approach, we might ask, What kind of person should I be? What will promote the development of character within myself and my community?

Ethical Problem Solving
These five approaches suggest that once we have ascertained the facts, we should ask ourselves five questions when trying to resolve a moral issue:

  • What benefits and what harms will each course of action produce, and which alternative will lead to the best overall consequences?
  • What moral rights do the affected parties have, and which course of action best respects those rights?
  • Which course of action treats everyone the same, except where there is a morally justifiable reason not to, and does not show favoritism or discrimination?
  • Which course of action advances the common good?
  • Which course of action develops moral virtues?

This method, of course, does not provide an automatic solution to moral problems. It is not meant to. The method is merely meant to help identify most of the important ethical considerations. In the end, we must deliberate on moral issues for ourselves, keeping a careful eye on both the facts and on the ethical considerations involved.

This article updates several previous pieces from Issues in Ethics by Manuel Velasquez – Dirksen Professor of Business Ethics at Santa Clara University and former Center director – and Claire Andre, associate Center director. “Thinking Ethically” is based on a framework developed by the authors in collaboration with Center Director Thomas Shanks, S.J., Presidential Professor of Ethics and the Common Good Michael J. Meyer, and others. The framework is used as the basis for many programs and presentations at the Markkula Center for Applied Ethics.

Aug 1, 2015

 

 


What Students Are Saying About Us

.......... Customer ID: 12*** | Rating: ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐
"Honestly, I was afraid to send my paper to you, but you proved you are a trustworthy service. My essay was done in less than a day, and I received a brilliant piece. I didn’t even believe it was my essay at first 🙂 Great job, thank you!"

.......... Customer ID: 11***| Rating: ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐
"This company is the best there is. They saved me so many times, I cannot even keep count. Now I recommend it to all my friends, and none of them have complained about it. The writers here are excellent."


“Order a custom Paper on Similar Assignment at essayfount.com! No Plagiarism! Enjoy 20% Discount!”