Question
Comparing Ethical Systems in Police Work
Work on this assignment individually. Use what you learned today about Deontology (rules/duty) and
Utilitarianism (consequences).
Part 1: Short Reading (5–7 minutes)
- Police Ethics requires officers to balance justice, accountability, and fairness while protecting public
safety.
- Deontology says officers must follow duties and laws, even if the outcome is negative.
- Utilitarianism says officers should act in ways that create the best outcomes for the community, even if
that means bending rules.
- Real police work often creates ethical dilemmas where these two systems conflict.
Part 2: Extended Scenario (10–12 minutes)
Scenario: The Pursuit Dilemma
An officer is chasing a car thief through a crowded city street. The thief is speeding dangerously and
may injure bystanders. The officer considers two choices:
1. Fire at the car’s tires to stop the chase but risk hitting an innocent bystander.
2. Back off and risk letting the thief escape, possibly leading to more crimes later.
Your Task:
1. Explain what a Deontologist would say the officer should do. Why?
2. Explain what a Utilitarian would say the officer should do. Why?
3. Which decision do you agree with? Defend your reasoning with at least two full paragraphs.
Part 3: Personal Reflection (10–12 minutes)
Write at least two paragraphs responding to the following:
- Which ethical system (Deontology or Utilitarianism) do you personally believe is more realistic for
police officers to follow in real life?
- Do you think police officers should sometimes break rules if it benefits the greater good? Why or why
not?
- How could relying too much on one system be dangerous in criminal justice?
■ Submission Requirement: Your responses should be at least one page total (handwritten or typed).
Work on this assignment individually. Use what you learned today about Deontology (rules/duty) and
Utilitarianism (consequences).
Part 1: Short Reading (5–7 minutes)
- Police Ethics requires officers to balance justice, accountability, and fairness while protecting public
safety.
- Deontology says officers must follow duties and laws, even if the outcome is negative.
- Utilitarianism says officers should act in ways that create the best outcomes for the community, even if
that means bending rules.
- Real police work often creates ethical dilemmas where these two systems conflict.
Part 2: Extended Scenario (10–12 minutes)
Scenario: The Pursuit Dilemma
An officer is chasing a car thief through a crowded city street. The thief is speeding dangerously and
may injure bystanders. The officer considers two choices:
1. Fire at the car’s tires to stop the chase but risk hitting an innocent bystander.
2. Back off and risk letting the thief escape, possibly leading to more crimes later.
Your Task:
1. Explain what a Deontologist would say the officer should do. Why?
2. Explain what a Utilitarian would say the officer should do. Why?
3. Which decision do you agree with? Defend your reasoning with at least two full paragraphs.
Part 3: Personal Reflection (10–12 minutes)
Write at least two paragraphs responding to the following:
- Which ethical system (Deontology or Utilitarianism) do you personally believe is more realistic for
police officers to follow in real life?
- Do you think police officers should sometimes break rules if it benefits the greater good? Why or why
not?
- How could relying too much on one system be dangerous in criminal justice?
■ Submission Requirement: Your responses should be at least one page total (handwritten or typed).
Answers
GPT-4o mini
### Part 2: Extended Scenario
1. **Deontological Perspective**: A Deontologist would argue that the officer should not fire at the car's tires. From a deontological standpoint, the officer has a duty to uphold the law and adhere to established protocols. Engaging in an action that could potentially harm an innocent bystander, regardless of the intentions to stop the car thief, would be morally impermissible. The principle of duty in Deontology requires that officers act in accordance with established rules and regulations. In this scenario, firing a weapon in a dangerous environment violates the fundamental duties of an officer to protect all citizens, thus prioritizing accountability and justice over potential positive outcomes.
2. **Utilitarian Perspective**: Conversely, a Utilitarian would argue that the officer should fire at the tires of the fleeing vehicle in an attempt to stop the immediate threat to the public. From this viewpoint, the officer should consider the consequences of the action. While firing at the tires poses the risk of hitting a bystander, the potential harm caused by the thief continues to increase as they speed through a crowded area. A Utilitarian approach focuses on creating the best overall outcomes; therefore, if stopping the thief—albeit with significant risk—results in the greater good of protecting the community, then that action may be justified.
3. **Personal Agreement and Defense**: Personally, I find the Deontological perspective more compelling in this scenario. Upholding the law and adhering to ethical duties is essential for maintaining public trust in law enforcement. If officers begin to justify bending rules based on potential outcomes, it could lead to a slippery slope where the ends are used to justify means that may not be ethical. This can create an environment where accountability dwindles, and the safety of innocent bystanders becomes secondary to the pursuit of justice. The law is designed to protect everyone, including those who may inadvertently become victims during a police chase, and by adhering strictly to protocols, officers maintain their duty to protect all citizens equally.
In contrast, although I recognize the utilitarian argument for stopping the thief at any cost, I believe that the direct risk to innocent lives outweighs the potential benefits of a quick apprehension. Allowing officers to act on a utilitarian basis creates a dangerous precedent where the protection of individuals could be sacrificed for perceived broader benefits. This undermines the ethical standards of policing and risks eroding public confidence in law enforcement agencies. It's critical to find a balance, but I believe adhering to Deontological principles offers a more stable framework for ethical decision-making in policing.
### Part 3: Personal Reflection
When considering the ethical systems of Deontology and Utilitarianism, I personally believe that Deontology is a more realistic framework for police officers to follow in real-life situations. In the face of ethical dilemmas, having a clear set of rules and duties ensures that officers can operate within a consistent moral compass. While the dynamics of police work often put officers under immense pressure to make quick decisions, relying solely on the potential outcomes can complicate the moral landscape. Deontological principles reinforce the importance of justice and transparency in police work, which are essential for maintaining community trust. Furthermore, the clear guidelines provided by a Deontological approach can help protect officers from the moral ambiguities that often arise in high-stakes scenarios.
However, I do acknowledge that there may be situations where bending the rules could lead to a greater good. For instance, in life-and-death scenarios where established protocols may hinder swift action, it might seem justifiable for officers to take the initiative. Nevertheless, this approach raises ethical concerns about the consistency of law enforcement practices. If officers were permitted to prioritize outcomes over adherence to the law too frequently, it could lead to abuses of power, selective enforcement, and a general erosion of the rule of law. Therefore, while there may be limited instances where utilizing a utilitarian perspective could be advantageous, an overall commitment to Deontological ideals provides a stronger foundation for ethical policing, ensuring that the rights and safety of all individuals are prioritized. The danger of relying too heavily on either system lies in the potential for moral relativism, which could compromise the integrity of the criminal justice system.
1. **Deontological Perspective**: A Deontologist would argue that the officer should not fire at the car's tires. From a deontological standpoint, the officer has a duty to uphold the law and adhere to established protocols. Engaging in an action that could potentially harm an innocent bystander, regardless of the intentions to stop the car thief, would be morally impermissible. The principle of duty in Deontology requires that officers act in accordance with established rules and regulations. In this scenario, firing a weapon in a dangerous environment violates the fundamental duties of an officer to protect all citizens, thus prioritizing accountability and justice over potential positive outcomes.
2. **Utilitarian Perspective**: Conversely, a Utilitarian would argue that the officer should fire at the tires of the fleeing vehicle in an attempt to stop the immediate threat to the public. From this viewpoint, the officer should consider the consequences of the action. While firing at the tires poses the risk of hitting a bystander, the potential harm caused by the thief continues to increase as they speed through a crowded area. A Utilitarian approach focuses on creating the best overall outcomes; therefore, if stopping the thief—albeit with significant risk—results in the greater good of protecting the community, then that action may be justified.
3. **Personal Agreement and Defense**: Personally, I find the Deontological perspective more compelling in this scenario. Upholding the law and adhering to ethical duties is essential for maintaining public trust in law enforcement. If officers begin to justify bending rules based on potential outcomes, it could lead to a slippery slope where the ends are used to justify means that may not be ethical. This can create an environment where accountability dwindles, and the safety of innocent bystanders becomes secondary to the pursuit of justice. The law is designed to protect everyone, including those who may inadvertently become victims during a police chase, and by adhering strictly to protocols, officers maintain their duty to protect all citizens equally.
In contrast, although I recognize the utilitarian argument for stopping the thief at any cost, I believe that the direct risk to innocent lives outweighs the potential benefits of a quick apprehension. Allowing officers to act on a utilitarian basis creates a dangerous precedent where the protection of individuals could be sacrificed for perceived broader benefits. This undermines the ethical standards of policing and risks eroding public confidence in law enforcement agencies. It's critical to find a balance, but I believe adhering to Deontological principles offers a more stable framework for ethical decision-making in policing.
### Part 3: Personal Reflection
When considering the ethical systems of Deontology and Utilitarianism, I personally believe that Deontology is a more realistic framework for police officers to follow in real-life situations. In the face of ethical dilemmas, having a clear set of rules and duties ensures that officers can operate within a consistent moral compass. While the dynamics of police work often put officers under immense pressure to make quick decisions, relying solely on the potential outcomes can complicate the moral landscape. Deontological principles reinforce the importance of justice and transparency in police work, which are essential for maintaining community trust. Furthermore, the clear guidelines provided by a Deontological approach can help protect officers from the moral ambiguities that often arise in high-stakes scenarios.
However, I do acknowledge that there may be situations where bending the rules could lead to a greater good. For instance, in life-and-death scenarios where established protocols may hinder swift action, it might seem justifiable for officers to take the initiative. Nevertheless, this approach raises ethical concerns about the consistency of law enforcement practices. If officers were permitted to prioritize outcomes over adherence to the law too frequently, it could lead to abuses of power, selective enforcement, and a general erosion of the rule of law. Therefore, while there may be limited instances where utilizing a utilitarian perspective could be advantageous, an overall commitment to Deontological ideals provides a stronger foundation for ethical policing, ensuring that the rights and safety of all individuals are prioritized. The danger of relying too heavily on either system lies in the potential for moral relativism, which could compromise the integrity of the criminal justice system.