Ethical formalism would reject a policy of allowing gratuities if they:

Ethics in Law EnforcementEthics in Law Enforcement

Ethics in Law EnforcementEthics in Law Enforcement

STEVE MCCARTNEY AND RICK PARENT

Unless otherwise noted, this book is released under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 Unported License also known as a CC-BY license. This means you are free to copy, redistribute, modify or adapt this book. Under this license, anyone who redistributes or modifies this textbook, in whole or in part, can do so for free providing they properly attribute the book as follows:

Ethics in Law Enforcement by Steve McCartney and Rick Parent used under a CC-BY 4.0 international license.

Additionally, if you redistribute this textbook, in whole or in part, in either a print or digital format, then you must retain on every physical and/or electronic page the following attribution:

Download this book for free at http://open.bccampus.ca

If you use this textbook as a bibliographic reference, then you can cite the book as follows:

McCartney, S., & Parent, R. (2015). Ethics in law enforcement. Victoria, BC: BCcampus. Retrieved from http://opentextbc.ca/ ethicsinlawenforcement/

For questions regarding this licensing, please contact opentext@bccampus.ca. To learn more about BCcampus Open Textbook project, visit http://open.bccampus.ca

Image Cover: Scales of Justice-Frankfurt Version by Michael Coghlan used under CC BY SA 2.0.

Ethics in Law Enforcement by Steve McCartney and Rick Parent is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, except where otherwise noted.

ContentsContents

About the Book vii

Part I. Chapter 1: Ethical Behaviour

1. 1.1 The Importance of Ethical Behaviour 2 2. 1.2 Ethics and the Pursuit of a Law Enforcement Career 4 3. 1.3 As Employees in Law Enforcement Agencies 6 4. References 8

Part II. Chapter 2: Ethical Systems

5. 2.1 Major Ethical Systems 11 6. 2.2 Utilitarian Ethics 13 7. 2.3 Deontology 17 8. 2.4 Virtue Ethics 20 9. 2.5 Ethics of Care 23

10. 2.6 Egoism 24 11. 2.7 Religion or Divine Command Theory 26 12. 2.8 Natural Law 29 13. 2.9 Social Contract Theory 30 14. 2.10 Rawls’ Theory of Justice 33 15. 2.11 Moral Relativism 34 16. References 36 17. Glossary 38

Part III. Chapter 3: Ethical Dilemmas and the Process of Effective Resolution

18. 3.1 Ethical Dilemmas 40 19. 3.2 Values 41 20. 3.3 Solving Ethical Dilemmas 49 21. References 52

Part IV. Chapter 4: Key Ethical Issues within Law Enforcement

22. 4.1 Ethical Issues 54 23. 4.2 The Ethics of Power and Authority 55 24. 4.3 The Milgram Experiment 57 25. 4.4 Person, Gender, and Cultural Differences in Conformity 61 26. 4.5 Ethical Issues during an Investigation 67

27. 4.6 Gratuities 70 28. References 72 29. Glossary 73

Part V. Chapter 5: Accountability and Investigation

30. 5.1 Autonomy and Accountability 75 31. 5.2 British Columbia's Police Act 77 32. 5.3 The Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act 79 33. 5.4 Investigation Models 81 34. 5.5 Independent Investigations Office 82 35. References 83

Part VI. Chapter 6: Policing

36. 6.1 Noble Cause Corruption 85 37. 6.2 Policing Public Demonstrations and Crowd Control 86 38. 6.3 Sex Offender Notification Laws 89 39. 6.4 Ethics of Private Policing 93 40. References 98 41. Glossary 103

Part VII. Chapter 7: Discretion, Supervision, and Leadership

42. 7.1 The Ethics Surrounding Discretion 105 43. 7.2 Discretion and Supervision 109 44. 7.3 Selective Enforcement 111 45. 7.4 Loyalty 112 46. 7.5 Ethical Leadership 114 47. 7.6 Transactional and Transformational Leadership 116 48. References 119 49. Glossary 122

Part VIII. Chapter 8: The Culture of Law Enforcement

50. 8.1 Police Subculture 124 51. 8.2 Socialization of Police 127 52. 8.3 Skepticism and Cynicism 130 53. 8.4 Moral Culpability versus Legal Culpability 132 54. References 134 55. Glossary 137

About the Authors 138

About the Book

The creation of Ethics in Law Enforcement is a part of the B.C. Open Textbook project.

The B.C. Open Textbook Project began in 2012 with the goal of making post-secondary education in British Columbia more accessible by reducing student cost through the use of openly licensed textbooks. The BC Open Textbook Project is administered by BCcampus and funded by the British Columbia Ministry of Advanced Edu- cation.

Open textbooks are open educational resources (OER); they are instructional resources created and shared in ways so that more people have access to them. This is a different model than traditionally copyrighted materials. OER are defined as teaching, learning, and research resources that reside in the public domain or have been released under an intellectual property license that permits their free use and re-purposing by others (Hewlett Founda- tion). Our open textbooks are openly licensed using a Creative Commons license, and are offered in various e- book formats free of charge, or as printed books that are available at cost. For more information about this project, please contact opentext@bccampus.ca. If you are an instructor who is using this book for a course, please let us know.

vii

PART 1

Chapter 1: Ethical Behaviour

1

1.1 The Importance of Ethical Behaviour

For citizens, even for those of us with no aspirations in a career in law enforcement, morality and integrity are important characteristics to demonstrate. We instinctively know that it is good to be moral and act with integrity, but by coming to an understanding of the reasons for morality and integrity, we will be motivated to champion such behaviour. Among the reasons to be moral and integral, regardless of occupation are to:

• Make society better. When we help make society better, we are rewarded with also making better own lives and the lives of our families and friends. Without moral conduct, society would be a miserable place.

• Treat everyone equally. Equality is a cornerstone of most Western democracies, where all individuals are afforded the same rights. This is not possible without the majority of citizens behaving in a moral manner.

• Secure meaningful employment. Often employers will look at a person’ past behaviour as a predictor of future behaviour. Someone who has a history of immoral behaviour will have difficulty securing employ- ment in a meaningful job, as that person may not be trusted.

• Succeed at business. If you are employed in an occupation in which there you must rely on others, your moral conduct will determine the degree of goodwill that you receive from others. Businesses that have a checkered moral history are typically viewed with caution and are unlikely to attract new customers through word of mouth, and therefore are unlikely to prosper. This is especially the case where social media makes customer reviews readily accessible.

• Lessen stress. When we make immoral decisions, we tend to feel uncomfortable and concerned about our decision making. Making the right moral decision, or taking a principled perspective on an issue, reduces stress.

Ultimately, ethics is important not so that “we can understand” philosophically, but rather so we can “improve how we live” (Lafollette, 2007). By being moral, we enrich our lives and the lives of those around us. It’s espe- cially important to live a moral life when we are young, as it is helpful to exercise and practise these concepts before being confronted with more complex issues. Lafollette (2007) theorizes that ethics is like most everything else that we strive to be good at; it requires practice and effort. Practising and making an effort to make moral decisions throughout life will pay dividends when we are faced with serious moral dilemmas. Furthermore, hav- ing insight into “…historical, political, economic, sociological and psychological insights…” (Lafollette, 2007, p.7) allows us, as decision makers, to make more informed decisions, which will likely result in moral decisions. In sum, the practice of being moral, allows us to work on these skills, so when we are faced with real situations that impact others, we are ready

2

Lafollette (2007) also emphasizes the need to understand and develop our virtues. Knowing that we ought to behave in a certain way, yet missing an opportunity to exercise moral behaviour, is an indication of the need to “sharpen moral vision.” For example we know that we ought to stay in good physical shape but often do not. This illustrates the need to be mindful of a virtue (in this case perseverance) that is important and must be developed. If, as people aspiring to become law enforcement officers, we develop the virtue of perseverance by staying in shape, we are more likely to hone that skill when we are working in law enforcement. We will be able to draw on that virtue when needed for even more serious situations, not only in law enforcement, but in other challenges that we may face in life.

Ethics is also important for those citizens who do not aspire to work in law enforcement. Successful business lead- ers often say that treating people morally is a very important aspect in obtaining success. A person’s reputation is of key importance for a business leader, and if a person’s reputation is damaged by poor ethical conduct, the business will also suffer. The same is true in all walks of life. Where ethics are taken seriously, and people strive to make ethical decisions and actions, personal and professional success follows.

Critics may argue that this attitude is self-serving and that some individuals act ethically only for their own self- interest to be successful or happy. Critics would add that this is not the right reason to be ethical, and therefore is not being truly ethical. A counter argument may be that the action itself can be regarded as ethical, regardless of the reason for taking the action. This perspective focuses more on the end result rather than the means to the end.

How do you know as an individual if you pass the ethics test?

As an individual, you can ask yourself what society would be like if everyone conducted their moral selves like you do. Would society be better or worse? By asking yourself this question, your are really testing the universality of your behaviour. Immanuel Kant, a famous scholar of ethics, suggests we should only act in ways that we would want everyone else in the same situation to act. We should also consider any way that we can improve our moral life to make society better.

3 • ETHICS IN LAW ENFORCEMENT

1.2 Ethics and the Pursuit of a Law Enforcement Career

Without a doubt, the most important attributes of an individual applying for a job in law enforcement are the appli- cant’s integrity and moral behaviour. In order to be a law enforcement officer, individuals must demonstrate a life lived morally.

Of course, in some instances, an applicant may have on occasion been involved in isolated immoral activities. This is often understandable; however, law enforcement employers will not hire an applicant if they detect a demon- strated pattern of immoral behaviour. Recruiters and the agencies they work for may differ in the specific number of illegal or immoral acts they will allow an applicant to have committed before hiring that person, they all agree that it is very few. Some law enforcement agencies, in hiring climates where they have numerous applicants to consider, have the ability to be very selective and may choose only those applicants who have not demonstrated any moral lapses.

The moral history of an applicant is closely scrutinized by law enforcement agencies through background checks, polygraphs, detailed interviews, and integrity questionnaires. Each of these methods are used to root out appli- cants who may have exhibited poor moral choices in their past. Right or wrong, law enforcement agencies view past performance as a predictor of future moral performance.

Predicting an applicant’s future moral conduct is largely based on the common acceptance of the slippery slope theory of ethics. According to this theory, applicants who exhibit minor moral infractions are viewed as likely to progress to more serious immoral behaviour. Punch (2009) describes the slippery slope as being small deviant acts that become increasingly easy and lead to participation in larger, more serious acts. Punch (2009) refers to the slippery slope as a “ladder” in which corruption is the end result, after a series of immoral steps.

Punch (2009) also describes the journey of some police officers as they travel from being moral civilians to immoral police officers. This often occurs because indoctrination into the police culture can negatively affect police recruits’ ethical behaviour and have disastrous consequences (Souryal, 2011). Punch (2009), in describing this journey into the police subculture, states that the result is the slippery slope during which immoral decisions start as minor breaches of organizational or occupational rules and evolve into major corruption. Accordingly, Punch infers that even those applicants who have taken part in minor immoral activities would likely progress to serious immoral behaviours.

Punch (2009) refers to qualitative research, illustrating how the slippery slope theory may have played a role in the corruption case of Bob Leuci of the New York Police Department (NYPD). In this instance, Leuci joined the NYPD and was determined to remain straight, but slipped into corruption in a desire to fit into the police culture.

4

Eventually, he became involved in serious corruption, resulting in his being fired, charged, and criminally con- victed.

Contrary to proponents of this perspective, Prenzler (2009) argues that the notion of slippery slope has been incor- porated into the police subculture not because the theory is valid but rather as a way to keep young officers from committing even minor ethical or moral infractions. Lafolette (2007) also rejects the theory, arguing that propo- nents of the slippery slope argument are imposing a general structure in which the cause of immoral activity can be traced back to even morally permissible activity. He breaks down the argument into a formula, asserting the following:

Action x is prima facie (or believed to be) morally permissible

If we do action x, then through small analogous steps circumstance y will probably follow

Circumstance y is immoral

Therefore x is immoral

Lafollette (2007) asserts that the above argument leads to unrealistic and unlikely conclusions because it assumes that all slopes move are downward toward immoral behaviour, and never considers that a slope could be upward, toward more moral behaviour. We should be prepared to consider that individuals who act immorally may regret their actions and decide to act more morally, or at the very least, cease their immoral practices. Essentially, Lafol- lette (2007) argues that we can learn from minor bad behaviours, regret the immoral behaviour through guilt or empathy, and strive to improve or reform. Thus, he argues, a person who commits fraud for the first time and later regrets the act will change his or her behaviour and not commit fraud in the future. What the person learns is that the feelings of guilt are not worth the gains made from fraud.

Caless (2008) enlarges Lafollette’s critique with his observation that absolutists, viewing minor moral breaches in black or white terms, further promote the slippery slope theory. Caless (2008) questions the assumption that everyone is susceptible to corruption, and, as a result, minor immoral breaches must inevitably lead to major ones. He argues that if the slippery slope argument is to be accepted, then all officers who have ever received even a free cup of coffee will eventually perform major immoral actions.

The slippery slope theory also proposes that corrupt individuals who have entered law enforcement are more likely to engage in future criminal activity whether they have that first free cup of coffee or not. Coleman (2004) responds to this argument by suggesting that if only a few officers slide into immoral behaviour as a result of receiving a gratuity, then all officers should be denied such opportunities. Police corruption is so serious that it should be prevented at all levels, even if this means banning all gratuities.

If you are pursuing a career in law enforcement, how do you know if you pass the ethics test? Ask yourself what a law enforcement agency would think of your poorest moral decisions, and how these decisions would appear if you made them while your were employed by that agency. When did you make these moral mistakes? Were you young and therefore they could be considered childish mistakes? Prob- lems arise when we make moral mistakes as adults, especially if we are young adults who have declared an interest in pursuing a law enforcement career.

5 • ETHICS IN LAW ENFORCEMENT

1.3 As Employees in Law Enforcement Agencies

Democratic countries walk a fine line between the anarchy and civil violence of collapsed states and the suppres- sive citizen controls exerted by highly authoritarian regimes. It is through the commitment of the police to the citizenry, their capacity to control crime, and their ability to act according to the rules they enforce—that they are also not above the law—that democracy survives (Caldero and Crank , 2004, p.17)

Inevitably this question arises: “why is it so important to be a moral law enforcement employee?” There are sev- eral reasons why people employed in law enforcement are required to be moral and to have sound moral values. Ironically, morals can at times be a hard sell to law enforcement officers, who, when dealing with exigent sit- uations in which they are concerned not only for their safety but for the safety of all citizens, consider that the manner or means of how safety is achieved is not as important as the end result of achieving that safety. In other words, for officers who are dealing with their own personal personal safety as well as the safety of others, may consider the notion of philosophizing about the right thing to do as not being overly important.

However, law enforcement careers come with a number of duties and responsibilities for which moral behaviour is mandatory. The primary ones include discretion, power, and public service.

• Discretion. Discretion in law enforcement is necessary in order to efficiently manage call loads and to mediate minor incidents. Law enforcement personnel have enormous discretionary power throughout every rank, regardless of seniority, and are given great freedom to make operational decisions from the moment they start on the job. Discretion in law enforcement includes whom to arrest, whom to investigate, whom talk to, and whom to interview. More importantly, in these decisions officers have the power to deprive peo- ple of their freedom (Pollock, 2014). It is critical that law enforcement officials possess moral character so that the enormous decisions they must make are balanced and fair.

• Power. Because law enforcement officers exercise much discretion they also wield great power. They have the power to arrest, detain, search, seize, and question. The government grants officers these powers so they can enforce laws and maintain the peace. We live in a country in which due process protects civilians from the abuse of government agents and in which certain freedoms are expected. Thus, we expect law enforce- ment officers to use their discretion with due process in mind (Pollock, 2010).

• Public service. The state employs law enforcement officers to carry out the state’s mandate: enforcing the law and keeping the peace. The trust the state places in law enforcement and other public officials to carry out this duty in a responsible fashion is called public trust. Public trust ensures that those tasked with these duties will not abuse their power. Public trust also ensures that all public officials will be held to a higher

6

standard than those they serve. The ultimate test of public trust is that law enforcement officials “walk the talk” or “practise what they preach,” and that they never engage in behaviour that, if performed by others, would be considered to break the law (Pollock, 2010).

It is important that employees of all government agencies possess and display a sense of justice in which all indi- viduals are treated fairly. “Justice,” as defined by Rawls (1999), means that all citizens are treated equally and fairly regardless of, among other things, their class, social position, intelligence, or strength. Rawls (1999) empha- sizes that there is no greater need in government than for its social institutions to act with justice as the primary goal. For the police, this notion takes on even more importance, as the police are the most visible representatives of government at the street level, and the high level of discretion they exercise makes this notion of justice all the more critical (Lipsky, 1980). In order to achieve justice, police agencies must use their moral and ethical discre- tion at all times or they risk losing legitimacy, trust, and confidence.

Without ethical conduct, police lose legitimacy, and without legitimacy, the police are ill equipped to carry out their duties (Punch, 2009). One of the main characteristics sought by police recruiters in individuals applying to become police officers is that they possess positive ethics and moral values, which are reflective of society’s expectations (Ellwanger, 2012).

In pursuing moral behaviour within policing, recruitment and training are utilized respectively in an attempt to ferret out immoral applicants who are dishonourable and do not exhibit integrity. This is done through extensive background checks during recruitment and later, and moral principles are reinforced through scenario training. Police officers are trained and educated as recruits so that they will be able to cope with the peculiarities of being a police officer in an ethical fashion (Allen, Mhlanga, and Khan, 2006; Braswell, McCarthy, and McCarthy, 2012; Renkema, 2007).

How do law enforcement officers know if they pass the ethics test?

1. Officers should ask themselves if their agency were aware of their current moral and ethical life on and off the job, would the agency still hire them? If the answer is no, then officers should consider changes in their behaviour.

2. Officers, when confronted with a moral and ethical dilemma, should reflect on what their recruiting officer would consider to be the ideal action. Officers, in turn, should consider what action they would like to see an applicant to the agency make when faced with the same moral and ethical dilemma?

7 • ETHICS IN LAW ENFORCEMENT

References

Allen, J., Mhlanga, B. and Khan, E. (2006). Education, training and ethical dilemmas: responses of criminal jus- tice practitioners regarding professional and ethical issues. Professional Issues in Criminal Justice 1(1). Retrieved from: http://www.picj.org/docs/issue1/PICJ%20Number1.pdf#page=14 .

Braswell, M., McCarthy, B., and McCarthy B. (2012). Justice, Crime and Ethics (7th ed). Burlington, Massachu- setts: Elsevier.

Caldero, M. and Crank, J. (2004). Police Ethics: The Corruption of Noble Cause (2nd ed). Mathew Bender and Company.

Caless, B. (2008). Corruption in the Police: The Reality of the ‘Dark Side’. The Police Journal, 81(1), 3–24. doi:10.1350/pojo.2008.81.1.389. Retrieved from: http://heinonline.org.ezproxy.lib.le.ac.uk/HOL/ Page?han- dle=hein.journals/policejl81&id=5&collection=journals&index=journals/policejl.

Coleman, S. (2004). When police should say ‘no!’ to gratuities. Criminal Justice Ethics, 23(1), 33–44. doi:10.1080/0731129x.2004.9992159. Retrieved from: http://heinonline.org.ezproxy.lib.le.ac.uk/HOL/ Page?han- dle=hein.journals/crimjeth23&id=33&collection=journals&index=journals/crimjeth.

Ellwanger, S. (2012). How police officers learn ethics. In M. Braswell (Ed.), M. C. Braswell, B. R. McCarthy, & B. J. McCarthy, Justice, crime, and ethics (7th ed.). Newark, NJ: Anderson Publishing Company OH.

Lafollette, H. (2007). The Practice of Ethics. Malden, ME: Blackwell Publishing.

Lipsky, M. (1980). Street-Level Bureaucracy: Dilemmas of the Individual in Public Services. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

Pollock, J. M. (2010). Ethical dilemmas and decisions in criminal justice. United States: Wadsworth Publishing Company.

Prenzler, T. (2009). Police Corruption: Preventing Misconduct and Maintaining Integrity. Boca Raton, Florida: CRC Press.

Punch, M. (2009). Police Corruption: Deviance Accountability and Reform in Policing. Portland, Oregon: Willan Publishing.

8

Rawls, J. (1999). A Theory of Justice. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Renkema, C. (2007). Police Academy Assessment Centre. New Westminster, British Columbia: Justice Institute of British Columbia.

Souryal, S. (2011). Ethics in Criminal Justice: In Search of the Truth (5th Edition). Burlington, Maine: Elsevier.

9 • ETHICS IN LAW ENFORCEMENT

PART 2

Chapter 2: Ethical Systems

10

2.1 Major Ethical Systems

When learning how to resolve ethical dilemmas, it is important to be able to articulate a justifiable rationale for why we believe one decision seems right and another seems wrong. Having a basic understanding of the major ethical theories will help us toward an ethical resolution learning how to articulate and justify the decision.

At times, some of the ethical theories may seem overly philosophical for our purposes; we may even wonder why we should study theories that were sometimes developed centuries ago when we are primarily dealing with pre- sent-day issues. In other instances, some of the ethical theories may seem overbearing. The theories we look at here, however, are important to help us understand why the decisions we make, or someone else makes, are ethi- cal or unethical.

For example, a decision may be made that appears on the surface to be unethical, but when we are aware of the philosophical system used in the decision making, we can then understand the root of the decision and, at the very least, see its intended morality. This allows us to view ethical issues from different perspectives and assists us in making informed decisions.

This book is concerned primarily with normative ethics and understanding only the common normative ethical theories. By dissecting the normative theories of ethics, we can have a clear understanding on the moral decisions we ought to make, or the reason some people make the decisions they do. Ethical theories will be examined only briefly as the focus of this book is contemporary ethical issues facing law enforcement. The descriptions of the following ethical theories are very basic and address only the points required for a basic understanding in a law enforcement context. Examples of how a theory may relate to and assist law enforcement are included.

Overview of Ethical Theories

There are three categories of ethical theories:

1. Normative ethics

2. Meta ethics

3. Applied ethics

Normative theories tell us not only what we ought to do, but also why we do things that in some instances may appear counterintuitive to what we think an ethical decision would be. Such theories are often called ethical sys- tems because they provide a system that allows people to determine ethical actions that individuals should take

11

(Pollock, 2007). Evans and Macmillan (2014, p.27) define normative ethics as “theories of ethics that are con- cerned with the norms, standards or criteria that define principles of ethical behaviour.” The most common exam- ples of normative ethical theories are utilitarianism, Kantian duty-based ethics (deontology), and divine command theory, which are described later in this chapter. These systems are used by individuals to make decisions when confronted with ethical dilemmas.

Meta-ethics does not address how we ought to behave; rather, meta-ethics is related more to the study of ethical theory itself. Here the interest is in evaluating moral and ethical theories and systems. For example, moral rel- ativism is a meta-ethical theory because it interprets discussions around ethics; a question asked within moral relativism is “is ethics culturally relative?” Evans and Macmillan (2014, p.27) define meta-ethics as “theories of ethics concerned with the moral concepts, theories, and the meaning of moral language. Pollock (2007, p.6) fur- ther defines meta-ethics as “a discipline that investigates the meaning of ethical systems and whether they are relative or are universal, and are self-constructed or are independent of human creation.”

For the purposes of this book, meta-ethics will relate to the way we look at and understand normative ethical theo- ries. More concisely, meta-ethics concerns an interpretation and evaluation of the language used within normative ethical theories.

Applied ethics describes how we apply normative theories to specific issues, usually related to work or belonging to an organization; for example, policies and procedures of organizations or ethical codes of outlaw bikers versus ethical codes of police officers. Evans and Macmillan (2014, p.27) define applied ethics as “theories of ethics concerned with the application of normative ethics to particular ethical issues.” An example is knowing and prac- tising the code of ethics for BC Corrections as an employee of BC Corrections or following the British Columbia Police Code of Ethics as a police officer.

With the overview of the three categories of ethical theories we will further analyze each ethical theory or system.

The normative ethical theories that are briefly covered in this chapter are:

• Utilitarianism

• Deontology

• Virtue ethics

• Ethics of care

• Egoism

• Religion or divine command theory

• Natural Law

• Social contract theory

• Rawls’s theory of justice

• Moral relativism

2.1 MAJOR ETHICAL SYSTEMS • 12

2.2 Utilitarian Ethics

Utilitarian ethics is a normative ethical system that is primarily concerned with the consequences of ethical deci- sions; therefore it can be described as a teleological theory or consequentialist theory, which are essentially the same thing, both having a notion that the consequence of the act is the most important determinant of the act being moral or not. Teleological reasoning takes into consideration that the ethical decision is dependent upon the consequences (“ends”) of the actions. In teleological reasoning, a person will do the right thing if the conse- quences of his or her actions are good. Additionally, if an action by a person was an act that was “not good,” but the consequences turned out to be “good,” under some theories of teleological reasoning, the act may be deemed a good ethical act. This is also referred to as “consequentialist moral reasoning,” where we locate morality in the consequences of our actions.

As a result of the consequentialist nature of utilitarianism, the means to get to the ethical decision (“end”) are secondary; the end result is that which must be considered before determining the morality of the decision.

Jeremy Bentham (1748-1832) developed the principles of utility by defining it as a measure of maximizing plea- sure while minimizing pain. Bentham wrote that everyone prefers pleasure over pain. It is with this belief that utilitarian moral principles are founded (Sandel, 2010). In developing the theory of utilitarianism, Bentham may have meant pleasure as in “happiness” and pain as in “sadness”; however, Bentham’s rendering of utilitarianism sounded hedonistic, as if sensuality was the measure Bentham associated with pleasure (Hinman, 2013).

John Stuart Mill reconsidered the principles of utilitarianism and suggested that pleasure should not merely refer to sensual pleasure but also to mental pleasure, such as music, literature, and friendship. Mill sought to make intel- lectual pleasures preferable to sensual ones.

Hinman (2013) suggests there are four principle differences between pleasure and happiness:

1. Happiness is related to the mind, whereas pleasure is related to the body (for example sexual pleasure, eating, drinking)

2. Pleasure is of shorter duration than happiness. Happiness is long-term, focusing on the satisfaction of liv- ing well, or achieving life goals.

3. Happiness may encompass pleasure and pain.

4. There is an evaluative element in happiness versus pleasure.

13

There are two formulations of utilitarianism: act utilitarianism and rule utilitarianism. Act utilitarianism con- cerns the consequences of the first instance, where the utility of that act is all that is regarded.

The second formulation of utilitarianism, rule utilitarianism, concerns the consequences of the majority of people following a certain rule that is immoral, which would be negative. With rule utilitarianism, to determine the ethics of an act, the questions to ask are “What would happen if there was a universal rule that condones this action?” and “Would such a rule promote the consequences that would best serve a moral society?” Rule utilitarianism operates as a check and balance for utilitarian principles, assuring that decisions that may be utilitarian in princi- ple are qualified with the notion of universality, asking “what would the result be if everyone followed a rule that allowed this act?”