Which of the following is the best definition of effective teaching?

23

Detective Russell Poole was a Robbery-Homicide Division investigator with the Los Angeles Police Department. In 1998, he was assigned an investigation regarding the al-leged beating of Ismael Jimenez, a reputed gang member, by LAPD officers, and a sus- pected cover-up of the incident. In his investigation, he uncovered a pattern of complaints of violence by the anti-gang task force in the Ramparts Division. Gang members told Poole and his partners that a number of officers harassed them, assaulted them, and pressured them to provide untraceable guns. The beating occurred because Jimenez would not provide the of- ficers with a gun. In a search of the house of Officer Rafael Perez, a member of the anti-gang task force, Poole found a box with a half-dozen realistic replica toy guns. He concluded that a number of the officers in the division were “vigilante cops” and requested that the investigation proceed further.

After Poole informed his superiors of what his investigation had uncovered, Bernard Parks, the LAPD chief at the time, ordered Poole to limit his investigation solely to the Jimenez beating. Poole prepared a 40-page report on the Jimenez case for the district attorney’s office, detailing the pattern of complaints, alleged assaults, and other allegations of serious wrongdoing on the part of the Rampart officers. Poole’s report never reached the district attorney’s office because his lieutenant, enforcing the chief ’s orders, replaced his detailed report with a two-page report written by the lieu- tenant and another supervisor. Poole knew that in not providing the district attorney’s office with all the information he uncovered, he could be charged with obstruction of justice, and the report provided so little information that the officer probably would not even be charged. Poole’s lieutenant then asked him to put his name on the report (Golab, 2000).

Determining Moral Behavior 2

CHAPTER OBJECTIVES

1. Define deontological and teleological ethical systems, and explain ethical formalism and utilitarianism.

2. Describe how other ethical systems define what is moral—specifically, ethics of virtue, natural law, religion, and ethics of care.

3. Discuss the argument as to whether egoism is an ethical system.

4. Explain the controversy between relativism and absolutism (or universalism).

5. Identify what is good according to each of the ethical systems discussed in the chapter.

Cr ed

it TK

62662_ch02_rev01_023-050.indd 23 06/07/12 12:33 PM

© C

en ga

ge L

ea rn

in g.

A ll

rig ht

s r es

er ve

d. N

o di

st rib

ut io

n al

lo w

ed w

ith ou

t e xp

re ss

a ut

ho riz

at io

n.

24     PA R T I      Ethics and the Criminal Justice System

How did Detective Poole decide what was the right thing to do in this situation? He had conflicting duties and conflicting values. He knew that not signing the report might have serious consequences for his career. How would you determine the right thing to do if you were in a similar situation?

As discussed in Chapter 1, if confronted with an ethical dilemma, one can follow a series of steps to come to an ethical resolution: 1. Identify the facts. Identifying all relevant facts is essential as a first step. Most of the

important facts in this dilemma are presented in the preceding paragraphs. Sometimes individuals facing a dilemma do not know all the facts, and sometimes the decision to find the facts is an ethical dilemma unto itself.

2. Identify relevant values and concepts. One’s values of duty, friendship, loyalty, hon- esty, and self-preservation are usually at the heart of professional ethical dilem- mas. In this case, what is Poole’s duty? His decision may hinge on his value system; for instance, whether he values his career over honesty or loyalty to his supervi- sors over law.

3. Identify all possible moral dilemmas for each party involved. Recall that this was to help us see that sometimes one’s own moral or ethical dilemma is caused by others’ actions. Obviously, Poole is in the situation he is in because his supervisor asked him to do something that was unethical and probably illegal. Neither would have been in the situation if the officers who were the target of the investigation had not violated the law. The officers may not have felt compelled to violate the law if they had not been attempting to control criminal gang activity. Thus, we see that usually one’s ethical dilemma is prefaced upon others’ ethical (or unethical) decisions.

4. Decide what is the most immediate moral or ethical issue facing the individual. This is always a behavior choice, not an opinion. Poole’s immediate decision is whether to sign the report, despite his misgivings as to its truthfulness.

5. Resolve the ethical or moral dilemma by using an ethical system or some other means of  decision making. In this chapter, we will concentrate on the fifth step in the sequence above and present

several ethical systems that can help us identify the right thing to do when faced with an ethical dilemma.

Ethical Systems Our principles of right and wrong form a framework for the way we live our lives. But where do these principles come from? Before you read on, answer the following question: If you believe that stealing is wrong, why do you believe this to be so? You probably said it is because your parents taught you or because your religion forbids it—or maybe because society cannot tolerate people harming one another. Your an- swer is an indication of your ethical system. The In the News box describes someone who took a moral stand, perhaps because of an ethical system that we will discuss in this chapter.

Ethical systems have a number of characteristics. First, they are the source of moral beliefs. Second, they are the underlying premises from which you make judgments. Third,

ethical system A structured set of principles that defines what is moral.

62662_ch02_rev01_023-050.indd 24 06/07/12 12:33 PM

© C

en ga

ge L

ea rn

in g.

A ll

rig ht

s r es

er ve

d. N

o di

st rib

ut io

n al

lo w

ed w

ith ou

t e xp

re ss

a ut

ho riz

at io

n.

C H A P T E R 2     Determining Moral Behavior     25 

they are beyond argument. That is, although ethical decisions may become the basis of debate, the decisions are based on fundamental truths or propositions that are taken as a given by the individual employing the ethical system.

C. E. Harris (1986: 33) referred to such ethical systems as moral theories or moral  philosophies and defined them as a systematic ordering of moral principles. To be ac- cepted as an ethical system, the system of principles must be internally consistent, must be consistent with generally held beliefs, and must possess a type of “moral com- mon sense.” Baelz (1977: 19) further described ethical systems as having the following characteristics: • They are prescriptive. Certain behavior is demanded or proscribed. They are not just

abstract principles of good and bad but have substantial impact on what we do. • They are authoritative. They are not ordinarily subject to debate. Once an ethical frame-

work has been developed, it is usually beyond question. • They are logically impartial or universal. Moral considerations arising from ethical sys-

tems are not relative. The same rule applies in all cases and for everyone. • They are not self-serving. They are directed toward others; what is good is good for ev-

eryone, not just the individual. We don’t consciously think of ethical systems, but we use them to make judgments.

For instance, we might say that a woman who leaves her children alone to go out drink- ing has committed an immoral act. That would be a moral judgment. Consider that the moral judgment in any discussion is only the tip of a pyramid. If forced to defend our judg- ment, we would probably come up with some rules of behavior that underlie the judgment. Moral rules in this case might be:

“Children should be looked after.” “One shouldn’t drink to excess.” “Mothers should be good role models for their children.”

Greg Smith, an equities director for Goldman Sachs and 12-year employee, quit very publicly in March of 2012 by publishing an op-ed piece in the New York Times entitled “Why I Am Leaving Goldman Sachs.” In the piece he described how proud he had been to be associated with the firm in the past. He stated: “It might sound surprising to a skeptical public, but culture was always a vital part of Goldman Sachs’s success. It revolved around teamwork, integrity, a spirit of humility, and always doing right by our clients.” He then described how the organizational ethos and value system of protecting client interests had degenerated to profit at the expense of the client: “How did we get here? The firm changed the way it thought about leadership. Leadership used to be about ideas, setting an example and

newsIN THE A Moral Stand doing the right thing. Today, if you make enough money for the firm (and are not currently an ax murderer) you will be promoted into a position of influence.” Finally, he offered advice to the board of directors: “Weed out the morally bankrupt people, no matter how much money they make for the firm. And get the culture right again, so people want to work here for the right reasons.”

Was his stand courageous or foolhardy? Do you think any major bank would hire him now? Which ethical system(s) seems to be most congruent with his views on ethical busi- ness practices?

Source: Smith, G. 2012. “Why I Am Leaving Goldman Sachs.” New York Times, Opinion Page, March 14, 2012.

62662_ch02_rev01_023-050.indd 25 06/07/12 12:33 PM

© C

en ga

ge L

ea rn

in g.

A ll

rig ht

s r es

er ve

d. N

o di

st rib

ut io

n al

lo w

ed w

ith ou

t e xp

re ss

a ut

ho riz

at io

n.

26     PA R T I      Ethics and the Criminal Justice System

But these moral rules are not the final argument; they can be considered the body of the pyramid. How would you answer if someone forced you to defend the rules by asking “why?” For instance, “Why should children be looked after?” In answering the “why” ques- tion, one eventually comes to some form of ethical system. For instance, we might answer, “Because it benefits society if all parents watched out for their children.” This would be a utilitarian ethical system. We might have answered the question, “Because every parent’s duty is to take care of their children.” This is ethical formalism or any duty-based ethi- cal system. Ethical systems form the base of the pyramid. They are the foundation for the moral rules that we live by.

The ethical pyramid is a visual representation of this discussion. In Figure 2.1, the moral judgment discussed above is the tip of the pyramid, supported by moral rules on which the judgment is based. The moral rules, in turn, rest upon a base, which is one’s ethical system. The most commonly utilized ethical systems are religion and utilitarianism. The most commonly utilized ethical systems in philosophical conversations are ethical for- malism and utilitarianism. We will discuss the ethical systems in somewhat of a chrono- logical order, beginning with Aristotle and the Ethics of Virtue.

The Ethics of Virtue The question of what it means to be a good person is an ancient one. Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle were not the first to explore virtue, but we will begin our discussion of ethical sys- tems with Aristotle. As you read in the last chapter, Socrates associated virtue with knowl- edge. Ignorance led to bad behavior because if one was rational and wise, he or she would know what virtue was and behave accordingly. The four virtues identified by Socrates and Plato are justice, wisdom, fortitude, and temperance. Recall that Plato associated these vir- tues with the three classes of citizens: leaders (wisdom), soldiers (fortitude or courage), and all others (temperance). Aristotle disagreed with the idea that bad behavior occurred only through ignorance and argued that there were people who chose to behave in ways that were not virtuous. In Nicomachian Ethics, he answers the ethics of virtue question, “What

ethics of virtue The ethical system that bases ethics largely upon character and possession of virtues.

Ethical System This could be ethical formalism

or utilitarianism or religion or ethics of care. The rules are logically inconsistent with egoism.

Moral Judgment A woman who goes out drinking

leaving her children at home is bad.

Moral Rules People should not drink to excess. Children should come before self.

Women should take care of their children. Drinking should be done in moderation.

One should do one's duty.

Figure 2.1  Ethical Pyramid

62662_ch02_rev01_023-050.indd 26 06/07/12 12:33 PM

© C

en ga

ge L

ea rn

in g.

A ll

rig ht

s r es

er ve

d. N

o di

st rib

ut io

n al

lo w

ed w

ith ou

t e xp

re ss

a ut

ho riz

at io

n.

C H A P T E R 2     Determining Moral Behavior     27 

is a good person?” One answer is that to be good, one must do good. Virtues that a good person possesses include thriftiness, temperance, humility, industriousness, and honesty. The goal of life, according to Aristotle, is eudaimonia, translated as happiness, but another translation is “flourishing.” The meaning of this word does not mean simply having plea- sure, but also living a good life, reaching achievements, and attaining moral excellence.

Aristotle defined virtues as “excellences.” These qualities are what enable an individual to move toward the achievement of what it takes to be human. Aristotle distinguished in- tellectual virtues (wisdom, understanding) from moral virtues (generosity, self-control). The moral virtues are not sufficient for “the good life”; one must also have the intellectual virtues, primarily “practical reason.” Aristotle believed that we are by nature neither good nor evil, but become so through training and the acquisition of habits:

[T]he virtues are implanted in us neither by nature nor contrary to nature: we are by na- ture equipped with the ability to receive them and habit brings this ability to completion  and fulfillment. (Aristotle, quoted in Prior, 1991: 156–157)

Habits of moral virtue are obtained by following the example of a moral exemplar. These habits are also more easily instilled when “right” or just laws also exist. Moral virtue is a state of character in which choices are consistent with the principle of the Golden Mean. This principle states that virtue is always the median between two extremes of character. For in- stance, proper pride is the mean between empty vanity and undue humility, and so on. The Catalog of Virtues derived from the writings of Aristotle appears in Box 2.1. It should be noted that it is difficult to understand some of Aristotle’s virtues because of the passage of time and the problems of translation. Generally, however, the idea is that the right way to behave is a balance between an excess and a deficiency of any element of character.

Moral virtue comes from habit, which is why this system emphasizes character. The idea is that one does not do good because of reason; rather, one does good because of the patterns of a lifetime. Those with good character will do the right thing, and those with bad character usually will choose the immoral path. Every day we are confronted with numer- ous opportunities to lie, cheat, and steal. When a cashier looks the other way, we could probably filch a $20 bill from the cash drawer; or when a clerk gives us a $10 bill instead of a $1 bill by mistake, we could keep it instead of hand it back. We don’t because, generally, it

principle of the golden mean Aristotle’s concept of moderation, in which one should not err toward excess or deficiency; this principle is associated with the ethics of virtue.

BOX 2.1 Catalog of Virtues

Courage (balance between cowardice and foolhardiness)

Temperance (balance between self indulgence and asceticism)

Liberality (balance between meanness and too generous)

Munificence (similar to liberality; balance between stinginess and being profligate)

Magnanimity (balance between being vain and being petty)

Proper ambition (balance between being without ambition and having too much)

Good temper (balance between being quick to anger and not showing anger when warranted)

Truthfulness (balance between unnecessary truths and lying)

Wittiness (balance between being a bore and being a clown)

Friendliness (balance between obsequiousness and being unfriendly)

Modesty (balance between being too humble and too boastful)

Righteous indignation (balance between being envious and being spiteful)

Source: Nicomachean Ethics, Aristotle. Adapted from: www.cwu.edu/~warren/Unit1/aristotles_virtues_and_vices.htm.

62662_ch02_rev01_023-050.indd 27 06/07/12 12:33 PM

© C

en ga

ge L

ea rn

in g.

A ll

rig ht

s r es

er ve

d. N

o di

st rib

ut io

n al

lo w

ed w

ith ou

t e xp

re ss

a ut

ho riz

at io

n.

28     PA R T I      Ethics and the Criminal Justice System

does not even occur to us to steal. We do not have to go through any deep ethical analysis in most instances when we have the opportunity to do bad things, because our habits of a lifetime dictate our actions.

Somewhat related to the ethics of virtue ethical system are the Six Pillars of Character promulgated by the Josephson Institute of Ethics (2008). The Six Pillars of Character echo Aristotle’s virtues. 1. Trustworthiness. This concept encompasses honesty and meeting one’s obligations.

Honesty means to be truthful, forthright, and sincere, and the pillar also involves loy- alty, living up to one’s beliefs, and having values.

2. Respect. This pillar is similar to the second portion of the categorical imperative of Ethical Formalism which will be discussed subsequently. The concept admonishes us to treat each person with respect and not as a means to an end. The idea is also similar to the Golden Rule in Christianity.

3. Responsibility. This means standing up for one’s choices and being accountable. Every- one has a moral duty to pursue excellence, but, if one fails, the duty is to take responsi- bility for the failure.

4. Fairness. This concept involves issues of equality, impartiality, and due process. To treat everyone fairly doesn’t necessarily mean to treat everyone the same, but rather, to apply fairness in one’s dealings with everyone.

5. Caring. This pillar encompasses the ideas of altruism and benevolence. It is similar to the ethics of care which will be described below.

6. Citizenship. This includes the duties of every citizen, including voting, obeying the law, being a good steward of the natural resources of one’s country, and doing one’s fair share. One difficulty the ethics of virtue is in judging the primacy of moral virtues. For in-

stance, in professional ethics there are often conflicts that involve honesty and loyalty. If both are virtues, how does one resolve a dilemma in which one virtue must be sacrificed? Another difficulty is that it is not a system that provides an analysis of what to do in a given dilemma. If one is truly perplexed as to what the right course of action should be, this system does not help much in that it basically concludes that a virtuous person will act virtuously.

The ethics of virtue probably explains more individual behavior than other ethical sys- tems because most of the time, if we have developed habits of virtue, we do not even think about the possible bad acts we might do. For instance, most of us do not have to analyze the rightness or wrongness of stealing every time we go into a store. We do not consider lying every time a circumstance arises. In fact, we do the right thing mostly because of our habits and patterns of a lifetime. However, when faced with a true dilemma—that is, a choice where the “right” decision is unclear—the ethics of virtue does not provide the type of equation to arrive at the right answer that later ethical systems, such as ethical formalism or utilitarianism, do.

The Aristotelian virtue ethics certainly influenced later thinkers, but as the timeline displayed in Box 2.2 shows, other ethical systems eclipsed this older system for centuries. More recently, Alasdair MacIntyre (1991: 204), a contemporary philosopher, has done much to resurrect virtue ethics. He defines virtues as those dispositions that will sustain us in the relevant “quest for the good, by enabling us to overcome the harms, dangers, temptations and distractions which we encounter, and which will furnish us with increas- ing self-knowledge and increasing knowledge of the good.” MacIntyre (1999) also seems to endorse an ethics-of-care approach because he discusses virtue as necessary to care for the

62662_ch02_rev01_023-050.indd 28 06/07/12 12:33 PM

© C

en ga

ge L

ea rn

in g.

A ll

rig ht

s r es

er ve

d. N

o di

st rib

ut io

n al

lo w

ed w

ith ou

t e xp

re ss

a ut

ho riz

at io

n.

C H A P T E R 2     Determining Moral Behavior     29 

next generation. He sees life as one of “reciprocal indebtedness” and emphasizes “networks of relationships” as the locale of giving and receiving the benefits of virtues. This language is similar to the ethics of care, which will be discussed in a later section.

Natural Law The natural law ethical system holds that there is a universal set of rights and wrongs that is similar to many religious beliefs, but without reference to a specific supernatural figure. Originating most clearly with the Stoics, natural law is an ethical system wherein no difference is recognized between physical laws—such as the law of gravity—and moral laws. Morality is part of the natural order of the universe. Further, this morality is the same across cultures and times. In this view, Christians simply added God as a source of law (as other religions added their own prophets and gods), but there is no intrinsic need to resort to a supernatural figure because these universal laws exist quite apart from any religion (Maestri, 1982; Buckle, 1993).

The natural law ethical system presupposes that what is good is what is natural, and what is natural is what is good. The essence of morality is what conforms to the natural world; thus, there are basic inclinations that form the core of moral principles. For instance, the preservation of one’s own being is a natural inclination and thus is a basic principle

natural law The idea that principles of morals and rights are inherent in nature and not human-made; such laws are discovered by reason but exist apart from humankind.