Overview of Ethics &
Moral Reasoning
[excerpted from Jeffrey Reiman's
Introduction in Criminal Justice Ethics]
By “morality,” is meant
the standards of rightness and goodness by which we judge human behavior:
fairness, non-malevolence, tolerance, and truthfulness are such standards.
In contrast, “ethics” means the philosophical study of morality, the
search for principles that justify the moral standards that we seek to
apply. And second, “ethics” means those moral standards that are
appropriate to particular occupations (so we speak of legal ethics or
medical ethics, rather than of legal or medical morality). In both
these senses, the study of whether and how criminal justice is moral is
rightly called criminal justice ethics: It is a philosophical
undertaking, and it seeks to understand and justify those moral standards
that are appropriate to the occupations that comprise the criminal justice
system.
[ Utilitarian ] [ Virtue Ethics ] [ Relativism ] [ Deontological ] [ Communitarian ] [ Contractarian ] [ Teaching Ethics ]
|
|
Criminal justice can only
be distinguished from crime, if criminal justice is moral while crime is
immoral. This is what led the great thinker and teacher, Saint
Augustine, to ask rhetorically: Without justice, what are kingdoms but
great robberies? In short, only morality can distinguish the
state’s force as right from the criminal’s force as wrong. Only
by being moral can criminal justice be distinguished from the very crime
that it condemns! The morality that will make the difference between
criminal justice and crime, between right and mere might, must be in some
sense a morality which is rationally justifiable. That is, it must
be a morality whose credentials lie not simply in that is accepted, but
rather a morality that can be shown worthy of acceptance on the basis of
rational arguments.
Morality is not simply the standards that
people accept, but rationally justifiable standards of behavior. When
someone gives a moral justification, she means to show that her actions
are not simply selfish or self-interested. This suggests that
morality is a kind of neutral standard. Moreover, when someone
offers a moral justification, she means to show that her actions are
good in some way. Thus morality suggests a neutral standard of
goodness. And finally, if someone offers a moral justification, she
assumes that others can understand the content of the moral principle to
which she appeals. Morality is not private, not secret, not
esoteric. In order to expect people to accept moral
justifications, indeed, in order to expect people to be moral, we must
believe that morality is something accessible to all people--at least
all people sane and mature enough to be held responsible for their
actions. And this in turn suggests that people can understand how
morality is good, how it is good for them and for others. Thus we
can say--without yet having said what standards comprise the content of
morality--that morality means standards of behavior that are good in
ways that are neutral among people and in ways that all reasonable
people can understand. For this reason, the moral philosopher Kurt
Baier has wisely characterized morality as indicating “the good of all
people alike.” Morality is not just good for you or good for me,
or for my family or your country--it is neutral and thus good for all
people alike.
|
|
|
Recommended reading: Profit Without Honor When It Comes to Ethics,
Business Schools Get an F: It was in 1987 that John S.R. Shad, then chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission, made a personal donation of some $20 million to
Harvard Business School to support the teaching of ethics. On April 21, 1989, after months of contentious debate, an initial proposal was put up for a faculty-wide vote. Reactions ranged from distrust to outright hostility. One economist argued that "we are here to teach science." Another faculty member wanted to know, "Whose ethics, what values, are we going to teach?" And a third pointed out that the students were adults who got their ethics education at home and at church. By meeting's end, the project had been sent back to the drawing board.
What Is Ethical? Politics, Circumstances, Excuses Can Blur What Is Right
(ABC News report): Complicating things further is the difficulty of defining what's ethical — particularly in the face of different viewpoints, evolving public
mores, and trying circumstances that occasionally might turn dishonesty into a more ethical course. All the complications can make it
hard to know if you're a bad person rationalizing ethically bad behavior, or an honest one trying your best to navigate life's ethical shoals
- especially with just about everybody giving excuses, the experts say.
|
