research project (Essay Sample)

Application of the Utilitarianism Ethical System to a Policing Case Name of Student Institution Affiliation Application of the Utilitarianism Ethical System to a Policing Case Our legacy in life depends on the choices we make. For most of the time making choices is easy. This is because of a clear difference between good and evil choices. However, once in a while we are faced with situations where the good and negative consequences of our choices are not clear. Take for instance a police officer in an area where a natural disaster has just occurred. He is required to report immediately to the police precinct. His family, on the other hand, is in danger and requires his attention. In such an instance, the best solution is to make a choice based on ethical systems. Four main ethical theories exist; ethics of virtue, natural law, utilitarianism, and ethics of care. The utilitarianism theory is based on consequence. Choices made have to deliver the maximum utility. In this paper, the utilitarianism ethical system is applied to find the best solution to the police officer's dilemma. Based on the utilitarianism principle the police officer should give priority to his family. The utilitarianism principle is made up of two main categories. The first is rule utilitarianism. In rule utilitarianism, moral codes guide decision making. An individual is required to build up his or her code. All the rules in the moral code have to promote the happiness of people around you. This is a traditional view of utilitarianism. A more modern type of utilitarianism is act utilitarianism (Barrow, 2015). This type of utilitarianism deals directly with the consequences of actions. There are no specific rules and guidelines set, instead, individual judgment is utilized to make the choices. The discussion on the best choice for the police officer will be based on act utilitarianism. This is because he is making a choice from an individual point of view. Additionally, he will face most of the consequences of his choice. At the heart of utilitarianism are the consequences of choices. The good and positive results of each choice are noted. The action with the maximum benefits is taken (Driver, 2014). As a police officer going to the police station during this time of crisis means policing services are delivered to the public. The officer will promptly respond to calls of help from different parts of the city. This is the good that will come out of the choice to go to the police station. On the negative sides going to the police station means sacrificing the family's welfare. During this time of natural disaster, the family needs assistance the most. A choice not to attend to them may mean losing them forever. Going home instead of the police precinct means the officer gets to help his family and be with them during the trying time. The bad consequence of this choice is that some of the members of the community are denied help. When the consequences of the two choices are compared; going home to the family does greater good. Since in a police station there is an entire squad of police officers, they will fill in any gaps as a result of one officer's absence. Only a small number of those in need will miss services as a result of the absence. The other pillar for making a decision in utilitarianism is pleasure and happiness versus pain and happiness. In an ideal situation, a choice made should bring pleasure and happiness and zero pain and unhappiness. It is hard to find such an ideal situation. In reality, choices made are expected to bring maximum happiness and minimum suffering (Hayry, 2013). Focussing on the choice of abandoning work, the joy is more compared to the pain. By not reporting to the police station, the law enforcer enjoys comforting his family. Such an act shows appreciation to the family members. This strengthens the bond within the family. This simple act is likely to have an impact on family relations for a long time. The only compromise is a feeling of letting down my state. When joining the police force one swears allegiance to the force. A promise to put the state first before everything else is made. On the other hand, reporting to work leads to more pain than joy. The trauma that comes with losing a family is no joke. To overcome the resulting psychological challenge requires professional counseling. Additionally this choice will negatively impact the quality of work delivered. While trying to help those affected by the natural disaster the officer will worry about the safety of the family. Also, if any of the family members are injured the service delivery of the officer is affected. The only joy in reporting to work is service delivery to the public. This is not sufficient to challenge the pleasure derived from rescuing members of the family. Critics of utilitarianism have for a long time blamed it for being too individualistic. Decisions are made after considering ones' interests. This is however not the case, act utilitarianism provides guidelines on how to ensure the group interests are taken care of. The first step is to find the action that delivers happiness to the entire group. This is done by adding the impact of a particular action on each of the individuals in the group. The choice that increases the happiness of the entire group significantly is the right one. In this case, there are two groups. The community that was affected by the catastrophic event and the family. Checking in at the precinct serves to make the suffering members of the public jovial. Absence, on the other hand, is not going to have a significant impact on the quality of help to those affected by the disaster. Other police officers will fill in the created gap. Going to help the family members in danger increases their well-being drastically. The family members will be emotionally supported. Additionally, they will be moved to safety, consequently saving their lives. Unlike in the case of the public, the other police officers cannot fill in the gap as a result of the officer's absence. The desirable decision is to avoid attending work and instead help members of the family. Another aspect of utilitarianism that can help in decision making is its view on commands. This ethical system discourages any decision making made on the basis of orders, taboos, beliefs in spiritual beings, and culture (Piacquadio, 2017). Whether a choice is good or bad is solely determined by its consequence. Does it affect involved individuals positively or negatively? In the police force, rank is everything. Junior officers are expected to follow directives from senior officers without questioning the impact of the orders. In this instance the order is that all police officers are to report to the nearest police stations with immediate effect. Failure to follow such a command usually warrants a punishment and sometimes dismissal. According to utilitarianism, all this threats and system structures should not be of concern. Not attending the job brings significant joy and well-being to the largest possible group of individuals. The consequences of disobeying orders from seniors are not of any concern. The oath to serve the public is of even of lesser significance. Taking action because you took an oath to do it does not make the action good or bad. How the action affects the lives of others is the only significant factor. There is one significant dilemma when applying the utilitarianism principle. The distinction between foreseeable consequence and actual consequences. Most of the time choices are made on the basis of predicted consequences. In reality, there is no way to definitively tell what will happen in the future. The question raised by critics is whether or not an action remains good even after the actual consequence turns out to be the exact opposite of the foreseeable consequence. Such an action is bad. At the end of the day whether an action is right or wrong is based on the real consequences of the action. One good example is the story of a man who rescued a drowning young boy. Saving a drowning child has a positive foreseeable consequence (Piacquadio, 2017). The child happened to be Adolf Hitler. The infamous dictator who killed over four million Jews. This innocent action on the basis of the utilitarian principle is no longer desirable it leads to the death of millions of innocent citizens. As a police officer this point of view raises doubts about the sanity of the choice not to report to the nearest police headquarters. Assuming the disaster ends up not affecting the family directly? This means going to the police station would be the better choice as doing this would mean service is offered to those in need. Assuming the precinct is nearer than the home. By the time the law enforcer arrives home the family would have long been affected by the natural disaster. The choice to go home in this instance will have no significant impact. However, since the true consequence of an action cannot be predictable it is acceptable to make decisions based on predicted consequence. All effort should be put to ensure the predictions are as accurate as possible. In this case, after calling to confirm the family is in danger, the right choice is to avoid going to work. Their interests come first. Utilitarianism is not without its shortcomings. One of this faults is in distinguishing bad deeds from good ones. The differentiation of good from bad in utilitarianism is based only on feelings (Mulgan, 2014). Good is defined as feeling happy and experiencing a form of pleasure. Material objects such as meals, family, and electronics are regarded as objects that eventually lead to a joyful feeling. To an extent the concept that all good is associated with emotions is misleading. Good deeds such as honesty, kindness, and generosity are not associated with any type of feelings. As a police officer the expansion of good to cover virtues adds weight to the choice o...