Executive Solution Overview
reply – ## week2510discussionreply.docx **## week2510discussionreply.docx** 1 5 100 words each reply \*\*\* In your responses, pick a different school of thought and provide another modern example, not previously discussed in your original post or your peer’s post. Challenge your peers’ perspecti…
Instant Solution Download
$6.99Immediate access to the full model answer, formatted citations, and rubric breakdown.
Need a Fresh Custom Paper?
Have this question answered from scratch according to your specific instructions and deadline.
Order on TutorsGallery →Assignment Prompt & Instructions
reply
– ## week2510discussionreply.docx
**## week2510discussionreply.docx**
1
5
100 words each reply
\*\*\* In your responses, pick a different school of thought and provide another modern example, not previously discussed in your original post or your peer’s post. Challenge your peers’ perspectives and issues and provide your own insights and challenges. how would you consider this analysis under a different school of thought discussed in Chapter 4? *****
**Discussion 1 reply to chet**
The school of thought I chose is Social Justice, and the master is John Rawls.
Theories of Social Justice focus on fairness, equality, and moral rights within society. The core idea is that all members of a community are entitled to certain rights and should have equitable access to opportunities. Social Justice proponents seek to address and rectify imbalances and injustices that arise within societal structures, often advocating for policies that support the redistribution of resources and power to create a more equitable society. Rawls’ most well-known idea within this school is his “theory of justice as fairness”. He advocates for the “original position” behind a “veil of ignorance” as a means of designing society. The “veil of ignorance” represents a hypothetical scenario in which decision-makers create societal rules without any foreknowledge of their social status or personal attributes. This would result in impartiality because no group would be favored over another. He has two principles: (1) everyone should have equal basic liberties; and (2) social and economic inequalities are to be arranged to the greatest benefit of the least advantaged – also called the “difference principle”. Rawls was a professor of moral and political philosophy who is remembered for these principles as well as his overall contributions to Social Justice.
I chose Social Justice and Rawls because I feel like fairness and protecting the most vulnerable are what the justice system and ethical leadership should be based on. His specific theories of impartiality and redistributing opportunities and access really appeal to my own personal beliefs that the criminal justice system should always put a premium on fairness, but not just formal fairness, fairness that works to actually reduce inequalities. I think his veil of ignorance and how it could be used to design justice system policies and practices with no bias is vitally important for creating a just justice system. I love how much of his work focused on putting the least advantaged in society first, as this really aligns with my ideas of social responsibility and the moral obligation to protect those most at risk of being marginalized or wronged.
Overall, I strongly agree with Rawls’ work. The “veil of ignorance” could really be a tool that modern lawmakers can use to try to eliminate bias from our laws and the policies they create. Forcing people to design society with the “veil of ignorance” would make them have to think about every community and every type of person. This is the epitome of fairness, at least to me. His “difference principle” is also so useful in terms of actively and practically working to redress structural inequities, from racial differences in sentencing to class differences in access to attorneys. I think these concepts can be practical guides to work towards in order to actively create a more level playing field for marginalized groups and ensure that justice is working for everyone equally, not just the wealthy or the racially privileged. I also think his focus on fairness and on the moral value of supporting the least advantaged is a great moral foundation to advocate for social corrections within the criminal justice system.
Rawls’ school of thought has its own challenges and criticisms, however. One of the criticisms is that the theory of Social Justice, and specifically Rawls, can be too utopian. Critics argue that his theory is impractical and hard to apply in the real world, where many interests often conflict with each other. It is an overly optimistic goal to design society or reform any social issue around a societal “original position”. Many also argue that because of power dynamics, cultural differences, and human nature, people are too biased to ever truly be impartial or to choose laws or policies based on an “original position”. Rawls’ own “difference principle” is used by some to argue against redistribution. The logic is that since we live in an unequal world and this is the way it has to be to benefit the least advantaged, then we should not try to fix it, as that is, in and of itself, a type of oppression. While Rawls wanted to focus on equal basic liberties, some find this too narrowly defined because of its lack of nuance on human behavior or the fact that not all people may want equal liberty. For example, there may be cultural differences in how people view justice and fairness, or an overemphasis on fairness may remove an emphasis on personal responsibility.
Rawls’ social justice, and specifically his “veil of ignorance” and “difference principle,” can be applied to many modern criminal justice issues. An example is bail reform. If lawmakers were to put on the “veil of ignorance” and not know whether they were designing laws that would benefit white defendants or Black defendants, they would then create laws that benefit the least advantaged, the “difference principle”. The least advantaged in terms of cash bail are usually defendants who cannot afford to pay it or people who are presumed innocent but are effectively detained because they do not have family or friends with resources. Some of the results of such a reformed system, based on the example given, would be no cash bail for low-income defendants. There would be an expansion of public defenders, as well as increased access to legal aid and education for those who cannot afford to pay for lawyers themselves. These would all benefit the most vulnerable and at-risk populations the most by protecting them from undue restrictions on their liberty based on their economic status or race.
National Institute of Justice. (2021).
_Policing and Community Relations: Reconsidering Strategies for Reform_.
[https://nij.ojp.gov/topics/policing-and-community-relations](https://nij.ojp.gov/topics/policing-and-community-relations)
U.S. Department of Justice. (2022).
_Use of Force Policy and Guidelines_.
[https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/department-justice-announces-new-guidelines-use-force-policing](https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/department-justice-announces-new-guidelines-use-force-policing)
**Discussion 1 reply to Aalia**
In chapter 4, the authors Souryal and Whitehead (2019) discuss the Religious (Scholastic) School: Ethics and the love of God. The Religious/Scholastic school is described as a deontological theory, which teaches that actions are moral because they are willed by God, not because of their consequences, a principle exemplified in the biblical story of Abraham’s obedience to God. This school relied on faith, divine command, and scripture as the foundations of ethical judgment, while also incorporating reason and logic to defend church doctrine. The Old Testament emphasized obedience to God’s commandments, whereas the New Testament focused on love, redemption, and salvation through Jesus Christ. Its “Masters” include Saint Augustine, known as the Platonizer of Christianity for blending Platonic philosophy with Christian faith, and Saint Thomas Aquinas, the Christianizer of Aristotelianism, who developed Natural Law Theory and integrated faith with reason, whose teachings form the cornerstone of Christian ethics (p. 125).
I chose the Religious (Scholastic) School and its Master, Saint Augustine, because his teachings emphasize the importance of spiritual safety, divine grace, and the moral pursuit of salvation through faith in God. Saint Augustine’s ethical philosophy appeals to me since it integrates both reason and faith, illustrating how moral fulfillment depends on aligning one’s will with divine goodness. I gained insight from his belief that evil does not exist as a separate entity but rather is only “evil insofar as it lacks the goodness of God” (p. 127). This interpretation reinforces the idea that moral wrongdoing stems from separation from divine goodness rather than an inherent force of evil. I also agree with Augustine’s view that, although humans possess free will, they depend on divine grace to choose righteousness. His assertion that “fallen men are powerless in their endeavor to achieve that goal by themselves” (p. 127) underscores the necessity of humility and faith in moral decision-making. Furthermore, his concept of the “City of God” versus the “City of Man” (p. 127) provides a profound ethical framework for understanding the ongoing struggle between worldly temptation and spiritual devotion. Saint Augustine’s theories offer enduring guidance for cultivating virtue, compassion, and obedience to God’s commandments in the pursuit of true moral excellence.
One challenge I find in Saint Augustine’s ethical theory is the tension between free will and divine omnipotence. Augustine explains that “while God has the power to put a stop to evil by divine decree (thus abolishing the will of man), he chooses not to,” since humans should have the freedom to choose good rather than be “puppets incapable of sinning” (p. 128). Although this argument highlights the value of moral autonomy, it also raises the question of why an all-powerful and benevolent God would permit so much evil and suffering. Augustine attempts to reconcile this by suggesting that evil is not a created force but “only the absence or the mutilation of goodness” and is therefore “nature disordered” (p. 128). However, this explanation may seem inadequate to those who view suffering as more than merely the absence of good. Another difficulty lies in his belief that the will itself is neutral and “becomes evil only when man abuses it by turning from the ‘superior to the inferior’ (p. 128). In practice, this can make it difficult to determine the precise point at which a moral choice transitions from good intention to sinful desire, since such judgments are often subjective. Finally, I find it challenging that Augustine’s ethical framework depends heavily on faith and divine grace as moral guides, which can make it difficult to apply universally to those seeking ethical principles grounded solely in human reason or secular philosophy.
A modern example in which the Religious (Scholastic) School’s theories, those of Saint Augustine, apply in the criminal justice field is in community corrections programs for nonviolent offenders. These programs emphasize rehabilitation, restoration, and reintegration as moral obligations rather than retribution. Augustine taught that humans possess free will and must make meaningful moral choices, suggesting that offenders can choose to pursue redemption over wrongdoing. His view that evil is not a substance but a corruption or absence of good frames crime as a moral misdirection, highlighting the intrinsic obligation to restore goodness through virtue, community, and moral renewal. As discussed in the article,
_Augustine on Canonical Penance: An Ethic of Criminal Sentencing_, Augustine’s belief that true transformation requires grace and humility supports modern restorative practices that focus on mercy, personal reform, and accountability. He believed that consequences should aim to humble and transform the offender, focusing on moral growth and repentance instead of retribution. In essence, Augustine’s approach centers on restoring the sinner, not condemning the sin.
References:
Souryal, S. S., & Whitehead, J. T. (2019).
_Ethics in Criminal Justice_ (7th ed.). Taylor & Francis.
Levy, A. (2021, June 21).
_Augustine on canonical penance: An ethic of criminal sentencing_. CJLPA. Retrieved from
[https://www.cjlpa.org/post/augustine-on-canonical-penance-an-ethic-of-criminal-sentencing](https://www.cjlpa.org/post/augustine-on-canonical-penance-an-ethic-of-criminal-sentencing?utm_source=chatgpt.com)
**Discussion 2 reply to chet**
****In your responses, analyze your peer’s post under a different school of thought discussed in Chapter 4 and offer insightful reflections, pose thought-provoking questions, and respectfully challenge the perspectives shared by your peers.****
100 words each reply
The ethical issue that PO Joe is faced with is deciding between helping the struggling mother with her infant or following the rules and regulations that are set by the Police Department. Utilitarianism would look at this dilemma in terms of providing the woman with the supplies by saying that it is the moral and correct thing to do. In this case, the greatest good will be achieved by helping the woman and her infant to meet their immediate need. The choice to provide relief to this mother is the best option, as the infant will not be harmed in any way, as opposed to the woman being left to suffer. Since the outcome of the dilemma is to help the woman, this will overrule any other decision that would potentially harm the woman and the infant. The ethics of duty and reason are based on the premise that an individual’s values and morals are more important in making choices and decisions. In this situation, the moral position that PO Joe has taken is that he has to follow policy and that, as a result, he cannot give supplies to the woman or direct relief to the infant; he must report the situation to his superiors. Utilitarianism and the ethics of duty and reason have some merit in solving this ethical dilemma since the former will provide a quick and easy solution, while the latter would look at the larger picture and possible causes for this situation. The two approaches are quite similar in many ways, as they both present a means of choosing the right thing to do in a given situation. The difference lies in the fact that one solution is based on an outcome, while the other values rules and parameters more. Personally, I would have chosen to follow the ethics of duty and reason since it is important for law enforcement agents to be professional and follow rules and policies; if they do not, the public will be misled, and the police will not be fair to everybody. Since the social support systems seem to be flawed for some people, I would report the woman and help her in the right way.
Saccuzzo, D. P., & Johnson, R. (2017).
_The Ethical Dilemmas of Law Enforcement Officers_. Crime & Delinquency, 63(1), 70-86.
[https://doi.org/10.1177/0011128715608204](https://doi.org/10.1177/0011128715608204)
International Association of Chiefs of Police. (2017).
_Law Enforcement Code of Ethics_. Retrieved from
[https://www.theiacp.org/resources/law-enforcement-code-of-ethics](https://www.theiacp.org/resources/law-enforcement-code-of-ethics)
**Discussion 2 reply to Morgan**
Officer Joe is in a clear moral bind, he wants to help a mother and her baby who are in desperate need but it's against the rules at his department to give gifts or valuable things to citizens. Utilizing both utilitarianism and Kantian ethics (the ethics of duty and reason) can give Joe two different but useful ways to solve this moral problem.
Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill came up with the utilitarian view which says that the morally right thing to do is the thing that makes the most people happy generally. In this case giving formula and diapers right away is more helpful than breaking a staff rule. The baby's health and the mother's relief clearly make everyone happier while Joe's small policy violation doesn't do much damage compared to the pain that could have been avoided. A utilitarian would probably say that Joe should help the mother because his act of kindness would make things better generally and stop needless suffering.
Kant's Ethics of Duty and Reason, on the other hand, is more concerned with following moral law and general principles than with results. Kant said that moral worth comes from doing what is right because it is right not because of what will happen. From this point of view Joe needs to follow departmental policy which is there to make sure everyone is treated fairly and stop any kind of corruption or bias. Breaking the rule hurts moral consistency and the department's reputation, even though he meant well. According to Kant, Joe shouldn't give the mother direct help. Instead, he should maybe refer her to social services or a nearby shelter.
Like most people, I agree more with the practical point of view. Though moral standards are important for keeping one's ethics, compassion should be the driving force behind moral behavior, especially when people's lives and well-being are at risk.
References
Souryal, S. S., & Whitehead, J. T. (2019).
_Ethics in Criminal Justice_ (7th ed.). Taylor & Francis.
[https://ccis.vitalsource.com/books/9780429682162](https://ccis.vitalsource.com/books/9780429682162)
**## week2510discussionreply.docx**
1
5
100 words each reply
\*\*\* In your responses, pick a different school of thought and provide another modern example, not previously discussed in your original post or your peer’s post. Challenge your peers’ perspectives and issues and provide your own insights and challenges. how would you consider this analysis under a different school of thought discussed in Chapter 4? *****
**Discussion 1 reply to chet**
The school of thought I chose is Social Justice, and the master is John Rawls.
Theories of Social Justice focus on fairness, equality, and moral rights within society. The core idea is that all members of a community are entitled to certain rights and should have equitable access to opportunities. Social Justice proponents seek to address and rectify imbalances and injustices that arise within societal structures, often advocating for policies that support the redistribution of resources and power to create a more equitable society. Rawls’ most well-known idea within this school is his “theory of justice as fairness”. He advocates for the “original position” behind a “veil of ignorance” as a means of designing society. The “veil of ignorance” represents a hypothetical scenario in which decision-makers create societal rules without any foreknowledge of their social status or personal attributes. This would result in impartiality because no group would be favored over another. He has two principles: (1) everyone should have equal basic liberties; and (2) social and economic inequalities are to be arranged to the greatest benefit of the least advantaged – also called the “difference principle”. Rawls was a professor of moral and political philosophy who is remembered for these principles as well as his overall contributions to Social Justice.
I chose Social Justice and Rawls because I feel like fairness and protecting the most vulnerable are what the justice system and ethical leadership should be based on. His specific theories of impartiality and redistributing opportunities and access really appeal to my own personal beliefs that the criminal justice system should always put a premium on fairness, but not just formal fairness, fairness that works to actually reduce inequalities. I think his veil of ignorance and how it could be used to design justice system policies and practices with no bias is vitally important for creating a just justice system. I love how much of his work focused on putting the least advantaged in society first, as this really aligns with my ideas of social responsibility and the moral obligation to protect those most at risk of being marginalized or wronged.
Overall, I strongly agree with Rawls’ work. The “veil of ignorance” could really be a tool that modern lawmakers can use to try to eliminate bias from our laws and the policies they create. Forcing people to design society with the “veil of ignorance” would make them have to think about every community and every type of person. This is the epitome of fairness, at least to me. His “difference principle” is also so useful in terms of actively and practically working to redress structural inequities, from racial differences in sentencing to class differences in access to attorneys. I think these concepts can be practical guides to work towards in order to actively create a more level playing field for marginalized groups and ensure that justice is working for everyone equally, not just the wealthy or the racially privileged. I also think his focus on fairness and on the moral value of supporting the least advantaged is a great moral foundation to advocate for social corrections within the criminal justice system.
Rawls’ school of thought has its own challenges and criticisms, however. One of the criticisms is that the theory of Social Justice, and specifically Rawls, can be too utopian. Critics argue that his theory is impractical and hard to apply in the real world, where many interests often conflict with each other. It is an overly optimistic goal to design society or reform any social issue around a societal “original position”. Many also argue that because of power dynamics, cultural differences, and human nature, people are too biased to ever truly be impartial or to choose laws or policies based on an “original position”. Rawls’ own “difference principle” is used by some to argue against redistribution. The logic is that since we live in an unequal world and this is the way it has to be to benefit the least advantaged, then we should not try to fix it, as that is, in and of itself, a type of oppression. While Rawls wanted to focus on equal basic liberties, some find this too narrowly defined because of its lack of nuance on human behavior or the fact that not all people may want equal liberty. For example, there may be cultural differences in how people view justice and fairness, or an overemphasis on fairness may remove an emphasis on personal responsibility.
Rawls’ social justice, and specifically his “veil of ignorance” and “difference principle,” can be applied to many modern criminal justice issues. An example is bail reform. If lawmakers were to put on the “veil of ignorance” and not know whether they were designing laws that would benefit white defendants or Black defendants, they would then create laws that benefit the least advantaged, the “difference principle”. The least advantaged in terms of cash bail are usually defendants who cannot afford to pay it or people who are presumed innocent but are effectively detained because they do not have family or friends with resources. Some of the results of such a reformed system, based on the example given, would be no cash bail for low-income defendants. There would be an expansion of public defenders, as well as increased access to legal aid and education for those who cannot afford to pay for lawyers themselves. These would all benefit the most vulnerable and at-risk populations the most by protecting them from undue restrictions on their liberty based on their economic status or race.
National Institute of Justice. (2021).
_Policing and Community Relations: Reconsidering Strategies for Reform_.
[https://nij.ojp.gov/topics/policing-and-community-relations](https://nij.ojp.gov/topics/policing-and-community-relations)
U.S. Department of Justice. (2022).
_Use of Force Policy and Guidelines_.
[https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/department-justice-announces-new-guidelines-use-force-policing](https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/department-justice-announces-new-guidelines-use-force-policing)
**Discussion 1 reply to Aalia**
In chapter 4, the authors Souryal and Whitehead (2019) discuss the Religious (Scholastic) School: Ethics and the love of God. The Religious/Scholastic school is described as a deontological theory, which teaches that actions are moral because they are willed by God, not because of their consequences, a principle exemplified in the biblical story of Abraham’s obedience to God. This school relied on faith, divine command, and scripture as the foundations of ethical judgment, while also incorporating reason and logic to defend church doctrine. The Old Testament emphasized obedience to God’s commandments, whereas the New Testament focused on love, redemption, and salvation through Jesus Christ. Its “Masters” include Saint Augustine, known as the Platonizer of Christianity for blending Platonic philosophy with Christian faith, and Saint Thomas Aquinas, the Christianizer of Aristotelianism, who developed Natural Law Theory and integrated faith with reason, whose teachings form the cornerstone of Christian ethics (p. 125).
I chose the Religious (Scholastic) School and its Master, Saint Augustine, because his teachings emphasize the importance of spiritual safety, divine grace, and the moral pursuit of salvation through faith in God. Saint Augustine’s ethical philosophy appeals to me since it integrates both reason and faith, illustrating how moral fulfillment depends on aligning one’s will with divine goodness. I gained insight from his belief that evil does not exist as a separate entity but rather is only “evil insofar as it lacks the goodness of God” (p. 127). This interpretation reinforces the idea that moral wrongdoing stems from separation from divine goodness rather than an inherent force of evil. I also agree with Augustine’s view that, although humans possess free will, they depend on divine grace to choose righteousness. His assertion that “fallen men are powerless in their endeavor to achieve that goal by themselves” (p. 127) underscores the necessity of humility and faith in moral decision-making. Furthermore, his concept of the “City of God” versus the “City of Man” (p. 127) provides a profound ethical framework for understanding the ongoing struggle between worldly temptation and spiritual devotion. Saint Augustine’s theories offer enduring guidance for cultivating virtue, compassion, and obedience to God’s commandments in the pursuit of true moral excellence.
One challenge I find in Saint Augustine’s ethical theory is the tension between free will and divine omnipotence. Augustine explains that “while God has the power to put a stop to evil by divine decree (thus abolishing the will of man), he chooses not to,” since humans should have the freedom to choose good rather than be “puppets incapable of sinning” (p. 128). Although this argument highlights the value of moral autonomy, it also raises the question of why an all-powerful and benevolent God would permit so much evil and suffering. Augustine attempts to reconcile this by suggesting that evil is not a created force but “only the absence or the mutilation of goodness” and is therefore “nature disordered” (p. 128). However, this explanation may seem inadequate to those who view suffering as more than merely the absence of good. Another difficulty lies in his belief that the will itself is neutral and “becomes evil only when man abuses it by turning from the ‘superior to the inferior’ (p. 128). In practice, this can make it difficult to determine the precise point at which a moral choice transitions from good intention to sinful desire, since such judgments are often subjective. Finally, I find it challenging that Augustine’s ethical framework depends heavily on faith and divine grace as moral guides, which can make it difficult to apply universally to those seeking ethical principles grounded solely in human reason or secular philosophy.
A modern example in which the Religious (Scholastic) School’s theories, those of Saint Augustine, apply in the criminal justice field is in community corrections programs for nonviolent offenders. These programs emphasize rehabilitation, restoration, and reintegration as moral obligations rather than retribution. Augustine taught that humans possess free will and must make meaningful moral choices, suggesting that offenders can choose to pursue redemption over wrongdoing. His view that evil is not a substance but a corruption or absence of good frames crime as a moral misdirection, highlighting the intrinsic obligation to restore goodness through virtue, community, and moral renewal. As discussed in the article,
_Augustine on Canonical Penance: An Ethic of Criminal Sentencing_, Augustine’s belief that true transformation requires grace and humility supports modern restorative practices that focus on mercy, personal reform, and accountability. He believed that consequences should aim to humble and transform the offender, focusing on moral growth and repentance instead of retribution. In essence, Augustine’s approach centers on restoring the sinner, not condemning the sin.
References:
Souryal, S. S., & Whitehead, J. T. (2019).
_Ethics in Criminal Justice_ (7th ed.). Taylor & Francis.
Levy, A. (2021, June 21).
_Augustine on canonical penance: An ethic of criminal sentencing_. CJLPA. Retrieved from
[https://www.cjlpa.org/post/augustine-on-canonical-penance-an-ethic-of-criminal-sentencing](https://www.cjlpa.org/post/augustine-on-canonical-penance-an-ethic-of-criminal-sentencing?utm_source=chatgpt.com)
**Discussion 2 reply to chet**
****In your responses, analyze your peer’s post under a different school of thought discussed in Chapter 4 and offer insightful reflections, pose thought-provoking questions, and respectfully challenge the perspectives shared by your peers.****
100 words each reply
The ethical issue that PO Joe is faced with is deciding between helping the struggling mother with her infant or following the rules and regulations that are set by the Police Department. Utilitarianism would look at this dilemma in terms of providing the woman with the supplies by saying that it is the moral and correct thing to do. In this case, the greatest good will be achieved by helping the woman and her infant to meet their immediate need. The choice to provide relief to this mother is the best option, as the infant will not be harmed in any way, as opposed to the woman being left to suffer. Since the outcome of the dilemma is to help the woman, this will overrule any other decision that would potentially harm the woman and the infant. The ethics of duty and reason are based on the premise that an individual’s values and morals are more important in making choices and decisions. In this situation, the moral position that PO Joe has taken is that he has to follow policy and that, as a result, he cannot give supplies to the woman or direct relief to the infant; he must report the situation to his superiors. Utilitarianism and the ethics of duty and reason have some merit in solving this ethical dilemma since the former will provide a quick and easy solution, while the latter would look at the larger picture and possible causes for this situation. The two approaches are quite similar in many ways, as they both present a means of choosing the right thing to do in a given situation. The difference lies in the fact that one solution is based on an outcome, while the other values rules and parameters more. Personally, I would have chosen to follow the ethics of duty and reason since it is important for law enforcement agents to be professional and follow rules and policies; if they do not, the public will be misled, and the police will not be fair to everybody. Since the social support systems seem to be flawed for some people, I would report the woman and help her in the right way.
Saccuzzo, D. P., & Johnson, R. (2017).
_The Ethical Dilemmas of Law Enforcement Officers_. Crime & Delinquency, 63(1), 70-86.
[https://doi.org/10.1177/0011128715608204](https://doi.org/10.1177/0011128715608204)
International Association of Chiefs of Police. (2017).
_Law Enforcement Code of Ethics_. Retrieved from
[https://www.theiacp.org/resources/law-enforcement-code-of-ethics](https://www.theiacp.org/resources/law-enforcement-code-of-ethics)
**Discussion 2 reply to Morgan**
Officer Joe is in a clear moral bind, he wants to help a mother and her baby who are in desperate need but it's against the rules at his department to give gifts or valuable things to citizens. Utilizing both utilitarianism and Kantian ethics (the ethics of duty and reason) can give Joe two different but useful ways to solve this moral problem.
Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill came up with the utilitarian view which says that the morally right thing to do is the thing that makes the most people happy generally. In this case giving formula and diapers right away is more helpful than breaking a staff rule. The baby's health and the mother's relief clearly make everyone happier while Joe's small policy violation doesn't do much damage compared to the pain that could have been avoided. A utilitarian would probably say that Joe should help the mother because his act of kindness would make things better generally and stop needless suffering.
Kant's Ethics of Duty and Reason, on the other hand, is more concerned with following moral law and general principles than with results. Kant said that moral worth comes from doing what is right because it is right not because of what will happen. From this point of view Joe needs to follow departmental policy which is there to make sure everyone is treated fairly and stop any kind of corruption or bias. Breaking the rule hurts moral consistency and the department's reputation, even though he meant well. According to Kant, Joe shouldn't give the mother direct help. Instead, he should maybe refer her to social services or a nearby shelter.
Like most people, I agree more with the practical point of view. Though moral standards are important for keeping one's ethics, compassion should be the driving force behind moral behavior, especially when people's lives and well-being are at risk.
References
Souryal, S. S., & Whitehead, J. T. (2019).
_Ethics in Criminal Justice_ (7th ed.). Taylor & Francis.
[https://ccis.vitalsource.com/books/9780429682162](https://ccis.vitalsource.com/books/9780429682162)