ethical structure

[roth1926]

I have a philosophical question.

I'm wondering which ethical or moral structure do police officers believe in when they are performing their job of enforcing the edicts of the government as defined by the Law (given the possibility that laws may/may not be good).

After reading some of the other topics, I could see how this question might not be well received at first glance. I would like to assure you that I'm legitimately interested in this topic, this is not for a class assignment, and that I would most appreciate a philosophical answer.

In case you don't see what I'm looking for in the question, I'll illustrate a few examples of the more popular Western ethical stances below to provide some reference.

Please tell me upon which one of these, if any, your principles are founded. Or if you adhere to another belief, if you would not mind describing it, I'll probably be able to identify the philosophy. Or maybe this is not even a consideration for you.

Examples:

1. Aphorism- The belief that the ends justify the means (under this a bad act that produces good consequences would be considered "good").

2. Deontological- The goodness of a person is found by looking at their acts or the intentions of their acts (under this a good act that produces bad consequences would be considered "good").

3. Rule Utilitarianism- The belief that rules should maximize utility (goodness) for the greatest number of people.

4. Hedonism- The belief that social utility (goodness) should be maximized while minimizing the pain it causes. (for example, it may benefit you to buy a big tv with a credit card but buying a really big tv would put you in too much debt)

5. Antihumanism- The belief that human rights and individual rights are rejected in favor of collectivism.

[retdetsgt]

None of the above. Philosophical theory is great in the classroom, but much tougher to apply to real life.

Odd first post.

[pac201]

None of the above. Philosophical theory is great in the classroom, but much tougher to apply to real life.

Odd first post.

Agreed, on both counts.

[Samuel]

I started writing a few things and then decided to switch it up.

How old are you?

What determines/shapes/affects one's own personal morals, values, and philosophies?

Do you think things might change for you as you grow older or see/experience more things?

What is "good" or "bad" and "good" or "evil"?

Do you think people are inherently "good" or inherently "bad/evil"?

What do you think should be done with the "bad/evil" in our society?

Which philosophy(ies) do you "subscribe" to now? Why?

If you were to become an LEO, would your philosophy(ies) change? Why, why not?

What philosophy(ies), in your opinion, Should an LEO adhere to? Why?

Do you think there are times when people should or could compromise or stray from their personal philosophy(ies)? What about LEOs? Why or why not?

[mcsap]

I have a philosophical question.

I'm wondering which ethical or moral structure do police officers believe in when they are performing their job of enforcing the edicts of the government as defined by the Law (given the possibility that laws may/may not be good).

After reading some of the other topics, I could see how this question might not be well received at first glance. I would like to assure you that I'm legitimately interested in this topic, this is not for a class assignment, and that I would most appreciate a philosophical answer.

In case you don't see what I'm looking for in the question, I'll illustrate a few examples of the more popular Western ethical stances below to provide some reference.

Please tell me upon which one of these, if any, your principles are founded. Or if you adhere to another belief, if you would not mind describing it, I'll probably be able to identify the philosophy. Or maybe this is not even a consideration for you.

Examples:

1. Aphorism- The belief that the ends justify the means (under this a bad act that produces good consequences would be considered "good").The drug dealer who donates to charity ?

2. Deontological- The goodness of a person is found by looking at their acts or the intentions of their acts (under this a good act that produces bad consequences would be considered "good"). Good or bad , at the conclusion of their intentions , did they break the law ?

3. Rule Utilitarianism- The belief that rules should maximize utility (goodness) for the greatest number of people. Laws.

4. Hedonism- The belief that social utility (goodness) should be maximized while minimizing the pain it causes. (for example, it may benefit you to buy a big tv with a credit card but buying a really big tv would put you in too much debt)Sounds like the " you have the right to be wrong /stupid/reckless as long as you don't break any laws. "

5. Antihumanism- The belief that human rights and individual rights are rejected in favor of collectivism.

...certain inalienable rights... sound familiar ? Actually your statement sounds like communism.

[kels]

I get paid to do a job within the laws of this country.
I do that to the best of my ability within the guidelines set down
by my agency, county, state and federal requirements.

To make it easy to understand, Bang a gong, lets get it on and have some fun.
Yeah, its Saturday night.....

PS, is this homework or what did you get arrested for?
Inquiring minds want to know.......

[roth1926]

Thanks for the questions, I enjoy sharing my opinions. I'll include something else at the beginning of this response that may help you understand the foundation of my question.

One of reasons that motivated me to ask this was that I watched a youtube video with an Orlando police officer. The police had just arrested some people in the park who were feeding homeless people some food. There were some bystanders who were asking the police if the law they were enforcing was good/moral. They also were asking how they could enforce that law if they believed it to be bad. The questions didn't get much closure, so they changed the question to a different topic. They asked a black police officer if he would enforce segregation if it were again made into law. His answer was, "Yes." Now, everyone knows that forced segregation is evil and it confused me how he could justify that kind of behavior.

Therefore, I thought that if I could know what ethical structures police officers believe in while they're performing their jobs then I may be able to understand the police better in general and might be able to see something fundamental behind the afore mentioned LEO's seemingly inconsistent statement.

Basically, if I can understand someone's assumptions then I can understand their conclusions.

I re-arranged the order of a few of your questions in order to make the thought-process more linear.

I started writing a few things and then decided to switch it up.

How old are you?

28

What determines/shapes/affects one's own personal morals, values, and philosophies?


I think that would have to do with their education and their inclination to seek out and understand new ideas and to change their mind if they find information that disproves their previous conclusions.


Do you think things might change for you as you grow older or see/experience more things?


It's possible, I've changed my opinions a lot over the past 3 years. However, at the moment, I believe I've discovered a universally true and consistent ethic (described below) and don't see myself believing differently unless I find something that is more universal and more consistent.

Do you think people are inherently "good" or inherently "bad/evil"?


It never ceases to amaze me how evil people are. Especially when they're being evil and think they're being good.

Which philosophy(ies) do you "subscribe" to now? Why?


I subscribe to the Non-aggression Principle. It states that it is immoral for anyone to initiate a violation upon another person's life, their actions, or their justly acquired property. Usually it applies to the initiation of violence as a violation, but fraud and non-violent theft are also considered violations of another's life. I subscribe to it because I believe it's universally moral (good for all people) and internally consistent.

What is "good" or "bad" and "good" or "evil"?


Evil actions are those which initiate a violation of another's life.

Good actions are all actions that are not evil. (Do what ye will, harm none)

What do you think should be done with the "bad/evil" in our society?


First, I would minimize their impact. So, I wouldn't take homicidal power-mongers and make them the president and give them an army. For example, Napoleon/Stalin/Mao/Hitler/Lincoln/Bush/Obama/any president by themselves are about as dangerous as your average murderer. But, given an army and the irrational support of their subjects, they become terrifying.

At a smaller level, it would not be immoral to respond with force against those who try to violate your life. So it would be acceptable to kill people who attack you or rob you.

If you were to become an LEO, would your philosophy(ies) change? Why, why not?


My philosophy would prevent me from becoming a LEO. This is because the Law is essentially people imposing their political opinions (for example: drug laws, welfare spending, warfare spending, trade policies, etc.) upon others who disagree with them with the initiated use of violence. It's then enforced by agents of the state called the police. I would find this system of social organization to be immoral.

What philosophy(ies), in your opinion, Should an LEO adhere to? Why?


I would prefer that LEOs also valued the non-aggression principle. I'd prefer to skip the why portion of this question, it would be controversial.

Do you think there are times when people should or could compromise or stray from their personal philosophy(ies)? What about LEOs? Why or why not?

I think philosophies should be consistent, so I would say no. The same would apply for a LEO. This is because moral truths that apply at the personal level do not change when they're applied at a larger social level or a state level. It is immoral for people to steal from eachother, kill eachother, or force eachother to do things at the individual level so it should not change when people gather together and call themselves a government.

[roth1926]

I get paid to do a job within the laws of this country.
I do that to the best of my ability within the guidelines set down
by my agency, county, state and federal requirements.

To make it easy to understand, Bang a gong, lets get it on and have some fun.
Yeah, its Saturday night.....

PS, is this homework or what did you get arrested for?
Inquiring minds want to know.......

Thanks, that helps.

This is not homework, it's a question that's been confusing me for a while.

I've never been arrested.

[CPL1897]

You sound intelligent and after you explained the reason for the original post I can understand why you would ask the questions. The thing about LEO's is WE are straight to the point folks, and very blunt. I can tell you that the response you will get is..."We don't make the laws we just enforce them".. While this is true I can honestly say there are a few "ridiculous" laws in effect that I DONT agree with, but I have a DUTY to uphold and enforce them...

[DeltaV]

One of reasons that motivated me to ask this was that I watched a youtube video with an Orlando police officer. The police had just arrested some people in the park who were feeding homeless people some food.

No place has a specific law against feeding the homeless. There's a lot more to the whole issue with the Food Not Bombs group, and to say that they were arrested simply for "feeding the homeless" is being overly simplistic. Orlando's ordinances allowed them to obtain permits for two group feedings in each city park every year, which is over 80 permits. Instead of choosing to follow the law, they used "feeding the homeless" as an excuse for engaging in other illegal behavior that was already prohibited by ordinances. In fact, none of the legitimate homeless outreach groups in Orlando had anything good to say about Food Not Bombs and think that they actually use their "feedings" as a form of political grandstanding.

In addition (and most importantly when you consider your personal ethical stance), the catalyst for the Orlando City Council enacting the ordinance that targeted the Food Not Bombs group was a push by business owners around the park whose businesses were grossly effected by the actions of that group driving customers out of the general area. If nobody was affected by the group's actions then the ordinance never would have been passed.

My philosophy would prevent me from becoming a LEO. This is because the Law is essentially people imposing their political opinions (for example: drug laws, welfare spending, warfare spending, trade policies, etc.) upon others who disagree with them with the initiated use of violence. It's then enforced by agents of the state called the police. I would find this system of social organization to be immoral.

Laws aren't all "political opinions." That said, I don't recall the last time I ever had to enforce a trade policy or had anything to do with warfare or welfare spending. Most regulatory bodies out there that enforce things like those (such as the FTC, FCC, DHHS, etc.) have nothing to do with the the police, as violations of the vast majority of laws aren't actually crimes. Criminal laws are enacted to protect individuals, and while you may try to make a philosophical argument that violations of drug laws are victimless crimes, any of us who have seen what drugs do to individuals and communities would disagree with you greatly.

From what you posted it seems like you don't have an issue specifically with law enforcement, rather you have an issue with government in general.

[Samuel]

Ok, I appreciate that you've done some thinking about your subject. That being said, IMO, you sound naive and idealistic - not necessarily a bad thing - just that how you view and think about things are based on not that much down and dirty, gritty, realistic experiences.

Like DeltaV pointed out, Laws aren't political opinions and we LEOs aren't merely mindless, non-thinking, robotic agents of the state. What many people fail to realize (or understand and appreciate) is what every LEO here understands and strongly believes in - there is NO profession or job more important to maintaining a civilized society than a law enforcement officer. Period.

Here's my philosophy in a nutshell - I personally believe in the Golden Rule. I believe in NOT lying, cheating, and/or stealing. I believe in taking responsibility for my own actions. I believe that good, decent people should be able to go through life without being wrongly victimized by criminals. I detest and loathe people who feel or do otherwise. I really can't do much about those types or people who aren't in my sphere of influence (politicians/government, large corporations, etc) but I CAN do something about those types in my immediate work areas.

That being said, IMO people should NOT be free to simply pursuit every happiness, interest, hobby, or whatever makes them "feel good" - many of those pursuits are IMO illegal, immoral, and otherwise detrimental to the overall good of our communities and society. You can't just do whatever you want, whenever you want in a civilized society.

The vast majority of laws that I deal with are good and proper and I have NO qualms about enforcing them. If something wasn't an issue, if there weren't a bunch of people out there doing that something "wrong", then all else being equal, we wouldn't have to make a law about it... IMO, a lot of people NEED to be regulated because too many people don't behave properly (whether it's a normal pattern or an occasional slip up), don't use or don't have common sense, and are willing to screw over someone else to gain some benefit.

An example of the naivete I'm talking about in you is your view on drug laws. IMO, people aren't ready for legalized controlled substances, even if it's "just" marijuana. Take a look at alcohol related problems - fatal DUI/DWI accidents, serious injury DUI/DWI accidents, property damage only DUI/DWI accidents; murders, assaults with deadly weapons, serious fights, simple assaults and batteries; domestic violence murders, assaults and batteries, fights; rapes, non-consentual sexual activities; alcohol poisoning, accidents, improper/immoral conduct; ETC! Far too many people can't handle/use alcohol responsibly - and it's LEGAL.

[DeltaV]

The issue with subscribing to the non-aggression principle is that the only laws/rules that it allows are laws or rules that DIRECTLY effect someone else. Obviously something like murder or theft effects someone else, so someone holding the non-aggression principle mindset would have no problem with laws against those things. What the non-aggression principle does not allow are laws that exist to PREVENT people from being victimized or otherwise effected in a negative way. An example would be traffic laws, even DUI. Under the non-aggression principle you should be allowed to drive as fast as you want to, run as many red lights as you want to, and drive as drunk as you want to AS LONG AS you don't crash into another person and thereby effect someone else in a negative way. IMO that's simply absurd. You can't allow reckless or otherwise dangerous behavior just because someone else isn't effected at the time.