Deontological Ethics and Teleological Ethics - Essay Example

?Running head: Ethics Ethics Insert Insert Grade Insert 18 July What are some differences between deontological ethics and teleological (utilitarian) Ethics? Are there any inherent problems with using one or the other types of ethics? Teleological ethical systems are distinguished primarily by a focus on the outcomes, which any action might have. Thus, they are commonly referred to as consequentalist ethical systems. Therefore, in order to make right moral decisions, it is necessary to have a certain understanding of what will result from decisions. When decisions are made that result in the right consequences, then that is ethical; when decisions are made which result in the wrong consequences, then that is acting corruptly (Pollock, 2011). The term deontology draws from the Greek speech for duty and science of logos. In contemporary ethical viewpoint, deontology is one of those types of normative theories concerning which decisions are ethically required, prohibited, or permitted. In other terms, deontology descends within the sphere of moral premises that lead and review our decisions of what we must do (deontic hypotheses), in distinction to aretaic virtue theories) that at least show and assess what type of person we are and must be and within that sphere, deontologists those who pledge to deontological hypotheses of morality stand contrary to consequentialists. There are several inherent problems with using one or the other types of ethics in the sense that each type of ethics focuses on different parameters as a way of determining ethical standard. Whereas the Teleological ethical systems focuses on the outcomes of consequences of decisions in determining whether they are ethical or not, deontological ethics, on the other hand, focus on the aspect of ethical requirements regarding what should be done and what should not be done. Therefore, the two ethical systems are different in application owing to their ethical bases and orientations. 2. What are some types of conduct that may be legal, but unethical? Advertising claims that will mislead people into buying a product or believing something about the product which is true is unethical though there are no legal constraints over such behavior (Samuelson & Beatty, 2010). In essence, marketing and advertising are areas which are legally recognized though their activities border on immoral actions, which compromise the values of business. Through marketing, the customer is made to believe certain things about the product that may not be true; that is legal but immoral. The act of betraying a trusted companion or colleague is not illegal yet unethical in the sense that it goes against the values of fairness and human dignity. Basically, betrayal is not outlawed, and the law finds no offense in such acts yet on the practical basis betrayal is inherently immoral and unacceptable as behavior and goes against values. Through betrayal, a person creates unnecessary agony and suffering to the other person or people and violates their right to dignity among other rights making the act unethical. Engaging a competitor or partner in lengthy negotiations regarding a merger or joint venture when in reality there are no plans of doing so or simply for the sake of collecting information is unethical. Such conduct is unethical because it does not augur well with the other party and is aimed at collecting information to be used against the other partner in a competitive manner. However, such actions are perfectly legal and recognized by law as not being against the established statutes. 3. The American model of judicial selection vs. the civil law model of judicial selection. What are some ethical issues that may impact one system or the other, or both systems, for judicial selection or appointment? There are some ethical issues that may impact one system or the other, or both systems, for judicial selection or appointment (the American model of judicial selection and the civil law model of judicial selection). The appraisal of the present research on the outcomes of divergence for judicial selection inquires about to guide it and our concentration to a dangerous normative task: insuring that the selection procedure enables politically-accountable officials to build representative courts. Two questions manage the analysis. The first tackles whether, in spite of polarization, courts can serve as a fountain of bipartisanship along with moderation in America, as researchers like Rosen as well as Perry and Powe assert (Fradella & Neubauer, 2010). The subsequent question forms the answer to the initial one and inquires whether courts can be successfully aimed in a politically polarized situation. Numerous recent appraisals say "No," claiming that the contemporary selection practice is broken, described by bitter affirmation battles and engagements gridlock. Nevertheless, these allegations are regularly historical as well as prone to exaggeration. Partisan divergence has not developed a host of fresh problems for judicial selection. It has as a substitute supplemented and intensified pre-existing demands on the judicial selection procedure, making conceivably too weighty a load the egalitarian task of constructing agent courts. We ought to be particularly concerned with the potential for executive over-reaching, allowing presidents to select judges whose tremendous views are devoid of strong electoral support. Nevertheless, confirmation postponement and the judicial filibuster are, accordingly, signs of flexibility in the judicial appointment process; they symbolize logical along with positive versions to pathological developments in our discretionary institutions like divergence. 4. What are some implications for officer shortages in the corrections system? The U.S. labor force is becoming progressively more assorted in terms of race, in addition to gender. Besides, a very big proportion of the workforce particularly the baby boomers are impending retirement. Both of these tendencies present noteworthy challenges to the nation, which in line with some experts might result in a work force shortage. In actual fact, by 2010, it is anticipated that there will be a national labor deficiency of 10 million employees as the demand for workers exceeds the obtainable applicant pool (Great Britain: Parliament: House of Commons: Justice, 2009). Analogous to the national labor dearth, U.S. correctional agencies are as well experiencing a work shortage, in addition problems recruiting capable candidates for correctional administrator positions. Findings from a 2004 study designate that 44 percent of the 44 U.S. correctional organizations along with four Canadian structures that responded to the labor force survey face severe complexities in recruiting furthermore retaining a sufficient staff of qualified correctional officers. The study, performed by Workforce Associates Inc. for the American Correctional Association, established that 82 percent of participants (correctional managers and personnel managers from mature and youthful institutions) reported some complicatedness in recruiting correctional officers, with almost one-fourth stating that enlisting was "tremendously difficult." The matter of ethics in criminal justice has become more imperative over the last ten years as increasing anxiety about the answerability of police and public authorities has encouraged ethical questions about the actions of those who apply power over citizens. The theme of criminal justice morals does not only engross those who deal with the general inhabitants, though. Correctional executives in prisons along with jails frequently face ethical dilemmas daily. One very ordinary ethical subject that arises in correctional units is the invitation to perform sexual misconduct. 5. Do Mooching, Chiseling, and Favoritism undermine police effectiveness? It is an established fact that mooching, chiseling, and favoritism undermine police effectiveness making law enforcement fail in their respective duties. Mooching refers to the attribute of trying to obtain things for free by police officers in their line of duty. Such a behavior makes police officers vulnerable to bribes and other unethical practices that corrupt the service making them ineffective (Samahar, 2009). For instance, the police may actually condone crime through cooperating with criminals in exchange of free things. Mooching is a hazard to police effectiveness because it also makes them lose respect among society members. Chiseling also compromises the ability of police officers to perform their duties through the unethical acts of demanding favors from civilians particularly offenders. In general, chiseling refers to the attribute of requesting discounts, free entrance, in addition to free food by law enforcement with amounts to unethical conduct that limits their effectiveness. For instance, police officers may demand some favors in place of justice whereby an offender is let lose after offering certain things to law enforcement. Favoritism undermines police effectiveness through creating avenues for bending the law that compromise justice and ethical practice of police. Through favoritism, police officers may release offenders without taking any legal measure to bring them to book. Furthermore, law enforcements may be reluctant to pursue criminals if they extend some favors towards them. Therefore, favoritism condones criminal activity and makes police officers act in tandem with offenders and provide protection from prosecution. Such actions defeat the very purpose of the existence of law enforcement in society. References Fradella, H. & Neubauer, D. (2010). America's Courts and the Criminal Justice System. Washington: Cengage Learning. Great Britain: Parliament: House of Commons: Justice. (2009). Role of the Prison Officer: Twelfth Report of Session 2008-09, Report, Together With Formal Minutes, Oral and Written Evidence. London: The Stationery Office. Pollock, J. (2011). Ethical Dilemmas and Decisions in Criminal Justice. Washington: Cengage Learning. Samahar, J. (2009). Criminal Justice. Washington: West Pub. Co. Samuelson, S. & Beatty, J. (2010). Legal Environment. Washington: Cengage Learning. Read More