Can One Apply the Principles of Duty Ethics in Public Safety

Ethics in Public Safety

Introduction

Ethics support the right functioning of public safety, as they can define both the goals and the proper or moral ways to achieving those goals. This paper discusses the “big” three primary ethical frameworks: Deontological, Teleological, and Virtue Ethics. The focus of this paper is on their premises, the philosophical proponents of each, how they have been refined by philosophers over time, the criticisms each has faced, and their respective applications in public safety.

Deontological Ethics

Deontological Ethics is based on the premise that certain actions are inherently right or wrong, independent of their outcomes. This duty-based ethical framework focuses on adherence to rules, principles, and obligations. Immanuel Kant is the primary proponent of this ethical philosophy. Kantian ethics is primarily known for its "categorical imperative" which implies an absolute, unconditional requirement that must be obeyed in all circumstances (Paton, 1971). W.D. Ross later refined Deontological ethics by differentiating between prima facie duties, which might conflict, and absolute duties, which must always be obeyed (Hurka, 2014). This helped to address some of the more subtle and nuanced aspects of moral decision-making when mere reference to some universal duty might appear insufficient as a guide to resolve the matter in every situation.

Yet, even that refinement may not have satisfied everyone, as deontology is still often criticized for its rigidity and inconsideration of consequences. Critics argue that it can result in poor outcomes when blindly following rules that do not account for context or nuance (Hurka, 2014). For instance, a strict adherence to the principle of truth-telling, which is a common duty in deontological ethics, could cause unnecessary harm, such as when a public leader has to deliver a harsh truth could cause distress or panic. Public leaders often try to downplay such truths to prevent disorder and chaos from breaking out in the public. Critics also argue that deontology lacks practicality in its application. The universal laws of this ethical framework do not necessarily apply well to real-life situations. It may not always be feasible or reasonable to apply a single moral rule across all situations because there is often a high degree of grayness to many situations.

Still, deontology, with its emphasis on duties, rights, and adherence to rules, can be compatible with public safety. Law enforcement, as an example, is heavily rule-based, with officers having a duty to enforce the law and protect citizens' rights. There is a clear expectation to uphold justice, irrespective of personal feelings or potential consequences. As a result, deontological ethics resonates with individuals drawn to the field of public safety who value structure, order, and principles. They often have a strong sense of justice and a desire to uphold societal norms and legalities. An additional way Deontological ethics could apply in public safety is in policy and procedural design. Guidelines are often set based on what is inherently considered 'right,' regardless of individual situations. For example, a no-tolerance policy towards domestic violence sends a clear message that it is categorically wrong, irrespective of any potential consequences or context.

Teleological Ethics

In contrast to deontology, Teleological Ethics, or consequentialism, argues that the morality of an action is determined solely by its consequences. The ends justify the means in this framework. The best-known form of consequentialism is Utilitarianism, with its major proponents being Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill. They advocated for the principle of "greatest happiness for the greatest number" (Macdonald & Beck-Dudley, 1994). John Stuart Mill refined Utilitarianism, differentiating between higher (intellectual) and lower (physical) pleasures, and stating that a smaller amount of higher pleasure might be preferable to a greater amount of lower pleasure.

Critics of Teleological ethics argue that it can justify harmful actions if they lead to positive outcomes and devalue individual rights in favor of collective happiness. For example, if a policy resulted in greater overall happiness but caused significant harm to a small group, a utilitarian might argue that this is acceptable because the ends (greater overall happiness) justify the means (harm to a few). This is often referred to as the problem of "utilitarian sacrifice."

However, teleological ethics can guide decision-making in public safety fields that require pragmatic and consequence-focused judgments. Emergency management, for instance, involves decisions like evacuation orders or resource allocation, where the potential harm or benefit to the community is carefully weighed. This philosophy might appeal to individuals in public safety who are pragmatic and outcome-oriented. These individuals are often comfortable making tough decisions, even if they involve difficult trade-offs, in the pursuit of the greatest overall good. Teleological ethics can also guide data-driven public safety initiatives. For example, in policing, crime data can be used to allocate resources where they will have the most substantial impact, even if it means less visible police presence in low-crime areas.

Virtue Ethics

Virtue Ethics differs from both deontological and teleological ethics by focusing on the moral character of the individual, rather than their actions or consequences. Aristotle, a Greek philosopher, is the key proponent of Virtue ethics. He proposed that a virtuous person is one who has ideal character traits, achieved through practice, and moderation, a principle known as the "Doctrine of the Mean" (Urmson, 1973). Modern virtue ethics, such as Alasdair MacIntyre, have revived Aristotelian principles in the context of modern moral philosophy, advocating for the importance of community in cultivating virtues (Solomon, 2018).

The main criticism of Virtue ethics is that it lacks clear action-guidance and can be culturally relative, as virtues might vary across different societies. Virtue Ethics also assumes an individual's capacity for moral reasoning and the availability of moral education, which may not be universally accessible. This dependency on moral education can potentially limit the scope and applicability of Virtue Ethics.

Virtue ethics works well in disciplines within public safety where character and personal integrity are essential. For example, firefighters often operate in situations of extreme risk, requiring virtues such as courage, selflessness, and resilience. Those attracted to public safety professions often have strong personal integrity and a desire to serve their communities, aligning with the virtue ethics' focus on moral character. Another application of virtue ethics in public safety is in the training and professional development of individuals in these fields. By fostering virtues like honesty, responsibility, and empathy, public safety officials can become moral exemplars in their communities. For instance, a police officer who displays the virtue of empathy could defuse potentially volatile situations, leading to a more peaceful resolution.