This paper surveys seven foundational ethical systems—ethical formalism, utilitarianism, religion, natural law, ethics of virtue, ethics of care, and egoism—drawing primarily on Pollock's framework for criminal justice ethics. For each system, the paper identifies the core definition of "the good," its deontological or teleological orientation, key theorists, and how the system responds to unjust laws or morally problematic state actions. The discussion ranges from Kant's categorical imperative and Bentham's utility calculus to Aristotle's virtue ethics and Rousseau's ethics of care, providing a structured comparative reference for students of ethics and criminal justice.
Ethical theory provides the conceptual tools that criminal justice professionals, policymakers, and citizens use to evaluate moral decisions. The major ethical systems differ in how they define "the good," whether they focus on rules and duties or on outcomes and consequences, and how they respond to situations in which laws or state actions appear unjust. The following survey examines seven principal frameworks—ethical formalism, utilitarianism, religion, natural law, ethics of virtue, ethics of care, and egoism—drawing on criminal justice ethics scholarship to illustrate how each applies in practice.
What is good is that which conforms to the categorical imperative. This is the ethical system of Immanuel Kant, which is both normative and deontological. It is a universal ethic asserting that every person must be treated with equal dignity and respect rather than as an object or a means to an end. A truly moral action is motivated by good will alone—not because the individual expects payment, wants a return favor, or has any other ulterior motive—while immoral actions undertaken to achieve moral or ethical ends are not permitted (Pollock, 2006, p. 27).
Ethical formalism could not support unjust laws that violate basic human rights, because such laws run counter to the categorical imperative that each person must be treated as an end rather than as a means, and to the universalism principle (Pollock, p. 65). This framework comes closest to the author's own ethical view because it is universal and respects the equal rights and dignity of all persons, while also rejecting the extremes of egotism and the belief that human beings are merely self-interested individuals with no social obligations.
What is good is that which results in the greatest utility for the greatest number. This ethical system is teleological and consequentialist: it considers the goal or purpose of an action as justifying the means, and in this case the purpose is the general welfare of society and the good of the majority. One of its leading proponents was Jeremy Bentham, whose view of human nature held that individuals always seek to maximize pleasure and minimize pain.
Unlike ethical formalists, utilitarians may permit what would otherwise be considered evil acts—such as assassinating a tyrant—if doing so serves the greater good of humanity or society. Utilitarian ethics might also support an unjust state action, such as the internment of Japanese Americans during the Second World War, if the total utility derived from the policy outweighed its negative effects on those who lost their land and liberty—for example, if the action were believed to protect the country from invasion, sabotage, or espionage (Pollock, p. 66).
"Divine will, social contract, and natural rights"
"Aristotle's virtues and feminist care-based ethics"
"Self-interest as an ethical framework and its limits"
You’re 39% through this paper. Sign up to read the remaining 3 sections.
Sign Up Now — Instant Access Already a member? Log inAlways verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.