Ethics
Mark30eastlake!
EthicsCase6Analysis.edited.docxSurname 3
Name
Course
Institution
Instructor
Date
Utilitarianism
Utilitarianism refer to the aspect of providing an answer toward a question that is practical. The solution or the answer are guided or determined by the acting in a manner that will maximize the pleasure or happiness as well as reduce the pain or unhappiness levels when consequences do arise. For instance in our case Maria Martinez has observed offences carried out by the police officer (Thompson) who later come to understand that as a police it their duty to protect citizens from brutalities and aggressive dealing with the law offenders. The dilemma in the case seems subjective and challenging since the actions of harassment are to be reported to the police who might stand against justice in order to protect their fellow colleague. Thus compromising justice and escalating from the ethical behavior that need to be emulated irrespective of assumption or ignorance that has been built over past few years.
Ethical Issue- Should Maria Martinez report the actions of Officer Thompson?
Scale: Scale = Happiness +10---------------------------0--------------------------- -10 Unhappy
|
Options |
Maria should report the actions of Thompson to the management of FTOs |
Maria should question the police loyalty that Thompson is talking about. |
Maria Martinez should question the truth behind the memo on the reduction of cases of police brutality. |
Maria should question the basis of ethical conduct within police services. |
|
Stakeholders |
|
|
|
|
|
Stakeholder (Thompson) |
Thompson will be questioned about his brutality towards the victim on the street.
-7 |
If she questions the loyalty of police officers when they are patrolling, then it means she will not protect her colleague. -5
|
If she questions the memo, then the FTO officers will not be loyal to her.
-5 |
This may be a significant step in reducing cases of police brutality.
-7
|
|
Stakeholder 2 (FTO officers) |
Maria will be given a poor evaluation by Thompson
-4 |
Again she will be given a poor evaluation by her FTO, Thompson. -4 |
She will receive poor evaluation from FTO officers.
-7 |
She will receive poor evaluation from police officers in service. -10 |
|
Stakeholder 3 (Maria) |
Her security work will be in jeopardy. -3
|
Her security work will be in jeopardy.
-5 |
Her security work will be in jeopardy.
-7 |
This may also spell the end of her dream of joining police forces. -10 |
|
Stakeholder (Police service 100 people) |
Work ethics will be revolutionized to the better in police department.
+10
+10*100 =+1000
|
No change in the police department since an alarm has not been raised to arouse the mind of workers that ethics should be upheld. -10
-10*100 = -1000 |
Her questioning of the authenticity of the memo may create a revolution within the police service.
+10
+10*100 = +1000 |
Create a revolution within the police service through reducing cases of police brutality.
. +10
+10*100 = +1000 |
|
Net Utility |
+986 |
-1014 |
+981 |
+973 |
Finally, according to the above analysis the net utility is +986. The best action for Maria Martinez is to report her fellow colleague Thompson to the FTO management, since it the best and near to respond to the unethical behavior of officers. It will result into summoning of the Thompson which will serve an example to other officers in the police service, thus leading into a revolutionized change since the officers are reminded the needs to embrace ethics while in patrols for common good. Even though Thompson will not be happy if reported, he might be tempted to evaluate her fellow workmate poorly but the effect will be minimal compared poor evaluations from the entire police service officers. The impacts are usually negative and traumatizing if a reporting has been made and no action taken thus an analysis above weighs on which measure to take and how it will affect the stakeholders involved emotionally.
Work Cited
Manias, Nicholas and Dave Monroe. The Moral Compass: An Introductory Guide to Critical Thinking and Applied Ethics. 1st Ed. New York: McGraw-Hill, 2020.
