Ethical Theories and Criminology

Ethical Theories and CriminologyFour Ethical Theories and How They Relate to CriminologyThis paper pull up s depletes cover four ethical theories and how they relate or dont relate to the institution of criminology today. The four theories deal with ethically reservation the rectify decisions and what influences the exploits. Every natural process has a re boution and the reaction is the consequences of every action. The outcome of the consequences can order whether or not a hypothesis can be reassert as lesson or im deterrent example. The four theories ar Utilitarianism, remedyfulness ethics, master moderate theory, and Hedonism. These fore argon very important in the world we live in each in its own decision making process, unless the main question that this paper will answer is does these theories realize a strong impact in the playing arena of criminology. The head start theory is Utilitarianism. The appearance Utilitarianism is metric is solely by how use ful or stabilising an action is. How does an action contribute to all concourses pleasure or triumph determines the righteous worth of the action. The problem with Utilitarianism is when a individual does not do what is right even if doing so cases hurting or does not execute the recipient role feel better or does not bring the recipient pleasure at the end of the action. The principle of Utilitarianism demands to approve or pass up every action, according to the affects of the action if it appears to improve or reduce the blessedness of the person or persons that are at interest. tally to Mill (1861) he believes that acts should be classified as chastely right or chastely wrong exclusively if the consequences are of such significance that a person would wish to see the playing person required, not merely influenced when performing in the preferred manner. What this means is that every act should be mensural by its consequences and the recipient of the action would wish or want the acting person to demonstrate the same choice without world influenced by outdoors sources. In the notion of consequences the Utilitarianism includes all of the safe(p) and bad produced by the act, whether the consequences come to pass after or during the action is existence performed.SummaryIn the field of criminology Utilitarianism occurs on both sides of the right-enforcement. If I was to look from the side of law-enforcement in that location are m either situations were Utilitarianism is affective. First, the main role of law is to serve the community and yield help and safety to the public. When something goes wrong and the outcomes of the actions from the law are not loving to the public consequently that action is not considered to be moral. On the some other(prenominal) hand if a person is killed in order to save others by the justification of the law, this strives the outcome pleasing to the studyity and so the action could be seen as morally correct. Secondly, I will look at how adjuvant the public is to the success of the law. This could be seen as a form of Utilitarianism or not, depending on the situation. For example a crime happens and members of the community are called as witness, this would be looked at as a moral action. There is another side to this, the person who committed the crime is not getting any pleasure or happiness from the witness and so on the savage side this action is not Utilitarianism. The second theory is justice ethics. Virtue ethics focuses or highlights moral slip of a person depending on a persons job or requirements. In some ways Virtue ethics has a close relationship with Utilitarianism, be make water Virtue ethics withal emphasizes on the consequences of actions. The differences is that Virtue ethics is not measured depending on the consequences, but Virtue ethics says that all acts are either good or evil, regardless of the consequences that follow. The main focus of Virtue ethics is helping quite a little develop good timbre traits, such as kindness and beneficence and less on what rules should we follow. By developing these traits it will allow people to own the correct decisions without having to be in a role or job. Virtue theorists work with people to help them break bad character vices such as anger or selfishness which stand in the way of becoming a good overall person. With every theory in that location are problems that arise and with Virtue Ethics the problem is that developing character traits is not as simple as it may seem. Although the common moral decisions may come easily to people as to doing what is right, but there are many moral dilemmas that require a person to take careful reasoning and thinking before committing to a decision. According to Cline (2009) having the right character traits is just not enough for a person to make the right decisions, there are just no guarantees. There is goose egg that shows that a person with good c haracter is more likely to make the right decisions. In the field of criminology Virtue ethics has a major role, because every decision made within the law is viewed on the action itself regardless of the consequences. If the action was within the law and of good judgment then regardless of the consequences of that action it can still fit within the ramifications of being Virtue ethics, because the act is viewed as moral. Whenever you work in any field of criminal justice I believe that you have to develop good characteristics, because you deal with peoples lives. And as Cline said it takes more than good character to make the right decisions it take good morals. The third theory is called the Divine play theory. Just by the name it lets me better understand how decisions are measured as wrong or right. When I hear divine I think of higher power or God is in watch of the situation. According to Austin Divine command theory includes the claim that theology is ultimately based on th e commands or character of God, and that the morally right action is the one that God commands or requires (Austin, 2006, pg 1). What this means is that mankind is in some ways dependent on God and our moral responsibility consists in obedience to Gods commands. Also, Austin believes that within the divine command theory of ethics that an act cannot be said to be either moral or immoral, because God either commands us or prohibits us from doing it. So the only way to classify an act as being morally wrong is by committing an act that God prohibits us from doing.ConclusionAccording to Augustine, (2008) the form of Divine command theory can be characterized by pointing out two major features. First, it is an analysis of only one specialize of moral concepts to be specific it is an analysis of right, wrong, ought, and the other concepts that figure in the branch of normative ethics known as the theory of moral obligation. Second, not all uses of the terms right, wrong, etc., are lin ked to divine command and, of those that are, not all are linked to the same set of commands (Augustine, 2008 pg 1). In the field of criminology Divine command theory really does not break to the law, because it is more of a persons personal religious beliefs. When I think of criminology, I dont think that every decision being made is viewed as being based on Gods commands and being obedient to what God permits or prohibits. The fourth and final theory that this paper will cover will be Hedonism. There are two types of hedonism that I will talk closely in order to give an overall explanation of what hedonism means. Nature has placed mankind under the governance of two sovereign masters, pain and pleasure. It is for them wholly to point out what we ought to do, as well as to determine what we shall do (Bentham 1789). Hedonism is a philosophy that says that pleasure has an ultimate importance in humanity. The first from of hedonism is motivational hedonism. Motivational hedonism claims that only pleasure or pain is what motivates a person. Bentham (1789) believes that if pain and pleasure determines what a person will do that makes them a hedonist when it comes to the determination of their actions. The second type of hedonism is normative hedonism. Normative hedonism says that only pleasure has value and only pain has disvalue, but anything that might cause or prevent the pleasure or pain is independent of normative hedonism. In the field of criminology Hedonism I believe does play a diminutive part, more on a personal effect. I think that we act out of what feels good to ourselves and to make others feel good, while moving off from pain or what does not feel good. In law when decisions are made they are made based on previous pain or unpleasantness that had been inflicted on other. And to stop the pain of innocent people members of the law make decisions based on what will eliminate pain and cause happiness