A634.7.4.RB_StevensEric

The example that I will be sharing is an example of the slippery slope that was mentioned in the video. The example that I will use was with three undercover narcotics detectives that were responsible in the street level dealers selling illegal narcotics.

The detectives were assigned to what we in law enforcement refer to as a TAC team whose main responsibility is to apprehend dealers who stand on the street corner selling narcotics. The detectives initially started out making a positive impact in the drug trade here in Jacksonville, Florida and they were making multiple drug arrests and were making a difference. The slippery slope began when they would allow the drug dealers to walk away after seizing their narcotics in return they would act as informants. Now this is standard practice in turning criminals into confidential informants which could have a bigger payoff. The problem with this is that they are required to report these informants to the chain of command which they did not. Ultimately they began to use these informants to get to the middle dealers where the dealers would have more money. The detectives would threaten the dealers with prison time if they did not cooperate. This is where it turned illegal.

The detectives then began to insist the dealers pay them a stipend in return for protection from other officer involvement. These detectives were now making 1,000-2,000 dollars a week from these stipends. This   continued to escalate until a dealer refused to cooperate and they planted narcotics on the dealer where they arrested him and he was convicted and sentenced to prison. The dealer eventually went to prison where he complained about these detectives to the FBI.

Unfortunately these detectives moved to robbing individuals who were not associated with the drug trade and they robbed a store owner and they murdered this individual. The detectives were eventually caught and they were all convicted and sentenced to prison. This is an example of how they began with small ethical dilemmas and it escalated to murder. So day for my profession.

A634.6.3.RB_StevensEric

Order, Frugality, and Cleanliness

These are the three that I decided to reflect upon in this blog. I took the quiz and I was informed that I need to work on order, and frugality. I think cleanliness was an important aspect of this virtue quiz. By no means would I consider myself as unclean but when it comes to some of what I thought was trivial cleanliness actually enlightens me to not procrastinate and let the dishes soak. Does this mean that I am not cleaning the kitchen after every use the fact that my counter s had to be clean but the pots could soak overnight showed the procrastination I currently practice?

On frugality I feel that I am frugal to many degrees and I wished this was a trait that my wife shared. I am glad she isn’t reading this but I do watch what I spend my money on in the hopes to save money and to ensure all the bills are paid. The reason behind this is because it allows me to nice things and to have spending money without the stress of financial burdens. I have not always been this way and I remember spending money on items that I did not need and when I found an item I needed I did not have the money for it because I spent it on something that I did not need.

Order is the last subject and without a doubt I understand that this is something that I fail to do. I believe that I can be the procrastinating king and I tend to wait until the last possible moment to complete a task which causes me to rush things and the quality of the work could have been better. I understand this and I try to improve this virtue.

A634.4.4.RB_StevensEric

Is Affirmative Action Ethical? The immediate response that I have in this statement would be no because of some past experiences that I have been faced with. I am a white male and I have been subjected to reverse discrimination. I applied for a position with my current agency about 10 years ago or so. I applied for the position after having previous experience from a different law enforcement agency with a commendable performance record. I was called from the recruiter for the agency and told that I would not be considered for employment at this time. I asked why this was the decision with my application and I was told quite bluntly that I was the wrong skin color and that he had received a directive to process on female and male African Americans. I asked if these applicants had previous experience and I was told no that they were applying top the police academy and they had to be trained. I found this astonishing from an administrative standpoint that they would consider two applicants one with experience and certified and one with no experience and not certified. I did not understand this decision and to this day it still amazes me that the decision to overlook a qualified applicant over a non-qualified one. This was a direct result of Affirmative Action and in my opinion a classic example of reverse discrimination.

So the question remains in Affirmative Action Ethical? The question of ethics involving Affirmative Action has been up for debate ever since the introduction of this policy to create a level playing field for minorities. But at what costs does this policy inflict and how is it viewed by the victims and winners of this? Through coercion not education Affirmative Action has taken place and this was set in place because of the social and political balance that we have between whites and minorities. An example is the Native Americans being forced from their lands which by the way were over a hundred years ago. I understand the need to compensate the victims of this travesty but at what cost. Supporters of this philosophy say that something should be done to equal the opportunities of minorities and I can say through education this have been greatly compensated. The acceptance of students into universities regardless of race and gender have improved and allowed all students to excel.

References:

Issues in Ethics - V. 5, N. 2 Summer 1992 retrieved from website https://www.scu.edu/ethics/publications/iie/v5n2/action.html

A634.3.5.RB_StevensEric

When faced with dilemmas throughout life we often wonder what could have been done better or what should have been done better. Many in society see this challenge every day and they have become accustomed to making these decisions without much as a second thought.

 For example if we look at our public safety personnel they have become accustomed to making a decision on whether to take ones freedom and possibly their life. I have often seen the Monday morning quarterbacks who second guess a decision that was made in the field. This happens when a police officer shoots an unarmed man or a firefighter performed a risky rescue in an attempt to save someone’s life which unfortunately did not succeed.

Looking at face value of these decisions it is easy to say why did the police officer shoot an unarmed man? Why did the firefighter move the man when he could have gotten more help? In the media these stories are unfortunately all too familiar and the public in general likes to step up on the soap box and downplay the role of each of these individuals and say why did they make these foolish decisions? Well we can only ask the individuals why they made these decisions and try and gain further insight on what made them come to these decisions. Then and only then can we hope to understand the decision that was made. Looking at the term that you’re dammed if you do and you’re dammed if you don’t can without a doubt ring true. 

So what happens when the police officer doesn’t shoot the unarmed man? We can look at the response that society wanted and applaud the police officer for not shooting the man. In law enforcement the number one rule is to protect society. But the number 2 rule is to go home at the end of your shift and to your family. in the matter where the firefighter did not attempt to save the life of the man and he waited until others could arrive. The man dies and now society will ask the question why didn’t the firefighter help the man sooner? These are several ways that a dilemma can be introduced into your life and into society and the lives of others.

A634.2.4.RB_StevensEric

When we look at the two theories discussed in this chapter I see many instances that people have predominately chosen one theory over the other in the day to day decision making. Consequentialism and Deontology both make good points to each of their prospective theories.

 The first that I will discuss is Consequentialism which people often use this theory to decide if they should tell the truth and what will be the reaction from making this choice. I often refer to this theory in my own terms and the cause and effect. The cause would be the choice to lie or tell the truth and the effect would be what will happen if I chose this course of action. I would say without a doubt that humans use this theory many times over and this is a deciding factor on whether they will get themselves in trouble or use this theory to get out of that trouble. The changing of facts only so slightly will influence the outcome of the decision and they will be in the clear if that is the goal of the conscious rationale behind this decision.

The second is Deontology where we apply the moral standards that most of us were introduced to as we were growing up by our parents, teachers, and other adults. This is harder to deviate from than Consequentialism which is more adept to be changed by the individual. Deontology can be viewed by some that this is what society expects you to do in a moral standard environment in your decision making process.  The standards in this theory are often preached as the way someone should carry themselves and you can often see these in religious settings or internal affairs of your professional institutions that you may work at.

I can say that if you find a mix of these styles and apply them to your daily life the balance of both of these theories will greatly benefit you as a whole. The adoption of only one of these theories and the dismissal of the other is often very difficult to do. In some ways this will not be acceptable to society as a whole since they may say that is impossible to be morally correct all the time. A example of this is the Catholic church in which the priests have committed offenses against children and we as a society have been appalled by this. This is in fact that we believe the priests should be honest 100% of the time we tend to forget the human element of these priests.