Ethical Decision Making Essays Example

The ethical learning style I was strongly aligned with in the ethics awareness inventory is character, and the least ethical style I was aligned with was equity. My learning style relies and believes more on the individual making moral judgments that are sound. The qualities that I value which guides me when it comes to choosing right from wrong comprise of honesty, wisdom, and integrity. Moreover, I place immense emphasis on putting in practice these qualities than just merely following them. People that possess a good character know what is right and what is wrong. I strongly believe that people that do not have a good character will have difficulties making a conscious choice between given standards of right and wrong.
Character r is a great attribute to have in the line of duty in the criminal justice department. Good character means being honest, possessing integrity and wisdom and striving to be trustworthy in all dealings. Possessing the various attributes of good character enables an individual to make sound, moral judgments. The criminal justice field involves working with people from diverse backgrounds. A member of a criminal justice organization like the police is expected to be possess good character at all times and be able to differentiate right from wrong during in all their duties. Criminal justice organizations have to gain trust from the society they are operating in to be able to deliver excellently on their mandate
The law enforcers should be guided by integrity and wisdom and should pursue justice for everyone at all times. It will be morally wrong for a police officer to gather evidence from accused persons by using intimidation and forceful means. This will be going against the tenets of good character that demands that a person such as a law enforcer uphold integrity at all times.
When making decisions as a part of a team, character comes into play strongly. The disregard of ethics by a team that is entrusted with the responsibility of making decisions essentially provides a bad reflection of the characters of the people on this team. A team comprised of people of bad character will always come up with decisions that are unethical. Elsewhere, a team made of people of sound character will pursue a decision that is ethically appropriate, and whose implications are well thought out.
The possession of good character or lack thereof is rooted in a person’s background. Working with people who may not have had the benefit of appropriate moral guidance throughout the course of their lives may cause conflicts with people who have been nurtured in tenets of good character (The Williams Institute For Ethics and Management, 2008, p. 1). Reaching an ethical decision may be troublesome because of varying perspectives. Possession of good character enables one to realize that development of character within individuals is a time-consuming process, and it has to be deliberately started. This ideality is not congruent with tendencies of some decision makers to prefer short-cuts and be on the look-out for ‘quick fixes’ to disturbing problems. This may not border well with me while working in a team that is hell-bent on churning out quick fixes and in fact, I may opt out of such a team.
In the ethics awareness inventory, the ethical learning style I was least closely aligned with was equity. From this alignment, I believe that there are absolute standards of right and wrong. I strongly believe that new knowledge and completely different circumstances do not alter the different values and beliefs of a person (The Williams Institute For Ethics and Management, 2008, p.3). My approach to ethics involves supporting all attempts to plan ideal social orders. My tendency is to trust codes of ethics that have been institutionalized. With this alignment, the correct choice of a particular time or a particular situation does not emanate from a consideration of varying viewpoints. My ethical style does not require critical analysis of the postulated impacts of each alternative. Moreover, this equity alignment supports the use a certain amount of control or power to suppress opposition to some perspectives that are accepted. The low equity alignment is informed by the fact that I will readily accept narrow representation in decision-making.
The low equity alignment, in the ethics inventory awareness inventory, relates unfavorably with the criminal justice field. Reaching a well-rounded decision in the criminal justice field requires frequent reconsideration of a wide variety alternative viewpoints. Decisions made by narrow groups or singlehandedly may be counterproductive and shallow (Ryon, 2013, n.p). Consideration of various alternatives is a sure way of getting the best decision among alternatives. Moreover, the low equity alignment cannot be useful in a criminal justice field because it fails to provide enough time for adequate analysis of the outcomes of a particular ethical decision. This alignment is not rooted in the support of diversity and tolerance. The appreciation of diversity and support of tolerance are crucial elements in a criminal justice field because they enable avoidance of minimalistic thinking.
The low equity alignment points to the belief that there are absolute standards of right and wrong. In the criminal justice field, there are gray areas that are not easily distinguishable as either right or wrong. The analysis of these gray areas requires in-depth input of many participants in order to put them in their right category. Therefore, my ethical style learning will have a poor relationship with the criminal justice field.
In addition, it is true that beliefs of individuals and their values will change periodically and considerably depending on the existing circumstances. My low equity alignment fails to recognize this truth. Criminal justice fields need to be flexible and make consideration of the changes that happen when people gain new knowledge or fall in different circumstances. My learning style is hostile to this fundamental aspect of criminal justice.
Making decisions as a part of a team armed with this ethical learning style can be challenging. The learning style will be in support of decisions that are made singlehandedly, mainly with those in power. This will not border well with those who are pro-people and want people to define for themselves what is important to them.
Moreover, the learning style is in support of established standards of right and wrong. This structure will enable me to justify the specific ethical decisions I am pursuing to my teammates. Avoidance of gray areas in ethical decision-making makes it easy for one to adopt a particular ethical stand.
Furthermore, my simplified world view may not be supported by those who want to examine the world deeply, and dismantle the various complexities that are present before reaching a decision. With this background, making decisions on a team will be difficult due to the opposing views.