The ethical or moral problem presented is the difference of opinion on whether two police officers on duty should return all of the drug money to proper authoritatives or split some of the drug money amongst themselves. Between the two police officers, one of them knows it is wrong to take $10,000 from the $100,000 dollars confiscated, but knows the $5,000 he might receive will help his child with special needs.
Despite the need for the money, as individuals and as peoples, we have to make more well informed and better decisions. I shall not allow my fellow officer to confiscate any part of the $100,000 dollars for ourselves because of my personal, religious, and cultural ethical ...view middle of the document...
Taking the moral point of view, people should be able to see beyond themselves and their own interests. We have to see from another point of view and be impartial. Police officers splitting part of the money obtained from the raid would raise their self-satisfaction, but that act demeans the rest of society. Morally, one should give up the money to the government because it shows selflessness, and gives a person a sense of dignity, integrity, and self-respect.
The main reason, the police officers should hand over the great deal of money to proper authoritatives because it does the greatest good for the greatest number; known as utilitarianism. Everyone affected by some action is to be counted equally. We ourselves hold no privileged place, so our own happiness counts no more than that of others. The police officers who wanted to confiscate the money should analyze the fact that money is needed by everyone, and not just themselves; everyone in the world has problems, finding ethical solutions to the problem is the challenge one must face.
One of the principles of utilitarianism describes that we can think of each moment of unhappiness as canceling out a moment of happiness or net happiness or unhappiness, so that what is left to evaluate is the remaining or net happiness or unhappiness. For example, the police officers might be saddened to think they won’t receive any of the confiscated money, but they can become happier by thinking that we are doing the greatest good for the greatest number. As a result, their happiness and unhappiness cancels out leaving them what they started with. The officers must realize that decisions must not be placed upon immediate pleasure, but also on long term results. “You are not more important than anyone else. If one can realize the consequences of each act performed as a general practice, he or she can make better-informed decisions.
At certain times, the consequences of our acts are not always in our control, however our motives are in our control; therefore, a person should be held morally accountable. For example, the motives of the police officers should be to hand over the money to the government; it is expected the government will reimburse the money to people or a corrupt government can use the money for its own uses. The consequences of our acts may not be in our control because we are not always sure of the outcome of a situation, but are motives are always in our control because motives come from within ourselves. An act has specifically moral worth if it is done with the right intention or motive. As with our police officers, they should return the money because it is the correct thing to do, not because of a pay raise or special honor.
Kant’s moral theory is a perfect example as a means for a solution to the police officer’s dilemma of whether to return all of the confiscated money to the proper authoritatives. Kant’s moral theory describes that if there is anything that we morally ought to do,...