REGULARIAN PERSPECTIVE “To gain a sense of why it is important to subject morality to philosophical inquiry, we should view morality, not as a collection of rules, but as a set of guidelines that we must apply to the very complex circumstances of our lives.” (Furrow, 2005)As such, each of the theories discussed in CRJU 250 have their strengths and weaknesses, and serve as base – not an absolute - for resolving ethical dilemmas.There does not appear to be one all-inclusive theory of moral reasoning. The regularian perspective, at face value, appears simplistic. The only thing the person, making the decision regarding an ethical dilemma, needs to know is the rule(s). This perspective views that an act is morally good if it obeys the rules. If the rule(s) indicates the action is permissible then it is considered ethical; in contrast, if the rule(s) indicates the action is not permissible, then it is considered unethical. This perspective posits that the individual is obligated to follow the rules. Similar to other perspectives, with regularianism, the person making the decision must avoid desires and emotions, and act objectively. This is the most notable advantage of rule-based ethics. Sources for rules include commands, directives, policies and procedures, Code of Ethics, and laws. Problems: What if it is a bad or immoral rule? An example of this is the Nuremberg Defense; where the individuals who perpetrated crimes against the Jews during WW II, claimed they did nothing wrong since they were following Hitler’s rules to murder them. What if there is not rule? Hmmm?! What if there are two rules that conflict each other? The hope is that the person who is making the decision will find another rule that clarifies the conflict! STEPS: 1. Regardless of the possible options, what is (are) the rule(s)? I must follow the rule(s). REFERENCES Dreisbach, C. (2008). Ethics in Criminal Justice. New York: McGraw Hill Higher Education. Furrow, D. (2005). Ethics: Key Concepts in Philosophy. New York: Continuum Books. DEONTOLOGICAL PERSPECTIVE “To gain a sense of why it is important to subject morality to philosophical inquiry, we should view morality, not as a collection of rules, but as a set of guidelines that we must apply to the very complex circumstances of our lives.” (Furrow, 2005)As such, each of the theories discussed in CRJU 250 have their strengths and weaknesses, and serve as base – not an absolute - for resolving ethical dilemma. There does not appear to be one all-inclusive theory of moral reasoning. Deontologists believe that one’s action must conform to recognized duties, the consequences are not important. By conforming, one is “doing the right thing” not because it solely pleases the individual or promotes good consequences, but rather because the individual is adhering to the concepts of duty, obligation and rationality. The deontological perspective allows for one’s intentions/motives to be valued, regardless of the outcome. Deontolog ...

1. REGULARIAN PERSPECTIVE
“To gain a sense of why it is important to subject morality to
philosophical inquiry, we should view morality, not as a
collection of rules, but as a set of guidelines that we must apply
to the very complex circumstances of our lives.” (Furrow,
2005)As such, each of the theories discussed in CRJU 250 have
their strengths and weaknesses, and serve as base – not an
absolute - for resolving ethical dilemmas.There does not appear
to be one all-inclusive theory of moral reasoning.
The regularian perspective, at face value, appears simplistic.
The only thing the person, making the decision regarding an
ethical dilemma, needs to know is the rule(s). This perspective
views that an act is morally good if it obeys the rules. If the
rule(s) indicates the action is permissible then it is considered
ethical; in contrast, if the rule(s) indicates the action is not
permissible, then it is considered unethical. This perspective
posits that the individual is obligated to follow the rules.
Similar to other perspectives, with regularianism, the person
making the decision must avoid desires and emotions, and act
objectively. This is the most notable advantage of rule-based
ethics. Sources for rules include commands, directives, policies
and procedures, Code of Ethics, and laws.
Problems: What if it is a bad or immoral rule? An example of
this is the Nuremberg Defense; where the individuals who
perpetrated crimes against the Jews during WW II, claimed they
did nothing wrong since they were following Hitler’s rules to
murder them. What if there is not rule? Hmmm?! What if there
are two rules that conflict each other? The hope is that the
person who is making the decision will find another rule that
clarifies the conflict!
STEPS:
1. Regardless of the possible options, what is (are) the rule(s)? I
must follow the rule(s).
REFERENCES

2. Dreisbach, C. (2008). Ethics in Criminal Justice. New York:
McGraw Hill Higher Education.
Furrow, D. (2005). Ethics: Key Concepts in Philosophy. New
York: Continuum Books.
DEONTOLOGICAL PERSPECTIVE
“To gain a sense of why it is important to subject morality to
philosophical inquiry, we should view morality, not as a
collection of rules, but as a set of guidelines that we must apply
to the very complex circumstances of our lives.” (Furrow,
2005)As such, each of the theories discussed in CRJU 250 have
their strengths and weaknesses, and serve as base – not an
absolute - for resolving ethical dilemma. There does not appear
to be one all-inclusive theory of moral reasoning.
Deontologists believe that one’s action must conform to
recognized duties, the consequences are not important. By
conforming, one is “doing the right thing” not because it solely
pleases the individual or promotes good consequences, but
rather because the individual is adhering to the concepts of
duty, obligation and rationality. The deontological perspective
allows for one’s intentions/motives to be valued, regardless of
the outcome.
Deontologists also believe that all people are worthy of equal
respect; humans have worth thus one cannot treat another
human as an instrument to promote a common good. As such
this theory demands one must treat all people as an ends, not a
means – this is in contrast to Consequentialism.
Lastly, Deontologists believe that moral reasoning should be
consistent, and adhering to duties and obligations should not be
left to personal choice/preferences. As one decides how to act;
one should question if one wants other rational beings to act in
the same way, every time, all of the time. For if one treats
people differently (based on bias and preference) there is the
risk for injustice and unfairness. These unchanging laws for

3. human conduct are the categorical imperatives There are several
branches of deontological: absolute (no exceptions) prima facie
(overriding by more important duty) conditional (depends on
circumstance).
.
Main theorist: Immanuel Kant
PROBLEMS – This perspective is not without criticisms. The
four main criticisms are as follows: (1) Minimal guidance or
advice is provided on how to resolve conflicting duties. The
decision-maker is instructed to find an overriding/more
important duty; however if one is not found, there is no further
instruction. (2) One can fulfill one’s duty/obligation and still
not be a good person. (3) If one ignores consequences, there is
the potential for pain and suffering. (4) History has shown that
imposing one’s moral belief system on others can be oppressive
and disvaluing of diverse beliefs.
Steps (adapted from Banks, 2009)
1. Select the option for how one will act in the situation.
2. Determine what is/are the underlying intentions of the act
3. Determine what are the duties involved in this situation and
to whom or what? (If the duties conflicts determine if there is
an overriding/more important duty? If there is not an overriding
duty, proceed and see if the ethicality is determined in the
following steps.)
4. Ask self: “Will this act show respect for the human dignity of
everyone involved?”
5. Ask self: “Will it use any person as a means to an end?”
6. Ask self: “Can I will this act onto everyone?”
7. If you are fulfilling your duty(ies) and you answered Yes to
items #4 & #6, and No to item #5. Then it is ethical.
REFERENCES
Banks, C. (2009). Criminal Justice Ethics: Theory and Practice,
2nd Edition. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.
Furrow, D. (2005). Ethics: Key Concepts in Philosophy. New
York: Continuum Books.

4. Unknown author. (No date). Terms In and Types of Ethical
Theory. Drexel University. Retrieved June 14, 2010 from
http://www.pages.drexel.edu/~cp28/ethterm.htm.
CONSEQUENTIALISM PERSPECTIVE
“To gain a sense of why it is important to subject morality to
philosophical inquiry, we should view morality, not as a
collection of rules, but as a set of guidelines that we must apply
to the very complex circumstances of our lives.” (Furrow,
2005)As such, each of the theories discussed in CRJU 250 have
their strengths and weaknesses, and serve as base – not an
absolute - for resolving ethical dilemma. There does not appear
to be one all-inclusive theory of moral reasoning.
The consequentialist perspective is frequently recognized as
Utilitarianism. It posits that the right action/decision in an
ethical dilemma is that which provides the most positive
outcome to the most individuals/organizations involved. The
focus is on choosing the action that brings the most pleasure,
rather than pain, to all those affected. Thus the consequences of
an action determine its moral value; this perspective is focused
on the effect. This theory replaces common sense with its focus
on thinking about the facts regarding the consequences of the
action. Similar to other perspectives, with consequentialism, the
person making the decision must avoid desires and emotions,
and act objectively.
Main theorists: Jeremy Bentham (Classical School) and John
Stuart Mills.
Problems: It is difficult to predict the future, i.e. the
consequences with certainty. Also, “does the end justify the
means?” – is it alright to sacrifice a few, the minority, for the
good of the majority? Similarly, how does the person making
the decision know what is good for different, diverse groups
and/or individuals?
Steps (Banks, 2009)

5. 1. Identify all the options
2. Identify all those affected by the decision (individuals,
Organizations, and the Community)
3. List and describe all the harms and benefits - to all the
options and all those affected within each option
4. Choose the option that produces the most benefits for all
those affected after calculating the difference between the
harmful and beneficial effects.
REFERENCES
Banks, C. (2009). Criminal Justice Ethics: Theory and Practice,
2nd Edition. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.
Furrow, D. (2005). Ethics: Key Concepts in Philosophy. New
York: Continuum Books.
Unknown author. (No date). Terms In and Types of Ethical
Theory. Drexel University. Retrieved June 14, 2010 from
http://www.pages.drexel.edu/~cp28/ethterm.htm.
ARISTOTELIAN PERSPECTIVE
“To gain a sense of why it is important to subject morality to
philosophical inquiry, we should view morality, not as a
collection of rules, but as a set of guidelines that we must apply
to the very complex circumstances of our lives.” (Furrow,
2005)As such, each of the theories discussed in CRJU 250 have
their strengths and weaknesses, and serve as base – not an
absolute - for resolving ethical dilemma. There does not appear
to be one all-inclusive theory of moral reasoning.
Aristotle was concerned with character and virtues, thus this
perspective is also referred to as a virtue-based theory. The
focus of this perspective is on the character of the person and
the sort of person one wishes to become.
One should act in a manner that allows one to develop the
sought after virtues in him/herself. For according to Aristotle,
“In order to live a flourishing life we have to develop all of our
capacities and potential.” Virtues promote well-

6. being/happiness. Aristotle’s list of virtues (applicable to justice
– (Rachels, 1999) include the following:
Benevolence
Civility
Compassion
Conscientiousness
Cooperativeness
Courage
Courteousness
Dependability
Fairness
Friendliness
Generosity
Honesty
Industriousness
Justice
Loyalty
Moderation
Reasonableness
Self-confidence
Self-control
Self-discipline
Self-reliance
Tactfulness
Thoughtfulness
Tolerance
Virtues should become acquired habits, thus the person is acting
in ways that are conducive to developing his/her full potential.
A good/virtuous person is not cultivated over night; rather
he/she achieves full-development through the practice of
applying the virtues.
Virtue ethics, does not rely on rules, rather it allows the person
who is making the decision to use his/her own judgment. Virtue
ethics does not focus on actions; rather it provides guidance on
developing into good person with good character traits. The

7. question when applying Aristotelian perspective is NOT “what
is right?” rather it is “what would a good person do?” This is
because the correct/ethical judgment is what a fully-developed
virtuous person would do if in the same situation. For using
practical wisdom – a.k.a. applying one’s excellent character to a
situation is morally right.
PROBLEMS – This perspective is not without criticisms.
Aristotle’s list is subjective, shaped by his culture (ancient
Athens) and thus many “good” virtues are left off the list. The
chief complaint of Aristotelian perspective is that it provides no
guidance how to actually act.
Steps (Banks, 2009)
How can I be “the best” in my present role? Regardless of the
dilemma, I must first ask what kind of person I should become
to be the best person I can be in that role.
Which virtues will help me become “the best”? I must then ask
which virtues will allow me to become the best person I can
become. (I will identify which virtues I must practice in this
situation and explain to myself why they are relevant to my
goals of becoming virtuous and developing good moral
character, including integrity, honesty, compassion, courage,
duty, and so on. )
Weigh the options and select the one that puts into practice my
(above selected) virtues. Once I have decided what kind of
person I will need to become to be a virtuous person and which
virtues I will need to practice to achieve that goal, I must ask
myself which option in the dilemma allows me to practice these
virtues and explain to myself how this option allows me to
practice these virtues and why the other options would not.
Applying/practicing the virtues in this case is a start but I need
to continue practicing! I will then practice these virtues until
they become habit and part of my character so that when ethical
dilemmas present themselves to me in future, I will know what
to do and will no longer face a dilemma of this kind.
REFERENCES

8. Banks, C. (2009). Criminal Justice Ethics: Theory and Practice,
2nd Edition. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.
Furrow, D. (2005). Ethics: Key Concepts in Philosophy. New
York: Continuum Books.
Unknown author. (No date). Terms In and Types of Ethical
Theory. Drexel University. Retrieved June 14, 2010 from
http://www.pages.drexel.edu/~cp28/ethterm.htm.
CRJU 250 MID-TERM EXAM
200 POINTS
ETHICAL PERSPECTIVES
ARISTOTELIAN, DEONTOGICAL, REGULARIAN,
CONSEQUENTIALISM
TAKE HOME EXAM
TURN IN TO CLASS ON MARCH 16
WRITING ASSIGNMENT: Which perspective(s) or parts of
perspective(s) is most congruent/consistent with your value
system? Explain on what and why you based your selection.
Also explain why you omitted certain perspectives and/or parts
of specific perspectives. Be comprehensive in your answer.
MID-TERM EXAM GRADING RUBRIC
ITEM
INCOMPLETE
DOES NOT MEET EXPECTATIONS
MEETS EXPECTATIONS
EXCEEDS EXPECTATIONS
Content & Organization
Does not respond appropriately to the
assignment

9. 0 points
Information is disorganized
and not logically or effectively structured. Information is
missing or inaccurate.
Major points are not clear. Does not have a clear central idea.
Random organization Structure of the paragraph is not easy to
follow. Information is accurate but minimal.
20-60 points
Presents central
idea in general terms. Content is accurate and opinions are
stated and somewhat supported. Information is organized.

10. 80 points
Information is logically organized and coherent. It guides the
reader
through the chain of reasoning or
progression of ideas. Excels in responding to assignment.
Interesting, demonstrates
sophistication of thought. Central
idea is clearly communicated, follows a logical sequence
100 points
Perspectives
No perspectives utilized

11. 0 points
One perspective utilized
20 points
Two perspectives utilized
40 points
Three perspectives utilized
60 points
Four perspectives utilized
80 points
Four perspectives exhaustively utilized
100 points