Ethics in Forensic Science

J.C. Upshaw Downs,Anjali Ranadive Swienton

• Publisher: Academic Press
• Year: 2012
• ISBN:
  9780123850201
• Topic: Philosophie
• Subtopic: Ethik & Moralphilosophie

This work will draw upon the expertise of the editors as authors and various contributors in order to present several different perspectives with the goal of approaching and understanding when ethical lines are crossed. In order to achieve this goal, comparisons of various canons of ethics from related fields such as medicine, law, the military, science and politics will be examined and applied. Case studies will be presented throughout to illustrate ethical dilemmas and challenge the reader with the goal of greater understanding.

• First book to comprehensively address ethics in forensics beyond the laboratory
• Real-life cases presented involving unethical behavior to illustrate concepts
• Discusses ethical considerations while delineating opinion from fact in testimony
• Places forensic ethics within the canons of the legal and medical systems

Chapter 1

A Brief History of Ethics

Jennifer Downs

In civilized life, law floats in a sea of ethics.

Earl Warren¹

How ought one live? This question represents the foundation of centuries of debate concerning the philosophy of ethics, a subject that writers from every country across every generation have discussed, dispelled, and posited their thoughts on without yet reaching a consensus. The voices in this dialogue are cross-referential, building upon and responding to preceding theories as each philosopher takes their distinct stance on morality. The idea of good and evil has been filtered through multitudinous perspectives, allowing for questions not only on the goodness of actions but the use, rightness, morality, and justness of actions.

For the ancient Greeks, the code of moral correctness was represented by the epics. Writers like Homer sang the praises of virtuous men, holding such characters up as paradigms of virtuous action. It is evident in the Odyssey that these heroes looked to the pantheon of Greek gods as their resource for right living. Regardless of true belief in the existence of such beings, the characteristics of the various deities, as outlined in myth, informed the actions of heroes like Odysseus.

[…I] t is clear that Homer invokes the gods in order to account for the observation that a central form of human excellence must be drawn from without. A god, in Homer’s terminology, is a mood that attunes us to what matters most in a situation, allowing us to respond appropriately without thinking. ²

In this way, the Greeks had a model to inform their own behavior and by which to judge others. Since the fall of ancient Greece, other philosophers have taken an opposing stand, insisting that morality is a relative feature of the individual – that no preset code applies to all people in all circumstances.

The changes in ethical philosophy over the years reflect sociological shifts that, in responding to contemporaneous events, intellectually summarize the social understandings and reactions to socio-political changes. Despite the constant flux of thought, at a very base level, ethics strives for a cohesive society. Philosophers describe their ideal; the most functional and productive structure of society, thus laying out their best plan to achieve such an end. Whether the source of ideal cohesion rests in the individual or the community at large has yet to be determined, but the debate continues.

1. Meta-Ethics: What does “Right” mean?

Meta-ethics is concerned with the epistemology of ethics, posing conceptual questions to define the origins and limitations of ethical statements and challenging the use of moral predicates. Fundamentally, this is a branch of philosophy concerned with the inherent existence and man’s understanding of “goodness”, and addresses this concept through conceptual and epistemological questions.

The advent of meta-ethical theory is tied to increased interest in linguistic philosophy at the outset of the 20th century.³ We utilize moral predicates like “good/evil” and “right/wrong” in association with behavior to define our understanding of the ethical nature of a given action. Initially, a moral verdict like “it is wrong to cheat”, seems like a simple deduction, yet the parameters of “wrong” have not been defined, so there is no value to this statement. Meta-ethics attempts, in various ways, to provide the necessary parameters in order that a valid ethical conclusion be reached.

The most crucial debate within meta-ethics is the source and meaning of human values. For objectivists, values are innate, existing regardless of human comprehension. Because these values are inherent in the world, they are knowable, and ought to universally govern human behavior.

Alternately, relativists conclude that the values we attribute to things are defined differently, depending upon the environment of the definer, and so these values cannot be granted absolute meaning. An individual’s understanding of “right” and “wrong” is true relative to their experience. For this reason values do not have collective definitions and cannot be universally employed. From the relativists’ perspective comes the question of how to make moral judgments without a definite framework. This non-cognitivist branch of meta-ethics proposes that the application of moral predicates correlates with our application of emotional conditions. Within a certain environment, death makes us feel bad, we expand this feeling to perpetuate a moral absolute that all death is inherently “bad”. This emotion takes on an inscrutable moral quality so that the position “capital punishment is morally bad” is inscrutable by extension. Non-cognitivists propose that this type of association is the basis for all positions of morality, meaning that truth is relative to personal opinion shaped by experience: thus there is no absolute truth.

It is commonplace to assume that the questions of meta-ethics are logically prior to those of normative and applied ethics, and that there is no use proceeding with either normative or applied moral philosophy without coming to certain definite conclusions about matters of meta-ethical concern, but this assumption has also been disputed. For one may be right in regarding moral statements as cognitive and moral argument as possible without having any sort of elaborate meta-ethical theory to justify this view. ⁴

2. Normative Ethics: How Ought People to Act?

What meta-ethics defines as objectivism relates to a branch of philosophy called normative ethics. Here the universality of values is accepted and a rational justification for these values is sought. Normative ethics is concerned with paradigms of ethical behavior and operates in a prescriptive manner, establishing moral absolutes by which society should live. The maxim known as the “Golden Rule” is an ideal representation of normative application, as some version of this principle has been represented in most societies throughout history. In the Judeo-Christian tradition the rule teaches that one ought to “do unto others as you would have them do unto you”⁵ defining good behavior as the treatment one would expect for one’s self. Normative ethics can be further broken down to four theories, as follows:

Virtue ethics focuses on the moral state of the individual as the source of ethical behavior, rather than compliance to an external code of conduct. The morality of an individual comes from their internal character, which is reflected in the decisions they make, therefore the actions they choose to perform are less important than the justification for their behavior. Proponents claim that this approach:

Offers a more unified and comprehensive conception of moral life, one that extends beyond actions to comprise wants, goals, likes and dislikes, and, in general, what sort of person one is and aims to be. ⁶

Deontological ethics, having its root in the Greek deon, or “duty”, determines morality based on adherence to rules. Actions have intrinsic moral implications, and ought to coincide with an individual’s moral obligations, regardless of the consequences associated with such action. There are many theories regarding deontology, but they:

have in common the basic premise that the right is prior to the good and that beneficial results do not determine one’s moral duty. They emphasize fidelity to principle and the independence of rightness, which is the main focus of moral life. ⁷

In opposition to deontology is teleology, with the Greek root telos meaning “goal”, wherein what is right is determined by what is good. Here morality is determined by the consequences of action. C.D. Broad defined the modern understanding of teleological ethics writing that they:

hold that the rightness or wrongness of an action is always determined by its tendency to produce certain consequences which are intrinsically good or bad. ⁸

Right action can be determined as that which yields the greatest good for the greatest number. This philosophy can be seen in various permutations in the practice of utilitarianism, egoism, hedonism, intellectualism, welfarism, etc.

The final branch of normative ethics is pragmatism, which suggests that morality is in a state of constant evolution, in a similar way to scientific knowledge. Over the course of many generations, advances are made, and our understanding of what is right changes to reflect new ways of thinking.

Out of native impulses, some desires arise, leading to actions that form habits. Habits “constitute the self”, becoming one’s character. They lead to certain kinds of further action that may cause re-evaluation of past desires, a transformation or enlargement of them with respect to their objects, or a deepening of their meaning with broadened experience. ⁹

This theory views character as an active process which can be influenced or manipulated through experience, therefore social reforms should be implemented to provide socially significant lives.

3. Applied Ethics: How do People Implement Moral Knowledge?

The application of ethical theory in practical situations falls under the category of applied ethics. Unlike meta-ethics, where the aim is to understand the nature of moral concepts, or normative ethics which explores moral “norms”, the field of applied ethics pertains to the use of ethics to mediate real-life conflicts between what distinct parties view as right and wrong. It is difficult to find a situation free of ethical concerns, yet applied ethics is a relatively recent addition to the field.

The importance of applied ethics became obvious first in the medical context, where in the aftermath of World War II and the expanding interest in human rights, developments in technology gave rise to challenging ethical issues such as the use of transplant technology and the allocation of scarce resources such as kidney dialysis.¹⁰

In any instance where group or individual interests conflict, it is necessary to look to ethical theory for a resolution: business, law, government, medicine, science, religion, sports, etc. The modern interest in how to pursue what is “right” in such a comprehensive manner, bringing ethics and the impetus for equality into so many aspects of life, proves our desire to strive for the greater good. As Albert Einstein urged, one ought to “try not to become a man of success, but rather try to become a man of value.”¹¹

4. Moral Psychology: What do People Think about what is Right?

Moral psychology can refer to one of two fields, the first of which is the study of the development of the moral choices of the individual over time, and the second is the overlap between psychology and ethics, where the mind bears relevance to morals.

[…M]any normative theorists have maintained that there is a close connection between pleasure, happiness, or desire-satisfaction and a person’s good, and these things are also a concern of philosophy of the mind. In addition, the rightness of actions is often held to be closely connected to the motives, beliefs, and other psychological phenomena that lie behind those actions. ¹²

The interest here lies in the thoughts of an individual, what they define as “right/wrong” and how they reach these conclusions.

Moral psychology has had a revival in the second half of the twentieth century. It involves work done both by empirical psychologists and philosophers and is devoted to reflection on how morals are acquired or developed, the role of emotions in moral life, how resistance to evil is inculcated, and so on. ¹³

This kind of research does not uphold any ethical theories as absolute, rather it explores they ways in which individuals and groups engage with ethical concerns.

5. Descriptive Ethics: What do People Profess is Right?

Descriptive ethics is simply the study of what people do believe or have believed about social morality and how those beliefs are implemented in action. As a discipline, it relies heavily on sociology and anthropology to relate the beliefs from variant cultural groups, from which one can extrapolate future behavior. This method can also be applied to ethical codes implemented in a professional environment. Like moral psychology, this is not a field that promotes any particular ethical belief; rather it ...