In chapter four of ethics in criminal justice, Souryal takes the reader through various schools of thought explaining how they view the concept of happiness in relation to ethics and what he also feels about their thoughts. The chapter, therefore, takes into consideration the biography as well as historical insights to develop ideas as discussed by the philosophers.
In the text, Aristippus holds the view that sensory pleasures are what human beings require which contrasts the ideas of Epicurus who says happiness can be obtained through mental satisfaction. In view of the Epicurus schools of thought, the idea is that people should have a simple lifestyle by living within their limits but not being extravagant.
On page 136 Souryal explains further by saying that if someone tries to live beyond his/her financial needs is likely to face challenges mentally leading to mental stress hence lack of happiness in life. This view of mental satisfaction is termed as being glutton because the mind will desire to acquire what it does not have just as the physical desires that make human beings gluttonous.
This view is in contrast with the hedonism theory, which explains that human beings are motivated by pleasure and pain. According to Souryal’s view, the hedonits in contemporary society are unhappy mentally since they see pleasure as the ultimate goal of all actions. In achieving pleasure, which is measured by determining what one has achieved or done human beings face mental challenges, which are regarded as being mentally stressed leading to mental unhappiness.
The hedonistic school on the other hand holds the view that leading a frugal life is being unhappy since according to them being happy means achieving what you do not have. In contemporary society, therefore, individuals strive to have a luxurious life to be satisfied mentally.
The principle of leading a simple life to achieve mental happiness is in line with the stoicism school of thought which stressed that pleasure and pain are not relevant in attaining the happiness of an individual (Souryal 126-127). They, therefore, suggest that people should not desire to achieve pleasure. The hedonists on the other hand can fit in the school of egotists who have the same view on pleasure.
Within the chapter, the utilitarian school by Bentham is expressed. Bentham who is known as a philosopher borrowed from hedonism because in his thought he recycled the view of pursuing pressure as the ultimate goal in life and called it the principle of self-preference. The utilitarian explains that utility is the principle, that either approves or disapproves of action and the action is good if it results in pleasure, and bad if it brings unhappiness.
In the discussion of ethics, Bentham tries to come up with ideas on how to reform the prisons and this contradicts with the hedonists’ view of pursuing pleasure. In this case, therefore, Souryal agrees with the utilitarian than in reforming the prisons one cannot consider the pleasure that was derived from the action done by the criminal but the utility of the action.
In modern society, pleasure cannot be used as a factor in considering how inhuman prisoners are because individuals can be inhuman to others to attain their pleasures. The utilitarian’s view is therefore applicable in any civilized society because prisoners are charged according to the utility of the actions as either good to the society or bad.
In the chapter, Souryal presents another school of thought by Nietzsche who stressed the doctrine of superman in ethics. Souryal discusses natural ethics on page 161 where he explains that Nietzsche’s theory of ethics does not cater for morality in slavery submission to the values of Christianity. They believe that naturally all human beings are ignoble even if they call themselves sons of God. They, therefore, stress the idea of striving to survive or achieving what one wants as directed by instincts. This resembles what Souryal terms as being motivated by the will to survive.
Nietzsche sees the natural state of human beings as competitive because individuals in societies compete for power and he further explains that there are social classes in societies where there are those in power as well as powerless who are being ruled (169). In the naturalism theory, Christianity is seen to dominate the powerless who hide in it to feel powerful.
The Christian values such as loving your enemy are unnatural according to Nietzsche because he says that naturally, man should love those who love him and hate those who hate him. He, therefore, feels that Christian values are not realistic since they only attempt to change the nature of human beings, which is impossible.
On page 170, Nietzsche stressed the issue of superman as a potential in human beings. He says that men have the ability to change the laws of the society to be on top of the law hence enjoying their natural power without any restriction. Souryal, therefore, wanted to know the life history of Nietzsche because of the passion he had for power. It was noted that he led a life full of worries and loneliness and later developed a mental illness before his death.
In reference to the discussions that were held during the conference, there were a number of issues, which aroused ethical dilemmas in the field of maintaining criminal justices. The dilemmas are therefore evident in the various areas within the field. The discussion that addressed the issues of tips offered to police officers raised a number of concerns of whether there is justice practiced in the field or not. The issue is therefore regarded as an offence by the agencies because it affects all police officers across the world regardless of the socioeconomic status of the country where they operate as long as they differ across the globe.
At times, rules can be bent to handle some situations, which might be worse if not attended. During the conference, they also discussed the case of a manager who let a male teenager into the house that was halfway simply because the situation in the teenager’s family was not favorable despite of the rules, which could not allow. Such situations force those in charge to consider whether the rules in place impact more harm to human beings than good before ruling out or making decisions to govern the processes.
In trying to apply the Socrates view of thought in relation to a gun law, Souryal thinks of the goodness of the law. This is not justified as being justice because the concept of good law is expressed differently. In this case, the concept of good can be interpreted as made to protect the interests of the society by eliminating what is bad. Alternatively, it can be interpreted to mean that the law was made to protect the interests of the political careers. The concept of good law is therefore justifiable when goodness is realized in an action done but not in theory.