In this paper, the moral dilemma of policeman Dale is going to be described and discussed with the help of the guidelines for moral behavior determination as presented by Pollock (2013). Dale has seen his co-worker (Don) smoking marijuana and confronted him. Don has been working in the department for 19 years while Dale is a new worker (3 months of service). Don demands that Dale keeps silent, and blackmails him, promising that he can “make things difficult” for Dale. The immediate dilemma for Dale consists in that of reporting or not reporting the situation. Other dilemmas are connected to the facts and concepts described below. The discussion attempts to make use of the idea of moral pluralism, and the result appears to be corresponding to ethical formalism and utilitarianism. Given the fact that the moral pluralism presupposes interpreting and using all the possible ethical systems, it seems to be an acceptable outcome (Pollock, 2013, p. 45).
To identify all the facts of the situation, it is necessary to mention the properties of marijuana. Marijuana is a relatively safe drug: it does not cause physical addiction, and the effects can be limited to the feelings of euphoria and relaxation (Encyclopædia Britannica, 2014). Naturally, the drug also causes problems with coordination, but it appears that Don was not on duty. In other words, his actions most certainly did not endanger public safety. However, the law is not always concerned with public safety (Pollock, 2013, p. 2). In the case of drug use, the law demands moral behavior; smoking marijuana is illegal because it is immoral. It should be pointed out that the specifics of marijuana have another implication: first-time offenders who use a soft drug are a special case that allows decriminalization (Pollock, 2013, p. 15). Still, when the drug is used by a person who belongs to law enforcement, the situation appears more immoral since the actions of this person do not correspond to his duty as a public servant. In other words, Dale is most likely to consider the actions of Don immoral. In a way, Don is discrediting his organization, and, therefore, it cannot be said that his actions have no effect on other people. The issue of their illegality is not controversial: Dale might vote for the legalization of recreational marijuana use in Stoned County, but his job and duty consists in enforcing the law (Pollock, 2013, p. 4). For the time being, the law states that marijuana cannot be used for recreational purposes. Dale can only ignore a law if it is immoral, but there is nothing immoral in prohibiting the use of a mind-altering substance.
Another unethical action of Don consists in the blackmailing attempt. The threat might have made Dale choose to keep silent if, for example, he had a sick child to take care of and needed the job desperately (which corresponds to the ethics of care: considering the needs of all the people concerned). However, this action also adds vital information to Dale’s decision-making process. Don does not demonstrate that he realizes the unethical nature of his actions; his behavior shows that he regards the punishment as an undesirable side effect that he can easily avoid due to his position. He is willing to abuse his power, and he is not unlikely to repeat the action that he does not consider unethical or dangerous (to others as well as himself). He can proceed to abuse his power in graver situations.
All of these factors prove the older policeman to be a rather unfitting person for his current duties. Apart from that, given these facts, it does not appear plausible that Don will hesitate to “make things difficult” regardless of Dale’s actions, which renders the blackmailing pointless. Therefore, it seems logical for Dale to report the situation in the hopes that a just decision will be made, and Don will either understand the fault of his actions or will be removed from the position he is not fit for.
References
Encyclopædia Britannica. (2014). Marijuana. Web.
Pollock, J. (2013). Ethical dilemmas and decisions in criminal justice (8th ed.). Belmont, CA: Thomson/Wadsworth.