|
usually people evaluate this sort of question by importing another frame of reference often without saying that they're doing it.
a utilitarian frame treats "the greatest good for the greatest number" as the best you can do. so the question then would be whether that objective is approached if cops can in certain situations be outside of the law that they enforce or not. the opposing position would probably say that the damage caused the system by these actions at the level of legitimacy (say) outweighs the benefits (less crime) because, for example, these actions undermine the notion of rule of law. the counter would be that the ultimate good is a reduction of crime or harm to others and that results in this area would mitigate damage in the other.
if you're in a relatively interesting debate, the question of differing definitions of the good may come up. the trick with utilitarian arguments is that they're not interesting that way necessarily.
a deontological type position would say there's no justification for violating the rule of law once you have the rule of law.
like that.
sometimes it helps to name the position you're working from.
sometimes it doesn't.
__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear
it make you sick.
-kamau brathwaite
|