Utilitarian response

A utilitarian officer would respond to the scenario above by weighing the potential consequences of their actions. They would consider the potential harm that could be caused if the intoxicated driver was allowed to continue driving, such as a car accident or a death. They would also consider the potential harm that could be caused to the driver themselves, such as arrest and criminal charges.

If the utilitarian officer believed that the potential harm of allowing the driver to continue driving outweighed the potential harm of arresting the driver, they would likely arrest the driver. However, if the utilitarian officer believed that the potential harm of arresting the driver outweighed the potential harm of allowing the driver to continue driving, they might choose to give the driver a warning instead.

Ethical formalist response

An ethical formalist officer would respond to the scenario above by following the law and departmental regulations. The law clearly states that it is illegal to drive under the influence of alcohol, so the ethical formalist officer would likely arrest the driver, regardless of whether they knew them or not.

Virtuous response

A virtuous officer would respond to the scenario above by acting in a way that is consistent with their values and ethical beliefs. If the virtuous officer values justice and upholding the law, they would likely arrest the driver, regardless of whether they knew them or not. However, if the virtuous officer also values compassion and understanding, they might choose to give the driver a warning instead, especially if the driver was remorseful and promised to never drive drunk again.

Caring response

A caring officer would respond to the scenario above by considering the needs of all parties involved. They would consider the potential harm that could be caused if the intoxicated driver was allowed to continue driving, such as a car accident or a death. They would also consider the potential harm that could be caused to the driver themselves, such as arrest and criminal charges. Additionally, they would consider the potential harm that could be caused to the driver’s family and friends if the driver was arrested.

The caring officer might choose to arrest the driver if they believed that it was necessary to protect the public. However, they might also choose to give the driver a warning if they believed that it was in the best interests of all parties involved. For example, if the driver was close to home and there was no one else in the car, the caring officer might choose to follow the driver home and make sure that they got to bed safely.

Different responses for familiar and unfamiliar drivers

It is possible that a utilitarian, ethical formalist, or virtuous officer would respond differently to the scenario above if the driver was a familiar person, such as a friend or family member. For example, a utilitarian officer might be more likely to give the driver a warning if they believed that the driver was remorseful and promised to never drive drunk again. An ethical formalist officer might be more likely to give the driver a warning if they believed that the driver was a good person who had made a mistake. A virtuous officer might be more likely to give the driver a warning if they believed that it was in the best interests of the driver and their family.

However, it is also possible that a utilitarian, ethical formalist, or virtuous officer would respond to the scenario in the same way regardless of whether the driver was familiar or not. For example, a utilitarian officer might believe that it is always wrong to allow an intoxicated driver to continue driving, regardless of who they are. An ethical formalist officer might believe that it is always important to uphold the law, regardless of who the offender is. A virtuous officer might believe that it is always important to act in a way that is consistent with their values and ethical beliefs, regardless of who is involved.

Justification for different responses

If an officer were to respond differently to the scenario above based on whether the driver was familiar or not, they could justify their response using the following ethical systems:

• Utilitarianism: A utilitarian officer could argue that it is more beneficial to give a warning to a familiar driver who is remorseful and promises to never drive drunk again, because this is more likely to prevent the driver from driving drunk in the future.
• Ethical formalism: An ethical formalist officer could argue that it is important to treat everyone equally under the law, regardless of whether they are familiar or not.
• Virtue ethics: A virtuous officer could argue that it is important to act in a way that is consistent with their values and ethical beliefs, even if this means treating familiar and unfamiliar people differently. For example, a virtuous officer might value compassion and understanding, and they might believe that it is important to give people a second chance.

It is important to note that there is no right or wrong answer to the question of how an officer should respond to the scenario above. The best response may vary depending on the specific circumstances of the situation, the officer’s personal values and ethical beliefs, and the policies and procedures of the officer’s department.