There are two main ethical tribes that people belong to. In these tribes, people use different approaches to make what they believe are ethical decisions. Each tribe thinks the other is morally bankrupt and completely clueless. These tribes are constantly at war with one another. Sometimes it shows up in open disagreement. Other times it’s quieter, showing up in a shake of the head, a comment after the call or a lingering belief that the other side just doesn’t get it.

When we come to an ethical decision, you probably intuitively think you know right from wrong. Yet have you ever really considered how you personally decide what is right and wrong? We will explore these two tribes and their approaches to decision-making so you can identify which tribe you belong to and the strengths and shortfalls of each tribe’s approach.

The Results Tribe

What philosophers call utilitarian thinking, I refer to as the Results Tribe. The Results Tribe will face a moral problem guided by a simple motto: Right is what produces the best result. This tribe weighs its moral responsibility by weighing future outcomes. It asks which choice will bring about the greatest good for the greatest number. They hold that the good of the many outweighs the good of the few. In sum, if the end results of their decision are ethical, then the decision itself is deemed ethical.

The tribe you lean toward shapes how you make decisions, whether you realize it or not.

The Rules Tribe

What philosophers call duty (deontological) thinking, I refer to as the Rules Tribe. The Rules Tribe is guided by a different motto: Doing wrong is never justified by a good outcome. Some things are right, and they are always right. Some things are wrong, and they are always wrong. While we may hope for a good end result, that is not what determines the rightness of our choice. The Rules Tribe looks at the act itself and decides whether the decision is ethical or unethical based on whether it is right in itself. They are concerned about doing the right thing, in the right way, at the right time, with the right motivation. Their way: though the whole world burns, I will do the right thing.

Critics of the Results Tribe

Critics of the Results Tribe often reduce it to a single phrase: “The ends justify the means.” They push back and ask, who decides what counts as a “good result”? Is it the officer on scene? The supervisor? The victim? The majority? And who defines the common good in the first place?

History shows that when the common good is declared, individuals, and often those not in the majority group, can end up paying for it. What sounds sensible on paper can look very different once you are standing on the street. There is a practical concern, too. We cannot predict the future. We never see the true end result tied to a decision until the decision plays out fully. Acting today based on what we think might happen tomorrow is always, at least in part, a gamble.

“It’s worth the cost now,” someone says, because of what might happen later. So we justify cutting corners for the greater good. We expand the scope of a stop even though we know we don’t have articulable reasonable suspicion and are relying more on our instinct or gut, telling ourselves it might uncover a gun or a warrant or something that stops a future crime. We justify bending a restrictive policy or court precedent we don’t agree with because it might protect residents and lead to the greater good. The question remains: Are we certain enough about that future to justify what we are doing right now?

Critics of the Rules Tribe

Critics of the Rules Tribe raise a different concern. They point out that strict obedience to rules can create its own kind of injustice. Rules applied mechanically can miss the details that matter. Policies built to promote fairness and order can, slowly and quietly, damage trust.

Consider a traffic stop. The department or administration may have a rule that you will always cite a driver who is going 15 miles per hour over the speed limit in a residential zone. The rule is clear. Let’s say you stop a vehicle a few blocks from the hospital emergency room. In the back seat is a grandmother having chest pain. The driver is trying to get her to the ER as fast as possible. You let them continue safely to the ER because the medical situation calls for it. The violation is obvious. The law and the policy are obvious. So is the emergency.

Nevertheless, do you later walk into the emergency room and write the citation because the rule is the rule? A Rules Tribe officer might be tempted to follow policy and write a citation. Or do you use discretion because, in that moment, the outcome matters more? What matters most is the grandmother’s safety, department reputation and human compassion in a difficult situation. The Results Tribe officer would probably be thinking the spirit of the law is more important than the letter of the law, and enforcement is not justified.

You decide: Deception

Consider deception. You are interviewing a suspect in a serious felony case. You know that claiming to have video evidence you do not actually have might push the suspect toward a confession. Can you lie to a suspect about evidence that does not exist?

The Results Tribe might say yes, if it produces a lawful confession and protects the public. The Rules Tribe would likely say no, because lying crosses a moral line. It is wrong to lie, even when the outcome might be useful.

But what would you believe is the prevailing approach? What you think is an indicator of which tribe you belong to.

Finding your tribe

The Results Tribe worries about outcomes. The Rules Tribe worries about integrity and consistent application of the law. And there are moments when those priorities push against each other.

On paper, the divide between the tribes looks simple. In reality, it rarely is. Most officers aren’t pure members of either tribe. It’s more like having dual citizenship. You move between them depending on the context, sometimes leaning toward outcomes and other times toward rules. Still, most of us have a home tribe, the one we fall back on when the pressure rises. Knowing your home tribe matters. It shows you where your blind spots are and why some choices feel instinctive while others take more effort.

Every shift brings decisions. Some are minor. Some are major. And the tribe you lean toward shapes how you make them, whether you realize it or not.

Questions to consider in ethical decision-making

An ethical dilemma is a situation where you’re faced with two or more choices, each of which matters morally, but every option requires you to give up or compromise another value you care about. There’s no path that feels entirely right. Ethical dilemmas are messy. They come with a lot of gray areas.

Over time, I’ve collected a set of questions I ask myself before making these kinds of decisions. When you honestly answer these questions, you might not like every conclusion you reach. However, facing those answers head-on helps you understand the context more clearly and move closer to a decision you can live with.

Lastly, there will be times when, after working through the questions, you decide that not making a decision yet is actually the most ethical choice you can make.

• Which option will produce the most good and the least harm?
• Which option best respects the rights of those involved?
• Which option treats people fairly and proportionately?
• Which option best serves the community as a whole?
• Does this decision violate any law, rule or policy?
• What is that rule or policy meant to accomplish?
• How will this decision look under public scrutiny?
• Is it legal?
• Is it balanced, or does it heavily favor one side disproportionately?
• How will I feel about this decision a year from now?
• If every officer handled it this way, what would the consequences be?
• If my respected colleagues knew what I chose, would I still choose it?
• What would my supervisor expect in this situation?

---

References

Markkula Center for Applied Ethics. (2021, November 8). A framework for ethical decision-making. scu.edu/ethics/ethics-resources/a-framework-for-ethical-decision-making.

Ollhoff, J. (2010). A quick overview of normative ethics: Two main styles we use to make ethical decisions [Lecture notes]. Blackboard.