Professional ethics is about what an individual member of a profession ought to do and about what rules and procedures the organizations that increasingly house members of the professions ought to have. But professional ethics is also about what the character of members of a profession ought to be.

Many of the moral principles governing the actions of individual persons seem to be universal; they apply to individuals at all times, both in private and in public. For example, the moral principle prohibiting murder is universal. However, some moral principles governing action seem to apply to some professions but not others. For example, while to deceive others is in general morally wrong, it is necessary for some professionals, such as undercover police operatives. They must engage in deception and do so as a matter of routine.

The same point seems to hold for virtues and vices, and therefore for moral character. A highly developed disposition to be suspicious concerning the motives and actions of others might be a virtue for a police officer, but it is surely a vice for a husband or wife.

Professional Character v. Private Character
Arguably, professions are defined in terms of the basic purposes that they ought to serve, as well as by their constitutive activities. The different purposes and activities of different professions generate differences in required moral character. It is because the police must track down and arrest criminals that police officers need to have a disposition to be suspicious, a high degree of physical courage, and so on.

In undertaking a particular profession, individuals accept professional obligations. Some of these obligations are also moral obligations. The moral obligations are different from and additional to the moral obligations the professionals had before entering the profession. For example, if a police officer fails to intervene in an attempted burglary, she has not only failed to do what her profession requires, she has also failed to do what morality now requires of her. So, it seems, in undertaking a particular profession, an individual is obliged to possess or develop a specific moral character in order to be able to discharge the profession's distinctive moral obligations.

At least two things seem to follow from this account of the moral character of a member of a profession, or at least of the moral chracter of police officers. First, the fact that a police officer is deficient in some trait of character that is highly morally desirable in members of some other profession, or in some specific private role, would not necessarily count against the officer qua police officer. Compare, for example, a police officer who is sexually promiscuous (on his own time) with a sexually promiscuous husband or catholic priest (neither of whomever is "off").

Second, that a police officer was deficient in some trait of character might well count against that officer, even though the trait in question is not necessary for, or highly desirable in, members of most other professions, or in most private roles. Consider physical courage. This is necessary for police officers, but not for academics, accountants, or most of the rest of us. Indeed, some trait of character might even be a virtue in a police officer, but a vice in members of most other professions-- and even in most private roles. Suspiciousness might be such a trait. The same constant looking about for wrongdoing that makes a good detective might make him a very bad husband.

The Importance of Character
There is a further point about moral character that might follow from the nature and purposes of policing.

This concerns moral character conceived in general terms, as opposed to specific character traits. Perhaps the minimum standards of integrity, honesty, courage, and so on demanded of police officers, ought to be higher than for many, even most, other professions. After all, police have extraordinary powers not given to others, including the power (briefly) to take away the liberty of their fellow citizens. Yet police are subject to moral temptations to an extent not typically found in other professions. Consider detectives working in drug-law enforcement: they are exposed to drug dealers prepared to offer large bribes just to have an officer do nothing. The conjunction of extraordinary powers and moral vulnerability justifies higher minimum standards of moral character for police than for members of many other professions.

The importance of Public Perception
We have so far been speaking in terms of deficiencies of character that might in a general sense count against a police officer. But now we need to be more precise about the implications of a deficiency in character. On one view, deficiencies in character per se--as distinct from actual misbehavior (failing to do what is right)--ought to have no implications. Character is relevant only insofar as it translates into identifiable misbehavior.

This view has some plausibility in relation to traits of character that are not central to the police role. Suppose an officer is mean spirited or jealous of the achievements of others. This might make her difficult to work with, but in a world consisting of persons less than perfect, the officer in question would have to be tolerated. But now consider a police officer who is a coward, fearful of danger to the point where he could well put the lives of fellow officers and citizens at risk. On the view in question, so long as the officer did not break the law or violate police regulations, there would be no grounds for dismissal or other serious disciplinary action. Perhaps so. But at the very least, once identified, such an officer should be given a 'desk job' or counselled to leave policing for another sort of work.

Now consider a police officer who is an avowed racist. Should she be dismissed? Obviously, if such an officer's attitudes are translating into blatant disrespect for the rights of members of a particular race, or into violation of law or regulation, then the officer should be dismissed. But assume that the officer is careful to respect rights, and does not in fact violate any law or regulation, not even those detailing how to apply the law impartially.

Nevertheless, I think there is a problem. Given the nature of policing in a racially mixed community, I believe that being an avowed racist must have some implications for how the police department ought to treat the officer. For example, the quality of service provided to (say) the members of the black community by an avowed white supremacist would presumably--other things being equak-be less than that provided by non-racist police. A racist police officer might, for example, be less assiduous in her pursuit of complaints made by members of a black community.

Moreover, the presumption that an officer applied the law in an objective and impartial manner would be put under severe strain if it were learned that the officer was a member of a white supremacist organization. The black community's belief, albeit false, that an officer known to be a white supremacist was violating, or just misusing, laws or regulations might create considerable distrust between the community and the police. Racist attitudes--as distinct from racially motivated conduct--must have some implications for police policy. At the very least, the presence of racist attitudes ought to be a criterion for assessing the suitability of applicants to join the police in a racially mixed community.