Ethical Issues and Ethical Dilemmas Ethical thinking is crucial in a variety of spheres of human activity, and this array includes criminal justice. Pollock (2017) states that ethical discussions in this area exist within the framework of two notions: issues and dilemmas. The first category is defined as “Difficult social or policy questions that include the controversy over the “right” thing to do” (Pollock, 2017, p. 2). In other words, ethical issues comprise a broad range of acute issues that are discussed in the context of governmental control and impact on the citizens. According to Pollock (2017), the list of topics is large and comprises such matters as marijuana legalization, the use of private prisons, and capital punishment. It is important to note that an average citizen has little or no control over ethical issues, as they exist on a greater scale. At the same time, they are directly affected by such matters, and it is the responsibility of policymakers to evaluate the impact and provide effective solutions. On the other hand, ethical dilemmas form a related yet different concept. Unlike the first category, they exist on the scale of a particular situation that can be encountered by any person (Pollock, 2017). Pollock (2017) defines ethical dilemmas as “Situations in which it is difficult for an individual to decide, either because the right course of action is not clear or carries some negative consequences” (p. 2). For example, a defense attorney may face a dilemma regarding a murder case, in which the client’s guilt seems obvious. In this scenario, there is a conflict between one’s obligation to do their job and universal ethical dogmas. Overall, the primary difference between ethical issues and dilemmas lies in their scale. While the former concept concerns society in general and high-end policymakers, the latter is faced by many people in their line of duty. The Controversy between Relativism and Universalism Ethical issues and dilemmas can be resolved through an effective application of particular decision-making paradigms. However, there are several independent approaches to this matter, and it may be difficult to discern the correct one. Cultural relativism dictates that “values and behaviors differ from culture to culture and are functional in the culture that holds them” (Pollock, 2017, p. 44). Therefore, dogmas adopted by one community may contradict the views of other cultures. If hunting is the primary means of survival of a particular society, the euthanasia of the elderly and the sick can be deemed acceptable. At the same time, communities that exist in another environment may stand strongly against it. The purpose of cultural relativism is to recognize objective differences between cultures. Nevertheless, this approach is heavily criticized due to its inconsistency. Absolutists argue that some cultures normalize despicable behavior, such as cannibalism and child molestation. At the same time, relativist proponents claim that this paradigm encourages tolerance and acceptance of others’ views. Universalists argue that the removal of global principles of morale will lead to a surge of egoism and multiple conflicts. Pollock (2017) points out a logical inconsistency regarding the influence of cultures on one another. Relativism dictates that other parties should not interfere with the internal cultural processes of other societies due to varying perception