Reference no: EM132217745
Ethicist Rushworth Kidder suggested that nine steps or checkpoints can help bring order to otherwise confusing ethical issues. What do you think of his system? Would this work for you? Why or why not?
1. Recognize that there is a problem.This step is critically important because it forces us to acknowledge that there is an issue that deserves our attention and helps us separate moral questions from disagreements about manners and social conventions. For example, being late for a party may be bad manners and violate cultural expectations. However, this act does not translate into a moral problem involving right or wrong. On the other hand, deciding whether to accept a kickback from a supplier is an ethical dilemma.
2. Determine the actor. Once we’ve determined that there is an ethical issue, we then need to decide who is responsible for addressing the problem. I may be concerned that the owner of a local business treats his employees poorly. Nonetheless, unless I work for the company or buy its products, there is little I can do to address this situation.
3. Gather the relevant facts. Adequate, accurate, and current information is important for making effective decisions of all kinds, including ethical ones. Details do make a difference. In deciding whether it is just to suspend a student for fighting, for instance, a school principal will want to hear from teachers, classmates, and the offender to determine the seriousness of the offense, the student’s reason for fighting, and the outcome of the altercation. The administrator will probably be more lenient if this is the offender’s first offense and he was defending himself.
4. Test for right-versus-wrong issues.A choice is generally a poor one if it gives you a negative, gut-level reaction (the stench test); would make you uncomfortable if it appeared on the front page of tomorrow’s newspaper (the front-page test); or would violate the moral code of someone that you care a lot about (the Mom test). If your decision violates any of these criteria, you had better reconsider.
5. Test for right-versus-right values.Many ethical dilemmas pit two core values against each other. Determine whether two good or right values are in conflict with one another in this situation. Right-versus-right value clashes include the following: Truth telling versus loyalty to others and institutions. Telling the truth may threaten our allegiance to another person or to an organization, such as when leaders and followers are faced with the decision of whether or not to blow the whistle on organizational misbehavior. Kidder believes that truth versus loyalty is the most common type of conflict involving two deeply held values. Personal needs versus the needs of the community. Our desire to serve our immediate group or ourselves can run counter to the needs of the larger group or community. Short-term benefits versus long-term negative consequences. Sometimes satisfying the immediate needs of the group (giving a hefty pay raise to employees, for example) can lead to long-term negative consequences (endangering the future of the business). Justice versus mercy. Being fair and even-handed may conflict with our desire to show love and compassion.
6. Apply the ethical standards and perspectives. Apply the ethical principle that is most relevant and useful to this specific issue. Is it justice as fairness? Utilitarianism? Kant’s categorical imperative? Altruism? A combination of perspectives?
7. Look for a third way.Sometimes seemingly irreconcilable values can be resolved through compromise or the development of a creative solution. Negotiators often seek a third way to bring competing factions together (see Chapter 7). Such was the case in the deliberations that produced the Camp David peace accord. Egypt demanded that Israel return land on the West Bank seized in the 1967 War. Israel resisted because it wanted a buffer zone to protect its security. The dispute was settled when Egypt pledged that it would not attack Israel again. Assured of safety, the Israelis agreed to return the territory to Egypt. 32
8. Make the decision.At some point, we need to step up and make the decision. This seems a given (after all, the point of the whole process is to reach a conclusion). However, we may be mentally exhausted from wrestling with the problem, get caught up in the act of analysis, or lack the necessary courage to come to a decision. In Kidder’s words, At this point in the process, there’s little to do but decide. That requires moral courage— an attribute essential to leadership and one that, along with reason, distinguishes humanity most sharply from the animal world. Little wonder, then, that the exercise of ethical decision-making is often seen as the highest fulfillment of the human condition.
9. Revisit and reflect on the decision. Learn from your choices. Once you’ve moved on to other issues, stop and reflect. What lessons emerged from this case that you little to do but decide. That requires moral courage— an attribute essential to leadership and one that, along with reason, distinguishes humanity most sharply from the animal world. Little wonder, then, that the exercise of ethical decision-making is often seen as the highest fulfillment of the human condition.