2.4 Assignment: Ethics and Values

Although moral dilemmas like the trolley problem are useful for scholarly and

heuristic purposes, the scenarios may seem far from our everyday experience. A far

more common yet still challenging

ethical dilemma

involves choosing between two

“rights.” Rushworth Kidder has identified four ethical dilemmas that are so common to

our experience that they serve as mode

ls or paradigms:

30

·

Truth versus loyalty

, such as honestly answering a question when doing so could

compromise a real or implied promise of confidentiality to others.

·

Individual versus community

, such as whether you should protect the confidentiality

of someone’s medical cond

ition when the condition itself may pose a threat to the

larger community.

·

Short term versus long term

, such

as how a parent chooses to balance spending time

with children now as compared with investments in a career that may provide

greater benefits for the family in the long run.

·

Justice versus mercy

, such as deciding whether to excuse a person’s misbehavior

because of extenuating circumstances or a conviction that he or she has “learned a

lesson.”

Kidder offers thr

ee principles for resolving ethical dilemmas such as these: ends

-

based thinking, rule

-

based thinking, and care

-

based thinking.

Ends

-

based thinking

is often characterized as “do what’s best for the greatest number

of people.” Also known as utilitarianism in philosophy, it is premised on the idea that

right and wrong are best determined by considering the conseque

nces or results of an

action. Critics of this view argue that it’s almost impossible to foresee all the

consequences of one’s personal behavior, let alone the consequences of collective

action like policy decisions affecting society more broadly. Even if o

utcomes could be

known, however, there are other problems with this approach. For example, would this

view ethically justify the deaths of dozens of infants in medical research if the result

might save thousands of others?

Rule

-

based thinking

is consistent with Kantian philosophy and can be characterized

colloquially as “following the highest principle or duty.”

This is determined not by any

projection of what the results of an act may be but rather by determining the kinds of

standards everyone should uphold all the time, whatever the situation. In Kant’s words,

“I ought never to act except in such a way that I

can also will that my maxim should

become a universal law.” Lofty as the principle may sound, though, it could

paradoxically

minimize

the role that human judgment plays in ethical decision making

by consigning all acts to a rigid and mindless commitment to

rules absent consideration

of the specific context of a decision (“If I let you do this, then I’d have to let

everyone

do

it”).

Care

-

based thinking

describes what many people think of as the Golden Rule of

conduct common in some form to many of the world’s religions: “Do what you want

others to do to you.” In essence, this approach applies the criterion of reve

rsibility in

Although moral dilemmas like the trolley problem are useful for scholarly and

heuristic purposes, the scenarios may seem far from our everyday experience. A far

more common yet still challenging ethical dilemma involves choosing between two

“rights.” Rushworth Kidder has identified four ethical dilemmas that are so common to

our experience that they serve as models or paradigms:

30

 Truth versus loyalty, such as honestly answering a question when doing so could

compromise a real or implied promise of confidentiality to others.

 Individual versus community, such as whether you should protect the confidentiality

of someone’s medical condition when the condition itself may pose a threat to the

larger community.

 Short term versus long term, such as how a parent chooses to balance spending time

with children now as compared with investments in a career that may provide

greater benefits for the family in the long run.

 Justice versus mercy, such as deciding whether to excuse a person’s misbehavior

because of extenuating circumstances or a conviction that he or she has “learned a

lesson.”

Kidder offers three principles for resolving ethical dilemmas such as these: ends-

based thinking, rule-based thinking, and care-based thinking.

Ends-based thinking is often characterized as “do what’s best for the greatest number

of people.” Also known as utilitarianism in philosophy, it is premised on the idea that

right and wrong are best determined by considering the consequences or results of an

action. Critics of this view argue that it’s almost impossible to foresee all the

consequences of one’s personal behavior, let alone the consequences of collective

action like policy decisions affecting society more broadly. Even if outcomes could be

known, however, there are other problems with this approach. For example, would this

view ethically justify the deaths of dozens of infants in medical research if the result

might save thousands of others?

Rule-based thinking is consistent with Kantian philosophy and can be characterized

colloquially as “following the highest principle or duty.” This is determined not by any

projection of what the results of an act may be but rather by determining the kinds of

standards everyone should uphold all the time, whatever the situation. In Kant’s words,

“I ought never to act except in such a way that I can also will that my maxim should

become a universal law.” Lofty as the principle may sound, though, it could

paradoxically minimize the role that human judgment plays in ethical decision making

by consigning all acts to a rigid and mindless commitment to rules absent consideration

of the specific context of a decision (“If I let you do this, then I’d have to let everyone do

it”).

Care-based thinking describes what many people think of as the Golden Rule of

conduct common in some form to many of the world’s religions: “Do what you want

others to do to you.” In essence, this approach applies the criterion of reversibility in