Module 1: Ethical Leader -- An Internal Look

A Framework for Thinking Ethically

This document is designed as an introduction to thinking ethically. We all have an image of our better selves-of

how we are when we act ethically or are "at our best." We probably also have an image of what an ethical

community, an ethical business, an ethical government, or an ethical society should be. Ethics really has to do

with all these levels-acting ethically as individuals, creating ethical organizations and governments, and making

our society as a whole ethical in the way it treats everyone.

What is Ethics?

Simply stated, ethics refers to standards of behavior that tell us how human beings ought to act in the many

situations in which they find themselves-as friends, parents, children, citizens, businesspeople, teachers,

professionals, and so on.

It is helpful to identify what ethics is NOT:

 Ethics is not the same as feelings. Feelings provide important information for our ethical choices.

Some people have highly developed habits that make them feel bad when they do something wrong, but

many people feel good even though they are doing something wrong. And often our feelings will tell us

it is uncomfortable to do the right thing if it is hard.

 Ethics is not religion. Many people are not religious, but ethics applies to everyone. Most religions do

advocate high ethical standards but sometimes do not address all the types of problems we face.

 Ethics is not following the law. A good system of law does incorporate many ethical standards, but law

can deviate from what is ethical. Law can become ethically corrupt, as some totalitarian regimes have

made it. Law can be a function of power alone and designed to serve the interests of narrow groups. Law

may have a difficult time designing or enforcing standards in some important areas, and may be slow to

address new problems.

 Ethics is not following culturally accepted norms. Some cultures are quite ethical, but others become

corrupt -or blind to certain ethical concerns (as the United States was to slavery before the Civil War).

"When in Rome, do as the Romans do" is not a satisfactory ethical standard.

 Ethics is not science. Social and natural science can provide important data to help us make better

ethical choices. But science alone does not tell us what we ought to do. Science may provide an

explanation for what humans are like. But ethics provides reasons for how humans ought to act. And just

because something is scientifically or technologically possible, it may not be ethical to do it.

Why Identifying Ethical Standards is Hard

There are two fundamental problems in identifying the ethical standards we are to follow:

1. On what do we base our ethical standards?

2. How do those standards get applied to specific situations we face?

If our ethics are not based on feelings, religion, law, accepted social practice, or science, what are they based

on? Many philosophers and ethicists have helped us answer this critical question. They have suggested at least

five different sources of ethical standards we should use.

Five Sources of Ethical Standards

The Utilitarian Approach Some ethicists emphasize that the ethical action is the one that provides the most good or does the least harm,

or, to put it another way, produces the greatest balance of good over harm. The ethical corporate action, then, is

the one that produces the greatest good and does the least harm for all who are affected-customers, employees,

shareholders, the community, and the environment. Ethical warfare balances the good achieved in ending

terrorism with the harm done to all parties through death, injuries, and destruction. The utilitarian approach

deals with consequences; it tries both to increase the good done and to reduce the harm done.

The Rights Approach Other philosophers and ethicists suggest that the ethical action is the one that best protects and respects the

moral rights of those affected. This approach starts from the belief that humans have a dignity based on their

human nature per se or on their ability to choose freely what they do with their lives. On the basis of such

dignity, they have a right to be treated as ends and not merely as means to other ends. The list of moral rights -

including the rights to make one's own choices about what kind of life to lead, to be told the truth, not to be

injured, to a degree of privacy, and so on-is widely debated; some now argue that non-humans have rights, too.

Also, it is often said that rights imply duties-in particular, the duty to respect others' rights.

The Fairness or Justice Approach Aristotle and other Greek philosophers have contributed the idea that all equals should be treated equally.

Today we use this idea to say that ethical actions treat all human beings equally-or if unequally, then fairly

based on some standard that is defensible. We pay people more based on their harder work or the greater

amount that they contribute to an organization, and say that is fair. But there is a debate over CEO salaries that

are hundreds of times larger than the pay of others; many ask whether the huge disparity is based on a

defensible standard or whether it is the result of an imbalance of power and hence is unfair.

The Virtue Approach A very ancient approach to ethics is that ethical actions ought to be consistent with certain ideal virtues that

provide for the full development of our humanity. These virtues are dispositions and habits that enable us to act

according to the highest potential of our character and on behalf of values like truth and beauty. Honesty,

courage, compassion, generosity, tolerance, love, fidelity, integrity, fairness, self-control, and prudence are all

examples of virtues. Virtue ethics asks of any action, "What kind of person will I become if I do this?" or "Is

this action consistent with my acting at my best?"

Added by Dr. Clark: Relativist Approach and Integrative Social Contracts Theory

Whether an action is the ethical or right action to take depends on the situation taking in the viewpoints/cultural

norms of the people and situation. Often the consensus of the group as to the right or wrong action is deemed

the right action.

Relativist Approach shares some similarities to Integrative Social Contracts Theory which also considers the

NORMS of a group of people. The difference is that there are universal norms (hypernorms) about moral

behavior that can trump the cultural norms of a group of people.

Putting the Approaches Together

Each of the approaches helps us determine what standards of behavior can be considered ethical. There are still

problems to be solved, however.

The first problem is that we may not agree on the content of some of these specific approaches. We may not all

agree to the same set of human and civil rights.

We may not agree on what constitutes the common good. We may not even agree on what is a good and what is

a harm.

The second problem is that the different approaches may not all answer the question "What is ethical?" in the

same way. Nonetheless, each approach gives us important information with which to determine what is ethical

in a particular circumstance. And much more often than not, the different approaches do lead to similar answers.

Making Decisions

Making good ethical decisions requires a trained sensitivity to ethical issues and a practiced method for

exploring the ethical aspects of a decision and weighing the considerations that should impact our choice of a

course of action. Having a method for ethical decision making is absolutely essential. When practiced regularly,

the method becomes so familiar that we work through it automatically without consulting the specific steps.

The more novel and difficult the ethical choice we face, the more we need to rely on discussion and dialogue

with others about the dilemma. Only by careful exploration of the problem, aided by the insights and different

perspectives of others, can we make good ethical choices in such situations.

We have found the following framework for ethical decision making a useful method for exploring ethical

dilemmas and identifying ethical courses of action.

A Framework for Ethical Decision Making

Recognize an Ethical Issue

1. Could this decision or situation be damaging to someone or to some group? Does this decision involve a choice between a good and bad alternative, or perhaps between two "goods" or between two "bads"?

2. Is this issue about more than what is legal or what is most efficient? If so, how?

Get the Facts

3. What are the relevant facts of the case? What facts are not known? Can I learn more about the situation? Do I know enough to make a decision?

4. What individuals and groups have an important stake in the outcome? Are some concerns more important? Why?

5. What are the options for acting? Have all the relevant persons and groups been consulted? Have I identified creative options?

Evaluate Alternative Actions

6. Evaluate the options by asking the following questions:

 Which option will produce the most good and do the least harm? (The Utilitarian Approach)

 Which option best respects the rights of all who have a stake? (The Rights Approach)

 Which option treats people equally or proportionately? (The Justice Approach)

 Which option best serves the community

as a whole, not just some members?

(The Common Good Approach)

 Which option leads me to act as the sort of person I want to be? (The Virtue Approach)

Make a Decision and Test It

7. Considering all these approaches, which option best addresses the situation? 8. If I told someone I respect-or told a television audience-which option I have chosen, what would they

say?

Act and Reflect on the Outcome

9. How can my decision be implemented with the greatest care and attention to the concerns of all stakeholders?

10. How did my decision turn out and what have I learned from this specific situation?

This framework for thinking ethically is the product of dialogue and debate at the Markkula Center for Applied

Ethics at Santa Clara University. Primary contributors include Manuel Velasquez, Dennis Moberg, Michael J.

Meyer, Thomas Shanks, Margaret R. McLean, David DeCosse, Claire André, and Kirk O. Hanson. It was last

revised in May 2009.