Critical thinking
deepsailor
EthicalDecision-MakingandReasoningEthicalReasoningandAnalysis.pdf
6/8/21, 9:42 PMEthical Decision-Making and Reasoning: Ethical Reasoning and Analysis
Page 1 of 23https://leocontent.umgc.edu/content/umuc/tgs/pro/pro600/2212/learni…ion-making-and-reasoning--ethical-reasoning-and-ana.html?ou=584686
Ethical Decision-Making and Reasoning: Ethical Reasoning and Analysis
Ethical Reasoning and Analysis
This resource deals with the following ques!ons about ethical reasoning:
1. What is meant by ethics?
2. What is not ethics?
3. What does it mean to be ethical?
4. Do ethical and moral mean the same thing?
5. What are values?
6. What are some examples of ethical issues?
7. How can I effec!vely apply cri!cal reasoning to an ethical issue?
8. When I debate ethical issues, what is my responsibility to people who are part of the dialogue?
9. What are ethical judgments?
10. How can I dis!nguish ethical judgments from other kinds of value judgments?
11. What are ethical arguments?
12. What is an ethical dilemma?
13. What is the role of values in ethical dilemmas?
14. What ethical dilemmas are more common in real life?
15. What is an ethical viola!on?
16. How does self-interest affect people's ethical choices?
17. What is the difference between good ethical reasoning and mere ra!onaliza!on?
18. What kinds of ra!onaliza!ons do people make for their ac!ons?*
19. What fallacies are most prevalent in debates over ethical issues?
20. How can I tell what is the "right" thing to do?
21. What is moral rela!vism?
22. What is the main weakness of moral rela!vism?
23. What is universalism?
24. What is consequen!alism?
Learning Resource
6/8/21, 9:42 PMEthical Decision-Making and Reasoning: Ethical Reasoning and Analysis
Page 2 of 23https://leocontent.umgc.edu/content/umuc/tgs/pro/pro600/2212/learni…ion-making-and-reasoning--ethical-reasoning-and-ana.html?ou=584686
25. What is u!litarianism?
26. How does u!litarian reasoning operate?
27. How has u!litarian reasoning been applied?
28. What is the main weakness of u!litarianism?
29. How do I apply u!litarianism in real life?
30. What is deontology?
31. What is duty-based ethics?
32. What is rights-based ethics?
33. What is the appeal of deontology?
34. What is the main weakness of duty and rights-based ethics?
35. How can I apply deontology in real life?
36. What is virtue ethics?
37. What is care ethics?
38. How does virtue ethics operate?
39. What kinds of ques!ons are asked by virtue ethics?
40. How has virtue ethics been applied in the real world?
41. What is the main weakness of virtue ethics?
42. How can I apply virtue ethics in real life?
43. How do these theories fit into my ethics toolbox?
44. How do I use ethical reasoning to make decisions?
45. How do I recognize an ethical situa!on?
46. How do I iden!fy stakeholders?
47. How do I iden!fy the different perspec!ves and posi!ons held by stakeholders?
48. How can I research stakeholder posi!ons?
49. How do I iden!fy the ethical actor?
50. How can I use cri!cal thinking in this process?
51. What are criteria?
52. How do I iden!fy possible ac!ons?
53. How do I evaluate the possible op!ons?
54. How can mapping or diagramming help me to examine the consequences of decisions or posi!ons with
ethical consequences?
55. What else should I consider before ac!ng?
56. Am I done a#er ac!ng?
57. Do people really do all this when making ethical decisions?
1. What is meant by ethics?
6/8/21, 9:42 PMEthical Decision-Making and Reasoning: Ethical Reasoning and Analysis
Page 3 of 23https://leocontent.umgc.edu/content/umuc/tgs/pro/pro600/2212/learni…ion-making-and-reasoning--ethical-reasoning-and-ana.html?ou=584686
Ethics is the study of the standards of right and wrong that inform us as to how we ought to behave. These
standards relate to unwri$en rules that are necessary for humans to live amongst each other, such as "don't
hurt others." We func!on be$er as a society when we treat each other well.
Ethics can also refer to the standards themselves. They o#en pertain to rights, obliga!ons, fairness,
responsibili!es, and specific virtues like honesty and loyalty.
They are supported by consistent and well-founded reasons; as such, they have universal appeal. It's never
good to have a society that supports hur!ng others as a general rule; honesty and loyalty are posi!ve
a$ributes.
Can we think of instances when hur!ng others is condoned (such as in war) and where honesty or loyalty
may be misplaced? Of course! That's one of the reasons why ethics are so complicated.
2. What is not ethics?
We need to dis!nguish ethics from what it is not. It's easier if you can remember that ethics doesn't change:
Ethics is not what's legal. The law o#en puts into wri!ng our ethical standards (don't hurt others=don't
commit homicide) but it also usually reflects our cultural beliefs at the !me. For example, hun!ng is
legal in Virginia, but it would be difficult to say that everyone agrees that it is ethical to hunt. Some
people will argue that hun!ng is ethical because it manages the wildlife popula!on, while others will
argue that it is never ethical because it creates pain and suffering.
Ethics is not what you feel. In fact, most !mes our feelings are very egocentric: what's best for me and
my nearest and dearest? But making judgments based on these sen!ments could be detrimental to
society as a whole,
Ethics is not religion. Religions may teach ethical standards, and you may personally use religion to
guide your beliefs, but people can have ethics without necessarily belonging to a religion. Therefore,
ethics and religion are not interchangeable.
Ethics is not a poli!cal ideology. A poli!cal party may share your values and offer ethical arguments to
supports its policies, but your decisions aren't automa!cally ethical, just because you belong to one
poli!cal party or another. In fact, many, if not most, poli!cal debates are built from arguments that
claim one aspect of an ethical dilemma is more significant than another.
3. What does it mean to be ethical?
When we explore what it means to be ethical, we are looking at what is ra!onally "right" and "wrong." We
need to have such conversa!ons so that we can live with other people in society. Philosophers would also
argue that the best way to achieve our fullest poten!al is by being ethical.
In this course, we are not teaching you what to believe. We are building on the skills you have learned to
iden!fy, evaluate, create and analyze ethical arguments.
4. Do ethical and moral mean the same thing?
For the purposes of this handbook, the answer is yes. The terms ethical and moral are o#en used as
synonyms, and we will adopt this conven!on and use these terms interchangeably. For most purposes this
works fine, but some authors and teachers do see a dis!nc!on between these ideas. Usually when the
terms are dis!nguished it is because morals can connote very culture-specificnormsor expecta!ons. Hence
"the mores of the Azande" describes the moral norms of that par!cular tribe or culture, but without
expecta!on that these norms are universally valid. When ethics is contrasted with morals, the writer is
6/8/21, 9:42 PMEthical Decision-Making and Reasoning: Ethical Reasoning and Analysis
Page 4 of 23https://leocontent.umgc.edu/content/umuc/tgs/pro/pro600/2212/learni…ion-making-and-reasoning--ethical-reasoning-and-ana.html?ou=584686
usually discussing certain norma!ve ethical theories that maintain that certain principles, rules, or virtues
have universal ethical validity. A slightly more comprehensive answer would describe the difference; say
from an ethical rela!vist posi!ons defini!on, as hinging on ethical standards being subjected to the scru!ny
of reason or ra!onality as its fundamental method.
5. What are values?
Frequently when used in discussions of ethics the termvaluesis used to refer to the fundamental ideals that
an individual relies on to describe praise-worthy behavior. A person's values are the bedrock concepts used
to determine their ethical decisions. Most generally speaking values represent aspira!onal goals common
within your culture or society. Values such as honesty, benevolence, wisdom, duty, or compassion are
universally recognized laudable and desirable features of a well-developed character. But which values are
most important may differ from individual to individual, or across cultures. We could refer to the values of
the feudal Japanese samurai culture placing the highest emphasis on the concept of personal honor. We
could compare and contrast that with the European knightly virtues as a similar yet dis!nc!vely different set
of cultural values. We could draw on poli!cal beliefs to describe the concepts of equality and freedom at the
heart of democra!c ideals, contras!ng them with a cons!tu!onal monarchy that perhaps places the highest
importance on duty and tradi!on as its central poli!cal ideals
6. What are some examples of ethical issues?
Ethical issues abound in contemporary society. Ethical issues involve ques!ons of the ethical rightness or
wrongness of public policy or personal behavior. Ac!ons or policies that affect other people always have an
ethical dimension, but while some people restrict ethical issues to ac!ons that can help or harm others
(social ethics) others include personal and self-regarding conduct (personal ethics).
Many of today's most pressing issues of social ethics are complex and mul!faceted and require clear and
careful thought. Some of these issues include the following:
Should states allow physician-assisted suicide?
Is the death penalty an ethically acceptable type of punishment?
Should animals have rights?
Is society ever jus!fied in regula!ng so-called vic!mless crimes like drug use, not wearing a helmet or a
seatbelt, etc.?
What are our responsibili!es to future genera!ons?
Are affluent individuals and countries obligated to try to prevent starva!on, malnutri!on, and poverty
wherever we find them in the world?
Is there such a thing as a just war?
How does business ethics relate to corporate responsibility?
To reach careful conclusions, these public policy issues require people to engage in complicated ethical
reasoning, but the ethical reasoning involving personal issues can be just as complex and mul!faceted:
What principles do I apply to the way I treat other people?
What guides my own choices and my own goals in life?
Should I have the same expecta!ons of others in terms of their behavior and choices as I have of
myself?
6/8/21, 9:42 PMEthical Decision-Making and Reasoning: Ethical Reasoning and Analysis
Page 5 of 23https://leocontent.umgc.edu/content/umuc/tgs/pro/pro600/2212/learni…ion-making-and-reasoning--ethical-reasoning-and-ana.html?ou=584686
Is living ethically compa!ble or incompa!ble with what I call living well or happily?
7. How can I effec!vely apply cri!cal reasoning to an ethical issue?
People care quite a bit about ethical issues and o#en voice varied and even sharply opposed perspec!ves.
So when looking at how we debate ethical issues publicly, it is not surprising to find debate ranging from
formal to informal argumenta!on, and from very carefully constructed arguments with well-qualified
conclusions, to very biased posi!ons and quite fallacious forms of persuasion. It's easy to be dismayed by
the discord we find over vola!le issues like gun control, immigra!on policy, equality in marriage or in the
workplace, gender and racial equality, abor!on and birth control, freedom versus security, free speech and
censorship, and so on. But it is also easy to go the other direc!on and be drawn into the o#en fallacious
reasoning we hear all around us.
Cri!cal thinkers want to conduct civil, respec'ul discourse, and to build bridges in ways that allow progress
to be made on difficult issues of common concern. Progress and mutual understanding is not possible when
name-calling, inflammatory language, and fallacies are the norm. Some mutual respect, together with the
skill of being able to offer a clearly-structured argument for one's posi!on, undercuts the need to resort to
such tac!cs. So cri!cal thinkers resist trading fallacy for fallacy, and try to introduce common ground that
can help resolve disputes by remaining respec'ul of differences, even about issues personally quite
important to them. When we support a thesis (such as a posi!on on one of the above ethical issues) with a
clear and well-structured argument, we allow and invite others to engage with us in more construc!ve
fashion. We say essen!ally, "Here is my thesis and here are my reasons for holding it. If you don't agree with
my claim, then show me what is wrong with my argument, and I will reconsider my view, as any ra!onal
person should."
8. When I debate ethical issues, what is my responsibility to people who are part of the dialogue?
When we evaluate (analyze) somebody else's posi!on on an ethical issue, we are not free to simply reject
out-of-hand a conclusion we don't ini!ally agree with. To be reasonable, we must accept the burden of
showing where the other person errs in facts or reasoning. If we cannot show that there are errors in the
person's facts or reasoning, to be reasonable we must reconsider whether we should reject the other
person's conclusion.
By applying the common standards of cri!cal thinking to our reasoning about ethical issues, our arguments
will become less emo!onally driven and more ra!onal. Our reasoning will become less dependent upon
unques!oned beliefs or assump!ons that the other people in the conversa!on may not accept. We become
be$er able to contribute to progressive public debate and conflict resolu!on through a well-developed
ability to ar!culate a well-reasoned posi!on on an ethical issue.
9. What are ethical judgments?
Ethical judgments are a subclass of value judgments. A value judgment involves an argument as to what is
correct, superior, or preferable. In the case of ethics, the value judgment involves making a judgment, claim,
or statement about whether an ac!on is morally right or wrong or whether a person's mo!ves are morally
good or bad. Ethical judgments o#en prescribe as well as evaluate ac!ons, so that to state that someone (or
perhaps everyone) ethically "should" or "ought to" do something is also to make an ethical judgment.
10. How can I dis!nguish ethical judgments from other kinds of value judgments?
6/8/21, 9:42 PMEthical Decision-Making and Reasoning: Ethical Reasoning and Analysis
Page 6 of 23https://leocontent.umgc.edu/content/umuc/tgs/pro/pro600/2212/learni…ion-making-and-reasoning--ethical-reasoning-and-ana.html?ou=584686
If ethical judgments are a subclass of value judgments, how do we dis!nguish them? Ethical judgments
typically state that some ac!on is good or bad, or right or wrong,in a specifically ethical sense. It is usually
not difficult to dis!nguish nonethical judgments of goodness and badness from ethical ones. When
someone says "That was a good ac!on because it was caring," or "That was bad ac!on because it was cruel,"
they are clearly intending goodness or badness in a dis!nctly ethical sense.
By contrast, nonmoral value judgments typically say that something is good (or bad) simply for the kind of
thing it is, or we say that some ac!on is right or wrong given the prac!cal goal or purpose that one has in
mind. "That's a good car" or "That's a bad bike" would not be considered to moral judgments about those
objects. Goodness and badness here are s!ll value judgments, but value judgments that likely track features
like comfort, styling, reliability, safety and mileage ra!ngs, etc.
The use of "should" or" ought to" for nonmoral value judgments is also easy to recognize. "You ought to
enroll early" or "You made the right decision to go to Radford" are value judgments, but no one would say
they are ethical judgments. They reflect a concern with wholly prac!cal aims rather than ethical ones and
with the best way to a$ain those prac!cal aims.
11. What are ethical arguments?
Ethical arguments are arguments whose conclusion makes an ethical judgment. Ethical arguments are most
typically arguments that try to show a certain policy or behavior to be either ethical or unethical. Suppose
you want to argue that "The death penalty is unjust (or just) punishment" for a certain range of violent
crimes. Here we have an ethical judgment, and one that with a bit more detail could serve as the thesis of a
posi!on paper on the death penalty debate.
An ethical judgment rises above mere opinion and becomes the conclusion of an ethical argument when you
support it with ethical reasoning. You must say why you hold the death penalty to be ethically right or
wrong, just or unjust. For instance, you might argue that it is unjust because of one or more of the following
reasons:
It is cruel, and cruel ac!ons are wrong.
Two wrongs don't make a right.
It disrespects human life.
In some states the penalty falls unevenly on members of a racial group.
The penalty some!mes results in the execu!on of innocent people.
Of course, you could also give reasons to support the view that the death penalty is a just punishment for
certain crimes. The point is that whichever side of the debate you take, your ethical argument should
develop ethical reasons and principles rather than economic or other prac!cal but nonmoral concerns. To
argue merely that the death penalty be abolished because that would save us all money is a possible policy
posi!on, but it is essen!ally an economic argument rather than an ethical argument.
12. What is an ethical dilemma?
An ethical dilemma is a term for a situa!on in which a person faces an ethically problema!c situa!on and is
not sure of what she ought to do. Those who experience ethical dilemmas feel themselves being pulled
by compe!ng ethical demands or values and perhaps feel that they will be blameworthy or experience guilt
no ma$er what course of ac!on they take. The philosopher Jean-Paul Sartre gives the example of a young
6/8/21, 9:42 PMEthical Decision-Making and Reasoning: Ethical Reasoning and Analysis
Page 7 of 23https://leocontent.umgc.edu/content/umuc/tgs/pro/pro600/2212/learni…ion-making-and-reasoning--ethical-reasoning-and-ana.html?ou=584686
Frenchman of military age during the war!me Nazi occupa!on who finds himself faced, through no fault of
his own, with the choice of staying home and caring for his ailing mother or going off to join the resistance
to fight for his country's future:
He fully realized that this woman lived only for him and that his disappearance—or perhaps his death—
would plunge her into despair... Consequently, he found himself confronted by two very different
modes of ac!on; the one concrete, immediate, but directed towards only one individual; and the other
an ac!on addressed to an end infinitely greater, a na!onal collec!vity, but for that very reason
ambiguous—and it might be frustrated on the way (Sartre, 1946).
13. What is the role of values in ethical dilemmas?
Frequently, ethical dilemmas are fundamentally a clash of values. We may experience a sense of frustra!on
trying to figure out what the "right" thing to do is because any available course of ac!on violates some value
that we are dedicated to. For example, let's say you are taking a class with a good friend and si(ng next to
him one day during a quiz you discover him copying answers from a third student. Now you are forced into
an ethical decision embodied by two important values common to your society. Those values are honesty
and loyalty. Do you act dishonestly and preserve your friend's secret or do you act disloyal and turn them in
for academic fraud?
Awareness of the underlying values at play in an ethical conflict can act as a powerful method to clarify the
issues involved. We should also be aware of the use of value as a verb in the ethical sense. Certainly what
we choose to value more or less will play a very significant role in the process of differen!a!ng between
outcomes and ac!ons thereby determining what exactly we should do.
Literature and film are full of ethical dilemmas, as they allow us to reflect on the human struggle as well as
presen!ng tests of individual character. For example in World War Z, Gerry Lane (played by Brad Pi$ in the
movie version) has to make a similar choice as Sartre's Frenchman: between serving the world-community of
humans in their just war against zombies, and serving his own immediate family. It adds depth and
substance to the character to see him struggling with this choice over the right thing to do.
14. What ethical dilemmas are more common in real life?
Rarely are we called on to fight zombies or Nazis, but that doesn't mean we live in an ethically easy world. If
you've ever felt yourself pulled between two moral choices, you've faced an ethical dilemma. O#en we
make our choice based on which value we prize more highly. Here are some examples:
You are offered a scholarship to a$end a far-away college, but that would mean leaving your family, to
whom you are very close. Values: success/future achievements/excitement vs. family/love/safety
You are friends with Jane, who is da!ng Bill. Jane confides in you that she'd been seeing Joe on the side
but begs you not to tell Bill. Bill then asks you if Jane has ever cheated on him. Values:
Friendship/loyalty vs. Truth
You are the official supervisor for Tywin. You find out that Tywin has been leaving work early and asking
his coworkers to clock him out on !me. You intend to fire Tywin, but then you find out that he's been
leaving early because he needs to pick up his child from daycare. Values: Jus!ce vs. Mercy
You could probably make a compelling argument for either side for each of the above. That's what makes
ethical dilemmas so difficult (or interes!ng, if you're not directly involved!).
15. What is an ethical viola!on?
6/8/21, 9:42 PMEthical Decision-Making and Reasoning: Ethical Reasoning and Analysis
Page 8 of 23https://leocontent.umgc.edu/content/umuc/tgs/pro/pro600/2212/learni…ion-making-and-reasoning--ethical-reasoning-and-ana.html?ou=584686
Some!mes we are confronted with situa!ons in which we are torn between a right and a wrong; we know
what the right thing to do would be, but the wrong is personally beneficial, temp!ng, or much easier to do.
In 2010, Ohio State University football coach Jim Tressel discovered that some of his players were viola!ng
NCAA rules. He did not report it to anyone, as it would lead to suspensions, hur!ng the football team's
chances of winning. He was not torn between two moral choices; he knew what he should do, but didn't
want to jeopardize his career. In 2011, Tressel's unethical behavior became public, OSU had to void its wins
for the year, and he resigned as coach (Livingston, 2011).
Ethics experts tend to think that ethical considera!ons should always trump personal or self-interested ones
and that to resist following one's personal desires is a ma$er of having the right mo!va!on and the strength
of will to repel tempta!on. One way to strengthen your "ethics muscles" is to become familiar with the ways
we try to excuse or dismiss unethical ac!ons.
16. How does self-interest affect people's ethical choices?
In a perfect world, morality and happiness would always align: living ethically and living well wouldn't collide
because living virtuously—being honest, trustworthy, caring, etc.—would provide the deepest human
happiness and would best allow humans to flourish. Some would say, however, that we do not live in a
perfect world, and that our society en!ces us to think of happiness in terms of status and material
possessions at the cost of principles. Some even claim that all persons act exclusively out of self-interest—
that is, out of psychological egoism—and that genuine concern for the well-being of others—altruism—is
impossible. As you explore an ethical issue, consider whether people making choices within the context of
the issue are ac!ng altruis!cally or out of self-interest.
17. What is the difference between good ethical reasoning and mere ra!onaliza!on?
When pressed to jus!fy their choices, people may try to evade responsibility and to jus!fy decisions that
may be unethical but that serve their self-interest. People are amazingly good at passing the buck in this
fashion, yet pre$y poor at recognizing and admi(ng that they are doing so. When a person is said to be
ra!onalizing his ac!ons and choices, this doesn't mean he is applying cri!cal thinking, or what we have
described as ethical analysis. Quite the opposite: it means that he is trying to convince others—or o#en just
himself—using reasons that he should be able to recognize as faulty or poor reasons. Perhaps the most
common ra!onaliza!on of unethical ac!on has come to be called the Nuremberg Defense: "I was just doing
what I was told to do—following orders or the example of my superior. So blame them and exonerate me."
This defense was used by Nazi officials during the Nuremberg trials a#er World War II in order to ra!onalize
behavior such as par!cipa!on in the administra!on of concentra!on camps. This ra!onaliza!on didn't work
then, and it doesn't work now.
18. What kinds of ra!onaliza!ons do people make for their ac!ons?
Ra!onaliza!on is a common human coping strategy. An intriguing finding in research on corrup!on is that
people who behave unethically usually do not see themselves as unethical. Instead, they recast their ac!ons
using ra!onaliza!on techniques to jus!fy what they've done. Common ra!onaliza!on strategies:
Denial of responsibility
The people engaged in bad behavior "had no choice" but to par!cipate in such ac!vi!es OR people
turn a blind eye to ethical misbehavior.
Examples:
"What can I do? My boss ordered me not to tell the police."
6/8/21, 9:42 PMEthical Decision-Making and Reasoning: Ethical Reasoning and Analysis
Page 9 of 23https://leocontent.umgc.edu/content/umuc/tgs/pro/pro600/2212/learni…ion-making-and-reasoning--ethical-reasoning-and-ana.html?ou=584686
"My neighbors' children always seem to have bruises, but it's none of my business."
Denial of injury
No one is harmed by the ac!on, or that the harm could have been worse.
Examples:
"All's well that ends well."
"Nobody died."
Blaming the vic!m
Counter any blame for the ac!ons by arguing that the violated party deserved what happened.
Examples:
"She chose to go that fraternity party; what did she think was going to happen?"
"If the professors don't want students to say mean things in student evalua!ons, they should
be more entertaining."
Social weigh!ng
Compared to what other people have done, this is nothing, OR everybody does it, so it's okay.
Examples:
"I some!mes come into work late, but compared to everybody who leaves early every Friday,
it's nothing to get worked up over."
"Everyone around me was tex!ng; it's not fair that I should be the one in trouble."
Appeal to higher values
It was done for a good, higher cause.
Examples:
"You should let me copy your homework; if I fail this class, I'll lose my scholarship."
"I couldn't tell anyone because I'm loyal to my boss."
Saint's excuse
If someone has done good things in the past, they should get a "pass" for misbehavior.
Examples:
"He's done so many good things for the community, it would be a shame to punish him."
"She's so talented, why focus on the bad things she's done?" (Anand, Ashforth, & Joshi, 2004).
19. What fallacies are most prevalent in debates over ethical issues?
In addi!on to self-decep!on and ra!onaliza!ons, we o#en find overtly fallacious reasoning that undermines
open, construc!ve debate of ethical issues. Of the common fallacies, those most common in ethics debate
include ad hominem (personal) a$acks, appeals to false authority, appeals to fear, the slippery
slope fallacy, false dilemmas, the two-wrongs-make-a-right fallacy, and the strawman fallacy (Core
Curriculum, "Core 201—The Logical Structure of Arguments," 2016). Fallacious reasoning, especially the
a$empt to sway sen!ment through language manipula!on, is ever-present in popular sources of informa!on
6/8/21, 9:42 PMEthical Decision-Making and Reasoning: Ethical Reasoning and Analysis
Page 10 of 23https://leocontent.umgc.edu/content/umuc/tgs/pro/pro600/2212/learn…on-making-and-reasoning--ethical-reasoning-and-ana.html?ou=584686
and opinion pieces, like blogs and special-interest-group sites. It may take prac!ce to spot fallacious
reasoning, but being able to give names to these strategies of trickery and manipula!on provides the
aspiring cri!cal thinker with a solid start.
20. How can I tell what is the "right" thing to do?
That's the million-dollar ques!on here. Ethical theories describe the rules or principles that guide people
when the rightness or wrongness of an ac!on becomes an issue. In this sec!on, you will read about some of
the most common and important ways of approaching ethics. They all ask the ques!on "How can I tell what
the right thing to do is?" but differ as to where to start and what to consider:
1. Situa!on. Rela!vists say that rightness changes depending on the individuals and culture involved.
2. Results. Consequen!alists believe that you should judge rightness based on the predicted outcome.
U!litarianism is a type of consequen!alist perspec!ve.
3. Ac!ons. Deontologists judge the rightness purely on the ac!on itself. Duty-based and rights-based
perspec!ves fall into this category.
4. Actors. In actor-oriented perspec!ves, the person or en!ty making the decision—the ethical actor—
must decide what a virtuous person or en!ty would do, and follow that path. The ethical actor may also
be called the agent.
Next, we'll learn more about each perspec!ve and its challenges and benefits.
21. What is moral rela!vism?
Moral rela!vism rejects the view that there are universal and never-changing ethical standards that can
always be used to judge whether ac!ons are right and wrong. Instead, a moral rela!vist might argue that
ethical judgments are made within the context of a culture and !me period. People in one culture or !me
period may judge an ac!on to be ethical; people in another culture or !me period may judge the same
ac!on to be unethical.
Some moral rela!vists even reject the no!on that cultures determine what is right and wrong. Instead, these
moral rela!vists argue that each individual must develop his or her own standards for determining what is
ethical. These standards might be based on reason or on intui!on, something like a gut feeling that an ac!on
is ethical.
People may be drawn to moral rela!vism because it appears to be a tolerant view. They may feel that
adop!ng moral rela!vism will eliminate the conflicts that may arise between people and cultures that reach
different conclusions about what is right or wrong.
22. What is the main weakness of moral rela!vism?
Moral rela!vism may be embraced by people who value tolerance. However, you could argue that a moral
rela!vist who treats tolerance as something that is unques!onably good has actually abandoned moral
rela!vism. Cri!cs of moral rela!vism some!mes ask this ques!on: Is it logically possible to be a moral
rela!vist and to simultaneously behave as if tolerance is a universal value?
Another apparent contradic!on may arise when an individual's (or culture's) right to decide what is ethical
runs up against another individual's (or culture's) right to do the same. This paradox can be illustrated by
looking at The Universal Declara!on of Human Rights (United Na!ons, 1948). This document was approved
by the United Na!ons a#er World War II. Near its beginning, it states that "All human beings are born free
6/8/21, 9:42 PMEthical Decision-Making and Reasoning: Ethical Reasoning and Analysis
Page 11 of 23https://leocontent.umgc.edu/content/umuc/tgs/pro/pro600/2212/learn…ion-making-and-reasoning--ethical-reasoning-and-ana.html?ou=584686
and equal in dignity and rights" (United Na!ons, 1948). With this statement as a star!ng point, a number of
principles follow: a universal right to be safe from enslavement, for example, or a universal right to
educa!on regardless of gender.
Taken as a whole, the Declara!on argues that people have autonomy: the freedom to act in their own
interests.
However, if what is right is whatever a culture determines to be right, then slavery is ethical in a slave-
owning society or household. If what is right is whatever an individual determines to be right, then denying
a girl access to educa!on is ethical in a household whose head believes it is inappropriate for girls to be
educated.
On the one hand, then, moral rela!vism does not impose value systems on people. On the other hand, it
seems to grant humans autonomy—the freedom to act in one's own interest—to people who would deny
that autonomy to other people.
23. What is universalism?
Imagine that there is one never-changing and universal set of standard for deciding whether an ac!on is
ethical. That approach to judging behavior is calleduniversalism. A person who follows this approach
believes that guidelines for judging behavior are not affected by !me and culture. What is right is always
right, and what is wrong is always wrong—without excep!on and everywhere in the world.
Consequen!alism and deontology are universalist ethical theories.
24. What is consequen!alism?
Consequen!alists believe that an ac!on is right or wrong depending on the results of the ac!on. The act
itself ma$ers less than whether the effects are posi!ve or nega!ve. So for a consequen!alist, no type of act
is inherently wrong. The ethically right choice is the one that has the best overall consequences.
In addi!on, the more good consequences that occur from an act, the be$er or more ethical that act should
be judged.
25. What is u!litarianism?
U!litarianism is a specific type of consequen!alism that focuses on the greatest good for the greatest
number. A#er you iden!fy your op!ons for ac!on, you ask who will benefit and who will be harmed by
each. The ethical ac!on would be the one that caused the greatest good for the most people, or the least
harm to the least number.
26. How does u!litarian reasoning operate?
Early u!litarian thinkers sought to "scien!ze" ethical decision-making. They developed a "calculus"
comparable to a modern cost/benefit analysis. This calculus weighed the consequences of an ac!on in
terms of its impact on all the sen!ent beings that might be affected. Sen!ent beings feel pain or pleasure, so
the calculus could consider the effect an ac!on might have on animals as well as humans.
The calculus took into account several factors, such as
the number of humans and animals that would benefit,
the number of humans and animals that would be harmed,
how intense any resul!ng pleasure would be,
6/8/21, 9:42 PMEthical Decision-Making and Reasoning: Ethical Reasoning and Analysis
Page 12 of 23https://leocontent.umgc.edu/content/umuc/tgs/pro/pro600/2212/learn…on-making-and-reasoning--ethical-reasoning-and-ana.html?ou=584686
how long any resul!ng pleasure might last,
how intense any resul!ng pain would be, and
how long any resul!ng pain might last.
While such a calculus for resolving ethical problems may seem idealized, u!litarian thinking coincided with a
genuine desire to eliminate unnecessary suffering through seeking to answer the ques!on," Which op!on
will serve the greater good?"
U!litarianism stressed equality and fights against self-interest on the part of the ethical actor. As an
illustra!on, let's say you've volunteered to buy the paint for the fence that you and your three bordering
neighbors share. The fence has to be painted one color: brown or white. You prefer white but your
neighbors want brown. If you used a u!litarian approach, you would buy brown paint because three
outnumbers one. Just because you are buying the paint does not give you any more weight in the decision.
27. How has u!litarian reasoning been applied?
U!litarian thinking led to many reforms. It helped bring an end to the mistreatment of animals, orphans, and
child laborers, as well as to the harsh treatment of adult laborers, prisoners, the poor, and the mentally ill. It
provided arguments for abolishing slavery and for elimina!ng inequali!es between the sexes. For John
Stuart Mill, one of the founders of the theory, both logic and morality dictated that one person's happiness
should count as much as another person's happiness. This principle was applied to people whether they
were wealthy or poor, powerful or weak.
Today few people think an ethical calculus can tell us exactly how compe!ng interests should be weighed.
But the more general u!litarian approach to ethical reasoning is s!ll immensely influen!al. The principle that
each person's happiness should be as important as any other person's happiness requires a society to make
decisions in which the interests of all its members are considered in a balanced, ra!onal fashion.
We can see u!litarianism in ac!on in many public health efforts. For example, children in public schools are
required to receive certain vaccina!ons. This is mandatory because of the results: keeping people healthy
and the greater good: individuals may object to the vaccina!ons, but the law focuses on the greater good
for the greatest number.
28. What is the main weakness of u!litarianism?
The u!litarian principle says that people should act to promote overall happiness, but this principle appears
to jus!fy using people in ways that do not respect the idea that individual rights may not be violated. That
is, the u!litarian approach seems to imply that it would be ethical to inflict pain on one person if that ac!on
results in a net increase in happiness.
Here is a classic ques!on that is posed to expose this poten!al weakness in the u!litarian approach to
ethical reasoning: Why not kill and harvest the organs of one healthy person in order to save five pa!ents
who will go on to live happy lives?
The philosopher William James argued that it would be a "hideous… thing" if "millions [were] kept
permanently happy on the one simple condi!on that a certain lost soul on the far-off edge of things should
lead a life of lonely torture," but that situa!on would seem consistent with u!litarianism (James, 2000, pp.
244–245).
6/8/21, 9:42 PMEthical Decision-Making and Reasoning: Ethical Reasoning and Analysis
Page 13 of 23https://leocontent.umgc.edu/content/umuc/tgs/pro/pro600/2212/learn…on-making-and-reasoning--ethical-reasoning-and-ana.html?ou=584686
James's scenario inspired a short story by Ursula Le Guin, "Those Who Walk Away from Omelas," in which
the happiness of a society depends upon the suffering of one child. Some members of this society are
unable to live with this fact and "walk away from Omelas" (Le Guin, 1973).
U!litarian's emphasis on consequences can also be a weakness. That emphasis can lead to "all's well that
ends well" thinking, allowing people to jus!fy immoral acts if the outcome is beneficial. One must also ask,
can we ever be sure of the consequences of our ac!ons? If we take an ac!on that we expected would have
good consequences, but it ends up harming people, have we behaved unethically regardless of our
inten!ons?
29. How do I apply u!litarianism in real life?
When faced with an ethical dilemma, ask yourself:
1. Which op!on would have be$er results?
2. Which op!on would further the greater good?
3. How can I maximize benefits for all involved?
4. How can I minimize suffering for all involved?
30. What is deontology?
Deontology is a universal ethical theory that considers whether an ac!on itself is right or wrong.
Deontologists argue that you can never know what the results will be so it doesn't make sense to decide
whether something is ethical based on outcomes. You can consider it the opposite of consequen!alism and
u!litarianism in many ways.
Deontologists live in world of moral rules: It is wrong to steal. It is right to keep promises.
Deontology is also concerned with inten!ons. If you intended good through your ac!on, then the ac!on is
good, no ma$er what actually happened as a result.
Deontology encompasses two kinds of approaches: duty-based and rights-based.
31. What is duty-based ethics?
Duty-based ethics says that there are universal moral norms or rules, and it is essen!al that everyone
follows them. If you've ever said, "I did it because it was the right thing to do," then you've employed duty-
based ethics.
Duty-based ethics maintains that you should follow an ethical code without considering the consequences
of your ac!ons. If an act is by its nature right, you should perform that act even if someone is harmed as a
result. If an act is by its nature wrong, you should not perform that act even if someone might be helped. For
example, if by defini!on stealing is wrong, you do not steal. If by defini!on lying is wrong, you do not lie.
When you think about du!es, think about obliga!ons that individuals must accept in order for society to
work and be well. Your du!es and obliga!ons come from both your personal and professional lives. If you
are a parent, you are obligated to take care of your children. If you see someone in distress, you have a duty
as a human to try and help.
6/8/21, 9:42 PMEthical Decision-Making and Reasoning: Ethical Reasoning and Analysis
Page 14 of 23https://leocontent.umgc.edu/content/umuc/tgs/pro/pro600/2212/learn…on-making-and-reasoning--ethical-reasoning-and-ana.html?ou=584686
The du!es themselves may be !ed to professional roles, too. Teachers have a duty to grade students fairly;
police officers have a duty to enforce the law; psychologists have a duty to respect the confiden!ality of
their pa!ents. When you encounter codes of professional conduct—either wri$en or unwri$en—likely you
are dealing with duty-based ethics.
32. What is rights-based ethics?
An outgrowth of duty-based ethics, rights-based ethics insists that you need to respect individual's human
rights and never treat people as a means to an end.
A right is something you are en!tled to. In terms of ethics, it is the treatment you should be able to expect
from other people. For example, under most ethical codes, as a human you are en!tled—have a right—to
exist in safety.
Another way of sta!ng this idea is that you have a right not be harmed by anyone. When the idea is put that
way, it is apparent that du!es and rights are closely related concepts. You have a right to exist in safety,
which means that other people have a duty not to harm you.
Since du!es and rights are so closely related, a version of a duty-based ethics can be created by iden!fying
the rights that someone has a duty to respect.
Rights-based ethics are built upon four claims. Rights are
"natural insofar as they are not invented or created by governments;"
"universal insofar as they do not change from country to country;"
"equal in the sense that rights are the same for all people, irrespec!ve of gender, race, or handicap;"
and
"inalienable which means that I cannot hand over my rights to another person, such as by selling myself
into slavery." (Fieser, n.d.)
A noteworthy example of an argument grounded in rights-based ethics is found in the Declara!on of
Independence, where Thomas Jefferson states that humans are "endowed by their Creator with certain
unalienable rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness" (Jefferson, 1776). By
drawing a$en!on to these rights, Jefferson provides the context for a lengthy list of the ways in which
George III had not fulfilled his duty to uphold these rights.
Remember that deontology is a universal system, so that means any rights that you claim you also have to
grant to all others. If you believe your family has a right to drinking water, then this means everyone in the
world has that same right. If you believe that you have a right to marry the person you choose, then so does
everyone else.
33. What is the appeal of deontology?
As we discussed in u!litarianism, a flaw with consequen!alist thinking is that we can never really know what
the results of an ac!on will be. History is full of examples of "unintended consequences." For example, in an
a$empt to raise standards and accountability in public schools, high-stakes tes!ng became common. To
ensure that the tests were taken seriously, school districts held teachers responsible for their students'
scores; teachers whose students did well would get raises, while those who did poorly could be fired. The
proponents of this policy predicted that children's learning would improve. It seemed to be working: in
Atlanta; students were showing extraordinary gains in the yearly competency tests. Then an inves!ga!on by
the Atlanta Journal-Cons!tu!on revealed that teachers and principals were correc!ng the answers provided
6/8/21, 9:42 PMEthical Decision-Making and Reasoning: Ethical Reasoning and Analysis
Page 15 of 23https://leocontent.umgc.edu/content/umuc/tgs/pro/pro600/2212/learn…on-making-and-reasoning--ethical-reasoning-and-ana.html?ou=584686
by students. This scandal rocked the Atlanta school system and as of 2015, 11 teachers were convicted on
racketeering charges. This certainly is not what the high-stakes tes!ng supporters had thought would
happen!
Because of such examples, deontologists disdain the uncertainty of consequen!alist ethics. The future is
unpredictable; we should only make judgments on things we are certain about. We know whether an ac!on
is inherently right or wrong as we're doing it.
Another good point about deontology is its emphasis on the value of every human. While u!litarians
consider everyone equal, it's more of a numbers game. But a deontologist insists that you treat everyone
with respect and give everyone the rights you expect to have yourself. It works against our tendency to be
self-centered.
Finally, deontology gives credit for inten!ons and mo!va!ons. You may do something for the very best
reasons and it could turn out nega!vely. Does that condemn your ac!on as unethical? A deontologist would
say no. Accidents happen, results are uncertain, and you can't be held responsible for the future.
34. What is the main weakness of duty and rights-based ethics?
Both duty and rights-based ethics are forms of universalism because they rely on principles that must be
applied at all !mes to all people. Some people object that the universalism of duty and rights-based ethics
make these theories too inflexible.
Both also rely on absolute principles regarding du!es and rights. But there's no defini!ve list recorded
anywhere. One person might say parents have a right to spank their children, but others will disagree. In the
case of duty-based ethics, people may object to the principle that people deciding on a course of ac!on
should ignore the circumstances in which they and other individuals find themselves. Duty ethics allows
li$le room for context. In Les Misérables, was Jean Valjean wrong to steal bread to feed his starving sister's
children (Hugo, 1887)? Would it have been wrong to lie to a Gestapo officer asking where Jews were hidden
or to slave-catchers in pursuit of runaways in the pre-war South? Some would say that the answers depend
upon the circumstances and op!ons available to us, rather than on it being the case that certain types of
ac!ons are always and necessarily wrong.
Duty-based ethics accepts as a principle that one should never use another person merely as a means to
someone else's ends. So it would never be jus!fied to cause the death of one to save several. But is that
ac!on always wrong, as a duty ethicist would argue? Socie!es regularly sacrifice individuals. For example,
people are dra#ed into armies and regularly sent into ba$le, even though it is certain that some of them will
die. Is it ethical for a government to dra# people and send them into harm's way? Is this a case of trea!ng a
person as a means to an end?
We have seen that duty and rights-based ethics are "flip sides" of the same coin. One theory emphasizes
how people should behave toward each another; the other emphasizes that an individual should be
confident that her human rights will be acknowledged and respected. So the above example could be
rewri$en from the perspec!ve of the rights-based approach. A person has a right to be respected on her
own account rather than treated as a means to an end, yet we see that socie!es regularly sacrifice their
members. The universalism of rights-based ethics does not appear to allow for this societal choice.
35. How can I apply deontology in real life?
When confronted with an ethical dilemma, consider:
Which op!on is simply the right thing to do?
6/8/21, 9:42 PMEthical Decision-Making and Reasoning: Ethical Reasoning and Analysis
Page 16 of 23https://leocontent.umgc.edu/content/umuc/tgs/pro/pro600/2212/learn…on-making-and-reasoning--ethical-reasoning-and-ana.html?ou=584686
What du!es or obliga!ons do you need to consider?
Which op!on best respects the rights of all stakeholders?
Which op!on treats people fairly and equally?
Which op!on has the best mo!va!on or inten!on?
If applicable: Which op!on is supported by a professional code of conduct?
36. What is virtue ethics?
Thinkers who embrace virtue ethics emphasize that the sort of person we choose to be cons!tutes the
heart of our ethical being. If you want to behave virtuously, become a virtuous person.
Certain traits—for instance, honesty, compassion, generosity, courage—seem to be universally admired.
These strengths of character are virtues. To acquire these virtues, follow the example of persons who
possess them. Once acquired, these virtues may be trusted to guide our decisions about how to act, even in
difficult situa!ons. A person might think of a religious figure, virtuous rela!ve, or even a favorite comic book
superhero, and use that person as a role model for how to behave.
37. What is care ethics?
Care ethics, or "ethics of care" places significance on rela!onships and humans' interdependency on each
other. It could be seen as related to virtue ethics because caring is a type of virtue, and is universal because
the impulse to care is present in all human socie!es.
In care ethics, the ethical actor considers what op!on would be, not just fair, but compassionate. Ethical
decisions may be made because of emo!onal connec!ons or a$achments to others. Given a dilemma, you
may choose one op!on because your loved one is involved, while another op!on may be more reasonable
to you when the people involved are strangers.
Care ethicists argue that all of us have been or will be in a posi!on of needing care, of being vulnerable, at
various points in our lives. As such, society works best when we take care of each other. Virtuous people
should want to help those who need help- not just to protect human rights, but because we care.
In The Hunger Games, the main character Katniss uses care ethics. When her younger sister, Prim, is
selected for the games and faces certain death, Katniss volunteers to take Prim's place, not because she
thinks the games are wrong (deontology), nor because she thinks she'll win (u!litarianism) but because she
loves Prim and will do anything to protect her. During the games, her feelings of care for Prim lead her to
also act to protect Rue, a fellow contestant who reminds her of Prim (Collins, 2008).
38. How does virtue ethics operate?
Virtue ethicists think that the main ques!on in ethical reasoning should be not" How should I now act?" but
"What kind of person do I want to be?" Developing virtues that we admire in others and avoiding ac!ons
that we recognize as vicious develops our moral sensi!vity: our awareness of how our ac!ons affect others.
Virtuous persons are able to empathize, to imagine themselves in another person's shoes, and to look at an
issue from other people's perspec!ves.
Virtuous individuals are also thought to be able to draw upon willpower not possessed by those who
compromise their moral principles in favor of fame, money, sex, or power.
39. What kinds of ques!ons are asked by virtue ethics?
6/8/21, 9:42 PMEthical Decision-Making and Reasoning: Ethical Reasoning and Analysis
Page 17 of 23https://leocontent.umgc.edu/content/umuc/tgs/pro/pro600/2212/learn…on-making-and-reasoning--ethical-reasoning-and-ana.html?ou=584686
Virtue ethics focuses more on a person's approach to living than on par!cular choices and ac!ons and so
has less to say about specific courses of ac!on or public policies. Instead, this ethical approach posed
broader ques!ons such as these:
How should I live?
What is the good life?
Are ethical virtue and genuine happiness compa!ble?
What are proper family, civic, and cosmopolitan virtues?
Because of the broad nature of the ques!ons posed by virtue ethics, ethicists some!mes disagree as to
whether this theory actually offers an alterna!ve to the u!litarian and deontological approaches to ethical
reasoning. How does someone who follows virtue ethics determine what the virtues are without applying
some yards!ck such as those provided by u!litarian and deontological ethics?
U!litarianism and deontology are hard-universalist theories, each claiming that one ethical principle is
binding on all people regardless of !me or place. Virtue ethics does not make this claim. Those who favor
this theory may hold that certain virtues like compassion, honesty, and integrity transcend !me and culture.
But they do not aim to iden!fy universal principles that can be applied in all moral situa!ons. Instead they
accept that many things described as virtues and vices are cultural and that some of our primary ethical
obliga!ons are based on our emo!onal rela!onships and what we owe to people we care about. In the end,
though, virtue ethicists will always ask themselves, "What would a good person do?"
40. How has virtue ethics been applied in the real world?
Someone employing virtue ethics will consider what ac!on will most help her become a be$er person.
Virtue ethics arguments will discuss ideals as the mo!va!on for ac!ng. In December 2014, Senator John
McCain delivered a floor statement to the US Senate, condemning CIA interroga!on methods. He deplored
the use of torture by our country:
Torture's failure to serve its intended purpose isn't the main reason to oppose its use. I have o#en said, and
will always maintain, that this ques!on isn't about our enemies; it's about us. It's about who we were, who
we are and who we aspire to be. It's about how we represent ourselves to the world. (McCain, 2014)
41. What is the main weakness of virtue ethics?
Virtue ethics may seem to avoid some of the apparent flaws of duty-based ethics and of u!litarianism. A
person guided by virtue ethics would not be bound by strict rules or the duty to abide by a state's legal
code. Presumably, then, an individual who has cul!vated a compassionate personality consistent with virtue
ethics would not easily surrender a friend's hiding place in order to avoid having to tell a lie, as would seem
to be required by duty ethics. Nor would a person guided by virtue ethics be bound by the "tyranny of the
(happy) majority" that appears to be an aspect of u!litarianism.
On the other hand, some thinkers argue that virtue ethics provides vague and ambiguous advice. Because of
its emphasis on the imprecise and highly contextual nature of ethics, virtue ethics is o#en cri!cized as
insufficient as a guide to taking specific ac!on.
42. How can I apply virtue ethics in real life?
When confronted with an ethical dilemma, consider:
Which op!on would a good person choose?
6/8/21, 9:42 PMEthical Decision-Making and Reasoning: Ethical Reasoning and Analysis
Page 18 of 23https://leocontent.umgc.edu/content/umuc/tgs/pro/pro600/2212/learn…on-making-and-reasoning--ethical-reasoning-and-ana.html?ou=584686
Would I feel comfortable if everyone knew I'd made that choice?
Which op!on shows care for those that are vulnerable?
What virtues and vices apply in this context?
What is the proper applica!on/ measure of virtues appropriate to this choice?
43. How do these theories fit into my ethics toolbox?
The ethical theories described in this sec!on are powerful tools that should be included in a cri!cal thinker's
"ethics toolbox." Perspec!ves rooted in ethical theories o#en play very direct roles in ethical analysis. In
addi!on, such perspec!ves can help you develop you own ethics-based arguments. Equip your ethics
toolbox with all of these tools: your ethical intui!ons and sense your conscience; your awareness of cultural
tradi!ons; and the insights you can gain from psychological studies and philosophical theories. These tools
allow people with even opposing perspec!ves on today's ethical issues to debate each other courteously
and skillfully.
44. How do I use ethical reasoning to make decisions?
Making good ethical decisions takes prac!ce. Our ins!nct or "gut" can draw us to selfish choices, so we
need to step back and think cri!cally about ethical dilemmas rather than just jumping to our first solu!on.
We need to consider all the elements involved:
Who is affected?
Who is making the decision?
What are the known facts and circumstances?
How ethical are the possible ac!ons?
The framework below can help guide you through this process. It is not a checklist of steps; rather, decision
making is an itera!ve process in which learning a new fact may cause you to revise earlier thoughts on the
situa!on.
45. How do I recognize an ethical situa!on?
Iden!fying an ethical situa!onwill require you to research the facts of a situa!on and to ask whether
stakeholders must consider ques!ons about the moral rightness or wrongness of public policy or personal
behavior. To help you iden!fy and describe the nature of the ethical issue, ask the following:
Does the situa!on require individuals to engage inethical judgments? Do you find yourself thinking
about whether an ac!on is morally right or wrong or whether a person's mo!ves are morally good or
bad? Could you debate what, morally, someone "should" or "ought to" do in the situa!on?
Does the situa!on seem to pose an ethical conflic'or one or more stakeholder? That is, does there
seem be a clash between what stakeholders "ought to do" and what they "want to do"?
Does the situa!on pose anethical dilemmafor one or more stakeholders? That is, does it seem as if
someone is pulled between compe!ng ethical demands, each calling for behavior that would be ethical
but with one ac!on making it impossible to perform the other, equally jus!fiable ac!on? Are there
values that are in conflict?
6/8/21, 9:42 PMEthical Decision-Making and Reasoning: Ethical Reasoning and Analysis
Page 19 of 23https://leocontent.umgc.edu/content/umuc/tgs/pro/pro600/2212/learn…on-making-and-reasoning--ethical-reasoning-and-ana.html?ou=584686
You also should consider whether anyprofessional codesare relevant to the situa!on. O#en professional
codes spell out the ethical or moral obliga!ons of members of a profession. Compare any relevant
professional code with the behavior of par!cipants in that situa!on who may be bound by that code. Was
their behavior consistent with that code? Were there any compe!ngnormsor codes of behavior that put
par!cipants in the midst of an ethical dilemma?
In an ethical situa!on, a difficult decision or mul!ple difficult decisions will need to be made.
46. How do I iden!fy stakeholders?
Usually, any complex topic features mul!ple stakeholders: people who have an interest in or are affected by
the outcome of decisions revolving around the situa!on. These different par!es are not all affected in the
same way, and therefore, their perspec!ves on the topic will differ. Review how to iden!fy stakeholders in
Core 101—Academic Argument Essay (Core Curriculum, 2016).
47. How do I iden!fy the different perspec!ves and posi!ons held by stakeholders?
A stakeholder'sperspec!ve or posi!onis based upon the stakeholder's rela!onship to the situa!on. That
rela!onship can be captured by asking ques!ons about power, support, influence, and need in the context
of the situa!on that the stakeholder has an interest in.
Power—How much decision-making authority does the stakeholder have over the situa!on?
Support—How strongly is the stakeholder for or against the idea?
Influence—How much ability does the stakeholder have to affect the decisions made by other people?
Need—For the stakeholder to benefit, what does she need to have happen (or not happen) in the
situa!on?
Be sure to look for interests and perspec!ves that may be shared by different stakeholders, and be certain
that you do not automa!cally side with the stakeholders who have the most power and influence. If you
gravitate toward the par!es with the most power and influence, you may end up ignoring the individuals or
groups with the most need, the ones who may be badly hurt by an unethical decision.
48. How can I research stakeholder posi!ons?
When you research an issue, look beyond yes/no, pro/con arguments in order to see the people involved in
the situa!on. Remember that o#en there are more than the oversimplified "two sides," so be open to
iden!fying more than two stakeholders.
Make a list of the individuals and groups who affect or are affected by the issue. Add to the list as your
research uncovers addi!onal aspects of the situa!on that bring in addi!onal stakeholders.
Analyze the posi!ons held by each stakeholder, looking in-depth at their involvement.Go to the Appendix
for a list of possible ques!ons to research (Core Curriculum, "Appendix D—Core 202, 2016).
49. How do I iden!fy the ethical actor?
Within that set of stakeholders, iden!fy which is the one (or ones) in a posi!on to take ac!on. It could be an
individual, a group, or an ins!tu!on. Those are the ethical actors, who will exercise the decision related to
the ethical situa!on.
6/8/21, 9:42 PMEthical Decision-Making and Reasoning: Ethical Reasoning and Analysis
Page 20 of 23https://leocontent.umgc.edu/content/umuc/tgs/pro/pro600/2212/learn…on-making-and-reasoning--ethical-reasoning-and-ana.html?ou=584686
The ethical actor may be you, but it's also probable in this class that you will research case studies of ethical
situa!ons in the wider world. In such assignments, focus your a$en!on on the people and en!!es that can
and need to take ac!on in order for this situa!on to be resolved. Avoid vic!m blaming—looking at
stakeholders and condemning them for ge(ng themselves into the current situa!on, or trying to rewrite
history so that the situa!on wouldn't exist. Concentrate on the facts of the case as they relate to the
decision making process.
50. How can I use cri!cal thinking in this process?
How can a person decide whether a certain act is ethical without being influenced by his biases? The
though'ul development of criteriais one method to keep biases from having an excessive influence on the
group's decision-making process. Criteria are carefully considered, objec!ve principles that can be applied to
a situa!on in order to reach measured conclusions.
51. What are criteria?
Criteriaare the standards you apply to develop and evalua!on whether a solu!on to a problem is "good" or
"right." People apply criteria to solve both ethical and nonethical problems.
Criteria need to be specific and measurable in some fashion to allow them to be used to judge whether a
solu!on is likely to successfully address a problem. See the Appendix for more informa!on on criteria (Core
Curriculum, "Appendix D—Core 202, 2016).
52. How do I iden!fy possible ac!ons?
When you have iden!fied who can act and what criteria is essen!al, you can now brainstorm op!ons for
ac!ons. You can use the major ethical perspec!ves to help you:
What ac!on would result in the best results?
What ac!on would respect stakeholders' rights?
What ac!on would respect the ethical actor's obliga!ons?
What ac!on would lead the ethical actor to being a virtuous person or organiza!on?
What ac!on gives extra considera!on to those who are vulnerable?
If this is a professional situa!on, you should also check to see if there are any codes of conduct to consult.
If you think of other ac!ons, apply the different ethical perspec!ves to them to see if they are ethical.
53. How do I evaluate the possible op!ons?
Some!mes all the theories point to the same ac!on, but usually there are differences. At this point, you
need to consider the specific situa!on and the context of the ethical actor. Which perspec!ve is most
appropriate given these circumstances?
For example, there is a limited amount of medica!on available for a very infec!ous disease. How do you
decide who receives the medica!on?
If the ethical actor is a government official deciding on a policy, one would probably turn to u!litarianism:
what would be the best result for the most number of people?
6/8/21, 9:42 PMEthical Decision-Making and Reasoning: Ethical Reasoning and Analysis
Page 21 of 23https://leocontent.umgc.edu/content/umuc/tgs/pro/pro600/2212/learn…on-making-and-reasoning--ethical-reasoning-and-ana.html?ou=584686
If the ethical actor is a physician, she may turn to deontology: what are her professional obliga!ons?
If the ethical actor is the mother of a sick child, she may give up her dose to save the baby.
54. How can mapping or diagramming help me to examine the consequences of decisions or posi!ons with
ethical consequences?
Like many ethical issues, the one you are examining may be very complex, with factors that include
mul!ple stakeholders
mul!ple ethical actors
mul!ple ethical perspec!ves, and
mul!ple ac!ons
Because of the number of stakeholders, actors, perspec!ves, and agents, you may be considering a large
number of op!ons. You will have to
formulate a full list of possible ac!ons, taking into account both all the stake holders and all the ethical
perspec!ves;
examine each op!on to determine the benefits to various stakeholders;
examine each op!on to determine the burdens and risks to various stakeholders; and
evaluate the prac!cality, legality, and appropriateness of each ac!on.
With so many factors and op!ons to consider, you may benefit from mapping or diagramming the various
op!ons to keep track of the rela!onships between stakeholders, agents, and perspec!ves, and each ac!on
and its impact.
55. What else should I consider before ac!ng?
You should do a cri!cal thinking check to make sure you are not falling into any fallacious thinking or
ra!onaliza!ons to jus!fy an op!on that is selfish or otherwise unethical. Would you be okay with your
decision being widely known and associated with you?
56. Am I done a#er ac!ng?
No. It's essen!al to examine how the decision turned out and consider what lessons you may have learned
from it.
57. Do people really do all this when making ethical decisions?
In an ideal world, yes! You may recall from previous experience that cri!cal thinking is a learned skill. Ethical
decision making builds on that pla'orm. At first, it probably seems clunky and ar!ficial, but with prac!ce
you begin to internalize the analysis. Over !me, you move away from ins!nctual, gut-level thinking to a
using a more cri!cal lens. We can, unfortunately, find plenty examples of ethical decision making gone bad
(aka ethical viola!ons). In 2001, GM discovered there was a defect in its Saturn Ion's igni!on switch, but
released the new car model without fixing it. Over the next 12 years, GM engineers alerted the company
that many of the models had the same defect, but GM execu!ves decided it would be too expensive to fix
the problem. It wasn't un!l 2014 that GM admi$ed that the faulty switch was the cause of 31 crashes and
at least 13 deaths, and recalled over 1 million vehicles. An inves!ga!on revealed that GM "made a business
decision not to fix this problem" (Basu, 2014).
6/8/21, 9:42 PMEthical Decision-Making and Reasoning: Ethical Reasoning and Analysis
Page 22 of 23https://leocontent.umgc.edu/content/umuc/tgs/pro/pro600/2212/learn…on-making-and-reasoning--ethical-reasoning-and-ana.html?ou=584686
For a posi!ve example of ethical decision making, listen to or read the transcript of the On The
Media interview with a newspaper editor who published the names of high schoolers who were using
Twi$er to bully classmates. See if you can iden!fy the different aspects of ethical decision making from the
editor (Garfield & DeRienzo, 2013).
References
Anand, V., Ashforth, B. E., & Joshi, M. (2004). Business as usual: The acceptance and perpetua!on of
corrup!on in organiza!ons. Academy of Management Execu!ve, 18(2).
h$p://actoolkit.unprme.org/wp-content/resourcepdf/anand_et_al._ame_2004.pdf
Basu, T. (2014, March 31). Timeline: A history of GM's igni!on switch defect. In NPR, Business. WAMU.
h$p://www.npr.org/2014/03/31/297158876/!meline-a-history-of-gms-igni!on-switch-defect
Collins, S. (2008). The hunger games. Scholas!c. h$ps://books.google.com/books?isbn=0439023521
Core Curriculum. (2016). Appendix D—Core 202. Radford University core handbook.
h$ps://lcubbison.pressbooks.com/back-ma$er/appendix-d-core-202/
Core Curriculum. (2016). Core 101—Academic Argument Essay. Radford University core handbook.
h$ps://lcubbison.pressbooks.com/chapter/core-101-academic-argument-essay/#101_AA_obj_3_3
Core Curriculum. (2016). Core 201—The Logical Structure of Arguments. Radford University core handbook.
h$ps://lcubbison.pressbooks.com/chapter/core-201-logical-structure-arguments/#201aaf
Fieser, J. (n.d.). Ethics. Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. h$p://www.iep.utm.edu/ethics/
Garfield, B., and DeRienzo, M. (2013, March 22). The iden!ty of minors. In WNYC Studios, On The Media.
WNYC. h$p://www.wnyc.org/story/277595-iden!ty-minors/
Hugo, V. (1887). Les misérables. (I. F. Hapgood, Trans.). Thomas Y. Crowell & Co. (Original work published
1862) h$p://www.gutenberg.org/files/135/135-h/135-h.htm
James, W. (2000). In G. B. Gunn (Ed.), Pragma!sm and other wri!ngs (pp. 244–245). Penguin.
h$ps://books.google.com/books?isbn=0140437355
Jefferson, T. (1776). Declara!on of independence.
h$p://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/declara!on_transcript.html
Le Guin, U. (1973). The ones who walk away from Omelas. h$p://engl210-
deykute.wikispaces.umb.edu/file/view/omelas.pdf
Livingston, B. (2011, May 30). Jim Tressel resigns at Ohio State having paid the price for his sins of
omission. Cleveland.com.
h$p://www.cleveland.com/livingston/index.ssf/2011/05/jim_tressel_leaves_ohio_state.html
McCain, J. (2014, December 9). Floor statement by Senator John McCain on Senate Intelligence Commi$ee
report on CIA interroga!on methods. John McCain, U.S. Senator–Arizona website.
h$p://www.mccain.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/2014/12/floor-statement-by-sen-mccain-on-
senate-intelligence-commi$ee-report-on-cia-interroga!on-methods
Sartre, J. (1946). Existen!alism is a humanism. [Lecture].
h$ps://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/sartre/works/exist/sartre.htm
6/8/21, 9:42 PMEthical Decision-Making and Reasoning: Ethical Reasoning and Analysis
Page 23 of 23https://leocontent.umgc.edu/content/umuc/tgs/pro/pro600/2212/learn…on-making-and-reasoning--ethical-reasoning-and-ana.html?ou=584686
United Na!ons. (1948). The universal declara!on of human rights. h$p://www.un.org/en/universal-
declara!on-human-rights/index.html
Licenses and A$ribu!ons
Core 202 - Ethical Reasoning and Analysis (h$ps://lcubbison.pressbooks.com/chapter/core-202-ethical-
reasoning/) from Radford University Core Handbook comprises public domain material in the United
States. UMGC has modified this work.
© 2021 University of Maryland Global Campus
All links to external sites were verified at the !me of publica!on. UMGC is not responsible for the validity or integrity of informa!on located at
external sites.
