I believe the ethical decision-making model is best suited for Case 1-7. With step 1
considering the potential consequences once a situation is laid out along with a solution
and the possible outcomes. That is normally as far as a deciding factor would go, one would
see a horrible consequence and quickly decide that it’s not worth it. If one can get past step
1, then that means the situation is not really that ethically challenging. In my opinion. a
Kolhberg’s theory; Preconventional – individuals are very self-centered; rules are beneath
them. Conventional – individuals become more aware of other interests/feelings, thus
increasing the responsibility of doing right by others. Postconventional – laws above all
else, they were created for a reason and should be upheld by everyone involved for them
to work.
Rest’s theory: moral sensitivity – interpreting situations as moral, moral judgement – of
what ‘ideally’ ought to be done to resolve ethical dilemma, moral focus – after deciding on
the best action, decision makers must be focused on taking the moral action and follow
through with ethical decision making. Moral character – if one is truly moral
Ethical decision-making – magnitude of consequences – degree to which an individual may
be harmed or benefited by the action, temporal immediacy – length of time between the
action and consequences, social consensus – degree of agreement among social groups,
proximity – nearness of the decision maker to the individual potentially affected by the
consequences, concentration of effect - relationship between the number of people
affected and the magnitude of harm.
References:
Mintz, S., & Morris, R. (2020). Ethical obligations and decision making in accounting (5th
ed.). McGraw-Hill Education, New York, NY.
