Ethics Decision-Making in the Human Realms

By: Sharon Bender

The historical Latin summary of human existence, Cogito, ergo sum (I think, therefore I am) coaxes the imagination into theoretical realms that allow us to consider our origins and our destiny. Why are we here? Do we share a common purpose? What is our ultimate destination? These and similar questions may seem merely to be exercises in rhetoric, yet they continue to invite our best minds to explore their meaning in a quest for definitive answers in our human realms; our private, professional, and public sectors in which our world functions.

Perhaps more compelling than understanding our beginnings or our ends is the irresistible urge to apply rational, ethical thinking to everyday circumstances. Over the course of millennia and through varied civilizations of cultural development, humanity has striven to rise above other life forms to establish a distinctive basis by which to govern the behavior of others and ourselves. In our efforts to guide people’s actions, we first must define appropriate versus inappropriate methods of responding to each other amid a variety of circumstantial situations. The manner in which great thinkers continually have attempted to formulate logical as well as moral responses has led to the creation of a pool of knowledge called ethics.

Ethics theories have evolved from nearly 2,500 years of Western philosophical thought beginning in ancient Greece with Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle and continuing through medieval and modern times to the twentieth-century French thinkers, Camus and Sartre. Determining which, among the plethora of philosophical positions, are correct can be nearly impossible. Each inquirer needs to make a decision and defend a view after considering all relevant opinions. Yet, how is one to know which approach to take?

A key way in which we may identify one form of social life as distinct from another is by identifying differences in moral concepts. To consider ethical reasoning is to consider the complexities stemming from our involvement in the multicultural world. Complicating matters, codes of ethics for one individual, organization, or community may not necessarily meet the morally guided needs of another. The grounds for resolving ethical dilemmas in one society may or may not resemble those offered in different social setting.

Further, what resolution works for one type of culture may well create chaos in another part of the globe. For example, in Western civilization, stealing is considered to be an immoral act and is labeled as unlawful. Yet, in certain tribal communities and third-world countries, stealing may reflect the concept of “counting coup;” that is, stealing without getting caught or being punished for this action results in the “score” of gaining an advantage over a worthy opponent. This is just one way in which cultural differences may make it confusing to determine the rightness or wrongness of a given set of facts, creating a dilemma.

An ethical dilemma involves a situation in which a conflict appears to exist, meaning that moral imperatives may collide in the resolution process. Obeying one imperative may result in a transgression in another. It likely would be presumptuous to assert the superiority of a single approach. An intercultural ethics approach considers diverse cultures that can vary from distinctive individual, organizational, and communal arenas.

Amidst the confusion in interpretation are a plethora of conduct codes. Ethics codes and principles provide general guidelines for our private, professional, and public conduct, but they offer little or no specific guidance for practical decision-making. The term “code” connotes a confusing application like an authoritative system of written rules that can be somewhat likened to laws, accept that codes tend to require a fair amount of ciphering and deciphering. “Computer code,” for example, is referred to as “code” because it resembles the writing of spies. Who is truly qualified to decode the codes? What interpretation can be considered reliable?

The National Association of Social Workers maintains that an ethical approach to problem solving is germane to reaching a satisfying resolution. The organization’s suggestions for managing ethical conflicts are to determine first of all if the problem contains an ethical component. If so, the next step is to identify and rank these in descending order. Creating and implementing an action plan is the logical follow-up to these tasks, with a reflective step added to provide insight as to the effectiveness of this strategy. But what happens when you are unsure about the ethics of a given situation? In this age of moral relativism, how can you discern the correct or best response to the dilemma you are facing?

Bender thinks she holds a solution. She believes you can make any ethical decision with ease by answering just three ethics-based questions applying what she refers to as “Ethical Decision Trio” (EDT), which comprises the golden rule, reasonable person, and greater good tenets of ethics.

» Golden Rule: What would you respect others to do to you in the matter?

» Reasonable Person: What would a reasonable person be expected to do in the matter?

» Greater Good: What would benefit the greatest number of people in the matter?

Each EDT question is unique, providing a formative application. Combined they produce the complete resolution image. EDT can help you solve the most daunting problem whether it is in the private, professional, or public sectors by applying a bit of ethics thinking in this three-pronged question approach. Such approach to ethical problem solving follows an internal-to-external pattern of ethical considerations. Solving an ethical dilemma typically involves comparing one’s perspective with that of the EDT model, reflecting on the ripple effect individual decision-making may have on those near and far.

» Golden Rule Approach

The “golden rule” prong relies on traditional spiritual and moral values that cross many cultures to reflect the simple, innate desire for co-survival. We should treat others as we wish to be treated. Don’t hurt others if you don’t wish to be hurt. Help others if you wish to be helped. Making a decision based on this criterion addresses the primary need for self-preservation. The golden rule prescribes consistency. It does not replace other norms. This approach means in all things to do to others as you would have them do to you, and to treat others as you want to be treated. To apply the golden rule adequately, we need to have a command of knowledge, imagination, and foresight. We need to be able to know the effect of our actions on the lives of others. We need to be able to imagine ourselves in the other person’s place on the receiving end of our actions. With knowledge, imagination, and the golden rule, we can progress far in our moral thinking. In this approach, ask what you would want others to do to you in the matter.

» Reasonable Person Approach

The “reasonable person” prong asks the decision maker to compare views with someone beyond the self. This approach prevents us from taking solely a self-centered perspective on a potential or real conflict. Expanding one’s consciousness to include considerations for the views of others promotes a healthy regard for a shared sphere of existence. The reasonable person denotes a hypothetical, representative individual who exercises the kind of judgment that society requires of its members for the protection of their interests and the well being of others. The test of negligence is based on a failure to do something while guided by considerations that ordinarily regulate conduct and to determine what a reasonable and prudent (wise) person would do or not do; a test is to determine what is usual, customary, and reasonable (UCR). In this approach, ask what a reasonable person would be expected to do in the matter.

» Greater Good Approach

The “greater good” prong forces a person confronting an ethical dilemma to take into account the domino effect of a possible decision. Since human lives are intertwined in a variety of ways, weighing the effects of a particular outcome on those who are directly or indirectly involved can help one to adopt an objective view and think beyond personal or relative needs and desires. The greater good assumes a society exists, comprising individuals whose own good is inextricably linked to the good of the community through the pursuit of common values and goals. In this approach we depend upon social systems such as a just legal system, avoiding frivolous lawsuits, for instance, and an unpolluted environment. The common good approach urges us to view ourselves as members of the same community, challenging us to recognize and further those goals we share in common while respecting and valuing the freedom of individuals to pursue their own goals. In this approach, ask what would benefit the greatest number of people in your decision-making.

Application

Dilemmas in our private, professional, and public sectors (our human realms) may be experienced in a great many ways. In the private arena, ethical dilemmas may involve families, friends, self, and others. In the professional arena, ethical dilemmas may involve co-workers, supervisors, customers, the environment, and others. In the public arena, ethical dilemmas may involve clergy, officers, groups, and others. Bender and Johanyak explored typical ethical issues in the three “human realms.”

» Private Ethical Dilemma

Your best friend confided that she is having an affair with a coworker. She and her husband are close friends with you and your spouse; the four of you frequently spend time together and have shared personal sorrows, like the loss of aging parents, as well as joys, such as the births of children. The couple has a daughter in college and a son in sixth grade. To your knowledge, nothing like this has happened before, and they seem to have had a solid marriage to this point. Your friend’s revelation floors you, and you are not sure what to do. Should you tell your spouse? Should either or both of you inform her husband? Should you counsel your friend to confess to her spouse?

Consider that your friend has asked for your secrecy. Your announcement to your spouse would deny your friend her right to privacy. Your daughter is a classmate to your friend’s son. They are friends as well as neighbors. How will your daughter be affected if she discovered through her friend that his mother could potentially leave the family? Should you explain the matter in order to prepare her?

Golden Rule: What would you respect others to do to you in the matter? Reasonable Person: What would a reasonable person be expected to do in the matter?

Greater Good: What would benefit the greatest number of people in the matter?

» Professional Ethical Dilemma

A coworker has been leaving work early two to three days per week over the past month, claiming he needs to pick up his children from school or to perform extracurricular activities. His wife has gotten a new job where she is required to work from 3:00PM to 11:00PM and your coworker needs to pick up the slack. Your supervisor has mentioned at recent weekly staff meetings that everyone is expected to arrive and leave on time. There is no provision for comp or flex time. You are the only witness to your coworker’s premature departures.

Consider that your coworker has a set of pictures on his desk portraying his family. He has three children. Two are girls, but the youngest, a boy is sitting in a wheel chair. He appears to be disabled. You realize that you will be required to do more work to avoid your boss discovering that your coworker has been leaving work early. You recall a time when your one-year old baby was in the hospital. You had to be there as much as possible and your coworker did not cover for you. Should you remind him of company policy? Should you inform your boss of a nameless coworker who is breaking of the rule? Should you keep quiet and leave it up to management to identify the problem or the coworker to solve his personal issues?

Golden Rule: What would you respect others to do to you in the matter? Reasonable Person: What would a reasonable person be expected to do in the matter?

Greater Good: What would benefit the greatest number of people in the matter?

» Public Ethical Dilemma

As a member of the elementary school board, you have been asked to vote on the issue of banning offensive t-shirts in the school. Several children have already been suspended and one set of parents is considering a lawsuit against the school for infringing on their child's rights. The school has a policy in place concerning wardrobe, but it is outdated and causing issues. You must vote on whether to ban all t-shirts that contain writing or images in any form, curtail a certain type of shirt or garment, or to permit complete freedom of speech rights to school aged children and allowing them to wear whatever they like provided it does not violate other wardrobe violations concerning decency.

Consider that your vote will affect how children will be forced to behave. Children have already been suspended. Should more children suffer this same fate? What about those who have already been suspended? You might become a witness involved in a legal battle over the t-shirt issue. You do not view yourself as an expert on human rights issues. Is the school violating the basic rights of humans? Does the school have the right to control behavior to the extent of supervising and regulating the clothes children elect to wear? Does such regulation interrupt their right to autonomy? If such ruling is passed, where do the rights of schools end? How should you vote?

Golden Rule: What would you respect others to do to you in the matter? Reasonable Person: What would a reasonable person be expected to do in the matter?

Greater Good: What would benefit the greatest number of people in the matter?

Conclusion

All of us face similar dilemmas in everyday life. Many stem from interpersonal relationships at home with family members, friends, or neighbors; on the job with coworkers, clients, or supervisors; or in the social setting with community officials, lawmakers, or groups. Some situations are easier to address than others, and there are those that may never come to resolution. What we must realize is that decision-making becomes more effective when we consciously apply an ethical paradigm that allows us to sift information objectively and consistently. Being boxed into a corner without the tools to objectify a dilemma can produce deep stress and unremitting anxiety. Making an informed choice with the help of an ethical decision-making grid like EDT can help to reduce or eliminate situations that compromise our quality of life and lead to lose-lose outcomes.

Some situations are easier to address than others. What we must realize is that decision-making becomes more effective when we consciously apply an ethical paradigm that allows us to sift information objectively and consistently. EDT can help to eliminate much of the uncertainty and emotion that can compromise a logical approach to the decision-making process. When we encounter a challenging situation, it may be helpful to put ourselves in the other person’s place, asking, “How would I want someone to respond to me in this dilemma?” We might wonder what someone else might do in our situation, asking, “What would a reasonable person do?” Consider the wisdom of our ancient philosophers and twentieth-century thinkers. Give thought to the ramifications on the greatest number of people, asking, “What will be the greater good for the many?”

Combining the answers and weighing their implications jointly enables us to see more clearly what options we have. Again, we must realize that ethical issues are dilemmas because one decision may affect another. What may seem like the right answer to one EDT question may not be right in another. If you wind up with two rights and one wrong, you may potentially have solved the matter. The objective, however, is to strive for a single answer from the three unique questions that add up to a clear decision.

Confronting an ethical dilemma can become more manageable when we apply a formula that is easy to follow, logical to others, and beneficial to as many people as possible. Think about a situation that has been a challenge to you recently, and try applying EDT. Taking a proactive stance with the help of an objective decision-making process may help to restore the confidence and insight needed to deal with issues that are potentially harmful to you or to others if not resolved ethically.