ethical approaches in problem solving and decision making

Want to create or adapt books like this? Learn more about how Pressbooks supports open publishing practices.

Seven Ethical Stances to Consider

After studying the concepts of better thinking, the basics of ethical interpretation, and the philosophical conception of objective and subjective thinking, we must focus on various philosophical and ethical approaches that individuals employ daily.  For simplicity’s sake, this chapter has been broken into seven areas of exploration. This compilation is designed to introduce these significant ethical decision-making approaches to understand better how each of us might decide critical ethical issues and so that we can better understand how people and organizations have argued moral theory historically.  This study is also essential for us to become more familiar with how people might best make ethical decisions, thus leading all of us toward continuous improvement over time.

The categories we will explore are:

• Consequentialism

Natural Law

Individuals and institutions use more than one approach to decision-making. They use a combination or hybrid of theories because moral stances often overlap and dictate differing approaches or perspectives and their use.  Because this is a reality, we must be diligent when studying the ethical theory of these seven concrete categories. We must be mindful that these classifications are theoretically artificial and must be applied in “real-life” situations to develop further meaning and understanding.  By studying these categories, we become more aware of the presumptions and assumptions of those involved in the decision-making process. Hopefully, we will be better equipped to evaluate moral processes and outcomes.

Consequentialist Thinking

• The teleological approach
• The issue of Utility
• Act and Rule Utility
• Jeremy Bentham and JS Mill

The first general category of ethical thinking is “consequentialist” thinking.  Individuals using this stance believe that the right action in any circumstance or dilemma produces results the result one, either individually or by group consensus, believes is valuable.

Consequentialists hold that ethical decisions can only be accurately judged on the merit of the result or outcome of the decision.  As a result, such philosophical theories as pragmatism and utilitarianism are often referred to as teleological theories. The term teleology comes from the Greek root “telos, ” loosely translated as the end, completion, purpose, or goal of any thing or activity.

An excellent example can be found in Aristotle’s stance on ethics. Aristotle maintains a form of teleology by arguing the result of individual happiness is the essential element when deciding the ethical nature of a subject. Using his idea of the balance point of life as the basis to determine the level of contentment, Aristotle reasons that one’s knowledge of the outcome is the most crucial element to consider when determining the moral validity of a situation.

Consequentiality theory may also be interpreted in the framework of utilitarianism. This moral stance argues that the most moral results in “the greatest amount of happiness for the greatest number.”  In both examples, Aristotle’s definition from the fourth century BC and the concept of utility basically center on England’s seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, offering a moral problem-solving approach central to the success and practical use of the theories.  This practicality or success can be understood by formulating other hybrid moral theories.  Philosophers such as Cornman and Frankena use consequentiality in their moral approaches, creating hybrids where moral outcomes are understood in the context of many possible outcomes.  In this sense, such thinkers see morality in terms of contextualism or the idea that situations, circumstances, and personalization play a large part in proper moral decision-making.

• Order of the world
• Natural process
• Thomas Aquinas

The second approach to moral decision-making is natural law.  In this stance, we find arguments that base the morally correct decision on the ability to explore the natural world around us through proper reason.  Using our natural logic or reasoning ability, we can deduce proper moral assessment; thus, correct morality or decision-making should be based on natural processes or connected with nature cycles or natural laws around us.

At the core of this belief is the assertion that principles of human conduct can be derived from a proper understanding of humanity in the context of the universe as a rational whole.  The proper ethical choice can be found in contemplating individuals’ acknowledgment and acceptance of their place with each other and nature.

The prime example of this ethical approach is the Stoic movement of the late Hellenistic Greek and Roman Republic era.  According to the Stoics, one who wishes to live a moral life must understand that life is short and we are limited in our control of many factors.  Therefore, we must accept nature’s control by acknowledging that we are left with nothing in our lives except the ability to control our actions in response to the powers of nature.  Through our understanding of these factors, we should try to live humble life devoted to moral principles found in an organic approach to living that acknowledges this power.

• Deontological Thinking
• Categorical Imperative
• The Principle of Ends
• Immanuel Kant

The third ethical theory is the conception of duty. The central belief is that morality comes from doing what we understand to be the practical content and application of the convictions we acquire from the world around us and the people in it. This approach, best exemplified by the work of Immanuel Kant, is based on the philosophical conception of deontology.

Deontology refers to the belief that morality is only correctly understood in the context of moral necessity or obligation. Unlike consequentialist theory, deontological thinkers believe that truly right decisions are not based on practical results but rather the moral obligation inherent in the notion of duty found in the natural understanding and right employment of the concept of reason.

In Kant’s nineteenth-century theory, he points to two specific components that are the basis of duty-based ethical approaches.  Individuals often refer to the categorical imperative or a universal moral principle that can be upheld regardless of the situation and the principle of ends. The categorical imperative or universal principle argues that ethically the right decision must be based on the belief that the process of carrying out proper moral decision-making is more important or just as necessary as the proper, reasoned end.  Individuals who approach moral problem-solving from this perspective base their moral decision-making on their obligation to an absolutistic statement found in the base conception of this obligation to principles.   Look at the following link to analyze Kant’s central portion of this theory.

• History of Rights in the Western World
• Preservation of Rights
• The Golden Rule

This fourth moral category relies on the belief that morality is shaped by one’s determination and assessment of human rights.  This stance or moral decision-making process emphasizes justified expectations about the benefits to other people or society and what should be at the basis of that expectation of thought and behavior. These expectations are often understood as morally inherent provisions.

This view illustrates that we are entitled to rights provided we act towards others similarly, thus ensuring corresponding rights for them.  Founded within the English tradition, dating to at least the thirteenth century, the expectation of how we treat others has become connected with a core of values that define life and the importance of each individual.  Ethical evaluation is resolved by preserving agreed-upon respect for others through cooperation.  Right and wrong are abstracted within the framework of expectations concerning benefits for individuals and people in groups.

The process to determine mutual rights is understood through consistent and careful exploration of mutually agreed-upon factors, the preservation of which is exchanging certain essential agreed-upon benefits to the advantage of those involved.  In this sense, for the benefit of all, individuals base their moral conceptions on the practical application of daily life, the vision they have for how it should be carried out, and the preservation and betterment of that life through agreed-upon standards or the preservation of rights best understood in the conception of the idea of the golden rule, for example.

This ideology can also be understood in Thomas Hobbes’ ethical theory from the seventeenth century. He writes the harmful component of the golden rule is perhaps more productive.  He argues that “not doing for others what you don’t want to be done to you” may be a more moral way to formulate or work towards a more moral society.  Not getting in each other’s way by attempting to treat others as you would like to be treated. However, a demonstration of rights-based moral theory respects individual desires and rights. When doing this,  people do not infringe on others’ interests or violate their rights and/or their ability to adhere to proper moral principles.   This approach to morality relies upon understanding what is essential to most people involved in moral decision-making. It can often be seen in the formulation of laws that confirm the preservation of this conception of proper acquisition.

In thinking through the possible argument that ethical determination is founded in a discoverable and agreed-upon conception of what everyone is entitled to, listen to Robert Wright’s assessment of how compassion might be connected to the Golden Rule and our natural inclinations.  Wright argues that our ethical evaluation might be understood within this hybrid of theories by integrating rights, instinct, and natural law.

• People We Respect
• Concepts We Prefer
• Simplistic and Natural

Virtue ethics is the fifth stance.  In studying “ethos” or character, thinkers believe morality is directly connected to peoples’ understanding of what is conceptually “good.”  The idea of a hierarchy of opinion, thought, or ideology becomes the focus of this perspective.  Its conceptualization is correlated with what “behaviors or thoughts” we prefer individuals to possess and less about the reality of where people are in their moral stances.

Virtue ethics is best understood in the framework of the understanding of the terms “ideals or forms”, used by Greeks such as Plato and Aristotle.  Their view maintains that humans have the innate inclination and ability to understand the concept of “betterment” in all avenues of life.  As a result, we must seek to understand “true wisdom” to grasp the values or virtues we hold dear.

By doing this, morality becomes both the compass and motivating factor for our lives.  It also becomes a guideline by encouraging us, through reason and knowledge, towards what are appropriate thoughts and behaviors while pushing us to realize that such ideas are not only subjective.  Thus, these ideals function as factors for proper behavioral practice.  In that process, we find meaning or progress in our lives.  One way to do this is to focus on people that we respect.  By analyzing their behavior and characteristics, we can internalize those values and make them part of our lives.

• The Importance of Belief
• Group or Individual Authority
• Revelation Based
• Conscience (Soul)

The sixth moral category highlights the concept of morality based on some form of authority, whether as a political, social, or cultural entity.  Often referred to as “belief ethics”, this approach can also be understood as determined by a form of a supernatural or natural authority figure who has given humanity a preferred way or manner of living.

This approach conceptualizes morality as a series of beliefs, concepts, or dictums given to humans for survival.  This belief often is directly connected with the understanding that morality can be closely linked to authority figures and to direct imperatives.  Thus, many assert or argue that religion and/or religious beliefs may be directly tied to one’s understanding of morality or ethical belief.  Therefore the issue is how one attains that moral understanding.

There are many plausible arguments, but I have narrowed it down to two that best explain this perspective.

• Morality, though steeped in some form of a moral command, is usually connected with a unique situation or understanding, allowing this information to be divulged.  When this unique situation occurs, these ideas are often reason-based and/or virtue oriented and hold to conduct that enhances the well-being or “betterment” of those involved.
• The authority-based approach to ethical conceptualization often asserts that conscience, or an innate awareness within us, confirms the validity of this understanding.  Thus, some authority-based interpretations argue that morality is known through the combination of directives and solid moral “feelings” or understanding coupled with a strong awareness of inner inclinations.  “Inner awareness” leads or confirms to us that such natural or supernatural authorities dictate proper moral principles.  In the end, authority becomes a basis for people to determine the right course of action in ethical decision-making, understanding that the human is part of that process but not the sole factor in formulating proper ethical standards and/or norms.
• Community Standards
• Kinship & Nepotism
• Reciprocity

The last area of exploration is instinct. This study comes from the belief that morality stems from our natural urges or natural/biological phenomena.  This approach stresses the importance of understanding our instincts’ role in developing morality.  Instinct can be defined as a form of natural control or guidance that influence our thinking and behavior. It is central to how we relate to others in a community.

Unlike the other theories presented, this stance argues that community standards or moral stances are based on our natural need to preserve ourselves or our species/gene pool.  Therefore, morality is staked in self-preservation.

Individuals who defend this viewpoint believe they will naturally favor their kin or biological relations in moral decision-making.  Therefore, their moral stances rely upon biological factors, and they dictate their priorities and moral beliefs.  Additionally, this field of moral analysis asserts that our biological makeup or natural “being” influences us in two other ways.  One, we innately work towards reciprocity or the moral belief that exchanging goods and/or aid is central to morality; and two, the basis of actual ethical decision-making, can be found in sharing “favors” so that individuals benefit.

The core of reciprocity is found in individual right versus wrong assessments and uniting those factors with the self-interest found in community cooperation.  As a result, instinct morality seems to be motivated in many theories by the assumption that reality dictates moral choices and that community norms are simply a reflection of individual and natural rectifications that ultimately maximize individual survival. Listen to Jane Goodall to hear more about the argument of instinct-based morality as a plausible ethical decision-making outcome.

Franz De Waal has defended that animals can teach us much about moral behavior.  Listen to his analysis of the morality of animal behavior that supports the ideology of instinct ethics.

Ultimately, instinct ethics focuses on believing humans have become too complicated in our ethical evaluation.  We may rely too much on education, reason, and complex systems that have yielded unethical returns.  By attempting to return to what is most natural, theorists’ arguments support the idea that we would be more moral if we focused on community, cooperation, and natural need.

Final Thoughts on Seven Approaches to Ethical Problem Solving

The approaches discussed in this chapter are plausible arguments for how morality is formulated and discuss what factors affect how people conceptualize decision-making.  Leaders need to understand these approaches when they weigh difficult decisions or formulate business policies. What is perhaps just as important is that one takes these seven approaches and qualifies that knowledge with the understanding that these approaches are integrated into many ways.  Though these categories are “neat” and “tidy” by definition, they also are explored in an academic setting. The reality of the human experience dictates that we understand these elements in the context of integration.  A person who relies on instinct as the basis of moral decision-making in one instance might appeal to virtues or values in another.  Beyond this, it is commonplace to see individuals appeal to both in the same circumstance, thus creating, as listed above, hybrid theories.  A good example might be the understanding that authority-based ethical theory coincides with instinct and virtue, as individuals argue that God or some supernatural power created virtue, values, or instinct as an ethical gauge.

All appeal to both facets or are multi-layered in their approach to understanding the basics of moral theory and thus make the task of assessing these various approaches extremely difficult.  Perhaps the place to start in the estimation of University of Alabama professor James Rachels is to acknowledge these various approaches and work to see their unique overlapping components and specific connections.  Rachels offers two solid suggestions for dealing with moral basics that should help address these areas as one is confronted by their different stances.

• First, get as much factual knowledge as possible.
• Second, attempt to decrease subjective interpretations or human prejudice.

Taking these seven as the beginning of approaches, leaders can begin to understand how individuals approach moral decision-making more fully.  Developing awareness of these categories and their potential hybrids allows us to more clearly, effectively, and carefully address potential problems.

References:

Cotton, J. (2016, April 06). Immanuel Kant. Retrieved from https://www.theschooloflife.com/thebookoflife/immanuel-kant/

Goodall, J. (2002, March). What separates us from chimpanzees? Retrieved from https://www.ted.com/talks/jane_goodall_on_what_separates_us_from_the_apes

Waal, F. D. (n.d.). Moral behavior in animals. Retrieved from https://www.ted.com/talks/frans_de_waal_do_animals_have_morals

Wright, R. (2009, October). The evolution of compassion. Retrieved from https://www.ted.com/talks/robert_wright_the_evolution_of_compassion

Chapter 4--Perspectives in Ethical Theory Copyright © 2018 by Christopher Brooks is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License , except where otherwise noted.

Share This Book

Ethical Decision Making Models and 6 Steps of Ethical Decision Making Process

By Andre Wyatt on March 21, 2023 — 10 minutes to read

In many ways, ethics may feel like a soft subject, a conversation that can wait when compared to other more seemingly pressing issues (a process for operations, hiring the right workers, and meeting company goals). However, putting ethics on the backburner can spell trouble for any organization. Much like the process of businesses creating the company mission, vision, and principles ; the topic of ethics has to enter the conversation. Ethics is far more than someone doing the right thing; it is many times tied to legal procedures and policies that if breached can put an organization in the midst of trouble.

• A general definition of business ethics is that it is a tool an organization uses to make sure that managers, employees, and senior leadership always act responsibly in the workplace with internal and external stakeholders.
• An ethical decision-making model is a framework that leaders use to bring these principles to the company and ensure they are followed.
• Importance of Ethical Standards Part 1
• Ethical Decision-Making Model Approach Part 2
• Ethical Decision-Making Process Part 3
• PLUS Ethical Decision-Making Model Part 4
• Character-Based Decision-Making Model Part 5

The Importance of Ethical Standards

Leaders have to develop ethical standards that employees in their company will be required to adhere to. This can help move the conversation toward using a model to decide when someone is in violation of ethics.

There are five sources of ethical standards:

Utilitarian

Common good.

While many of these standards were created by Greek Philosophers who lived long ago, business leaders are still using many of them to determine how they deal with ethical issues. Many of these standards can lead to a cohesive ethical decision-making model.

What is the purpose of an ethical decision-making model?

Ethical decision-making models are designed to help individuals and organizations make decisions in an ethical manner.

The purpose of an ethical decision-making model is to ensure that decisions are made in a manner that takes into account the ethical implications for all stakeholders involved.

Ethical decision-making models provide a framework for analyzing ethical dilemmas and serve as a guide for identifying potential solutions. By utilizing these models, businesses can ensure they are making decisions that align with their values while minimizing the risk of harming stakeholders. This can result in better decision-making and improved reputation.

Why is it important to use an ethical decision making model?

Making ethical decisions is an integral part of being a responsible leader and member of society. It is crucial to use an ethical decision making model to ensure that all stakeholders are taken into account and that decisions are made with the highest level of integrity. An ethical decision making model provides a framework for assessing the potential consequences of each choice, analyzing which option best aligns with personal values and organizational principles, and then acting on those conclusions.

An Empirical Approach to an Ethical Decision-Making Model

In 2011, a researcher at the University of Calgary in Calgary, Canada completed a study for the Journal of Business Ethics.

The research centered around an idea of rational egoism as a basis for developing ethics in the workplace.

She had 16 CEOs formulate principles for ethics through the combination of reasoning and intuition while forming and applying moral principles to an everyday circumstance where a question of ethics could be involved.

Through the process, the CEOs settled on a set of four principles:

• self-interest
• rationality

These were the general standards used by the CEOs in creating a decision about how they should deal with downsizing. While this is not a standard model, it does reveal the underlying ideas business leaders use to make ethical choices. These principles lead to standards that are used in ethical decision-making processes and moral frameworks.

How would you attempt to resolve a situation using an ethical decision-making model?

When facing a difficult situation, it can be beneficial to use an ethical decision-making model to help you come to the best possible solution. These models are based on the idea that you should consider the consequences of your decision, weigh the various options available, and consider the ethical implications of each choice. First, you should identify the problem or situation and clearly define what it is. Then, you must assess all of the possible outcomes of each choice and consider which one is most ethical. Once you have identified your preferred option, you should consult with others who may be affected by your decision to ensure that it aligns with their values and interests. You should evaluate the decision by considering how it affects yourself and others, as well as how it meets the expectations of your organization or institution.

The Ethical Decision-Making Process

Before a model can be utilized, leaders need to work through a set of steps to be sure they are bringing a comprehensive lens to handling ethical disputes or problems.

Take Time to Define the Problem

Consult resources and seek assistance, think about the lasting effects, consider regulations in other industries, decide on a decision, implement and evaluate.

While each situation may call for specific steps to come before others, this is a general process that leaders can use to approach ethical decision-making . We have talked about the approach; now it is time to discuss the lens that leaders can use to make the final decision that leads to implementation.

PLUS Ethical Decision-Making Model

PLUS Ethical Decision-Making Model is one of the most used and widely cited ethical models.

To create a clear and cohesive approach to implementing a solution to an ethical problem; the model is set in a way that it gives the leader “ ethical filters ” to make decisions.

It purposely leaves out anything related to making a profit so that leaders can focus on values instead of a potential impact on revenue.

The letters in PLUS each stand for a filter that leaders can use for decision-making:

• P – Policies and Procedures: Is the decision in line with the policies laid out by the company?
• L – Legal: Will this violate any legal parameters or regulations?
• U – Universal: How does this relate to the values and principles established for the organization to operate? Is it in tune with core values and the company culture?
• S – Self: Does it meet my standards of fairness and justice? This particular lens fits well with the virtue approach that is a part of the five common standards mentioned above.

These filters can even be applied to the process, so leaders have a clear ethical framework all along the way. Defining the problem automatically requires leaders to see if it is violating any of the PLUS ethical filters. It should also be used to assess the viability of any decisions that are being considered for implementation, and make a decision about whether the one that was chosen resolved the PLUS considerations questioned in the first step. No model is perfect, but this is a standard way to consider four vital components that have a substantial ethical impact .

The Character-Based Decision-Making Model

While this one is not as widely cited as the PLUS Model, it is still worth mentioning. The Character-Based Decision-Making Model was created by the Josephson Institute of Ethics, and it has three main components leaders can use to make an ethical decision.

• All decisions must take into account the impact to all stakeholders – This is very similar to the Utilitarian approach discussed earlier. This step seeks to do good for most, and hopefully avoid harming others.
• Ethics always takes priority over non-ethical values  – A decision should not be rationalized if it in any way violates ethical principles. In business, this can show up through deciding between increasing productivity or profit and keeping an employee’s best interest at heart.
• It is okay to violate another ethical principle if it advances a better ethical climate for others  – Leaders may find themselves in the unenviable position of having to prioritize ethical decisions. They may have to choose between competing ethical choices, and this model advises that leaders should always want the one that creates the most good for as many people as possible.

There are multiple components to consider when making an ethical decision. Regulations, policies and procedures, perception, public opinion, and even a leader’s morality play a part in how decisions that question business ethics should be handled. While no approach is perfect, a well-thought-out process and useful framework can make dealing with ethical situations easier.

• How to Resolve Employee Conflict at Work [Steps, Tips, Examples]
• 5 Challenges and 10 Solutions to Improve Employee Feedback Process
• How to Identify and Handle Employee Underperformance? 5 Proven Steps
• Organizational Development: 4 Main Steps and 8 Proven Success Factors
• 7 Steps to Leading Virtual Teams to Success
• 7 Steps to Create the Best Value Proposition [How-To’s and Best Practices]

• school Campus Bookshelves
• menu_book Bookshelves
• perm_media Learning Objects
• login Login
• how_to_reg Request Instructor Account
• hub Instructor Commons
• Download Page (PDF)
• Download Full Book (PDF)
• Periodic Table
• Physics Constants
• Scientific Calculator
• Reference & Cite
• Tools expand_more
• Readability

selected template will load here

This action is not available.

2.2: Three Frameworks for Ethical Problem-Solving in Business and the Professions

• Last updated
• Save as PDF
• Page ID 20497

• William Frey and Jose a Cruz-Cruz
• University of Puerto Rico - Mayaguez

\( \newcommand{\vecs}[1]{\overset { \scriptstyle \rightharpoonup} {\mathbf{#1}} } \)

\( \newcommand{\vecd}[1]{\overset{-\!-\!\rightharpoonup}{\vphantom{a}\smash {#1}}} \)

\( \newcommand{\id}{\mathrm{id}}\) \( \newcommand{\Span}{\mathrm{span}}\)

( \newcommand{\kernel}{\mathrm{null}\,}\) \( \newcommand{\range}{\mathrm{range}\,}\)

\( \newcommand{\RealPart}{\mathrm{Re}}\) \( \newcommand{\ImaginaryPart}{\mathrm{Im}}\)

\( \newcommand{\Argument}{\mathrm{Arg}}\) \( \newcommand{\norm}[1]{\| #1 \|}\)

\( \newcommand{\inner}[2]{\langle #1, #2 \rangle}\)

\( \newcommand{\Span}{\mathrm{span}}\)

\( \newcommand{\id}{\mathrm{id}}\)

\( \newcommand{\kernel}{\mathrm{null}\,}\)

\( \newcommand{\range}{\mathrm{range}\,}\)

\( \newcommand{\RealPart}{\mathrm{Re}}\)

\( \newcommand{\ImaginaryPart}{\mathrm{Im}}\)

\( \newcommand{\Argument}{\mathrm{Arg}}\)

\( \newcommand{\norm}[1]{\| #1 \|}\)

\( \newcommand{\Span}{\mathrm{span}}\) \( \newcommand{\AA}{\unicode[.8,0]{x212B}}\)

\( \newcommand{\vectorA}[1]{\vec{#1}}      % arrow\)

\( \newcommand{\vectorAt}[1]{\vec{\text{#1}}}      % arrow\)

\( \newcommand{\vectorB}[1]{\overset { \scriptstyle \rightharpoonup} {\mathbf{#1}} } \)

\( \newcommand{\vectorC}[1]{\textbf{#1}} \)

\( \newcommand{\vectorD}[1]{\overrightarrow{#1}} \)

\( \newcommand{\vectorDt}[1]{\overrightarrow{\text{#1}}} \)

\( \newcommand{\vectE}[1]{\overset{-\!-\!\rightharpoonup}{\vphantom{a}\smash{\mathbf {#1}}}} \)

Module Introduction

In this module, you will learn and practice three frameworks designed to integrate ethics into decision making in the areas of practical and occupational ethics. The first framework divides the decision making process into four stages: problem specification, solution generation, solution testing, and solution implementation. It is based on an analogy between ethics and design problems that is detailed in a table presented below. The second framework focuses on the process of testing solution alternatives for their ethics by deploying three ethics tests that will help you to evaluate and rank alternative courses of action. The reversibility, harm, and publicity tests each "encapsulate" or summarize an important ethical theory. Finally, a feasibility test will help you to uncover interest, resource, and technical constraints that will affect and possibly impede the realization of your solution or decision. Taken together, these three frameworks will help steer you toward designing and implementing ethical solutions to problems in the professional and occupational areas.

Two online resources provide more extensive background information. The first, www.computingcases.org, provides background information on the ethics tests, socio-technical analysis, and intermediate moral concepts. The second, onlineethics.org/essays/educa.../teaching.html, explores in more detail the analogy between ethics and design problems. Much of this information will be published in Good Computing: A Virtue Approach to Computer Ethics, a textbook of cases and decision-making techniques in computer ethics that is being authored by Chuck Huff, William Frey, and Jose A. Cruz-Cruz.

Problem-Solving or Decision-Making Framework: Analogy between ethics and design

Traditionally, problem-solving frameworks in professional and occupational ethics have been taken from rational decision procedures used in economics. While these are useful, they lead one to think that ethical decisions are already "out there" waiting to be discovered. In contrast, taking a design approach to ethical decision making emphasizes that ethical decisions must be created, not discovered. This, in turn, emphasizes the importance of moral imagination and moral creativity. Carolyn Whitbeck in Ethics in Engineering Practice and Research describes this aspect of ethical decision making through the analogy she draws between ethics and design problems in chapter one. Here she rejects the idea that ethical problems are multiple-choice problems. We solve ethical problems not by choosing between ready-made solutions given with the situation; rather we use our moral creativity and moral imagination to design these solutions. Chuck Huff builds on this by modifying the design method used in software engineering so that it can help structure the process of framing ethical situations and creating actions to bring these situations to a successful and ethical conclusion. The key points in the analogy between ethical and design problems are summarized in the table presented just below.

Software Development Cycle: Four Stages

(1) problem specification, (2) solution generation, (3) solution testing, and (4) solution implementation.

Problem specification

Problem specification involves exercising moral imagination to specify the socio-technical system (including the stakeholders) that will influence and will be influenced by the decision we are about to make. Stating the problem clearly and concisely is essential to design problems; getting the problem right helps structure and channel the process of designing and implementing the solution. There is no algorithm available to crank out effective problem specification. Instead, we offer a series of guidelines or rules of thumb to get you started in a process that is accomplished by the skillful exercise of moral imagination.

For a broader problem framing model see Harris, Pritchard, and Rabins, Engineering Ethics: Concepts and Cases, 2nd Edition, Belmont, CA: Wadsworth, 2000, pp. 30-56. See also Cynthia Brincat and Victoria Wike, Morality and Professional Life: Values at Work, New Jersey: Prentice Hall, 1999.

Different Ways of Specifying the Problem

• Many problems can be specified as disagreements. For example, you disagree with your supervisor over the safety of the manufacturing environment. Disagreements over facts can be resolved by gathering more information. Disagreements over concepts (you and your supervisor have different ideas of what safety means) require working toward a common definition.
• Other problems involve conflicting values. You advocate installing pollution control technology because you value environmental quality and safety. Your supervisor resists this course of action because she values maintaining a solid profit margin. This is a conflict between a moral value (safety and environmental quality) and a nonmoral value (solid profits). Moral values can also conflict with one another in a given situation. Using John Doe lawsuits to force Internet Service Providers to reveal the real identities of defamers certainly protects the privacy and reputations of potential targets of defamation. But it also places restrictions on legitimate free speech by making it possible for powerful wrongdoers to intimidate those who would publicize their wrongdoing. Here the moral values of privacy and free speech are in conflict. Value conflicts can be addressed by harmonizing the conflicting values, compromising on conflicting values by partially realizing them, or setting one value aside while realizing the other (=value trade offs).
• If you specify your problem as a disagreement, you need to describe the facts or concepts about which there is disagreement.
• If you specify your problem as a conflict, you need to describe the values that conflict in the situation.
• One useful way of specifying a problem is to carry out a stakeholder analysis. A stakeholder is any group or individual that has a vital interest at risk in the situation. Stakeholder interests frequently come into conflict and solving these conflicts requires developing strategies to reconcile and realize the conflicting stakes.
• Another way of identifying and specifying problems is to carry out a socio-technical analysis. Socio-technical systems (STS) embody values. Problems can be anticipated and prevented by specifying possible value conflicts. Integrating a new technology, procedure, or policy into a socio-technical system can create three kinds of problem. (1) Conflict between values in the technology and those in the STS. For example, when an attempt is made to integrate an information system into the STS of a small business, the values present in an information system can conflict with those in the socio-technical system. (Workers may feel that the new information system invades their privacy.) (2) Amplification of existing value conflicts in the STS. The introduction of a new technology may magnify an existing value conflict. Digitalizing textbooks may undermine copyrights because digital media is easy to copy and disseminate on the Internet. (3) Harmful consequences. Introducing something new into a socio-technical system may set in motion a chain of events that will eventually harm stakeholders in the socio-technical system. For example, giving laptop computers to public school students may produce long term environmental harm when careless disposal of spent laptops releases toxic materials into the environment.
• The following table helps summarize some of these problem categories and then outlines generic solutions.

The materials on moral ecologies come from Huff, C., Barnard, L., and Frey, W. (2008). “Good computing: a pedagogically focused model of virtue in the practice of computing (parts 1 and 2)”, Journal of Information, Communication and Ethics in Society, Volume 6, Issues 3 and 4: 246-316. See also, Michael Davis, Thinking Like An Engineer, Oxford, 1998, 119-156.

Instructions for Using Problem Classification Table

• Is your problem a conflict? Moral versus moral value? Moral versus non-moral values? Non-moral versus non-moral values? Identify the conflicting values as concisely as possible. Example: In Toysmart, the financial values of creditors come into conflict with the privacy of individuals in the database: financial versus privacy values.
• Is your problem a disagreement? Is the disagreement over basic facts? Are these facts observable? Is it a disagreement over a basic concept? What is the concept? Is it a factual disagreement that, upon further reflection, changes into a conceptual disagreement?
• Does your problem arise from an impending harm? What is the harm? What is its magnitude? What is the probability that it will occur?
• If your problem is a value conflict then can these values be fully integrated in a value integrating solution? Or must they be partially realized in a compromise or traded off against one another?
• If your problem is a factual disagreement, what is the procedure for gathering the required information, if this is feasible?
• If your problem is a conceptual disagreement, how can this be overcome? By consulting a government policy or regulation? (OSHA on safety for example.) By consulting a theoretical account of the value in question? (Reading a philosophical analysis of privacy.) By collecting past cases that involve the same concept and drawing analogies and comparisons to the present case?

Moral Ecologies

• "Moral Ecology" refers to the organization in which one works. Calling this organization an "ecology" conveys the idea that it is a system of interrelated parts. These "ecologies" differ depending on the content of the organization's central, identity-conferring values.
• In finance-driven companies, financial values form the core of the organization's identity. Ethical advocacy requires skills in bringing ethical issues to the attention of decision-makers and getting them to take these issues seriously. It helps to state ethical concerns in multi-disciplinary language. (For example, show that ignoring ethical concerns will cost the company money in the long run.)
• Customer-driven ecologies place customer values like usability, affordability, and efficiency, in the forefront of group deliberation and decision-making. Often, one must play the role of "ethics advocate" in deliberation and decision-making. One is expected to argue forcefully and persistently ("go to the mat") to make sure that ethical considerations are integrated into group deliberations and decision-making.
• Quality-driven companies place ethical values into the core of group deliberations and decision-making. Here one is not so much ethics advocate as ethics enabler. This new role requires that one help one's group find creative ways of integrating ethical values with other concerns like customer and financial values.

If you are having problems specifying your problem

• Try identifying the stakeholders. Stakeholders are any group or individual with a vital interest at stake in the situation at hand.
• Project yourself imaginatively into the perspectives of each stakeholder. How does the situation look from their standpoint? What are their interests? How do they feel about their interests?
• Compare the results of these different imaginative projections. Do any stakeholder interests conflict? Do the stakeholders themselves stand in conflict?
• If the answer to one or both of these questions is "yes" then this is your problem statement. How does one reconcile conflicting stakeholders or conflicting stakeholder interests in this situation?

Framing Your Problem

• We miss solutions to problems because we choose to frame them in only one way.
• For example, the Mountain Terrorist Dilemma is usually framed in only one way: as a dilemma, that is, a forced decision between two equally undesirable alternatives. (Gilbane Gold is also framed as a dilemma: blow the whistle on Z-Corp or go along with the excess polution.)
• Framing a problem differently opens up new horizons of solution. Your requirement from this point on in the semester is to frame every problem you are assigned in at least two different ways.
• For examples of how to frame problems using socio-technical system analysis see module m14025.
• These different frames are summarized in the next box below.

Different Frames for Problems

• Technical Frame: Engineers frame problems technically, that is, they specify a problem as raising a technical issue and requiring a technical design for its resolution. For example, in the Hughes case, a technical frame would raise the problem of how to streamline the manufacturing and testing processes of the chips.
• Physical Frame: In the Laminating Press case, the physical frame would raise the problem of how the layout of the room could be changed to reduce the white powder. Would better ventilation eliminate or mitigate the white powder problem?
• Social Frame: In the "When in Aguadilla" case, the Japanese engineer is uncomfortable working with the Puerto Rican woman engineer because of social and cultural beliefs concerning women still widely held by men in Japan. Framing this as a social problem would involve asking whether there would be ways of getting the Japanese engineer to see things from the Puerto Rican point of view.
• Financial or Market-Based Frames: The DOE, in the Risk Assessment case below, accuses the laboratory and its engineers of trying to extend the contract to make more money. The supervisor of the head of the risk assessment team pressures the team leader to complete the risk assessment as quickly as possible so as not to lose the contract. These two framings highlight financial issues.
• Managerial Frame: As the leader of the Puerto Rican team in the "When in Aguadilla" case, you need to exercise leadership in your team. The refusal of the Japanese engineer to work with a member of your team creates a management problem. What would a good leader, a good manager, do in this situation? What does it mean to call this a management problem? What management strategies would help solve it?
• Legal Frame: OSHA may have clear regulations concerning the white powder produced by laminating presses. How can you find out about these regulations? What would be involved in complying with them? If they cost money, how would you get this money? These are questions that arise when you frame the Laminating Press case as a legal problem.
• Environmental Framing: Finally, viewing your problem from an environmental frame leads you to consider the impact of your decision on the environment. Does it harm the environment? Can this harm be avoided? Can it be mitigated? Can it be offset? (Could you replant elsewhere the trees you cut down to build your new plant?) Could you develop a short term environmental solution to "buy time" for designing and implementing a longer term solution? Framing your problem as an environmental problem requires that you ask whether this solution harms the environment and whether this harming can be avoided or remedied in some other way.

Solution Generation

In solution generation, agents exercise moral creativity by brainstorming to come up with solution options designed to resolve the disagreements and value conflicts identified in the problem specification stage. Brainstorming is crucial to generating nonobvious solutions to difficult, intractable problems. This process must take place within a non-polarized environment where the members of the group respect and trust one another. (See the module on the Ethics of Group Work for more information on how groups can be successful and pitfalls that commonly trip up groups.) Groups effectively initiate the brainstorming process by suspending criticism and analysis. After the process is completed (say, by meeting a quota), then participants can refine the solutions generated by combining them, eliminating those that don't fit the problem, and ranking them in terms of their ethics and feasibility. If a problem can't be solved, perhaps it can be dissolved through reformulation. If an entire problem can't be solved, perhaps the problem can be broken down into parts some of which can be readily solved.

Having trouble generating solutions?

• One of the most difficult stages in problem-solving is to jump-start the process of brainstorming solutions. If you are stuck then here are some generic options guaranteed to get you "unstuck."
• Gather Information: Many disagreements can be resolved by gathering more information. Because this is the easiest and least painful way of reaching consensus, it is almost always best to start here. Gathering information may not be possible because of different constraints: there may not be enough time, the facts may be too expensive to gather, or the information required goes beyond scientific or technical knowledge. Sometimes gathering more information does not solve the problem but allows for a new, more fruitful formulation of the problem. Harris, Pritchard, and Rabins in Engineering Ethics: Concepts and Cases show how solving a factual disagreement allows a more profound conceptual disagreement to emerge.
• Nolo Contendere. Nolo Contendere is Latin for not opposing or contending. Your interests may conflict with your supervisor but he or she may be too powerful to reason with or oppose. So your only choice here is to give in to his or her interests. The problem with nolo contendere is that non-opposition is often taken as agreement. You may need to document (e.g., through memos) that your choosing not to oppose does not indicate agreement.
• Negotiate. Good communication and diplomatic skills may make it possible to negotiate a solution that respects the different interests. Value integrative solutions are designed to integrate conflicting values. Compromises allow for partial realization of the conflicting interests. (See the module, The Ethics of Team Work, for compromise strategies such as logrolling or bridging.) Sometimes it may be necessary to set aside one's interests for the present with the understanding that these will be taken care of at a later time. This requires trust.
• Oppose. If nolo contendere and negotiation are not possible, then opposition may be necessary. Opposition requires marshaling evidence to document one's position persuasively and impartially. It makes use of strategies such as leading an "organizational charge" or "blowing the whistle." For more on whistle-blowing consult the discussion of whistleblowing in the Hughes case that can be found in computing cases.
• Exit. Opposition may not be possible if one lacks organizational power or documented evidence. Nolo contendere will not suffice if non-opposition implicates one in wrongdoing. Negotiation will not succeed without a necessary basis of trust or a serious value integrative solution. As a last resort, one may have to exit from the situation by asking for reassignment or resigning.

Refining solutions

• Are any solutions blatantly unethical or unrealizable?
• Do any solutions overlap? Can these be integrated into broader solutions?
• Can solutions be brought together as courses of action that can be pursued simultaneously?
• Go back to the problem specification? Can any solutions be eliminated because they do not address the problem? (Or can the problem be revised to better fit what, intuitively, is a good solution.)
• Can solutions be brought together as successive courses of action? For example, one solution represents Plan A; if it does not work then another solution, Plan B, can be pursued. (You negotiate the problem with your supervisor. If she fails to agree, then you oppose your supervisor on the grounds that her position is wrong. If this fails, you conform or exit.)
• The goal here is to reduce the solution list to something manageable, say, a best, a second best, and a third best. Try adding a bad solution to heighten strategic points of comparison. The list should be short so that the remaining solutions can be intensively examined as to their ethics and feasibility.

Solution Testing: The solutions developed in the second stage must be tested in various ways.

• Reversibility: Would I still think the choice of this option good if I were one of those adversely affected by it? (Davis uses this formulation in various publications.) I identify different stakeholders and then take up their roles. Through this imaginative projection, I should consider how the action under consideration will affect them and how they will view, interpret, and experience this affect.
• Harm: Does this option do less harm than any available alternative? Here I try to design an action that will minimize harmful effects. I should factor in the likely results of the action under consideration but I should also evaluate how justly these results will be distributed among stakeholders.
• Publicity: What kind of person will I become if I choose this action? This is Davis' formulation of this test as a virtue test. The key to this test is that you associate the agent with the action. If I (the agent) am publicly judged as a person in terms of this action, what does this say about me as a person? Am I comfortable being judged an irresponsible person on the basis of my being identified with my irresponsible action?
• Meta-Test - Convergence: Do a quick inventory here. Do the ethics tests come together and agree on ranking this solution as a strong one? Then this solution satisfies the convergence meta-test and this provides independent evidence of the strength of the solution.
• Meta-Test - Divergence: Again, do a quick inventory of your solution evaluation matrix results to this point. Do the tests differ or diverge on this point? This is independent evidence of the weakness of this solution. Think about why this solution may be strong under one test but weak under the others.
• The solution evaluation matrix presented just below models and summarizes the solution testing process.

Solution Implementation

The chosen solution must be examined in terms of how well it responds to various situational constraints that could impede its implementation. What will be its costs? Can it be implemented within necessary time constraints? Does it honor recognized technical limitations or does it require pushing these back through innovation and discovery? Does it comply with legal and regulatory requirements? Finally, could the surrounding organizational, political, and social environments give rise to obstacles to the implementation of the solution? In general this phase requires looking at interest, technical, and resource constraints or limitations. A Feasibility Matrix helps to guide this process.

The Feasibility Tests focuses on situational constraints. How could these hinder the implementation of the solution? Should the solution be modified to ease implementation? Can the constraints be removed or remodeled by negotiation, compromise, or education? Can implementation be facilitated by modifying both the solution and changing the constraints?

Different Feasibility Constraints

• The Feasibility Test identifies the constraints that could interfere with realizing a solution. This test also sorts out these constraints into resource (time, cost, materials), interest (individuals, organizations, legal, social, political), and technical limitations. By identifying situational constraints, problem-solvers can anticipate implementation problems and take early steps to prevent or mitigate them.
• Time. Is there a deadline within which the solution has to be enacted? Is this deadline fixed or negotiable?
• Financial. Are there cost constraints on implementing the ethical solution? Can these be extended by raising more funds? Can they be extended by cutting existing costs? Can agents negotiate for more money for implementation?
• Technical. Technical limits constrain the ability to implement solutions. What, then, are the technical limitations to realizing and implementing the solution? Could these be moved back by modifying the solution or by adopting new technologies?
• Manufacturability. Are there manufacturing constraints on the solution at hand? Given time, cost, and technical feasibility, what are the manufacturing limits to implementing the solution? Once again, are these limits fixed or flexible, rigid or negotiable?
• Legal. How does the proposed solution stand with respect to existing laws, legal structures, and regulations? Does it create disposal problems addressed in existing regulations? Does it respond to and minimize the possibility of adverse legal action? Are there legal constraints that go against the ethical values embodied in the solution? Again, are these legal constraints fixed or negotiable?
• Individual Interest Constraints. Individuals with conflicting interests may oppose the implementation of the solution. For example, an insecure supervisor may oppose the solution because he fears it will undermine his authority. Are these individual interest constraints fixed or negotiable?
• Organizational. Inconsistencies between the solution and the formal or informal rules of an organization may give rise to implementation obstacles. Implementing the solution may require support of those higher up in the management hierarchy. The solution may conflict with organization rules, management structures, traditions, or financial objectives. Once again, are these constraints fixed or flexible?
• Social, Cultural, or Political. The socio-technical system within which the solution is to be implemented contains certain social structures, cultural traditions, and political ideologies. How do these stand with respect to the solution? For example, does a climate of suspicion of high technology threaten to create political opposition to the solution? What kinds of social, cultural, or political problems could arise? Are these fixed or can they be altered through negotiation, education, or persuasion?

Ethics Tests For Solution Evaluation

Three ethics tests (reversibility, harm/beneficence, and public identification) encapsulate three ethical approaches (deontology, utilitarianism, and virtue ethics) and form the basis of stage three of the SDC, solution testing. A fourth test (a value realization test) builds upon the public identification/virtue ethics test by evaluating a solution in terms of the values it harmonizes, promotes, protects, or realizes. Finally a code test provides an independent check on the ethics tests and also highlights intermediate moral concepts such as safety, health, welfare, faithful agency, conflict of interest, confidentiality, professional integrity, collegiality, privacy, property, free speech, and equity/access). The following section provides advice on how to use these tests. More information can be found at www.computingcases.org.

Setting Up the Ethics Tests: Pitfalls to avoid

Set-Up Pitfalls: Mistakes in this area lead to the analysis becoming unfocused and getting lost in irrelevancies. (a) Agent-switching where the analysis falls prey to irrelevancies that crop up when the test application is not grounded in the standpoint of a single agent, (b) Sloppy action-description where the analysis fails because no specific action has been tested, (c) Test-switching where the analysis fails because one test is substituted for another. (For example, the public identification and reversibility tests are often reduced to the harm/beneficence test where harmful consequences are listed but not associated with the agent or stakeholders.)

Set up the test

• Identify the agent (the person who is going to perform the action)
• Describe the action or solution that is being tested (what the agent is going to do or perform)
• Identify the stakeholders (those individuals or groups who are going to be affected by the action), and their stakes (interests, values, goods, rights, needs, etc.
• Identify, sort out, and weigh the consequences (the results the action is likely to bring about)

Harm/Beneficence Test

• What harms would accompany the action under consideration? Would it produce physical or mental suffering, impose financial or non-financial costs, or deprive others of important or essential goods?
• What benefits would this action bring about? Would it increase safety, quality of life, health, security, or other goods both moral and non-moral?
• What is the magnitude of each these consequences? Magnitude includes likelihood it will occur (probability), the severity of its impact (minor or major harm) and the range of people affected.
• Identify one or two other viable alternatives and repeat these steps for them. Some of these may be modifications of the basic action that attempt to minimize some of the likely harms. These alternatives will establish a basis for assessing your alternative by comparing it with others.
• Decide on the basis of the test which alternative produces the best ratio of benefits to harms?
• Check for inequities in the distribution of harms and benefits. Do all the harms fall on one individual (or group)? Do all of the benefits fall on another? If harms and benefits are inequitably distributed, can they be redistributed? What is the impact of redistribution on the original solution imposed?

Pitfalls of the Harm/Beneficence Test

• “Paralysis of Analysis" comes from considering too many consequences and not focusing only on those relevant to your decision.
• Incomplete Analysis results from considering too few consequences. Often it indicates a failure of moral imagination which, in this case, is the ability to envision the consequences of each action alternative.
• Failure to compare different alternatives can lead to a decision that is too limited and one-sided.
• Failure to weigh harms against benefits occurs when decision-makers lack the experience to make the qualitative comparisons required in ethical decision making.
• Finally, justice failures result from ignoring the fairness of the distribution of harms and benefits. This leads to a solution which may maximize benefits and minimize harms but still give rise to serious injustices in the distribution of these benefits and harms.

Reversibility Test

• Set up the test by (i) identifying the agent, (ii) describing the action, and (iii) identifying the stakeholders and their stakes.
• Use the stakeholder analysis to identify the relations to be reversed.
• Reverse roles between the agent (you) and each stakeholder: put them in your place (as the agent) and yourself in their place (as the one subjected to the action).
• If you were in their place, would you still find the action acceptable?

Cross Checks for Reversibility Test (These questions help you to check if you have carried out the reversibility test properly.)

• Does the proposed action treat others with respect? (Does it recognize their autonomy or circumvent it?)
• Does the action violate the rights of others? (Examples of rights: free and informed consent, privacy, freedom of conscience, due process, property, freedom of expression)
• Would you recommend that this action become a universal rule?
• Are you, through your action, treating others merely as means?

Pitfalls of the Reversibility Test

• Leaving out a key stakeholder relation
• Failing to recognize and address conflicts between stakeholders and their conflicting stakes
• Confusing treating others with respect with capitulating to their demands (“Reversing with Hitler”)
• Failing to reach closure, i.e., an overall, global reversal assessment that takes into account all the stakeholders the agent has reversed with.

Steps in Applying the Public Identification Test

• Set up the analysis by identifying the agent, describing the action, and listing the key values or virtues at play in the situation.
• Association the action with the agent.
• Describe what the action says about the agent as a person. Does it reveal him or her as someone associated with a virtue or a vice?

Alternative Version of Public Identification

• Does the action under consideration realize justice or does it pose an excess or defect of justice?
• Does the action realize responsibility or pose an excess or defect of responsibility?
• Does the action realize reasonableness or pose too much or too little reasonableness?
• Does the action realize honesty or pose too much or too little honesty?
• Does the action realize integrity or pose too much or too little integrity?

Pitfalls of Public Identification

• Action not associated with agent. The most common pitfall is failure to associate the agent and the action. The action may have bad consequences and it may treat individuals with respect but these points are not as important in the context of this test as what they imply about the agent as a person who deliberately performs such an action.
• Failure to specify moral quality, virtue, or value. Another pitfall is to associate the action and agent but only ascribe a vague or ambiguous moral quality to the agent. To say, for example, that willfully harming the public is bad fails to zero in on precisely what moral quality this ascribes to the agent. Does it render him or her unjust, irresponsible, corrupt, dishonest, or unreasonable? The virtue list given above will help to specify this moral quality.

Code of Ethics Test

• Does the action hold paramount the health, safety, and welfare of the public, i.e., those affected by the action but not able to participate in its design or execution?
• Does the action maintain faithful agency with the client by not abusing trust, avoiding conflicts of interest, and maintaining confidences?
• Is the action consistent with the reputation, honor, dignity, and integrity of the profession?
• Does the action serve to maintain collegial relations with professional peers?
• The ethics and feasibility tests will not always converge on the same solution. There is a complicated answer for why this is the case but the simple version is that the tests do not always agree on a given solution because each test (and the ethical theory it encapsulates) covers a different domain or dimension of the action situation. Meta tests turn this disadvantage to your advantage by feeding the interaction between the tests on a given solution back into the evaluation of that solution.
• When the ethics tests converge on a given solution, this convergence is a sign of the strength and robustness of the solution and counts in its favor.
• When a given solution responds well to one test but does poorly under another, this is a sign that the solution needs further development and revision. It is not a sign that one test is relevant while the others are not. Divergence between test results is a sign that the solution is weak.

Application Exercise

You will now practice the four stages of decision making with a real-world case. This case, Risk Assessment, came from a retreat on Business, Science, and Engineering Ethics held in Puerto Rico in December 1998. It was funded by the National Science Foundation, Grant SBR 9810253.

Risk Assessment ScenarioCase Scenario: You supervise a group of engineers working for a private laboratory with expertise in nuclear waste disposal and risk assessment. The DOE (Department of Energy) awarded a contract to your laboratory six years ago to do a risk assessment of various nuclear waste disposal sites. During the six years in which your team has been doing the study, new and more accurate calculations in risk assessment have become available. Your laboratory’s study, however, began with the older, simpler calculations and cannot integrate the newer without substantially delaying completion. You, as the leader of the team, propose a delay to the DOE on the grounds that it is necessary to use the more advanced calculations. Your position is that the laboratory needs more time because of the extensive calculations required; you argue that your group must use state of the art science in doing its risk assessment. The DOE says you are using overly high standards of risk assessment to prolong the process, extend the contract, and get more money for your company. They want you to use simpler calculations and finish the project; if you are unwilling to do so, they plan to find another company that thinks differently. Meanwhile, back at the laboratory, your supervisor (a high level company manager) expresses to you the concern that while good science is important in an academic setting, this is the real world and the contract with the DOE is in jeopardy. What should you do?

Part One: Problem Specification

• Specify the problem in the above scenario. Be as concise and specific as possible
• Is your problem best specifiable as a disagreement? Between whom? Over what?
• Can your problem be specified as a value conflict? What are the values in conflict? Are the moral, nonmoral, or both?

Part Two: Solution Generation

• Quickly and without analysis or criticism brainstorm 5 to ten solutions
• Refine your solution list. Can solutions be eliminated? (On what basis?) Can solutions be combined? Can solutions be combined as plan a and plan b?
• If you specified your problem as a disagreement, how do your solutions resolve the disagreement? Can you negotiate interests over positions? What if your plan of action doesn't work?
• If you formulated your problem as a value conflict, how do your solutions resolve this conflict? By integrating the conflicting values? By partially realizing them through a value compromise? By trading one value off for another?

Part Three: Solution Testing

• Construct a solution evaluation matrix to compare two to three solution alternatives.
• Choose a bad solution and then compare to it the two strongest solutions you have.
• Be sure to avoid the pitfalls described above and set up each test carefully.

Part Four: Solution Implementation

• Develop an implementation plan for your best solution. This plan should anticipate obstacles and offer means for overcoming them.
• Prepare a feasibility table outlining these issues using the table presented above.
• Remember that each of these feasibility constraints is negotiable and therefore flexible. If you choose to set aside a feasibility constraint then you need to outline how you would negotiate the extension of that constraint.

Decision-Making Presentation

Problem Solving Presentation

Shortened Presentation for Fall 2012

Vigo Socio-Technical System Table and Problems

Test Rubric Fall 2009: Problem-Solving

• Creating Environments Conducive to Social Interaction

Thinking Ethically: A Framework for Moral Decision Making

• Developing a Positive Climate with Trust and Respect
• Developing Self-Esteem, Confidence, Resiliency, and Mindset
• Developing Ability to Consider Different Perspectives
• Developing Tools and Techniques Useful in Social Problem-Solving
• Leadership Problem-Solving Model
• A Problem-Solving Model for Improving Student Achievement
• Six-Step Problem-Solving Model
• Hurson’s Productive Thinking Model: Solving Problems Creatively
• The Power of Storytelling and Play
• Creative Documentation & Assessment
• Materials for Use in Creating “Third Party” Solution Scenarios
• Resources for Connecting Schools to Communities
• Resources for Enabling Students

These 5 approaches and their history can be found at:

Markkula Center for Applied Ethics

http://www.scu.edu/ethics/publications/iie/v7n1/thinking.html

Thinking Ethically

• Markkula Center for Applied Ethics
• Ethics Resources
• Ethical Decision Making

Moral issues greet us each morning in the newspaper, confront us in the memos on our desks, nag us from our children's soccer fields, and bid us good night on the evening news. We are bombarded daily with questions about the justice of our foreign policy, the morality of medical technologies that can prolong our lives, the rights of the homeless, the fairness of our children's teachers to the diverse students in their classrooms.

Dealing with these moral issues is often perplexing. How, exactly, should we think through an ethical issue? What questions should we ask? What factors should we consider?

The first step in analyzing moral issues is obvious but not always easy: Get the facts. Some moral issues create controversies simply because we do not bother to check the facts. This first step, although obvious, is also among the most important and the most frequently overlooked.

But having the facts is not enough. Facts by themselves only tell us what is ; they do not tell us what ought to be. In addition to getting the facts, resolving an ethical issue also requires an appeal to values. Philosophers have developed five different approaches to values to deal with moral issues.

The Utilitarian Approach Utilitarianism was conceived in the 19th century by Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill to help legislators determine which laws were morally best. Both Bentham and Mill suggested that ethical actions are those that provide the greatest balance of good over evil.

To analyze an issue using the utilitarian approach, we first identify the various courses of action available to us. Second, we ask who will be affected by each action and what benefits or harms will be derived from each. And third, we choose the action that will produce the greatest benefits and the least harm. The ethical action is the one that provides the greatest good for the greatest number.

The Rights Approach The second important approach to ethics has its roots in the philosophy of the 18th-century thinker Immanuel Kant and others like him, who focused on the individual's right to choose for herself or himself. According to these philosophers, what makes human beings different from mere things is that people have dignity based on their ability to choose freely what they will do with their lives, and they have a fundamental moral right to have these choices respected. People are not objects to be manipulated; it is a violation of human dignity to use people in ways they do not freely choose.

Of course, many different, but related, rights exist besides this basic one. These other rights (an incomplete list below) can be thought of as different aspects of the basic right to be treated as we choose.

The right to the truth: We have a right to be told the truth and to be informed about matters that significantly affect our choices.

The right of privacy: We have the right to do, believe, and say whatever we choose in our personal lives so long as we do not violate the rights of others.

The right not to be injured: We have the right not to be harmed or injured unless we freely and knowingly do something to deserve punishment or we freely and knowingly choose to risk such injuries.

The right to what is agreed: We have a right to what has been promised by those with whom we have freely entered into a contract or agreement.

In deciding whether an action is moral or immoral using this second approach, then, we must ask, Does the action respect the moral rights of everyone? Actions are wrong to the extent that they violate the rights of individuals; the more serious the violation, the more wrongful the action.

The Fairness or Justice Approach The fairness or justice approach to ethics has its roots in the teachings of the ancient Greek philosopher Aristotle, who said that "equals should be treated equally and unequals unequally." The basic moral question in this approach is: How fair is an action? Does it treat everyone in the same way, or does it show favoritism and discrimination?

Favoritism gives benefits to some people without a justifiable reason for singling them out; discrimination imposes burdens on people who are no different from those on whom burdens are not imposed. Both favoritism and discrimination are unjust and wrong.

The Common-Good Approach This approach to ethics assumes a society comprising individuals whose own good is inextricably linked to the good of the community. Community members are bound by the pursuit of common values and goals.

The common good is a notion that originated more than 2,000 years ago in the writings of Plato, Aristotle, and Cicero. More recently, contemporary ethicist John Rawls defined the common good as "certain general conditions that are...equally to everyone's advantage."

In this approach, we focus on ensuring that the social policies, social systems, institutions, and environments on which we depend are beneficial to all. Examples of goods common to all include affordable health care, effective public safety, peace among nations, a just legal system, and an unpolluted environment.

Appeals to the common good urge us to view ourselves as members of the same community, reflecting on broad questions concerning the kind of society we want to become and how we are to achieve that society. While respecting and valuing the freedom of individuals to pursue their own goals, the common-good approach challenges us also to recognize and further those goals we share in common.

The Virtue Approach The virtue approach to ethics assumes that there are certain ideals toward which we should strive, which provide for the full development of our humanity. These ideals are discovered through thoughtful reflection on what kind of people we have the potential to become.

Virtues are attitudes or character traits that enable us to be and to act in ways that develop our highest potential. They enable us to pursue the ideals we have adopted. Honesty, courage, compassion, generosity, fidelity, integrity, fairness, self-control, and prudence are all examples of virtues.

Virtues are like habits; that is, once acquired, they become characteristic of a person. Moreover, a person who has developed virtues will be naturally disposed to act in ways consistent with moral principles. The virtuous person is the ethical person.

In dealing with an ethical problem using the virtue approach, we might ask, What kind of person should I be? What will promote the development of character within myself and my community?

Ethical Problem Solving These five approaches suggest that once we have ascertained the facts, we should ask ourselves five questions when trying to resolve a moral issue:

What benefits and what harms will each course of action produce, and which alternative will lead to the best overall consequences?

What moral rights do the affected parties have, and which course of action best respects those rights?

Which course of action treats everyone the same, except where there is a morally justifiable reason not to, and does not show favoritism or discrimination?

Which course of action advances the common good?

Which course of action develops moral virtues?

This method, of course, does not provide an automatic solution to moral problems. It is not meant to. The method is merely meant to help identify most of the important ethical considerations. In the end, we must deliberate on moral issues for ourselves, keeping a careful eye on both the facts and on the ethical considerations involved.

This article updates several previous pieces from Issues in Ethics by Manuel Velasquez - Dirksen Professor of Business Ethics at Santa Clara University and former Center director - and Claire Andre, associate Center director. "Thinking Ethically" is based on a framework developed by the authors in collaboration with Center Director Thomas Shanks, S.J., Presidential Professor of Ethics and the Common Good Michael J. Meyer, and others. The framework is used as the basis for many programs and presentations at the Markkula Center for Applied Ethics.

5.3 Ethical Principles and Responsible Decision-Making

• What are major ethical principles that can be used by individuals and organizations?

Before turning to organizational and systems levels of ethics, we discuss classical ethical principles that are very relevant now and on which decisions can be and are made by individuals, organizations, and other stakeholders who choose principled, responsible ways of acting toward others. 17

Ethical principles are different from values in that the former are considered as rules that are more permanent, universal, and unchanging, whereas values are subjective, even personal, and can change with time. Principles help inform and influence values. Some of the principles presented here date back to Plato, Socrates, and even earlier to ancient religious groups. These principles can be, and are, used in combination; different principles are also used in different situations. 18 The principles that we will cover are utilitarianism, universalism, rights/legal, justice, virtue, common good, and ethical relativism approaches. As you read these, ask yourself which principles characterize and underlie your own values, beliefs, behaviors, and actions. It is helpful to ask and if not clear, perhaps identify the principles, you most often use now and those you aspire to use more, and why. Using one or more of these principles and ethical approaches intentionally can also help you examine choices and options before making a decision or solving an ethical dilemma. Becoming familiar with these principles, then, can help inform your moral decision process and help you observe the principles that a team, workgroup, or organization that you now participate in or will be joining may be using. Using creativity is also important when examining difficult moral decisions when sometimes it may seem that there are two “right” ways to act in a situation or perhaps no way seems morally right, which may also signal that not taking an action at that time may be needed, unless taking no action produces worse results.

Utilitarianism: A Consequentialist, “Ends Justifies Means” Approach

The utilitarianism principle basically holds that an action is morally right if it produces the greatest good for the greatest number of people. An action is morally right if the net benefits over costs are greatest for all affected compared with the net benefits of all other possible choices. This, as with all these principles and approaches, is broad in nature and seemingly rather abstract. At the same time, each one has a logic. When we present the specifics and facts of a situation, this and the other principles begin to make sense, although judgement is still required.

Some limitations of this principle suggest that it does not consider individuals, and there is no agreement on the definition of “good for all concerned.” In addition, it is difficult to measure “costs and benefits.” This is one of the most widely used principles by corporations, institutions, nations, and individuals, given the limitations that accompany it. Use of this principle generally applies when resources are scarce, there is a conflict in priorities, and no clear choice meets everyone’s needs—that is, a zero-sum decision is imminent

Universalism: A Duty-Based Approach

Universalism is a principle that considers the welfare and risks of all parties when considering policy decisions and outcomes. Also needs of individuals involved in a decision are identified as well as the choices they have and the information they need to protect their welfare. This principle involves taking human beings, their needs, and their values seriously. It is not only a method to make a decision; it is a way of incorporating a humane consideration of and for individuals and groups when deciding a course of action. As some have asked, “What is a human life worth?”

Cooper, Santora, and Sarros wrote, “Universalism is the outward expression of leadership character and is made manifest by respectfulness for others, fairness, cooperativeness, compassion, spiritual respect, and humility.” Corporate leaders in the “World’s Most Ethical Companies” strive to set a “tone at the top” to exemplify and embody universal principles in their business practices. 19 Howard Schultz, founder of Starbucks; cofounder Jim Sinegal at Costco; Sheryl Sandberg, chief operating officer of Facebook; and Ursula M. Burns, previous chairperson and CEO of Xerox have demonstrated setting effective ethical tones at the top of organizations.

Limitations here also show that using this principle may not always prove realistic or practical in all situations. In addition, using this principle can require sacrifice of human life—that is, giving one’s life to help or save others—which may seem contrary to the principle. The film The Post , based on fact, portrays how the daughter of the founder of the famed newspaper, the Washington Post , inherited the role of CEO and was forced to make a decision between publishing a whistle-blowers’ classified government documents of then top-level generals and officials or keep silent and protect the newspaper. The classified documents contained information proving that generals and other top-level government administrators were lying to the public about the actual status of the United States in the Vietnam War. Those documents revealed that there were doubts the war could be won while thousands of young Americans continued to die fighting. The dilemma for the Washington Post ’s then CEO centered on her having to choose between exposing the truth based on freedom of speech—which was the mission and foundation of the newspaper—or staying silent and suppressing the classified information. She chose, with the support of and pressure from her editorial staff, to release the classified documents to the public. The Supreme Court upheld her and her staff’s decision. A result was enflamed widespread public protests from American youth and others. President Johnson was pressured to resign, Secretary of State McNamara later apologized, and the war eventually ended with U.S. troops withdrawing. So, universalist ethical principles may present difficulties when used in complex situations, but such principles can also save lives, protect the integrity of a nation, and stop meaningless destruction.

Rights: A Moral and Legal Entitlement–Based Approach

This principle is grounded in both legal and moral rights . Legal rights are entitlements that are limited to a particular legal system and jurisdiction. In the United States, the Constitution and Declaration of Independence are the basis for citizens’ legal rights, for example, the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness and the right to freedom of speech. Moral (and human) rights, on the other hand, are universal and based on norms in every society, for example, the right not to be enslaved and the right to work.

To get a sense of individual rights in the workplace, log on to one of the “Best Companies to Work For” annual lists (http://fortune.com/best-companies/). Profiles of leaders and organizations’ policies, practices, perks, diversity, compensation, and other statistics regarding employee welfare and benefits can be reviewed. The “World’s Most Ethical Companies” also provides examples of workforce and workplace legal and moral rights. This principle, as with universalism, can always be used when individuals, groups, and nations are involved in decisions that may violate or harm such rights as life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness, and free speech.

Some limitations when using this principle are (1) it can be used to disguise and manipulate selfish and unjust political interests, (2) it is difficult to determine who deserves what when both parties are “right,” and (3) individuals can exaggerate certain entitlements at the expense of others. Still, the U.S. Constitution’s Bill of Rights, ratified in 1791, was designed as and remains the foundation of, which is based on freedom and justice to protect the basic rights of all.

Justice: Procedures, Compensation, and Retribution

This principle has at least four major components that are based on the tenets that (1) all individuals should be treated equally; (2) justice is served when all persons have equal opportunities and advantages (through their positions and offices) to society’s opportunities and burdens; (3) fair decision practices, procedures, and agreements among parties should be practiced; and (4) punishment is served to someone who has inflicted harm on another, and compensation is given to those for a past harm or injustice committed against them.

A simple way of summarizing this principle when examining a moral dilemma is to ask of a proposed action or decision: (1) Is it fair? (2) Is it right? (3) Who gets hurt? (4) Who has to pay for the consequences? (5) Do I/we want to assume responsibility for the consequences? It is interesting to reflect on how many corporate disasters and crises might have been prevented had the leaders and those involved taken such questions seriously before proceeding with decisions. For example, the following precautionary actions might have prevented the disaster: updating the equipment and machinery that failed in the BP and the Exxon Valdez oil crises and investment banks and lending institutions following rules not to sell subprime mortgages that could not and would not be paid, actions that led to the near collapse of the global economy.

Limitations when using this principle involve the question of who decides who is right and wrong and who has been harmed in complex situations. This is especially the case when facts are not available and there is no objective external jurisdiction of the state or federal government. In addition, we are sometimes faced with the question, “Who has the moral authority to punish to pay compensation to whom?” Still, as with the other principles discussed here, justice stands as a necessary and invaluable building block of democracies and freedom.

Virtue Ethics: Character-Based Virtues

Virtue ethics is based on character traits such as being truthful, practical wisdom, happiness, flourishing, and well-being. It focuses on the type of person we ought to be, not on specific actions that should be taken. Grounded in good character, motives, and core values, the principle is best exemplified by those whose examples show the virtues to be emulated.

Basically, the possessor of good character is moral, acts morally, feels good, is happy, and flourishes. Altruism is also part of character-based virtue ethics. Practical wisdom, however, is often required to be virtuous.

This principle is related to universalism. Many leaders’ character and actions serve as examples of how character-based virtues work. For example, the famous Warren Buffett stands as an icon of good character who demonstrates trustworthy values and practical wisdom. Applying this principle is related to a “quick test” before acting or making a decision by asking, “What would my ‘best self’ do in this situation?” Others ask the question inserting someone they know or honor highly.

There are some limitations to this ethic. First, some individuals may disagree about who is virtuous in different situations and therefore would refuse to use that person’s character as a principle. Also, the issue arises, “Who defines virtuous , especially when a complex act or incident is involved that requires factual information and objective criteria to resolve?”

The Common Good

The common good is defined as “the sum of those conditions of social life which allow social groups and their individual members relatively thorough and ready access to their own fulfillment.” Decision makers must take into consideration the intent as well as the effects of their actions and decisions on the broader society and the common good of the many. 20

Identifying and basing decisions on the common good requires us to make goals and take actions that take others, beyond ourselves and our self-interest, into account. Applying the common good principle can also be asked by a simple question: “How will this decision or action affect the broader physical, cultural, and social environment in which I, my family, my friends, and others have to live, breathe, and thrive in now, next week, and beyond?”

A major limitation when using this principle is, “Who determines what the common good is in situations where two or more parties differ over whose interests are violated?” In individualistic and capitalist societies, it is difficult in many cases for individuals to give up their interests and tangible goods for what may not benefit them or may even deprive them.

Ethical Relativism: A Self-Interest Approach

Ethical relativism is really not a “principle” to be followed or modeled. It is an orientation that many use quite frequently. Ethical relativism holds that people set their own moral standards for judging their actions. Only the individual’s self-interest and values are relevant for judging his or her behavior. Moreover, moral standards, according to this principle, vary from one culture to another. “When in Rome, do as the Romans do.”

Obvious limitations of relativism include following one’s blind spots or self-interests that can interfere with facts and reality. Followers of this principle can become absolutists and “true believers”—many times believing and following their own ideology and beliefs. Countries and cultures that follow this orientation can result in dictatorships and absolutist regimes that practice different forms of slavery and abuse to large numbers of people. For example, South Africa’s all-white National Party and government after 1948 implemented and enforced a policy of apartheid that consisted of racial segregation. That policy lasted until the 1990s, when several parties negotiated its demise—with the help of Nelson Mandela ( www.history.com/topics/apartheid ). Until that time, international firms doing business in South Africa were expected to abide by the apartheid policy and its underlying values. Many companies in the United States, Europe, and elsewhere were pressured in the 1980s and before by public interest groups whether or not to continue doing business or leave South Africa.

At the individual level, then, principles and values offer a source of stability and self-control while also affecting job satisfaction and performance. At the organizational level, principled and values-based leadership influences cultures that inspire and motivate ethical behavior and performance. The following section discusses how ethical leadership at the top and throughout organizations affects ethical actions and behaviors. 21

Concept Check

• What are some ethical guidelines individuals and organizations can use to make ethical choices?
• Can being aware of the actual values you use to guide your actions make a difference in your choices?

As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.

This book may not be used in the training of large language models or otherwise be ingested into large language models or generative AI offerings without OpenStax's permission.

Want to cite, share, or modify this book? This book uses the Creative Commons Attribution License and you must attribute OpenStax.

Access for free at https://openstax.org/books/principles-management/pages/1-introduction

• Authors: David S. Bright, Anastasia H. Cortes
• Publisher/website: OpenStax
• Book title: Principles of Management
• Publication date: Mar 20, 2019
• Location: Houston, Texas
• Book URL: https://openstax.org/books/principles-management/pages/1-introduction
• Section URL: https://openstax.org/books/principles-management/pages/5-3-ethical-principles-and-responsible-decision-making

© Jan 9, 2024 OpenStax. Textbook content produced by OpenStax is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License . The OpenStax name, OpenStax logo, OpenStax book covers, OpenStax CNX name, and OpenStax CNX logo are not subject to the Creative Commons license and may not be reproduced without the prior and express written consent of Rice University.

• Training & Certification
• Knowledge Center
• ECI Research
• Business Integrity Library
• Career Center
• The PLUS Ethical Decision Making Model

Seven Steps to Ethical Decision Making –  Step 1: Define the problem  (consult  PLUS filters ) –  Step 2: Seek out relevant assistance, guidance and support  –  Step 3: Identify alternatives –  Step 4: Evaluate the alternatives  (consult  PLUS filters ) –  Step 5: Make the decision –  Step 6: Implement the decision –  Step 7: Evaluate the decision  (consult  PLUS filters )

Introduction Organizations struggle to develop a simple set of guidelines that makes it easier for individual employees, regardless of position or level, to be confident that his/her decisions meet all of the competing standards for effective and ethical decision-making used by the organization. Such a model must take into account two realities:

• Every employee is called upon to make decisions in the normal course of doing his/her job. Organizations cannot function effectively if employees are not empowered to make decisions consistent with their positions and responsibilities.
• For the decision maker to be confident in the decision’s soundness, every decision should be tested against the organization’s policies and values, applicable laws and regulations as well as the individual employee’s definition of what is right, fair, good and acceptable.

The decision making process described below has been carefully constructed to be:

• Fundamentally sound based on current theories and understandings of both decision-making processes and ethics.
• Simple and straightforward enough to be easily integrated into every employee’s thought processes.
• Descriptive (detailing how ethical decision are made naturally) rather than prescriptive (defining unnatural ways of making choices).

Why do organizations need ethical decision making? See our special edition case study, #RespectAtWork, to find out.

First, explore the difference between what you expect and/or desire and the current reality. By defining the problem in terms of outcomes, you can clearly state the problem.

Consider this example: Tenants at an older office building are complaining that their employees are getting angry and frustrated because there is always a long delay getting an elevator to the lobby at rush hour. Many possible solutions exist, and all are predicated on a particular understanding the problem:

• Flexible hours – so all the tenants’ employees are not at the elevators at the same time.
• Faster elevators – so each elevator can carry more people in a given time period.
• Bigger elevators – so each elevator can carry more people per trip.
• Elevator banks – so each elevator only stops on certain floors, increasing efficiency.
• Better elevator controls – so each elevator is used more efficiently.
• More elevators – so that overall carrying capacity can be increased.
• Improved elevator maintenance – so each elevator is more efficient.
• Encourage employees to use the stairs – so fewer people use the elevators.

The real-life decision makers defined the problem as “people complaining about having to wait.” Their solution was to make the wait less frustrating by piping music into the elevator lobbies. The complaints stopped. There is no way that the eventual solution could have been reached if, for example, the problem had been defined as “too few elevators.”

How you define the problem determines where you go to look for alternatives/solutions– so define the problem carefully.

Step 2: Seek out relevant assistance, guidance and support

Once the problem is defined, it is critical to search out resources that may be of assistance in making the decision. Resources can include people (i.e., a mentor, coworkers, external colleagues, or friends and family) as well professional guidelines and organizational policies and codes. Such resources are critical for determining parameters, generating solutions, clarifying priorities and providing support, both while implementing the solution and dealing with the repercussions of the solution.

Step 3: Identify available alternative solutions to the problem The key to this step is to not limit yourself to obvious alternatives or merely what has worked in the past. Be open to new and better alternatives. Consider as many as solutions as possible — five or more in most cases, three at the barest minimum. This gets away from the trap of seeing “both sides of the situation” and limiting one’s alternatives to two opposing choices (i.e., either this or that).

Step 4: Evaluate the identified alternatives As you evaluate each alternative, identify the likely positive and negative consequence of each. It is unusual to find one alternative that would completely resolve the problem and is significantly better than all others. As you consider positive and negative consequences, you must be careful to differentiate between what you know for a fact and what you believe might be the case. Consulting resources, including written guidelines and standards, can help you ascertain which consequences are of greater (and lesser) import.

You should think through not just what results each alternative could yield, but the likelihood it is that such impact will occur. You will only have all the facts in simple cases. It is reasonable and usually even necessary to supplement the facts you have with realistic assumptions and informed beliefs. Nonetheless, keep in mind that the more the evaluation is fact-based, the more confident you can be that the expected outcome will occur. Knowing the ratio of fact-based evaluation versus non-fact-based evaluation allows you to gauge how confident you can be in the proposed impact of each alternative.

Step 5: Make the decision When acting alone, this is the natural next step after selecting the best alternative. When you are working in a team environment, this is where a proposal is made to the team, complete with a clear definition of the problem, a clear list of the alternatives that were considered and a clear rationale for the proposed solution.

Step 6: Implement the decision While this might seem obvious, it is necessary to make the point that deciding on the best alternative is not the same as doing something. The action itself is the first real, tangible step in changing the situation. It is not enough to think about it or talk about it or even decide to do it. A decision only counts when it is implemented. As Lou Gerstner (former CEO of IBM) said, “There are no more prizes for predicting rain. There are only prizes for building arks.”

Step 7: Evaluate the decision Every decision is intended to fix a problem. The final test of any decision is whether or not the problem was fixed. Did it go away? Did it change appreciably? Is it better now, or worse, or the same? What new problems did the solution create?

Ethics Filters

The ethical component of the decision making process takes the form of a set of “filters.” Their purpose is to surface the ethics considerations and implications of the decision at hand. When decisions are classified as being “business” decisions (rather than “ethics” issues), values can quickly be left out of consideration and ethical lapses can occur.

At key steps in the process, you should stop and work through these filters, ensuring that the ethics issues imbedded in the decision are given consideration.

We group the considerations into the mnemonic PLUS.

• P  = Policies Is it consistent with my organization’s policies, procedures and guidelines?
• L = Legal Is it acceptable under the applicable laws and regulations?
• U  = Universal Does it conform to the universal principles/values my organization has adopted?
• S = Self Does it satisfy my personal definition of right, good and fair?

The PLUS filters work as an integral part of steps 1, 4 and 7 of the decision-making process. The decision maker applies the four PLUS filters to determine if the ethical component(s) of the decision are being surfaced/addressed/satisfied.

• Does the existing situation violate any of the PLUS considerations?
• Step 2:   Seek out relevant assistance, guidance and support
• Step 3: Identify available alternative solutions to the problem
• Will the alternative I am considering resolve the PLUS violations?
• Will the alternative being considered create any new PLUS considerations?
• Are the ethical trade-offs acceptable?
• Step 5: Make the decision
• Step 6: Implement the decision
• Does the resultant situation resolve the earlier PLUS considerations?
• Are there any new PLUS considerations to be addressed?

The PLUS filters do not guarantee an ethically-sound decision. They merely ensure that the ethics components of the situation will be surfaced so that they might be considered.

How Organizations Can Support Ethical Decision-Making  Organizations empower employees with the knowledge and tools they need to make ethical decisions by

• Intentionally and regularly communicating to all employees:
• Organizational policies and procedures as they apply to the common workplace ethics issues.
• Applicable laws and regulations.
• Agreed-upon set of “universal” values (i.e., Empathy, Patience, Integrity, Courage [EPIC]).
• Providing a formal mechanism (i.e., a code and a helpline, giving employees access to a definitive interpretation of the policies, laws and universal values when they need additional guidance before making a decision).
• Free Ethics & Compliance Toolkit
• Ethics and Compliance Glossary
• Definitions of Values
• Why Have a Code of Conduct?
• Code Construction and Content
• Common Code Provisions
• Ten Style Tips for Writing an Effective Code of Conduct
• Five Keys to Reducing Ethics and Compliance Risk
• Business Ethics & Compliance Timeline

Advertisement

Examination of Ethical Decision-Making Models Across Disciplines: Common Elements and Application to the Field of Behavior Analysis

• Discussion and Review Paper
• Published: 29 November 2022
• Volume 16 , pages 657–671, ( 2023 )

Cite this article

• Victoria D. Suarez   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-4940-0780 1 ,
• Videsha Marya   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-5836-5470 1 , 2 ,
• Mary Jane Weiss   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-2836-3861 1 &
• David Cox   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-4376-2104 1 , 3  

1342 Accesses

3 Citations

1 Altmetric

Explore all metrics

Human service practitioners from varying fields make ethical decisions daily. At some point during their careers, many behavior analysts may face ethical decisions outside the range of their previous education, training, and professional experiences. To help practitioners make better decisions, researchers have published ethical decision-making models; however, it is unknown the extent to which published models recommend similar behaviors. Thus, we systematically reviewed and analyzed ethical decision-making models from published peer-reviewed articles in behavior analysis and related allied health professions. We identified 55 ethical decision-making models across 60 peer-reviewed articles, seven primary professions (e.g., medicine, psychology), and 22 subfields (e.g., dentistry, family medicine). Through consensus-based analysis, we identified nine behaviors commonly recommended across the set of reviewed ethical decision-making models with almost all ( n = 52) models arranging the recommended behaviors sequentially and less than half ( n = 23) including a problem-solving approach. All nine ethical decision-making steps clustered around the ethical decision-making steps in the Ethics Code for Behavior Analysts published by the Behavior Analyst Certification Board ( 2020 ) suggesting broad professional consensus for the behaviors likely involved in ethical decision making.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price includes VAT (Russian Federation)

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Rent this article via DeepDyve

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Assessing the Reliability of and Preference for an Ethical Decision Model

Promoting Ethical and Evidence-Based Practice through a Panel Review Process: A Case Study in Implementation Research

Ethical behavior analysis: evidence-based practice as a framework for ethical decision making, all articles with an asterisk indicate the final articles included in the review.

Asch, S. E. (1956). Studies of independence and conformity: I. A minority of one against a unanimous majority. Psychological Monographs: General & Applied, 70 (9), 1–70. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0093718

Article   Google Scholar  

Bailey, J., & Burch, M. (2013). Ethics for behavior analysts  (2nd expanded ed).

Bailey, J., & Burch, M. (2016). Ethics for behavior analysts (3rd ed.). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315669212

Book   Google Scholar  

Bailey, J., & Burch, M. (2022). Ethics for behavior analysts (4th ed.). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003198550

Baum, W. M. (2017). Behavior analysis, Darwinian evolutionary processes, and the diversity of human behavior. In On Human Nature (pp. 397–415). Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-420190-3.00024-7

Chapter   Google Scholar  

Behavior Analyst Certification Board. (BACB, 2004, 2010). Guidelines for responsible conduct for behavior analysts. https://www.bacb.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/2010-Disciplinary-Standards_.pdf

Behavior Analyst Certification Board. (BACB, 2014). Professional and ethical compliance code for behavior analysts . https://www.bacb.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/05/BACB-Compliance-Code-10-8-15watermark.pdf

Behavior Analyst Certification Board. (BACB, 2020). Ethics code for behavior analysts . https://bacb.com/wp-content/ethics-code-for-behavior-analysts/

*Boccio, D. E. (2021). Does use of a decision-making model improve the quality of school psychologists’ ethical decisions? Ethics & Behavior, 31 (2), 119–135. https://doi.org/10.1080/10508422.2020.1715802

Boivin, N., Ruane, J., Quigley, S. P., Harper, J., & Weiss, M. J. (2021). Interdisciplinary collaboration training: An example of a preservice training series. Behavior Analysis in Practice, 1–14 . https://doi.org/10.1007/s40617-021-00561-z

*Bolmsjö, I. Å., Edberg, A. K., & Sandman, L. (2006a). Everyday ethical problems in dementia care: A teleological model. Nursing Ethics , 13 (4), 340–359. https://doi.org/10.1191/0969733006ne890oa

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

*Bolmsjö, I. Å., Sandman, L., & Andersson, E. (2006b). Everyday ethics in the care of elderly people. Nursing Ethics , 13 (3), 249–263. https://doi.org/10.1191/0969733006ne875oa

*Bommer, M., Gratto, C., Gravander, J., & Tuttle, M. (1987). A behavioral model of ethical and unethical decision making. Journal of Business Ethics , 6 (4), 265–280. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00382936

Bowman, K. S., Suarez, V. D., & Weiss, M. J. (2021). Standards for interprofessional collaboration in the treatment of individuals with autism. Behavior Analysis in Practice, 14 , 1191–1208. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40617-021-00560-0

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Brodhead, M. T. (2015). Maintaining professional relationships in an interdisciplinary setting: Strategies for navigating nonbehavioral treatment recommendations for individuals with autism. Behavior Analysis in Practice, 8 (1), 70–78. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40617-015-0042-7

Brodhead, M. T., Quigley, S. P., & Wilczynski, S. M. (2018). A call for discussion about scope of competence in behavior analysis. Behavior Analysis in Practice, 11 (4), 424–435. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40617-018-00303-8

*Candee, D., & Puka, B. (1984). An analytic approach to resolving problems in medical ethics. Journal of Medical Ethics , 10 (2), 61–70. https://doi.org/10.1136/jme.10.2.61

*Cassells, J. M., & Gaul, A. L. (1998). An ethical assessment framework for nursing practice. Maryland Nurse , 17 (1) 9–21.

Google Scholar  

*Cassells, J. M., Jenkins, J., Lea, D. H., Calzone, K., & Johnson, E. (2003). An ethical assessment framework for addressing global genetic issues in clinical practice. Oncology Nursing Forum, 30 (3): 383–392. Oncology Nursing Society.

Catania, A. C. (2013). Learning (5 th ed.). Sloan. ISBN 10: 1-59739-023-7

*Christensen, P. J. (1988). An ethical framework for nursing service administration. Advances in Nursing Science, 10 (3), 46–55. https://doi.org/10.1097/00012272-198804000-00006

*Cottone, R. R. (2001). A social constructivism model of ethical decision making in counseling. Journal of Counseling & Development , 79 (1), 39–45. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.1556-6676.2001.tb01941.x

*Cottone, R. R. (2004). Displacing the psychology of the individual in ethical decision-making: The social constructivism model. Canadian Journal of Counselling & Psychotherapy , 38 (1), 5–9. https://dev.journalhosting.ucalgary.ca/index.php/rcc/article/view/58725/44214

*Cottone, R. R., & Claus, R. E. (2000). Ethical decision-making models: A Review of the literature. Journal of Counseling & Development, 78 (3), 275–283. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.1556-6676.2000.tb01908.x

Cox, D. J. (2019). Ethical considerations in interdisciplinary treatments. In R. D. Rieske (Ed.), Handbook of interdisciplinary treatments for autism spectrum disorder (pp. 49–61). Springer.

Cox, D. J. (2021). Descriptive and normative ethical behavior appear to be functionally distinct. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 54 (1), 168–191. https://doi.org/10.1002/jaba.761

*DeWolf, M. S. (1989, May). Ethical decision-making. Seminars in Oncology Nursing, 5 (2), 77–81. https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-2081(89)90063-6

*du Preez, E., & Goedeke, S. (2013). Second order ethical decision-making in counselling psychology: Theory, practice and process. New Zealand Journal of Psychology , 42 (3), 44–49. https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Elizabeth-Du-Preez-2/publication/275960529_Second_order_ethical_decision_making_in_Counselling_Psychology/links/569d4f9408ae16fdf0796d75/Second-order-ethical-decision-making-in-Counselling-Psychology.pdf

*Duff, M., & Passmore, J. (2010). Ethics in coaching: An ethical decision making framework for coaching psychologists. International Coaching Psychology Review , 5 (2), 140–151. http://www.mysgw.co.uk/Images/368/Duff/20/26/20Passmore/20 (2010)/20An/20ethical/20decision/20making/20framework/20for/20coaching/20psychologists.pdf

*Eberlein, L. (1987). Introducing ethics to beginning psychologists: A problem-solving approach. Professional Psychology: Research & Practice , 18 (4), 353–359. https://doi.org/10.1037/0735-7028.18.4.353

*Ehrich, L. C., Kimber, M., Millwater, J., & Cranston, N. (2011). Ethical dilemmas: A model to understand teacher practice. Teachers & Teaching: Theory & Practice , 17 (2), 173–185. https://doi.org/10.1080/13540602.2011.539794

*Fan, L. C. (2003). Decision-making models for handling ethical dilemmas. Proceedings of the ICE-Municipal Engineer, 156 , 229–234. https://doi.org/10.1680/muen.2003.156.4.229

*Ferrell, B. R., Eberts, M. T., McCaffery, M., & Grant, M. (1991). Clinical decision making and pain. Cancer Nursing, 14 (6), 289–297. https://doi.org/10.1097/00002820-199112000-00002

*Forester-Miller, H., & Davis, T. E. (1996). A practitioner's guide to ethical decision making . American Counseling Association. https://www.counseling.org/docs/ethics/practitioners_guide.pdf?sfvrsn=2

*Garfat, T., & Ricks, F. (1995). Self-driven ethical decision-making: A model for child and youth care workers. Child & Youth Care Forum, 24 (6), 393–404. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02128530

Gasiewski, K., Weiss, M. J., Leaf, J. B., & Labowitz, J. (2021). Collaboration between behavior analysts and occupational therapists in autism service provision: Bridging the gap. Behavior Analysis in Practice, 14 (4), 1209–1222. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40617-021-00619-y

*Green, J., & Walker, K. (2009). A contingency model for ethical decision-making by educational leaders. International Journal of Educational Leadership Preparation, 4 (4), 1–10. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1071389.pdf

*Greipp, M. E. (1997). Ethical decision making and mandatory reporting in cases of suspected child abuse. Journal of Pediatric Health Care, 11 (6), 258–265. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0891-5245(97)90081-X

*Grundstein-Amado, R. (1991). An integrative model of clinical-ethical decision making. Theoretical Medicine, 12 (2), 157–170. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00489796

*Grundstein-Amado, R. (1993). Ethical decision-making processes used by healthcare providers. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 18 (11), 1701–1709. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2648.1993.18111701.x

*Haddad, A. M. (1996). Ethical considerations in home care of the oncology patient. Seminars in Oncology Nursing , 12 (3), 226–230). https://doi.org/10.1016/S0749-2081(96)80040-4

*Harasym, P. H., Tsai, T. C., & Munshi, F. M. (2013). Is problem-based learning an ideal format for developing ethical decision skills? Kaohsiung Journal of Medical Sciences, 29 (10), 523–529. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.kjms.2013.05.005

*Hayes, J. R. (1986). Consultation-liaison psychiatry and clinical ethics: A model for consultation and teaching. General Hospital Psychiatry, 8 (6), 415–418. https://doi.org/10.1016/0163-8343(86)90022-8

*Heyler, S. G., Armenakis, A. A., Walker, A. G., & Collier, D. Y. (2016). A qualitative study investigating the ethical decision making process: A proposed model. The Leadership Quarterly, 27 (5), 788–801. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2016.05.003

*Hill, M., Glaser, K., & Harden, J. (1998). A feminist model for ethical decision making. Women & Therapy , 21 (3), 101–121. https://doi.org/10.1300/J015v21n03_10

*Hough, M. C. (2008). Learning, decisions and transformation in critical care nursing practice. Nursing Ethics, 15 (3), 322–331. https://doi.org/10.1177/0969733007088430

*Hughes, K. K., & Dvorak, E. M. (1997). The use of decision analysis to examine ethical decision making by critical care nurses. Heart & Lung, 26 (3), 238–251. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0147-9563(97)90061-3

*Hundert, E. M. (2003). A model for ethical problem solving in medicine, with practical applications. Focus, 144 (4), 839–435. https://doi.org/10.1176/foc.1.4.427

*Johnsen, D. C., Flick, K., Butali, A., Cunningham-Ford, M. A., Holloway, J. A., Mahrous, A., Marchini, L., & Clancy, J. M. (2020). Two critical thinking models—Probing questions and conceptualization—Adding 4 skill sets to the teacher's armamentarium. Journal of Dental Education, 84 (7), 733–741. https://doi.org/10.1002/jdd.12177

*Johnson, R. L., Liu, J., & Burgess, Y. (2017). A model for making decisions about ethical dilemmas in student assessment. Journal of Moral Education, 46 (2), 212–229. https://doi.org/10.1080/03057240.2017.1313725

*Jones, T. M. (1991). Ethical decision making by individuals in organizations: An issue-contingent model. Academy of Management Review, 16 (2), 366–395. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1991.4278958

*Kaldjian, L. C., Weir, R. F., & Duffy, T. P. (2005). A clinician’s approach to clinical ethical reasoning. Journal of General Internal Medicine, 20 (3), 306–311. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1525-1497.2005.40204.x

*Kanoti, G. A. (1986). Ethics and medical-ethical decisions. Critical Care Clinics, 2 (1), 3–12. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0749-0704(18)30620-1

Kieta, A. R., Cihon, T. M., & Abdel-Jalil, A. (2019). Problem solving from a behavioral perspective: Implications for behavior analysts and educators. Journal of Behavioral Education, 28 (2), 275–300. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10864-018-9296-9

*Kirsch, N. R. (2009). Ethical decision making: Application of a problem-solving model. Topics in Geriatric Rehabilitation, 25 (4), 282–291. https://doi.org/10.1097/TGR.0b013e3181bdd6d8

LaFrance, D. L., Weiss, M. J., Kazemi, E., Gerenser, J., & Dobres, J. (2019). Multidisciplinary teaming: Enhancing collaboration through increased understanding. Behavior Analysis in Practice, 12 (3), 709–726. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40617-019-00331-y

*Laletas, S. (2018). Ethical decision making for professional school counsellors: Use of practice-based models in secondary school settings. British Journal of Guidance & Counselling.47 (3), 283–291. https://doi-org.lib.pepperdine.edu/10.1080/03069885.2018.1474341

Layng, T. J. (2019). Tutorial: Understanding concepts: Implications for behavior analysts and educators. Perspectives on Behavior Science, 42 (2), 345–363. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40614-018-00188-6

*Liang, B., Chung, A., Diamonti, A. J., Douyon, C. M., Gordon, J. R., Joyner, E. D., Meerkins, T. M., Rene, M. K., Seinkiewicz, S. A., Weber, A. E., & Wilson, E. S. (2017). Ethical social justice: Do the ends justify the means?. Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology, 27 (4), 298–311. https://doi.org/10.1002/casp.2323

*Macpherson, I., Roqué, M. V., & Segarra, I. (2020). Moral dilemmas involving anthropological and ethical dimensions in healthcare curriculum. Nursing Ethics, 27 (5), 1238–1249. https://doi.org/10.1177/0969733020914382

Marya, V. G., Suarez, V. D., & Cox, D. J. (2022). Ethical decision-making and evidenced-based practices. In W. W. Fisher, C. C. Piazza, & H. S. Roane (Eds.), Handbook of applied behavior analysis interventions for autism (pp. 47–70). Springer.

Newhouse-Oisten, M. K., Peck, K. M., Conway, A. A., & Frieder, J. E. (2017). Ethical considerations for interdisciplinary collaboration with prescribing professionals. Behavior Analysis in Practice, 10 (2), 145–153. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40617-017-0184-x

*Marco, C. A., Lu, D. W., Stettner, E., Sokolove, P. E., Ufberg, J. W., & Noeller, T. P. (2011). Ethics curriculum for emergency medicine graduate medical education. Journal of Emergency Medicine, 40 (5), 550–556. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jemermed.2010.05.076

Miller, K. L., Re Cruz, A., & Ala'i-Rosales, S. (2019). Inherent tensions and possibilities: Behavior analysis and cultural responsiveness. Behavior & Social Issues, 28 (1), 16–36. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42822-019-00010-1

Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., Altman, D. G., Prisma Group. (2009). Reprint—preferred reporting items for systematic reviewsand meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. Physical Therapy, 89 (9), 873–880. https://doi.org/10.1093/ptj/89.9.873

*Murphy, M. A., & Murphy, J. (1976). Making ethical decisions—Systematically. Nursing, 6 (5), CG13–CG14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jemermed.2010.05.076

*Nekhlyudov, L., & Braddock, C. H., III (2009). An approach to enhance communication about screening mammography in primary care. Journal of Women's Health, 18 (9), 1403–1412. https://doi.org/10.1089/jwh.2008.1184

*Park, E. J. (2012). An integrated ethical decision-making model for nurses. Nursing Ethics, 19 (1), 139–159. https://doi.org/10.1177/0969733011413491

*Park, E. J. (2013). The development and implications of a case-based computer program to train ethical decision-making. Nursing Ethics, 20 (8), 943–956. https://doi.org/10.1177/0969733013484489

*Park, E. J., & Park, M. (2015). Effectiveness of a case-based computer program on students’ ethical decision making. Journal of Nursing Education, 54 (11), 633–640. https://doi.org/10.3928/01484834-20151016-04

*Phillips, S. (2006). Ethical decision-making when caring for the noncompliant patient. Journal of Infusion Nursing, 29 (5), 266–271. https://doi.org/10.1097/00129804-200609000-00005

*Ponterotto, J. G., & Reynolds, J. D. (2017). Ethical and legal considerations in psychobiography. American Psychologist , 72 (5), 446–458. https://doi.org/10.1037/amp0000047

Pritchett, M., Ala’i-Rosales, S., Cruz, A. R., & Cihon, T. M. (2021). Social justice is the spirit and aim of an applied science of human behavior: Moving from colonial to participatory research practices. Behavior Analysis in Practice, 1–19 . https://doi.org/10.1007/s40617-021-00591-7

Rosenberg, N. E., & Schwartz, I. S. (2019). Guidance or compliance: What makes an ethical behavior analyst? Behavior Analysis in Practice, 12 (2), 473–482. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40617-018-00287-5

*Schaffer, M. A., Cameron, M. E., & Tatley, E. B. (2000). The value, be, do ethical decision-making model: Balancing students’ needs in school nursing. Journal of School Nursing, 16 (5), 44–49. https://doi.org/10.1177/105984050001600507

*Schneider, G. W., & Snell, L. (2000). CARE: An approach for teaching ethics in medicine. Social Science & Medicine, 51 (10), 1563–1567. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0277-9536(00)00054-X

*Shahidullah, J. D., Hostutler, C. A., & Forman, S. G. (2019). Ethical considerations in medication-related roles for pediatric primary care psychologists. Clinical Practice in Pediatric Psychology, 7 (4), 405. https://doi.org/10.1037/cpp0000285

*Siegler, M. (1982). Decision-making strategy for clinical-ethical problems in medicine. Archives of Internal Medicine, 142 (12), 2178–2179. https://doi.org/10.1001/archinte.1982.00340250144021

*Sileo, F. J., & Kopala, M. (1993). An A-B-C-D-E worksheet for promoting beneficence when considering ethical issues. Counseling & Values, 37 (2), 89–95. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2161-007X.1993.tb00800.x

Slocum, S. K., & Tiger, J. H. (2011). An assessment of the efficiency of and child preference for forward and backward chaining. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 44 (4), 793–805. https://doi.org/10.1901/jaba.2011.44-793

*Soskolne, C. L. (1991). Ethical decision-making in epidemiology: The case study approach. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 44 (1), 125–130. https://doi.org/10.1016/0895-4356(91)90187-E

Suarez, V. D., Najdowski, A. C., Tarbox, J., Moon, E., St Clair, M., & Farag, P. (2021). Teaching individuals with autism problem-solving skills for resolving social conflicts. Behavior Analysis in Practice, 1–14 . https://doi.org/10.1007/s40617-021-00643-y

*Sullivan, P. A., & Brown, T. (1991). Common-sense ethics in administrative decision making. Part II. Proactive steps. Journal of Nursing Administration, 21 (11), 57–61. https://doi.org/10.1097/00005110-199111000-00013

Sush, D., & Najdowski, A. C. (2019). A workbook of ethical case scenarios in applied behavior analysis . Academic Press.

Szabo, T. (2020). Problem solving. In M. Fryling, R. Rehfeldt, J. Tarbox, & L. Hayes (Eds.), Applied behavior analysis of language and cognition: Core concepts and principles for practitioners. Context Press.

Taylor, B. A., LeBlanc, L. A., & Nosik, M. R. (2019). Compassionate care in behavior analytic treatment: Can outcomes be enhanced by attending to relationships with caregivers? Behavior Analysis in Practice, 12 (3), 654–666. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40617-018-00289-3

*Toren, O., & Wagner, N. (2010). Applying an ethical decision-making tool to a nurse management dilemma. Nursing Ethics, 17 (3), 393–402. https://doi.org/10.1177/0969733009355106

*Tsai, T. C., & Harasym, P. H. (2010). A medical ethical reasoning model and its contributions to medical education. Medical Education, 44 (9), 864–873. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2923.2010.03722.x

*Tunzi, M., & Ventres, W. (2018). Family medicine ethics: An integrative approach. Family Medicine, 50 (8), 583–588. https://doi.org/10.22454/FamMed.2018.821666

*Tymchuk, A. J. (1986). Guidelines for ethical decision making. Canadian Psychology/Psychologie Canadienne, 27 (1), 36. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0079866

Wright, P. I. (2019). Cultural humility in the practice of applied behavior analysis. Behavior Analysis in Practice, 12 , 805–809. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40617-019-00343-8

*Zeni, T. A., Buckley, M. R., Mumford, M. D., & Griffith, J. A. (2016). Making “sense” of ethical decision making. The Leadership Quarterly, 27 (6), 838–855. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2016.09.002

Download references

Data Availability

The datasets generated during and/or analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

No funding was received to assist with the preparation of this manuscript.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Endicott College, Beverly, MA, USA

Victoria D. Suarez, Videsha Marya, Mary Jane Weiss & David Cox

Village Autism Center, Marietta, GA, USA

Videsha Marya

Behavioral Health Center of Excellence, Los Angeles, CA, USA

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Victoria D. Suarez .

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest.

The authors do not have any potential conflicts of interest to disclose and have no relevant financial or nonfinancial interests to disclose.

Informed Consent

No human participants were involved in this research, and therefore informed consent was not obtained.

Additional information

Publisher’s note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Suarez, V.D., Marya, V., Weiss, M.J. et al. Examination of Ethical Decision-Making Models Across Disciplines: Common Elements and Application to the Field of Behavior Analysis. Behav Analysis Practice 16 , 657–671 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40617-022-00753-1

Download citation

Accepted : 07 October 2022

Published : 29 November 2022

Issue Date : September 2023

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s40617-022-00753-1

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• behavior analysis
• decision making
• ethical behavior
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

• Get started with computers
• Learn Microsoft Office
• Apply for a job
• Improve my work skills
• Design nice-looking docs
• Getting Started
• Smartphones & Tablets
• Typing Tutorial
• Online Learning
• Basic Internet Skills
• Online Safety
• Social Media
• Zoom Basics
• Google Docs
• Google Sheets
• Career Planning
• Resume Writing
• Cover Letters
• Job Search and Networking
• Business Communication
• Entrepreneurship 101
• Careers without College
• Job Hunt for Today
• 3D Printing
• Freelancing 101
• Personal Finance
• Sharing Economy
• Decision-Making
• Graphic Design
• Photography
• Image Editing
• Learning WordPress
• Language Learning
• Critical Thinking
• For Educators
• Translations
• Staff Picks
• English expand_more expand_less

Critical Thinking and Decision-Making  - What is Critical Thinking?

Critical thinking and decision-making  -, what is critical thinking, critical thinking and decision-making what is critical thinking.

Critical Thinking and Decision-Making: What is Critical Thinking?

Lesson 1: what is critical thinking, what is critical thinking.

Critical thinking is a term that gets thrown around a lot. You've probably heard it used often throughout the years whether it was in school, at work, or in everyday conversation. But when you stop to think about it, what exactly is critical thinking and how do you do it ?

Watch the video below to learn more about critical thinking.

Simply put, critical thinking is the act of deliberately analyzing information so that you can make better judgements and decisions . It involves using things like logic, reasoning, and creativity, to draw conclusions and generally understand things better.

This may sound like a pretty broad definition, and that's because critical thinking is a broad skill that can be applied to so many different situations. You can use it to prepare for a job interview, manage your time better, make decisions about purchasing things, and so much more.

The process

As humans, we are constantly thinking . It's something we can't turn off. But not all of it is critical thinking. No one thinks critically 100% of the time... that would be pretty exhausting! Instead, it's an intentional process , something that we consciously use when we're presented with difficult problems or important decisions.

Improving your critical thinking

In order to become a better critical thinker, it's important to ask questions when you're presented with a problem or decision, before jumping to any conclusions. You can start with simple ones like What do I currently know? and How do I know this? These can help to give you a better idea of what you're working with and, in some cases, simplify more complex issues.  

Real-world applications

Let's take a look at how we can use critical thinking to evaluate online information . Say a friend of yours posts a news article on social media and you're drawn to its headline. If you were to use your everyday automatic thinking, you might accept it as fact and move on. But if you were thinking critically, you would first analyze the available information and ask some questions :

• What's the source of this article?
• Is the headline potentially misleading?
• What are my friend's general beliefs?
• Do their beliefs inform why they might have shared this?

After analyzing all of this information, you can draw a conclusion about whether or not you think the article is trustworthy.

Critical thinking has a wide range of real-world applications . It can help you to make better decisions, become more hireable, and generally better understand the world around you.

/en/problem-solving-and-decision-making/why-is-it-so-hard-to-make-decisions/content/

• Business Ethics

What Is an Ethical Decision-Making Model?

• Posted by Allison Lakacha
• Categories Business Ethics
• Date June 21, 2023
• Comments 0 comment

Business integrity is essential to success. Organizations that place a premium on consistently and demonstrably operating above board have a tendency to have stability in other key aspects of proper corporate function, from the company’s workforce to their public reputation. The backbone of this integrity is business ethics. While the concept periodically evolves to match the pulse of the current business landscape, its core tenet of providing principled guidance for key decisions and behaviors remains unchangeable.

Organizations aiming to operate in an ethical, integrity-driven fashion typically turn to an ethical decision-making model to provide such guidance. These models offer different approaches and perspectives to achieve the overarching goal of making decisions that safeguard corporate integrity. It is important for educated business leaders to carefully consider the models to determine which works best in the context of the situation driving the decision. In some cases, it can also serve as a reflection of the individual’s moral compass.

Ethical Decision-Making Models Defined

An ethical decision-making model is an implementation that leaders across numerous industries can use to logically process and work through ethical dilemmas and deliver ethically-sound decisions. In business, these decisions—large or small—can be used to protect business integrity. This can ultimately help businesses produce operational and growth strategies that stay focused on doing things honorably and principled—rather than in a way that appears underhanded and unscrupulous.

These models are driven by ethical principles: foundational elements that can serve as guideposts to ensure business practices and the decisions that spur them remain honest and forthright. These principles can include accountability, compassion, fairness, loyalty, respect, and transparency. They can govern the decisions a business makes as well as guide communication surrounding those decisions. They can also serve as core principles of business writing and communication, in general.

The Risks of Working Without Ethical Decision-Making Models

The goal behind utilizing any type of ethical decision-making model is to make sure a business acts with integrity. Without a model that strives to keep ethical decision-making in place, a business can run the risk of making decisions that ultimately cause harm to its workforce, its reputation, or the business itself. In some cases, a lack of ethical decision-making can cause collateral damage to other businesses.

A prime example of what could happen without ethical decision-making models in place involves the American energy and commodity services company Enron Corporation. In 1998, the Texas-based company made a litany of unethical choices that ultimately resulted in withholding information on massive losses and budget-draining assets from shareholders. These actions created a false narrative of the company being significantly more profitable than it was in reality. When Enron’s actions were revealed in 2001, they went bankrupt and later went fully out of business in 2006.

The massive fallout involved criminal charges and prison time for key Enron executives and also took down the company’s accounting firm Arthur Anderson—which shuttered due to its involvement in the scandal.

Ethical Decision-Making Model Examples

There is no singular model for a leader to use to resolve an ethical decision. These models reflect the situational awareness that may be involved with specific decisions, as the context surrounding an ethical dilemma may require leaders to use a different framework to reach the most ethical decision possible. The following are key examples of ethical decision-making models professionals can utilize.

1. Utilitarian

The utilitarian model builds its approach to resolving ethical dilemmas by focusing on what decisions will optimize benefits and minimize damage. This approach can be used to design holistic strategies that focus on growing a business’s bottom line in a manner that doesn’t disrupt the employee experience or convey a poor message to its customers. These strategies may include elements like cultivating a respectful company culture or maintaining a socially responsible reputation.

The rights model emphasizes respect for an individual’s moral rights within the context of the decision. It acknowledges that employees have the ability to make their own choices, and any decision that interferes with this ability is not a good decision. This approach can compel businesses to be more transparent with the decision-making process, and it can also produce a more organic environment for collaboration.

3. Fairness/Justice

The fairness/justice approach to ethical decision-making allows for consideration of how fair the decision is to the people impacted if it is made. This approach examines if a decision can have short-term or long-term ramifications that can hinder an individual’s success or growth within a company. Applying the fairness/justice model can be important to a business that is incorporating diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) strategies within various business decisions.

4. Common Good

The common good model focuses on whether the decision will be the best decision for the community as well as the individual making the decision. It expands a company’s “big picture” goals to incorporate elements that can move beyond company doors—such as getting involved in community service initiatives or environmental programs.

The virtue model considers how the decision would reflect upon the moral character of the individual making the decision. This model, when applied, can coincide with the development of an individual’s reputation within a business context. This reputation can connect to other elements of a corporate environment, such as company culture. Ideally, the result of these approaches is a decision that maintains business integrity. This integrity can take on numerous forms, from maintaining a reputation for fairness among a company’s workforce to keeping a forthright reputation in the public eye.

Lead in the Right Way

Ethical decision-making is important for proper business growth. If key decisions are made in an unethical fashion, a business may run the risk of facing consequences that can have an adverse effect on its reputation, growth, and stability. These decisions are not made arbitrarily; they require individuals to apply the right ethical decision-making model at the right time. When they do, these individuals can position themselves to be strong, trusted leaders.

The Business Ethics & Writing Certificate program offered by Suffolk University’s Center for Continuing & Professional Education can help you cultivate the skills required to be such a leader. Our program is designed to help you build expertise in the understanding of how business and ethics intertwine, allowing you to make sound ethics-driven decisions with confidence. Learn how we can help you make a vital difference in the corporate world.

Sources: Dentalcare.com, “Ethical Decision-making Models” Indeed, “15 Ethical Principles in Business (With Definitions)” Investopedia, “Enron Scandal: The Fall of a Wall Street Darling” Investopedia, “The Importance of Business Ethics” Investopedia, “Utilitarianism: What It Is, Founders, and Main Principles” MasterClass, “Rights Approach: How to Make Ethical Decisions” People Centric Consulting Group, “5 Models for Ethical Decision-Making” Tools Hero, “Ethical Decision-Making”

Allison joined the CCPE team in September of 2021. As the Marketing Specialist, she is responsible for developing, executing, and monitoring all marketing programs for noncredit and continuing and professional education courses and certificates. Allison is passionate about expanding educational opportunities for all learners and feels a deep connection to the mission of the CCPE.

Prior to joining the CCPE, Allison worked as the Marketing Manager at Techkon USA where she was the driving force behind the implementation and execution of marketing initiatives including content creation, search engine optimization, social media strategy, website management, and email outreach. As one of the earliest members of the team, Allison played a key role in the research, adoption, and roll-out of marketing automation software, responsive web design, and the thought-leadership program. Allison received her Bachelor of Science in Business Administration from Babson College.

Outside of work, Allison enjoys learning about holistic health, traveling, and spending time outdoors with her husband, two children, and dog. Allison and her family reside in Melrose.

Previous post

DEI Examples: Real-World Case Studies

Leadership soft skills: 5 in-demand competencies, you may also like.

Why Business Ethics Matter: Theory in Context

Leave a reply cancel reply.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *