|
Thinking
~ A Framework for Thinking Ethically
~
This document is designed as an introduction to
thinking ethically. We all have an image of our better selves-of how we are
when we act ethically or are "at our best." We probably also have an image
of what an ethical community, an ethical business, an ethical government, or
an ethical society should be. Ethics really has to do with all these
levels-acting ethically as individuals, creating ethical organizations and
governments, and making our society as a whole ethical in the way it treats
everyone.
What is Ethics?
Simply stated, ethics refers to standards of
behavior that tell us how human beings ought to act in the many situations
in which they find themselves-as friends, parents, children, citizens,
businesspeople, teachers, professionals, and so on.
It is helpful to identify what ethics is NOT:
-
Ethics is not the same as feelings. Feelings
provide important information for our ethical choices. Some people have
highly developed habits that make them feel bad when they do something
wrong, but many people feel good even though they are doing something
wrong. And often our feelings will tell us it is uncomfortable to do the
right thing if it is hard.
-
Ethics is not religion. Many people are not
religious, but ethics applies to everyone. Most religions do advocate
high ethical standards but sometimes do not address all the types of
problems we face.
-
Ethics is not following the law. A good
system of law does incorporate many ethical standards, but law can
deviate from what is ethical. Law can become ethically corrupt, as some
totalitarian regimes have made it. Law can be a function of power alone
and designed to serve the interests of narrow groups. Law may have a
difficult time designing or enforcing standards in some important areas,
and may be slow to address new problems.
-
Ethics is not following culturally accepted
norms. Some cultures are quite ethical, but others become corrupt -or
blind to certain ethical concerns (as the United States was to slavery
before the Civil War). "When in Rome, do as the Romans do" is not a
satisfactory ethical standard.
-
Ethics is not science. Social and natural
science can provide important data to help us make better ethical
choices. But science alone does not tell us what we ought to do. Science
may provide an explanation for what humans are like. But ethics provides
reasons for how humans ought to act. And just because something is
scientifically or technologically possible, it may not be ethical to do
it.
Why Identifying Ethical Standards is Hard
There are two fundamental problems in
identifying the ethical standards we are to follow:
1. On what do we base our ethical standards?
2. How do those standards get applied to specific situations we face?
If our ethics are not based on feelings,
religion, law, accepted social practice, or science, what are they based on?
Many philosophers and ethicists have helped us answer this critical
question. They have suggested at least five different sources of ethical
standards we should use.
Five Sources of Ethical Standards
The Utilitarian Approach
Some ethicists emphasize that the ethical action is the one that provides
the most good or does the least harm, or, to put it another way, produces
the greatest balance of good over harm. The ethical corporate action, then,
is the one that produces the greatest good and does the least harm for all
who are affected-customers, employees, shareholders, the community, and the
environment. Ethical warfare balances the good achieved in ending terrorism
with the harm done to all parties through death, injuries, and destruction.
The utilitarian approach deals with consequences; it tries both to increase
the good done and to reduce the harm done.
The Rights Approach
Other philosophers and ethicists suggest that the ethical action is the one
that best protects and respects the moral rights of those affected. This
approach starts from the belief that humans have a dignity based on their
human nature per se or on their ability to choose freely what they do with
their lives. On the basis of such dignity, they have a right to be treated
as ends and not merely as means to other ends. The list of moral rights
-including the rights to make one's own choices about what kind of life to
lead, to be told the truth, not to be injured, to a degree of privacy, and
so on-is widely debated; some now argue that non-humans have rights, too.
Also, it is often said that rights imply duties-in particular, the duty to
respect others' rights.
The Fairness or Justice Approach
Aristotle and other Greek philosophers have contributed the idea that all
equals should be treated equally. Today we use this idea to say that ethical
actions treat all human beings equally-or if unequally, then fairly based on
some standard that is defensible. We pay people more based on their harder
work or the greater amount that they contribute to an organization, and say
that is fair. But there is a debate over CEO salaries that are hundreds of
times larger than the pay of others; many ask whether the huge disparity is
based on a defensible standard or whether it is the result of an imbalance
of power and hence is unfair.
The Common Good Approach
The Greek philosophers have also contributed the notion that life in
community is a good in itself and our actions should contribute to that
life. This approach suggests that the interlocking relationships of society
are the basis of ethical reasoning and that respect and compassion for all
others-especially the vulnerable-are requirements of such reasoning. This
approach also calls attention to the common conditions that are important to
the welfare of everyone. This may be a system of laws, effective police and
fire departments, health care, a public educational system, or even public
recreational areas.
The Virtue Approach
A very ancient approach to ethics is that ethical actions ought to be
consistent with certain ideal virtues that provide for the full development
of our humanity. These virtues are dispositions and habits that enable us to
act according to the highest potential of our character and on behalf of
values like truth and beauty. Honesty, courage, compassion, generosity,
tolerance, love, fidelity, integrity, fairness, self-control, and prudence
are all examples of virtues. Virtue ethics asks of any action, "What kind of
person will I become if I do this?" or "Is this action consistent with my
acting at my best?"
Putting the Approaches Together
Each of the approaches helps us determine what
standards of behavior can be considered ethical. There are still problems to
be solved, however.
The first problem is that we may not agree on
the content of some of these specific approaches. We may not all agree to
the same set of human and civil rights.
We may not agree on what constitutes the common
good. We may not even agree on what is a good and what is a harm.
The second problem is that the different
approaches may not all answer the question "What is ethical?" in the same
way. Nonetheless, each approach gives us important information with which to
determine what is ethical in a particular circumstance. And much more often
than not, the different approaches do lead to similar answers.
Making Decisions
Making good ethical decisions requires a trained
sensitivity to ethical issues and a practiced method for exploring the
ethical aspects of a decision and weighing the considerations that should
impact our choice of a course of action. Having a method for ethical
decision making is absolutely essential. When practiced regularly, the
method becomes so familiar that we work through it automatically without
consulting the specific steps.
The more novel and difficult the ethical choice
we face, the more we need to rely on discussion and dialogue with others
about the dilemma. Only by careful exploration of the problem, aided by the
insights and different perspectives of others, can we make good ethical
choices in such situations.
We have found the following framework for
ethical decision making a useful method for exploring ethical dilemmas and
identifying ethical courses of action. |