I have had to take ethics courses as part of the continuing education requirement for my work as an insurance agent and to be on the board of the Olympic Karate organization – the USA National Karate-do Federation. Below is a short essay on ethics from my class notes. The interesting rub is that a study of ethical considerations leads to a study of values found in Budo. This article is a brief discussion and uses writings that may be in other contexts. It is not a complete ethical discussion but an overview of ethical approaches.
Situational Ethics
This is based on an ethical theory by Joseph Fetcher, a professor at the Episcopal Theological School in Cambridge, Massachusetts, in the 1960s. This theory is based on the postulate that morality is best abandoned to the most loving actions in a situation with conflicting situational dilemmas. There are four presuppositions for situational dilemmas.
1. Pragmatism: The Course of action must be practical and work.
2. Relativism: All situations are always relative, avoiding such words as “never” and “always.”
3. Positivism: The whole of situational ethics relies upon the fact that the person freely chooses to believe.
4. Personalism: The situational ethicist believes that laws are for the benefit of the people.
The downside to this approach arises because the decision is being made in the moment, and only factors that apply in a short time frame are considered. It is hard to determine the effects of the decision over the long term. A clear and concise decision may not be based on enough factors, and there is the chance that a desired outcome could be inserted into the decision-making process, affecting the results of any decision.
Rules-Based Decision-Making
The rules-based approach is the easiest and may seem to be the smartest. This approach uses laws, regulations, and policies to make ethical decisions – correct decision-making according to the rule that applies in a dilemma. Law is absolute, making things easier. However, the letter of the law may not be in one’s best interests, may not serve a right purpose, may not be valid, and there can be situations that are not ruled by law.
Suppose, as a business, you did not hire someone because they were overweight, and because this may harm the business in some way. No law applies to this situation, as being overweight is not a protected class. This is a legal decision. But suppose this practice has been going on for years and has gone out of its way to avoid overweight people. It can reach the point where it would not be a beneficial and an innocent error, but a deliberate, exclusionary decision.
People-Based Decision-Making
People-based decision-making puts people first. If one considers how a decision affects others, the right decision will be made. Yet, do unto others as you will have them do unto you is considered the Golden Rule. This is the ethics of reciprocity, maximizing the benefits of an action while minimizing adverse effects. This sounds good, but there are flaws. Resolutions are based on assumptions of proper behavior and choices. What if the consideration of proper behavior is different between individuals? If you do not hire someone because they are overweight and tell the individual so he can change his lifestyle, you assume that person rates losing weight the same as you do for a job. That individual may have a different value system where they believe background and skillset are more important. The Golden Rule reasoning does not take into account different value systems.
Duty-Based Decision-Making
This is based on Immanuel Kant, an 18th-century philosopher, who wrote that morality comes from a sense of duty and that ethical decisions based on duty would bind one to one’s decisions and serve the most good to society. That is, reason and experience combined create a better approach to solving ethical dilemmas. This approach acts only according to that maxim whereby you can also will that it would become a universal law and in such a way that you always treat people, whether yourself or others, not just as a means, but always at the same time as an end. This approach is absolutist. Absolute rules must be followed with no exception and no regard for the results of the decision. Rightness is based on duty alone. Another flow is how to reconcile conflicting duties. If individuals are expected or have agreed to follow, do their duty, using ethical guidelines provided by a business or other organization, they would be acting with no regard for the outcome of their actions and just fulfilling a duty.
Preferred Behaviors and Values
The Six Pillars of Character by the Josephson Institute of Ethics lists preferred behaviors that are part of the CHARACTER ACCOUNTS! program. CHARACTER COUNTS! is a global character education initiative that has grown into one of the most influential programs of its kind in the world, impacting over 8 million young people and their families annually. CHARACTER COUNTS! is based on a practical, nonsectarian framework to define good character and provide guidelines for the development of good character for schools, youth-serving organizations, and parents. It is grounded in the belief that building character is essential for both personal fulfillment and the health of society. It is thought that these traits would help in good ethical decisions. These are similar to the Budo code, if not in the stated six, in the subsets applied. These six pillars are:
1. Trustworthiness
a. Honesty
b. Integrity
c. Reliability (Promise-keeping)
d. Loyalty
2. Respect
a. Civility, Courtesy, and Decency
b. Dignity and Autonomy
c. Tolerance and Acceptance
3. Responsibility
a. Accountability
b. Pursuit of Excellence
c. Self-Restraint
4. Fairness
a. Process
b. Impartiality
c. Equity
5. Caring
By using these traits, you can choose expected behaviors to ethically clarify your decision-making.
Ethical Dilemma Checklist
Laura L. Nash, senior research fellow at Harvard Business School, developed the following 12-question checklist to help approach ethical dilemmas in a more systematic way. Her checklist is as follows.
1. Have you defined the problem accurately?
2. How would you define the problem if you stood on the other side of the fence?
3. How did this situation occur in the first place?
4. To whom and to what do you give your loyalty as a person or to any organization?
5. What is your intention in making this decision?
6. How does this intention compare with the probable results?
7. Whom could your decision or action injure?
8. Can you discuss the problem with the affected parties before you make your decision?
9. Are you confident that your position will be as valid over a long period of time as it seems now?
10. Could you disclose without qualm your decision or action to your associates?
11. What is the symbolic potential of your action if understood? if misunderstood?
12. Under what conditions would you allow exceptions to your stand?
Works Cited
Fletcher, J. (1966). Situation ethics: The new morality. Philadelphia, PA: Westminster Press.
Josephson Institute. (n.d.). RESOURCES: MAKING ETHICAL DECISIONS.
Kant, I. (1873). Kant’s Theory Of Ethics: Or Practical Philosophy. (T. K. Abbott, Trans.)
Nash, L. (1981, November). Ethics Without the Sermon. The Magazine.