Ronan Y.

Villagonzalo
Student No. 11894768

Decision Criteria Categories of Markkula Framework

Doc Kit introduced the Framework for Ethical Decision Making from the Markkula Center for Applied Ethics.
The framework interested me. We used the framework in our analysis of PNOC-EDC and Marcopper cases
assigned to our group.

Masid-Danas (What?)
In the course of my group completing our case analysis paper and presentation, I was able to give more
thought on the Markkula Framework. The framework has six (6) approaches or decision criteria as follows:
1. Utilitarian Approach
2. Rights & Duties Approach
3. Justice & Fairness Approach
4. Human Dignity & Common Good Approach
5. Ethics of Care Approach
6. Virtue Approach

Based on the guide questions of each approach, I deemed that these approaches may be classified into three
(3) groups:
A. Us / “Tayo”
B. You / “Kayo”
C. I / “Ako”

Under the A) Us / “Tayo”, I placed the decision criteria 1. Utilitarian Approach, 2. Rights & Duties Approach, 3.
Justice & Fairness Approach, and 4. Human Dignity & Common Good Approach. All these four (4) approaches
ask the question with all participants in mind – the decision-maker and all stakeholder involved or affected.

Second, under the B) You / “Kayo” category is the 5. Ethics of Care Approach because this decision criteria
asks the question on how much care is received by the stakeholders flowing out of the actor/ decision-maker.

And thirdly, the C. I / “Ako” category is where the 6. Virtue Approach is classified as the basis of this decision
criteria is the self. The approach considers the vision, intent, character, and values of the actor/ decision-
maker.

Suri-Nilay (So What?)

Categorizing the six (6) approaches of the Markkula Framework under three (3) groups gave me a clearer
picture of the framework. It also clarified the distinctive characteristic of each of the decision criteria and
highlighted their differences from each other as well as their interdependence on each other.

Taya-Kilos (Now What?)

Looking at the three (3) groupings of the approaches, I concluded that the four (4) decision criteria under A) Us
/ “Tayo” will be more difficult to measure and as such more difficult to ascertain. It will be more improbable to
ensure that the rating of all stakeholders on each criteria will be considered.

In contrast, the C) I / “Ako” category will be the easiest, as ascertaining the vision, intent, and purpose of the
decision-maker will be accomplished by looking inwardly to the self. Control over your own action is one
primary offshoot this decision criteria. How you think, talk, and act will be based on the internal value system of
the actor.

The B) You / “Kayo” group or the 5. Ethics of Care Approach is second to the 6. Virtue Approach in terms of
management and measurement. Care is an outward expression of the virtues inside the decision-maker. The
outward flow of care is under the control of the actor. He can pour out more care or less care. However, the
receiving end is a different matter. The level of receptiveness of acceptor is beyond the control of the decision-
maker, but still, he can influence it.

Therefore, on our case analysis, the weight we gave the six (6) approaches based on control/ management
and measurement are as follows: 1. Utilitarian Approach, 2. Rights & Duties Approach, 3. Justice & Fairness
Approach, and 4. Human Dignity & Common Good Approach each has 10%; 5. Ethics of Care Approach has
30%; and 6. Virtue Approach has 30%.

-end-