Running head: SOCIETAL ETHICS 1

Ethical Decision Making at a Societal Level

Kristen Havens

Siena Heights University

LDR604: Ethics & Social Justice – McDonald

April 2020
SOCIETAL ETHICS 2

Ethical Decision Making at a Societal Level

Ethics and morality are often used semi-interchangeably to refer to right and wrong

behavior; both typically being measured by the consequences an action has on others. Weiss

explains that to be morally responsible, an action does not cause, and prevents or limits to the

greatest extent possible, harm done to others – physical, emotional, or otherwise (2014). While

there are varying systems of belief that could guide one’s ethical decision making, the cost-

benefit analysis to measure what is most ethical or moral is somewhat subjective and

therefore, a difficult topic to study. This paper attempts to bring together literature that

explores the topic of ethical decision making, specifically as it relates to leadership at the

societal level. Ethical reasoning will be discussed on an individual level to create a foundation

for the basis of such as a society before touching on the impact of ethical leadership and the

relationship between ethics, law, and politics.

Ethical Reasoning

Belief Systems. To make an ethical decision requires the presence of an ethical

dilemma; meaning that it must be possible to make an unethical decision. There are many

belief systems that can be used to guide ethical decision making, with the five most

fundamental being based on: (1) cost-benefit analysis, (2) moral duty, (3) guaranteed rights, (4)

justice and equity, and (5) ethical virtue (Weiss, 2014). Now, as individuals may be guided by

different root beliefs in what it means to be moral, it is possible that more than one solution to

any situation could be considered moral or ethical which can further blur lines as the volume of

persons affected by a decision increases.

SOCIETAL ETHICS 3

Level of Dilemma. To further understand this, it is vital to discuss the four levels at

which ethical dilemma and decision-making can take place: personal, organizational, industrial,

societal/global (Weiss, 2014). The impact that the belief system of each of these levels has on

the others flows simultaneously in both directions. For instance, organizational culture is

heavily influenced by the behavior accepted by the majority of individuals but culture and

dominating values of an organization is shown to play a major role in determining the ethical

standards of its employees. This is a key concept to understand as we begin to explore ethicality

at the more expansive levels.

Moral Maturity. In addition to the levels at which an ethical dilemma and decision can

occur, there are also levels of moral development, also referred to as moral sophistication or

maturity by Muhlberger (2000). Based on Kohlberg’s model, as one progresses through the

levels of moral development, they become capable of more complex review of the situation

and its potential consequences for consideration. For instance, as one gains moral maturity,

they begin to understand that moral concerns outweigh conflicting social or personal

considerations (Muhlberger, 2000). On the other hand, someone with a lower moral maturity

level feel less ethical responsibility when obligation to obey can interfere. This is demonstrated

by the Milgram Shock Experiment in which 100% of participants were willing to shock another

person with a dangerous voltage because the authority figure in the experiment ordered them

to do so, and further, two-thirds of participants were willing to continue to the highest voltage

level which was marked to indicate the effect would be deadly (McLeod, 2017).

Obedience is not the only quasi-obligation that can affect one’s ethical decision-making at

lower levels of moral sophistication. Others include moral obligation and personal identity.
SOCIETAL ETHICS 4

Muhlberger suggests that people feel a sense of responsibility to act when the action is judged

to be morally obligatory compared to morally virtuous and that this mindset allows people to

limit their responsibility in any particular situation and further that the desire to maintain a

personal identity (such as traditional feminine image) could prevent a person from feeling a

sense of obligation (2000). This becomes almost paradoxical at the political level, and since

moral sophistication includes the understanding that personal identity considerations should

not influence moral judgements (Muhlberger, 2000), it helps to explain why politicians are

often seen as functioning at lower levels of moral reasoning. Consider an elected official’s need

to maintain a positive public image in order to maintain their position of power and continue to

push what we’d hope they believe to be ethical movements. If an unethical decision needs to

be made on a smaller scale for the greater good to continue, is it still unethical? The answer

would vary by belief system, for instance probably not from a utilitarianism perspective but it

likely would from the perspective that justice reigns. It is for this reason that Simpson suggested

that bi-partisan affiliation is likely correlated with one’s moral belief system (1987).

Ethical Leadership

In organization. The culture of an organization sets norms for appropriate behavior. This

is true also for the assumptions of an organization based on the culture of the society in which

it operates (Wong, 2002). Not only does cultural norm help to clarify specific observable

activities, it can also help to explain the assumptions and motivations for such. Historically this

isn’t a phenomena that has been of much interest, however, international business and

education becoming more normalized practice, and cultural diversity expanding in the

workplace, brings new challenges to leadership for establishing an ethical organizational

SOCIETAL ETHICS 5

culture. Societal traditions and beliefs directly dictate the process in which one determines the

morality or ethicality of an action. This means that what may be seen as moral in one country or

culture may be deemed immoral in another (Keane, 2016).

Hong Kong is a major international business hub and its increasing interaction with

other countries has made it more receptive to external changes, but this is not always the case,

as Wong references (2002). Using the example of Chinese tradition dictating a harmonious

man-nature relationship while American culture tends to promote man’s mastery over nature,

Wong explains that transferring managerial styles and business practices can be very difficult

across cultures even though globalization and diversified workforce would seemingly present

ample opportunity to do so. Regardless of this difficulty, studies show that there are many

significant impacts to striving for ethical leadership. This extends to societal leadership.

In public service. A study found significant positive correlation between ethical

leadership and reduced absenteeism, organizational commitment, and willingness to report

ethical problems (Hassan, Wright, & Yukl, 2014). The same study further indicates that at the

government level, ethics predicts satisfaction with government services, trust in the

government, and citizen participation.

The difficulty with this is that leaders tend to function at a lower level of moral

development (based on Kohlberg’s model) as the size of the organization they are leading

grows (Hassan, et.al., 2014; Weiss, 2014). As discussed above, the higher one’s level of moral

development, the greater the capability one has for ethical reasoning. At the governmental

staff level in the United States, a study found that nearly half indicate experiencing situations

that they felt invited misconduct and 1 in 7 say they have been pressured to compromise
SOCIETAL ETHICS 6

ethical standards through expected job performance (Hassan, et.al., 2014). Further the same

study showed a third of those who had witnessed misconduct did not report it and a third of all

staff surveyed said that they wouldn’t report witnessing something for fear of retaliation. Based

on the most primal levels of moral development (1. Punishment avoidance, 2. Reward seeking),

creating an environment in which staff members are willing to report ethical problems is critical

in establishing an ethical climate (Hassan, et.al., 2014).

Contradicting these findings, Weinberg suggests that the affects of ethical leadership on

subordinates is gradual, most strongly affecting those who work directly with the leaders while

the conduct of others is most likely not affected by the ethical lapse of leadership (2014). For

example, staff of elected officials are likely to be demoralized or push ethical boundaries if the

official displays unethical behavior because they are closed identified with the official while

those who may not be closely affiliated with the leader specifically could still be ethically

devoted to their mission.

Ethics in Law & Politics

While some use obedience of the law as a measure of ethical behavior, much of

historical bottom-up political revolution links to motivation based in moral judgement (Keane,

2016) and studies show that a higher level of moral reasoning creates a greater sense of moral

duty, and in turn, a significant positive correlation with political involvement and activism

(Muhlberger, 2000). Law and societal acceptance have a relationship through pack-mindedness

– also commonly called mob-mentality or herd-acceptance – which is the idea that the more

people who are accepting of a specific behavior, the more normalized it becomes. Though the

development of law is typically a response to a current societal issue, its totality means that law
SOCIETAL ETHICS 7

has perceivable deficits in coping with societal change (Amstutz, 2009; Stone, 2016). Stone

explains that there is an irresolvable contradiction between law and ethical reasoning because

ethics is a situational phenomenon that cannot be universally stated. While justice as a moral

belief system can take an adjudicative form and may often be the basis for legal rulings, Stone

suggests that the most apt significance that ethical reasoning has in law is the spirit of rebellion

or operation of critique (2016).

Though the United States was founded on the idea that religion and law should be

separate, some scholars suggest that there that separation is important for sake of ethical

decision-making as well. This may seem contradictory as another commonly accepted

assumption is that religion is necessary to guide morality. Keane argues that religion actually

undermines the true basis of ethical decision-making by deflecting the moral responsibility for

decision-making from the individual person (2016). This ultimately limits the capacity one has

to progress through the stages of moral maturity, whereas learning not to expect a miraculous

sign or intervention, a person becomes responsible for their own actions and the related

consequences.

While Stone states that “ethics need laws and political structures to be expressed in the

social”, he goes on to explain that, these frameworks “will always necessarily fail ethics by

reducing the signification of transcendence to totality” (2016, p. 58).

How this applies to me.

While ethical decision-making is an extremely complicated topic, one of the most

important take-aways for me through this research was the importance of education regarding

ethical decision-making. It is my responsibility as an educator to include opportunities for

SOCIETAL ETHICS 8

development in the area of ethical reasoning for my students. As a leader it is equally important

for me to provide clear expectations around ethical behavior, education regarding the ethical

decision-making process, and opportunities for moral reasoning development. It helped to

read through some of the potential personal obstacles to true ethical decision making so that I

can be more aware of my own possible assumed limitations.

On a broader scale, the deeper level understanding that this literature provided about

the limitations that we as a society have for functioning at greater a greater level of ethical

reasoning as a whole helped to clarify the purpose behind some legal processes and political

behavior.
SOCIETAL ETHICS 9

References

Amstutz, M. (2009). The letter of the law: Legal reasoning in a societal perspective. German

Law

Journal. 10(4) 361-382. doi: 10.1017/S2071832200001115

Hassan, S., Wright, B., & Yukl, G. (2014). Does ethical leadership matter in government? Effects

on organizational commitment, absenteeism, and willingness to report ethical

problems. Public Administration Review. 74(3) 333-343.

Keane, W. (2016). Ethical Life: Its natural and social histories. Princeton University Press.

McLeod, S. (2017). The Milgram Shock Experiment. Simply Psychology.

https://www.simplypsychology.org/milgram.html

Muhlberger, P. (2000). Moral reasoning effects on political participation. Political Psychology.

21(4) 667-695.

Simpson, E. (1987). The development of political reasoning. Human Development. 30(5)

268-281.

Stone, M. (2016). Levinas, ethics and law. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.

doi: 10.3366/j.ctt1bh2jr8

Weinberg, H. (2014). Ethical leadership in public service: A solid foundation for good

government. Public Administration Review. 74(3) 344-345.

Weiss, J. (2014). Business ethics: A stakeholder and issues management approach (6th edition).

Berrett-Koehler Publishers, Inc.

Wong, K. (2002). Culture and quality education: Ethical leadership and school organization. In
SOCIETAL ETHICS 10

Mock, J. & Chan, D. (Eds.) Globalization and education: The quest for quality education

in Hong Kong. (pp. 123-139). Hong Kong University Press.