POSTSCRIPT

On Making an Ethical Decision

Now that we have come towards the end of this whole journey of ethical inquiry, it is
time to take stock and see if nothing essential has been left out. It appears that after
having gone through the study of the basic concepts and principles regarding good and
bad, as well as an exploration of an array of moral theories and paradigms, still, a very
important question remains opened and unanswered up to this point: How do we really
go about, exactly, into the very act of making an ethical decision on a particular case,
situation, or issue?

The whole process of ethical decision making is something that we truly have to
seriously consider (before ending this book) because, no matter how adept we may
have become on the intricacies of moral theorizing, there still is a need to really "take
the plunge", so to speak, to the REAL and ACTUAL act of making a concrete decision
on every particular lite situation that will surely come our way as moral agents.

So, without further ado, here are the seven specific - steps of the ethical decision-
making process:

Ethical Decision-Making Process

(The 7-Step Moral Reasoning Model)*

1. Recognizing an Ethical Issue

One of the most important things to do at the beginning of ethical deliberation is to

locate, to the extent possible, the specific ethical aspects of the issue at hand.
Sometimes what appears to be an ethical dispute is really a dispute about facts or
concepts. For example, some Utilitarians might argue that the death penalty is ethical
because it deters crime and thus produces the greatest amount of good with the least
harm. Other Utilitarians, however, might argue that the death penalty does not deter
crime, and thus produces more harm than good.

The argument here is over which facts argue for the morality of a particular action, not
simply over the morality of particular principles. All utilitarians would abide by the
principle of producing the most good with least harm.

2. Consider the Parties Involved

Another important aspect to reflect upon are the various individuals other groups or
stakeholders who may be affected by your decision. Consider who might be harmed or
who might benefit.
3. Gather all of the Relevant Information

Before taking action, it is a good idea to make sure that you have gathered all of the
pertinent information, and that all potential sources of information have been consulted.

4. Formulate Actions and Consider Alternatives

Evaluate your decision-making options by asking the following questions:

4.1 Which action will produce the most good and do the least harm? (The
Utilitarian Approach)

4.2 Which action respects the rights of all who have a stake in the

decision? (The Rights Approach)

4.3 Which action treats people equally or proportionately? (The

Justice Approach)

4.4 Which action serves the community as a whole, not just some

members? (The Common Good Approach)

4.5 Which action leads me to act as the sort of person I should be?

(The Virtue Approach)

5. Make a Decision and Consider It

After examining all of the potential actions, which best addresses the situation? How do
I feel about my choice?

6. Act

Many ethical situations are uncomfortable because we can never have all of the
information. Even so, we must often take action.

7. Reflect on the Outcome

What were the results of my decision? What were the intended and unintended
consequences? Would I change anything now that I have seen the consequences
 KOHLBERG'S STAGES OF MORAL DEVELOPMENT

A. PREMORAL OR PRECONVENTIONAL STAGES:

FOCUS: Self

AGES: Up to 10-13 years of age, most prisoners.

Behavior motivated by anticipation of pleasure or pain.

STAGE 1: PUNISHMENT AND OBEDIENCE: Might Makes Right

Avoidance of physical punishment and deference to power. Punishment is an automatic

response of physical retaliation. The immediate physical consequences of an action
determine its goodness or badness. The atrocities carried out by soldiers during the
holocaust who were simply "carrying out orders" under threat of punishment, illustrate
that adults as well as children may function at stage one level. "Might makes right."

QUESTIONS: What must I do to avoid punishment? What can I do to force my will upon
others?

STAGE 2: INSTRUMENTAL EXCHANGE: The Egoist

Marketplace exchange favors or blows. "You scratch my back, I'll scratch yours. "Justice
is: "Do unto others as they do unto you." Individual does what is necessary, makes
concessions only as necessary to satisfy his own desires. Right action consists of what
instrumentally satisfies one's own needs. Vengeance is considered a moral duty.
People are valued in terms of their utility. "An eye for an eye."

QUESTIONS: What's in it for me? What must I do to avoid pain, gain pleasure?

B. CONVENTIONAL MORALITY:

FOCUS: Significant Others, "Tyranny of the They" (They say....)

AGES: Beginning in middle school, up to middle age – most people end up here.
Acceptance of the rules and standards of one's group.

STAGE 3: INTERPERSONAL (TRIBAL) CONFORMITY: Good Boy/Good Girl

Right is conformity to the stereotypical behavioral, values expectations of one's society

or peers. Individual acts to gain approval of others. Good behavior is that which pleases
or helps others within the group. "Everybody is doing it." Majority understanding
("common sense") is seen as "natural." One earns approval by being conventionally
"respectable" and "nice." Peer pressure makes being different the unforgivable sin. Self-
sacrifice to group demands is expected. Values based in conformity, loyalty to group.
Sin is a breach of the expectations of one's immediate social order (confuses sin with
group, class norms) Retribution, however, at this stage is collective. Individual
vengeance is not allowed. Forgiveness is preferable to revenge. Punishment is mainly
for deterrence. Failure to punish is "unfair." "If he can get away with it, why can't I?"
Many religious people end up here.

QUESTION: What must I do to be seen as a good boy/girl (socially acceptable)?

STAGE 4: LAW AND ORDER (SOCIETAL CONFORMITY): The Good Citizen

Respect for fixed rules, laws and properly constituted authority. Defense of the given
social and institutional order for its own sake. Responsibility toward the welfare of others
in the society. "Justice" normally refers to criminal justice. Justice demands that the
wrongdoer be punished, that he "pay his debt to society," and that law abiders be
rewarded. "A good day's pay for a good day's work." Injustice is failing to reward work or
punish demerit. Right behavior consists of maintaining the social order for its own sake.
Self-sacrifice to larger social order is expected. Authority figures are seldom questioned.
"He must be right. He's the Pope (or the President, or the Judge, or God)." Consistency
and precedent must be maintained. For most adults, this is the highest stage they will
attain.

QUESTION: What if everyone did that?

STAGE 4 ½ : The Cynic

Between the conventional stages and the post-conventional Levels 5 and 6, there is a
transitional stage. Some college-age students who come to see conventional morality
as socially constructed, thus, relative and arbitrary, but have not yet discovered
universal ethical principles, may drop into a hedonistic ethic of "do your own thing." This
was well noted in the hippie culture of the 1960's. Disrespect for conventional morality
was especially infuriating to the Stage 4 mentality and indeed was calculated to be so.
Kohlberg found that some people get "stuck" in this in-between stage marked by egoism
and skepticism never able to completely leave behind conventional reasoning even after
recognizing its inadequacies. Such people are often marked by uncritical cynicism ("All
politicians are crooks...nothing really matters anyway"), disillusionment and alienation.

QUESTION: Why should I believe anything?

C. POSTCONVENTIONAL OR PRINCIPLED MORALITY:

FOCUS: Justice, Dignity for all life, Common Good

 AGES: Few reach this stage, most not prior to middle age

STAGE 5: PRIOR RIGHTS AND SOCIAL CONTRACT: The Philosopher/King

Moral action in a specific situation is not defined by reference to a checklist of rules, but
from logical application of universal, abstract, moral principles. Individuals have natural
or inalienable rights and liberties that are prior to society and must be protected by
society. Retributive justice is repudiated as counterproductive, violative of notions of
human rights. Justice distributed proportionate to circumstances and need. "Situation
ethics." The statement, "Justice demands punishment," which is a self-evident truism to
the Stage 4 mind, is just as self-evidently nonsense at Stage 5. Retributive punishment
is neither rational nor just, because it does not promote the rights and welfare of the
individual and inflicts further violence upon society. Only legal sanctions that fulfill that
purpose are imposed-- protection of future victims, deterrence, and rehabilitation.
Individual acts out of mutual obligation and a sense of public good. Right action tends to
be defined in terms of general individual rights, and in terms of standards that have
been critically examined and agreed upon by the whole society--e.g. the Constitution.
The freedom of the individual should be limited by society only when it infringes upon
someone else's freedom. Conventional authorities are increasingly rejected in favor of
critical reasoning. Laws are challenged by questions of justice.

QUESTIONS: What is the just thing to do given all the circumstances? What will bring
the most good to the largest number or people?

STAGE 6: UNIVERSAL ETHICAL PRINCIPLES: The Prophet/Messiah

An individual who reaches this stage acts out of universal principles based upon the
equality and worth of all living beings. Persons are never means to an end, but are ends
in themselves. Having rights means more than individual liberties. It means that every
individual is due consideration of his dignity interests in every situation, those interests
being of equal importance with one's own. This is the "Golden Rule" model. A list of
rules inscribed in stone is no longer necessary. At this level, God is understood to say
what is right because it is right; His sayings are not right, just because it is God who
said them. Abstract principles are the basis for moral decision making, not concrete
rules.

Stage 6 individuals are rare, often value their principles more than their own life, often
seen as incarnating the highest human potential. Thus they are often martyred by those
of lower stages shamed by seeing realized human potential compared with their own
partially realized levels of development. (Stoning the prophets, killing the messenger).
Examples: Mohandas Gandhi, Jesus of Nazareth, Gautama Buddha, Martin Luther
King, Jr., Dag Hammarskjold.
QUESTIONS: What will foster life in its fullest for all living beings? What is justice for
all?

John Rawls' Theory of Justice

Rawls theory of justice revolves around the adaptation of two fundamental

principles of justice which would, in turn, guarantee a just and morally acceptable
society. The first principle guarantees the right of each person to have the most
extensive basic liberty compatible with the liberty of others. The second principle states
that social and economic positions are to be

a) to everyone's advantage and

b) open to all.

A key problem to Rawls is to show how such principles would be universally

adopted and here the work borders on general ethical issues. He introduces a
theoretical "veil of ignorance" in which all the "players" in the social game would be
placed in a situation which is called the "original position". Having only a general
knowledge of the facts of "life and society", each player is to abide based on their moral
obligation. By denying the players any specific information about themselves it forces
them to adopt a generalized point of view that bears a strong resemblance to the moral
point of view.

"Moral conclusions can be reached without abandoning the prudential standpoint

of positing, a moral outlook merely by pursuing one's own prudential reasoning under
certain procedural bargaining and knowledge constraints."

Rawls proposes that the most reasonable principles of justice for a society are
those that individuals would themselves agree to behind the "veil of ignorance", in
circumstances in which each is represented as a moral person, endowed with the basic
moral powers. What this position supports is that while each person has different ends
and goals, different backgrounds and talents, each ought to have a fair chance to
develop his or her talents and to pursue those goals-fair equality for opportunity. It is not
a race or contest where the talented or gifted prevail, it should be complete cooperation
among all so that there may be reasonable life for all.

What the "veil of ignorance" brings out is that we can accept utilitarianism as a
public conception of justice only if we are prepared to let someone be subject to
conditions we would not be prepared to subject ourselves. However, it is not the
responsibility of my actions to ensure the fulfillment of another person's goals. These
principles create an equal distribution of the "pie", if you will, yet it is not attainable
unless pursued or strived for. There is no room for idle observation, meaning, that while
we all possess equal opportunity as we all are equally moral persons, the choice of
what you wish to possess materially as well as intellectually is the discretion and
capability of the individual.

Why should we accept these principles as principles of justice? Primarily, these

principles promote equality among all. Each individual has the same basic liberties and
opportunities. Each individual has a moral obligation to accept the existence of every
other human being. In doing so, all people become equal in their position and desires.
We are equal in that each has the basic powers of choice and on acting on a sense of
justice. The responsibility of procedure and growth relies on each and every individual
his/her self. By doing so we may create a level playing field. Is this a form of pure
competition? It would seem so. Competition in that what is desired must be achieved by
one and desired by many perhaps. A benefit of competitive circumstance is the
betterment of all parties involved as they must evolve in order to surpass one another.

Also, in fair equality for opportunity we may eliminate all forms of discrimination
and discretion of races, ethnic origin, social standards and religious intolerance and
beliefs. All of these characteristics are a component of the individual person thus
making him/her "individual". Justice is only succumbed when the liberties of an
individual are affected because of an external opinion of these characteristics, and, in
the oppression of these characteristics upon another. They are nothing more than
components of a people.