level
Applied to professionalism and research, case-based learning consists of using factual or fictional scenarios to illustrate examples of complex and ambiguous ethical and professional situations researchers may face ( Bagdasarov et al. 2013 ; Johnson et al. 2012 ; Kolodner 1992 ). Case-based learning helps trainees link course concepts to realistic, real-world scenarios by immersing themselves in these scenarios and exploring how to apply professional decision-making strategies ( Miller and Tanner 2015 ). The positive effects of case-based learning are magnified when trainees work together in small groups to collectively seek out important information, ask relevant questions, and find solutions to the problem ( Allen and Tanner 2002a ). This enables greater breadth and depth of understanding of decision-making strategies that can be used to address issues related to the case. Trainees can also use what they learned during this practice when applying these decision-making skills to a situation in the future that is similar. That is, trainees can draw upon their case-based knowledge to make sense of future professional and ethical situations and navigate these situations when they arise ( Kolodner et al. 2004 ).
Because of the personal and interpersonal nature of ethical and professional problems, reflecting on personal experiences and processing cases individually reinforces the knowledge base that influences ethical and professional decision-making ( Antes et al. 2012 ). Moreover, when professionals are confronted with ethical dilemmas, they are likely to draw upon personal experiences to make sense of the dilemma and generate solutions ( Mumford et al. 2000 ; Scott et al. 2005 ; Thiel et al. 2012 ). Drawing on past experiences allows professionals to consider important aspects of these past experiences such as causes and outcomes, which are essential for effective professional decision-making ( Stenmark et al. 2010 ).
Think-pair-share activities consist of having students initially think about a solution to a problem individually, then pairing with a neighboring student to exchange ideas, and finally reporting out to the larger group key points from their discussion ( Allen and Tanner 2002b ). Discussion between peers enhances understanding of complex subject matter even when both trainees are uncertain initially ( Smith et al. 2009 ). This may be due to the cognitive reasoning and communication skills needed to relay and justify perspectives about complex subject matter to others. Conversely, similar evaluative skills are needed to appraise the viewpoints of the other and determine if their explanation and rationale make sense in context.
Role plays are training activities where trainees take on the role of someone in a hypothetical scenario and model what it is like to have the perspective of that character ( Thiagarajan 1996 ). For example, trainees in a role play can model social interactions between characters faced with an ethical or professional dilemma regarding authorship, human subjects protections, mentor-trainee relationships, or data management ( DuBois 2013 ). Role plays enable trainees to learn how to identify, analyze, and resolve these dilemmas because they provide trainees with the opportunity to practice navigating these situations ( Chan 2012 ; DuBois 2013 ). This technique is particularly effective in trainings that involve exploration and acquisition of complex social skills, such as professional decision-making ( Noe 2013 ). Role play activities have been shown to be effective in ethics instruction ( Mumford et al. 2008 ). They can involve a select few volunteers who perform for the class while the remainder of trainees observe, or involve all trainees divided into small groups of two or three where all trainees take part in the role play activity. Role play activities have been shown to promote a deep understanding of the complexities involved with ethical and professional dilemmas ( Brummel et al. 2010 ).
In order to be effective, however, certain activities must take place before, during, and after the role play ( Noe 2013 ; Thiagarajan 1996 ). Specifically, before the role play, trainees should be provided with background information that gives context for the role play and a script with adequate detail for trainees to understand their role. During the role play, actors and observers should be able to hear and see one another, and trainees should be provided with a handout detailing the key issues of the role play scenario. After the role play has commenced, both actors and observers should debrief on their experience, how the role play relates to the concepts being taught in training, and key takeaways. Trainees should also be provided with feedback in order to reinforce what was learned during the role play experience ( Jackson and Back 2011 ).
Trainees will need multiple opportunities to practice applying the professional decision-making skills they are learning. Practice opportunities can take the form of the various pedagogical tools, as discussed above, including case studies, individual reflection, and role-play activities. These tools promote active learning and create a safe mechanism for trainees to experiment with SMART strategy application ( Bell and Kozlowski 2008 ). Instructors should also have trainees periodically recall the SMART strategies throughout training. This active recall will increase the likelihood of strategy use beyond practice during training.
Immediately after each practice activity, instructors should provide feedback to trainees by noting what was done well and where there are opportunities for change or improvement. Feedback should be specific and frequent in order to convey to trainees what resulted in poor professional decision-making performance and good professional decision-making performance ( Gagné and Medsker 1996 ). Carefully guiding feedback-oriented discussions can further enhance learning, retention, and application of SMART strategies.
Professionals across various fields, especially in research contexts, encounter complex situations involving multiple stakeholders that necessitate professional decision-making skills. Fortunately, these skills are trainable, and the SMART strategies decision tool helps facilitate professional decision-making skill retention and application. In the present effort, we approach professional decision-making using a compensatory strategy framework and showcase how each of the SMART strategies could be applied to a scenario involving a professional dilemma. We also discuss how to maximize the effects of a SMART strategy-oriented training program and highlight pedagogical tools to guide SMART strategy education.
This paper provides a guide for educators and institutions with the goal of integrating training on professional decision-making skills into their curriculum. We provide educators with a robust understanding of the steps involved in mitigating negative effects of self-serving biases and making sense of complex professional dilemmas. Additionally, we discuss the individual-level and environmental-level constraints that influence the way problems are framed and approached, and the strategies that individuals can use to counteract the negative effects of these constraints on decision-making. Educators can take this understanding, along with the knowledge of effective training and pedagogical practices, to create training content that prepares its trainees to effectively navigate multifaceted professional issues they may face in their careers.
We would like to thank John Gibbs, John Chibnall, Raymond Tait, Michael Mumford, Shane Connelly, and Lynn Devenport for their insight and prior work that led to many of the ideas discussed in this manuscript.
Funding/Support This paper was supported by the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences (UL1 TR002345). The development of the Professionalism and Integrity in Research Program (PI) was funded by a supplement to the Washington University Clinical and Translational Science award (UL1 TR000448). The U.S. Office of Research Integrity provided funding to conduct outcome assessment of the PI Program (ORIIR140007). The effort of ALA was supported by the National Human Genome Research Institute (K01HG008990).
Conflict of Interest The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.
This document is designed as an introduction to thinking ethically. Read more about what the framework can (and cannot) do .
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 more ethical in the way it treats everyone.
Ethics refers to standards and practices that tell us how human beings ought to act in the many situations in which they find themselves—as friends, parents, children, citizens, businesspeople, professionals, and so on. Ethics is also concerned with our character. It requires knowledge, skills, and habits.
It is helpful to identify what ethics is NOT:
If our ethical decision-making is not solely based on feelings, religion, law, accepted social practice, or science, then on what basis can we decide between right and wrong, good and bad? Many philosophers, ethicists, and theologians have helped us answer this critical question. They have suggested a variety of different lenses that help us perceive ethical dimensions. Here are six of them:
Some 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 in themselves 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 argue that non-humans have rights, too. Rights are also often understood as implying duties—in particular, the duty to respect others' rights and dignity.
( For further elaboration on the rights lens, please see our essay, “Rights.” )
Justice is the idea that each person should be given their due, and what people are due is often interpreted as fair or equal treatment. Equal treatment implies that people should be treated as equals according to some defensible standard such as merit or need, but not necessarily that everyone should be treated in the exact same way in every respect. There are different types of justice that address what people are due in various contexts. These include social justice (structuring the basic institutions of society), distributive justice (distributing benefits and burdens), corrective justice (repairing past injustices), retributive justice (determining how to appropriately punish wrongdoers), and restorative or transformational justice (restoring relationships or transforming social structures as an alternative to criminal punishment).
( For further elaboration on the justice lens, please see our essay, “Justice and Fairness.” )
Some ethicists begin by asking, “How will this action impact everyone affected?”—emphasizing the consequences of our actions. Utilitarianism, a results-based approach, says that the ethical action is the one that produces the greatest balance of good over harm for as many stakeholders as possible. It requires an accurate determination of the likelihood of a particular result and its impact. For example, 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. Cost/benefit analysis is another consequentialist approach.
( For further elaboration on the utilitarian lens, please see our essay, “Calculating Consequences.” )
According to the common good approach, 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—such as clean air and water, a system of laws, effective police and fire departments, health care, a public educational system, or even public recreational areas. Unlike the utilitarian lens, which sums up and aggregates goods for every individual, the common good lens highlights mutual concern for the shared interests of all members of a community.
( For further elaboration on the common good lens, please see our essay, “The Common Good.” )
A very ancient approach to ethics argues 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?”
( For further elaboration on the virtue lens, please see our essay, “Ethics and Virtue.” )
Care ethics is rooted in relationships and in the need to listen and respond to individuals in their specific circumstances, rather than merely following rules or calculating utility. It privileges the flourishing of embodied individuals in their relationships and values interdependence, not just independence. It relies on empathy to gain a deep appreciation of the interest, feelings, and viewpoints of each stakeholder, employing care, kindness, compassion, generosity, and a concern for others to resolve ethical conflicts. Care ethics holds that options for resolution must account for the relationships, concerns, and feelings of all stakeholders. Focusing on connecting intimate interpersonal duties to societal duties, an ethics of care might counsel, for example, a more holistic approach to public health policy that considers food security, transportation access, fair wages, housing support, and environmental protection alongside physical health.
( For further elaboration on the care ethics lens, please see our essay, “Care Ethics.” )
Each of the lenses introduced above helps us determine what standards of behavior and character traits can be considered right and good. 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 lenses. For example, we may not all agree on 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 lenses may lead to different answers to the question “What is ethical?” Nonetheless, each one gives us important insights in the process of deciding what is ethical in a particular circumstance.
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 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.
The following framework for ethical decision-making is intended to serve as a practical tool for exploring ethical dilemmas and identifying ethical courses of action.
Identify the Ethical Issues
Get the Facts
Evaluate Alternative Actions
Choose an Option for Action and Test It
Implement Your Decision and Reflect on the Outcome
This framework for thinking ethically is the product of dialogue and debate at the Markkula Center for Applied Ethics at Santa Clara University. Primary contributors include Manuel Velasquez, Dennis Moberg, Michael J. Meyer, Thomas Shanks, Margaret R. McLean, David DeCosse, Claire André, Kirk O. Hanson, Irina Raicu, and Jonathan Kwan. It was last revised on November 5, 2021.
In our complex and interconnected world, individuals and organizations often face ethical dilemmas that require careful consideration and decision-making. The ethical decision making process is that involves analyzing and evaluating various options to make choices that align with moral principles and values. It serves as a moral compass, guiding us towards actions deemed right or good while helping us navigate challenging ethical situations.
Table of Contents
Ethical dilemmas are situations where individuals or organizations face conflicting moral principles or values, making it difficult to determine the right course of action. These dilemmas often arise when there is a clash between different ethical considerations or when no clear-cut solution fully satisfies all parties involved.
Ethical dilemmas can emerge in various contexts, including personal relationships, professional settings, and societal issues. They can range from straightforward decisions with relatively low stakes to complex, morally ambiguous scenarios with far-reaching consequences.
To better understand ethical dilemmas, let’s explore some key aspects:
1. Conflicting Values: Ethical dilemmas often involve conflicting values or principles. For example, a healthcare professional may face a dilemma when the principle of patient autonomy conflicts with the duty to protect patient confidentiality.
2. Limited Resources: A scarcity of resources can give rise to ethical dilemmas. When resources are limited, individuals or organizations may face difficult choices in allocating those resources, leading to moral conflicts and challenges.
3. Multiple Stakeholders: Ethical dilemmas frequently involve multiple stakeholders with interests and perspectives. Balancing these interests and finding a solution that satisfies everyone can be extremely challenging.
4. Uncertainty and Complexity : Ethical dilemmas can arise when there is a lack of clear information, or the consequences of different choices are uncertain. The complexity of the situation further complicates the decision-making process.
5. Moral Obligations: Ethical dilemmas often involve conflicting moral obligations. For instance, a business executive may need help choosing between maximizing profits for shareholders and ensuring fair treatment for employees.
Ethical decision-making is a deliberate and systematic process that helps individuals and organizations make choices aligned with moral principles and values. While the specific steps may vary depending on the context, several key components are integral to ethical decision-making. Let’s explore these components:
Ethical decision-making models provide frameworks and processes to guide individuals and organizations in making moral choices. These models offer structured approaches that help assess and analyze ethical dilemmas, consider relevant factors, and arrive at ethically sound decisions. Here are some prominent ethical decision-making models:
It’s important to note that these models are not mutually exclusive, and their application may vary depending on the situation. Ethical decision-making models serve as valuable guides, helping individuals and organizations navigate ethical dilemmas and make more informed and moral choices.
Ethical decision-making is influenced by many factors that can shape our perception, reasoning, and choices when confronted with ethical dilemmas. These factors can vary depending on individual, cultural, and contextual considerations. Here are some key factors that commonly influence ethical decision-making:
Recognizing and understanding these factors can help individuals and organizations navigate ethical decision-making more effectively. By actively considering these influences, seeking diverse perspectives, and engaging in reflective and critical thinking, we can enhance our ethical decision-making capabilities and promote ethical behaviour in various contexts.
Ethical decision-making in practice involves applying principles and processes to real-life situations. It requires individuals and organizations to navigate complex ethical dilemmas and make choices that align with moral values and principles. Here are some key aspects of ethical decision-making in practice:
Ethical decision-making in practice is a continuous process that involves ongoing learning, self-reflection, and improvement. Individuals and organizations must navigate complex moral landscapes with ethical awareness, critical thinking, and a commitment to ethical values. Integrating ethical decision-making into everyday practices can foster a culture of integrity and contribute to positive ethical outcomes in various domains.
Ethical leadership plays a critical role in shaping ethical decision-making within organizations and influencing the behaviour of individuals. Ethical leaders set the tone, establish expectations, and guide ethical behaviour. They are role models, demonstrating integrity, transparency, and a commitment to moral values. Here are key aspects of the relationship between ethical leadership and decision-making:
Ethical leadership has a profound impact on ethical decision-making within organizations. Ethical leaders promote ethical decision making processes by cultivating a culture of integrity, providing guidance, modelling ethical behaviour and contributing to a more ethical organizational climate.
Ethical decision-making can be complex and challenging, with various pitfalls and biases hindering the process. It is important to be aware of these challenges and take steps to overcome them. Here are some common challenges and strategies for overcoming them:
Conflicting Interests and Pressures: Ethical decision-making can become challenging when conflicting interests or external pressures exist. These pressures may come from stakeholders, financial considerations, or the desire to maintain relationships. It is important to identify and address these conflicts openly and transparently. Upholding ethical principles and values, seeking compromise, and considering the long-term impact can help navigate conflicting interests.
Individuals and organizations can enhance their ethical decision-making capabilities by being aware of these challenges and employing strategies to overcome them. Emphasizing critical thinking, moral reasoning, open communication, and ongoing ethical education can help navigate the complexities of ethical dilemmas and promote a culture of integrity.
The ethical decision making process is that guides individuals and organizations in navigating complex ethical dilemmas. By considering ethical principles, analyzing consequences, and applying structured decision-making processes, we can strive to make choices that uphold integrity, fairness, and social responsibility .
Throughout this article, we have explored the key components of ethical decision-making, including identifying the moral issue, gathering relevant information, considering different perspectives, analyzing consequences, evaluating alternatives, and applying ethical frameworks. We have also discussed various ethical decision-making models and the factors influencing moral choices.
Ethical decision-making has its challenges. Cognitive biases, emotional influences, time constraints, and conflicting interests can pose obstacles. However, by recognizing these challenges and employing strategies such as critical thinking, reflection, seeking diverse perspectives, and managing emotions, we can overcome these pitfalls and make more informed and ethical decisions.
Ethical leadership is vital in fostering a culture of integrity and influencing ethical decision-making within organizations. Ethical leaders set clear standards, promote ethical behaviour, and provide guidance and support to individuals faced with ethical dilemmas. They serve as role models, ensuring that ethical considerations are integrated into everyday practices.
Ethical decision-making is a continuous process that requires ongoing learning, self-reflection, and a commitment to moral values. Individuals and organizations can contribute to a more just and responsible society by prioritizing ethical decision-making. Let us strive to embrace ethical decision-making as a fundamental principle, empowering ourselves and others to make choices that promote the greater good and uphold our moral obligations.
Latest posts.
What do students need to know and be able to do when they graduate? Will they be able to work collaboratively to address complex global problems? These questions address one of the core purposes of international education: preparing a globally competent workforce, and, more importantly, globally competent human beings. This blog dives into just how to instill these skills in international students.
Higher education institutions and employers agree that critical thinking, as well as ethical reasoning and decision-making, are necessary skills to have and be able to translate into action. Acquisition of critical thinking and ethical reasoning skills and opportunities to apply these skills in globally relevant contexts (eg study abroad, exchanges, service learning, advocacy and activism on their campuses) has the potential for deep, meaningful, high-impact experiences that will better prepare students to be active and globally competent individuals. Both critical thinking and ethical reasoning are teachable skills that students can and should learn.
Critical thinking involves thoughtful and systematic processing of information so that we can better understand the complexity of issues and make sounder decisions. A critical mind is a questioning mind. Hence, critical thinking develops through an inquiry-based learning process. Asking essential questions and posing problems or scenarios inspire a quest for knowledge and problem solving. Consider the following questions:
A critical mind is a questioning mind.
Seeking answers to questions such as these is fundamental to understanding ourselves, others and the larger world, and being a change agent. However, in tackling collaborative problem-solving in the global context, students also need to be aware of the complexity of issues from multiple perspectives. They need to acquire dialogue skills, understand another’s point of view, be aware of one’s own assumptions, be self-aware and other-aware, and engage meta-cognitive skills (thinking about one’s own thinking). The ability to invite individuals with a different worldview from their own into a process of transformation and problem solving by listening closely to their perspectives is an integral part of dialogue and critical thinking. Furthermore, the ability to regulate one’s own emotions in the times when our core beliefs are being challenged is a fundamental skill for globally competent citizens.
Ethical reasoning is an applied and teachable critical thinking skill, often enriched through international education. Cross-cultural experiences prompt encounters with difference, thereby causing cognitive dissonance and providing opportunities for a deeper application of ethical reasoning in real life.
One applied ethical reasoning programme offers a unique way of developing ethical reasoning skills for higher education students. Some of the characteristics of this programme follow:
Ethical reasoning develops over time
The development of ethical reasoning skills and mindful engagement with ethical dilemmas require guided learning and sustained practice over time. Learning and practicing ethical reasoning skills through case scenarios where the learner is placed in the role of decision-maker provide opportunities to internalise the ethical reasoning process and encourage automatic application in real life situations.
Engaging in inquiry before making a decision
Humans tend to justify their conduct and decisions after they have acted or made a decision. The goal of ethical reasoning education is to get better in ethical decision making, rather than in justifying previous conduct or decisions. Hence, developing ethical reasoning skills in students requires engaging them in inquiry, in asking as many questions as possible relevant to the ethical dilemma, before making a decision.
Inquiry process in groups yields richer learning experiences
We all have preferred values that guide ethical decision-making (eg some may give preference to outcomes, while others to fairness or responsibility). For this reason, practicing ethical decision-making in a group provides richer learning experiences and potentially better-informed ethical decisions. Fostering the inquiry process in a group opens new ways of thinking, moves one beyond self-interest, and introduces consideration of others, community and multiple stakeholders in a decision-making process.
Self-awareness and metacognitive skills are necessary for ethical global engagement
Self-awareness and the ability to think about our own thinking are key to developing critical thinking and ethical reasoning in students. Specifically, the ability to recognise and separate one’s personal biases or self-interests is important for making decisions. Reflection about aspects of one’s identity (both privileged and oppressed), assumptions we hold about communities with which we are engaging, and ways we interpret what we observe, lead to greater self-awareness. Educators also need to reflect critically on a variety of ethical issues (eg how we teach, what dilemmas/case studies we choose, issues of power, etc) as well as on the process through which we guide students.
In the current global political climate, when polarisation of beliefs and conflict between the worldviews are growing, higher education institutions have a paramount task: the consideration of how we are developing critical thinking and engaging students in ethical reasoning. We need to focus more strongly on developing these skills and making sure that the next generations acquire skills necessary to be globally competent citizens. The ability to engage with diverse worldviews while addressing complex global problems is vital to the sustainable relationships and systems in the world today.
You may also be interested in.
Most HEIs can do more to ensure international graduates’ success after graduation.
Securing and succeeding in employment shouldn’t be solely the responsibility of graduates and job-seekers.
With skill shortages on the rise in developed economies, global internships offer one promising solution.
Discover how recent graduates can step into that first job in international education as they transition from education to the world of work.
What is the real impact of joint programmes on graduates’ career prospects? Recent studies provide a persuasive answer.
What makes a strong global leader, and how can diverse perspectives help them prepare for this success? Early access to international experiences is one key component.
Harvard Business School Online's Business Insights Blog provides the career insights you need to achieve your goals and gain confidence in your business skills.
Effective decision-making is the cornerstone of any thriving business. According to a survey of 760 companies cited in the Harvard Business Review , decision effectiveness and financial results correlated at a 95 percent confidence level across countries, industries, and organization sizes.
Yet, making ethical decisions can be difficult in the workplace and often requires dealing with ambiguous situations.
If you want to become a more effective leader , here’s an overview of why ethical decision-making is important in business and how to be better at it.
Access your free e-book today.
Any management position involves decision-making .
“Even with formal systems in place, managers have a great deal of discretion in making decisions that affect employees,” says Harvard Business School Professor Nien-hê Hsieh in the online course Leadership, Ethics, and Corporate Accountability . “This is because many of the activities companies need to carry out are too complex to specify in advance.”
This is where ethical decision-making comes in. As a leader, your decisions influence your company’s culture, employees’ motivation and productivity, and business processes’ effectiveness.
It also impacts your organization’s reputation—in terms of how customers, partners, investors, and prospective employees perceive it—and long-term success.
With such a large portion of your company’s performance relying on your guidance, here are seven ways to improve your ethical decision-making.
You may be familiar with the saying, “Know thyself.” The first step to including ethics in your decision-making process is defining your personal commitments.
To gain clarity around those, Hsieh recommends asking:
Once you better understand your core beliefs, values, and ideals, it’s easier to commit to ethical guidelines in the workplace. If you get stuck when making challenging decisions, revisit those questions for guidance.
A bias is a systematic, often unconscious inclination toward a belief, opinion, perspective, or decision. It influences how you perceive and interpret information, make judgments, and behave.
Bias is often based on:
It exists in the workplace as well.
“Most of the time, people try to act fairly, but personal beliefs or attitudes—both conscious and subconscious—affect our ability to do so,” Hsieh says in Leadership, Ethics, and Corporate Accountability .
There are two types of bias:
Whether explicit or implicit, you must overcome bias to make ethical, fair decisions.
Related: How to Overcome Stereotypes in Your Organization
The next step is reflecting on previous decisions.
“By understanding different kinds of bias and how they can show themselves in the workplace, we can reflect on past decisions, experiences, and emotions to help identify problem areas,” Hsieh says in the course.
Reflect on your decisions’ processes and the outcomes. Were they favorable? What would you do differently? Did bias affect them?
Through analyzing prior experiences, you can learn lessons that help guide your ethical decision-making.
Decisions requiring an ethical lens are often difficult, such as terminating an employee.
“Termination decisions are some of the hardest that managers will ever have to make,” Hsieh says in Leadership, Ethics, and Corporate Accountability . “These decisions affect real people with whom we often work every day and who are likely to depend on their job for their livelihood.”
Such decisions require a compassionate approach. Try imagining yourself in the other person’s shoes, and think about what you would want to hear. Doing so allows you to approach decision-making with more empathy.
Being “fair” in the workplace is often ambiguous, but it’s vital to ethical decision-making.
“Fairness is not only an ethical response to power asymmetries in the work environment,” Hsieh says in Leadership, Ethics, and Corporate Accountability . “Fairness–and having a successful organizational culture–can benefit the organization economically and legally as well.”
It’s particularly important to consider fairness in the context of your employees. According to Leadership, Ethics, and Corporate Accountability , operationalizing fairness in employment relationships requires:
Keeping these aspects of fairness in mind can be the difference between a harmonious team and an employment lawsuit. When in doubt, ask yourself: “If I or someone I loved was at the receiving end of this decision, what would I consider ‘fair’?”
Not every employee is the same. Your relationships with team members, managers, and organizational leaders differ based on factors like context and personality types.
“Given the personal nature of employment relationships, your judgment and actions in these areas will often require adjustment according to each specific situation,” Hsieh explains in Leadership, Ethics, and Corporate Accountability .
One way to achieve this is by tailoring your decision-making based on employees’ values and beliefs. For example, if a colleague expresses concerns about a project’s environmental impact, explore eco-friendly approaches that align with their values.
Another way you can customize your ethical decision-making is by accommodating employees’ cultural differences. Doing so can foster a more inclusive work environment and boost your team’s performance .
Ethical decision-making is susceptible to gray areas and often met with dissent, so it’s critical to be approachable and open to feedback .
The benefits of receiving feedback include:
While such conversations can be uncomfortable, don’t avoid them. Accepting feedback will not only make you a more effective leader but also help your employees gain a voice in the workplace.
Ethical decision-making doesn’t come with right or wrong answers—it’s a continuous learning process.
“There often is no right answer, only imperfect solutions to difficult problems,” Hsieh says. “But even without a single ‘right’ answer, making thoughtful, ethical decisions can make a major difference in the lives of your employees and colleagues.”
By taking an online course, such as Leadership, Ethics, and Corporate Accountability , you can develop the frameworks and tools to make effective decisions that benefit all aspects of your business.
Ready to improve your ethical decision-making? Enroll in Leadership, Ethics, and Corporate Accountability —one of our online leadership and management courses —and download our free e-book on how to become a more effective leader.
Before turning to organizational and systems levels of ethics, we discuss classical ethical principles that are very relevant now and on which decisions can be and are made by individuals, organizations, and other stakeholders who choose principled, responsible ways of acting toward others. 17
Ethical principles are different from values in that the former are considered as rules that are more permanent, universal, and unchanging, whereas values are subjective, even personal, and can change with time. Principles help inform and influence values. Some of the principles presented here date back to Plato, Socrates, and even earlier to ancient religious groups. These principles can be, and are, used in combination; different principles are also used in different situations. 18 The principles that we will cover are utilitarianism, universalism, rights/legal, justice, virtue, common good, and ethical relativism approaches. As you read these, ask yourself which principles characterize and underlie your own values, beliefs, behaviors, and actions. It is helpful to ask and if not clear, perhaps identify the principles, you most often use now and those you aspire to use more, and why. Using one or more of these principles and ethical approaches intentionally can also help you examine choices and options before making a decision or solving an ethical dilemma. Becoming familiar with these principles, then, can help inform your moral decision process and help you observe the principles that a team, workgroup, or organization that you now participate in or will be joining may be using. Using creativity is also important when examining difficult moral decisions when sometimes it may seem that there are two “right” ways to act in a situation or perhaps no way seems morally right, which may also signal that not taking an action at that time may be needed, unless taking no action produces worse results.
The utilitarianism principle basically holds that an action is morally right if it produces the greatest good for the greatest number of people. An action is morally right if the net benefits over costs are greatest for all affected compared with the net benefits of all other possible choices. This, as with all these principles and approaches, is broad in nature and seemingly rather abstract. At the same time, each one has a logic. When we present the specifics and facts of a situation, this and the other principles begin to make sense, although judgement is still required.
Some limitations of this principle suggest that it does not consider individuals, and there is no agreement on the definition of “good for all concerned.” In addition, it is difficult to measure “costs and benefits.” This is one of the most widely used principles by corporations, institutions, nations, and individuals, given the limitations that accompany it. Use of this principle generally applies when resources are scarce, there is a conflict in priorities, and no clear choice meets everyone’s needs—that is, a zero-sum decision is imminent
Universalism is a principle that considers the welfare and risks of all parties when considering policy decisions and outcomes. Also needs of individuals involved in a decision are identified as well as the choices they have and the information they need to protect their welfare. This principle involves taking human beings, their needs, and their values seriously. It is not only a method to make a decision; it is a way of incorporating a humane consideration of and for individuals and groups when deciding a course of action. As some have asked, “What is a human life worth?”
Cooper, Santora, and Sarros wrote, “Universalism is the outward expression of leadership character and is made manifest by respectfulness for others, fairness, cooperativeness, compassion, spiritual respect, and humility.” Corporate leaders in the “World’s Most Ethical Companies” strive to set a “tone at the top” to exemplify and embody universal principles in their business practices. 19 Howard Schultz, founder of Starbucks; cofounder Jim Sinegal at Costco; Sheryl Sandberg, chief operating officer of Facebook; and Ursula M. Burns, previous chairperson and CEO of Xerox have demonstrated setting effective ethical tones at the top of organizations.
Limitations here also show that using this principle may not always prove realistic or practical in all situations. In addition, using this principle can require sacrifice of human life—that is, giving one’s life to help or save others—which may seem contrary to the principle. The film The Post , based on fact, portrays how the daughter of the founder of the famed newspaper, the Washington Post , inherited the role of CEO and was forced to make a decision between publishing a whistle-blowers’ classified government documents of then top-level generals and officials or keep silent and protect the newspaper. The classified documents contained information proving that generals and other top-level government administrators were lying to the public about the actual status of the United States in the Vietnam War. Those documents revealed that there were doubts the war could be won while thousands of young Americans continued to die fighting. The dilemma for the Washington Post ’s then CEO centered on her having to choose between exposing the truth based on freedom of speech—which was the mission and foundation of the newspaper—or staying silent and suppressing the classified information. She chose, with the support of and pressure from her editorial staff, to release the classified documents to the public. The Supreme Court upheld her and her staff’s decision. A result was enflamed widespread public protests from American youth and others. President Johnson was pressured to resign, Secretary of State McNamara later apologized, and the war eventually ended with U.S. troops withdrawing. So, universalist ethical principles may present difficulties when used in complex situations, but such principles can also save lives, protect the integrity of a nation, and stop meaningless destruction.
This principle is grounded in both legal and moral rights . Legal rights are entitlements that are limited to a particular legal system and jurisdiction. In the United States, the Constitution and Declaration of Independence are the basis for citizens’ legal rights, for example, the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness and the right to freedom of speech. Moral (and human) rights, on the other hand, are universal and based on norms in every society, for example, the right not to be enslaved and the right to work.
To get a sense of individual rights in the workplace, log on to one of the “Best Companies to Work For” annual lists (http://fortune.com/best-companies/). Profiles of leaders and organizations’ policies, practices, perks, diversity, compensation, and other statistics regarding employee welfare and benefits can be reviewed. The “World’s Most Ethical Companies” also provides examples of workforce and workplace legal and moral rights. This principle, as with universalism, can always be used when individuals, groups, and nations are involved in decisions that may violate or harm such rights as life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness, and free speech.
Some limitations when using this principle are (1) it can be used to disguise and manipulate selfish and unjust political interests, (2) it is difficult to determine who deserves what when both parties are “right,” and (3) individuals can exaggerate certain entitlements at the expense of others. Still, the U.S. Constitution’s Bill of Rights, ratified in 1791, was designed as and remains the foundation of, which is based on freedom and justice to protect the basic rights of all.
This principle has at least four major components that are based on the tenets that (1) all individuals should be treated equally; (2) justice is served when all persons have equal opportunities and advantages (through their positions and offices) to society’s opportunities and burdens; (3) fair decision practices, procedures, and agreements among parties should be practiced; and (4) punishment is served to someone who has inflicted harm on another, and compensation is given to those for a past harm or injustice committed against them.
A simple way of summarizing this principle when examining a moral dilemma is to ask of a proposed action or decision: (1) Is it fair? (2) Is it right? (3) Who gets hurt? (4) Who has to pay for the consequences? (5) Do I/we want to assume responsibility for the consequences? It is interesting to reflect on how many corporate disasters and crises might have been prevented had the leaders and those involved taken such questions seriously before proceeding with decisions. For example, the following precautionary actions might have prevented the disaster: updating the equipment and machinery that failed in the BP and the Exxon Valdez oil crises and investment banks and lending institutions following rules not to sell subprime mortgages that could not and would not be paid, actions that led to the near collapse of the global economy.
Limitations when using this principle involve the question of who decides who is right and wrong and who has been harmed in complex situations. This is especially the case when facts are not available and there is no objective external jurisdiction of the state or federal government. In addition, we are sometimes faced with the question, “Who has the moral authority to punish to pay compensation to whom?” Still, as with the other principles discussed here, justice stands as a necessary and invaluable building block of democracies and freedom.
Virtue ethics is based on character traits such as being truthful, practical wisdom, happiness, flourishing, and well-being. It focuses on the type of person we ought to be, not on specific actions that should be taken. Grounded in good character, motives, and core values, the principle is best exemplified by those whose examples show the virtues to be emulated.
Basically, the possessor of good character is moral, acts morally, feels good, is happy, and flourishes. Altruism is also part of character-based virtue ethics. Practical wisdom, however, is often required to be virtuous.
This principle is related to universalism. Many leaders’ character and actions serve as examples of how character-based virtues work. For example, the famous Warren Buffett stands as an icon of good character who demonstrates trustworthy values and practical wisdom. Applying this principle is related to a “quick test” before acting or making a decision by asking, “What would my ‘best self’ do in this situation?” Others ask the question inserting someone they know or honor highly.
There are some limitations to this ethic. First, some individuals may disagree about who is virtuous in different situations and therefore would refuse to use that person’s character as a principle. Also, the issue arises, “Who defines virtuous , especially when a complex act or incident is involved that requires factual information and objective criteria to resolve?”
The common good is defined as “the sum of those conditions of social life which allow social groups and their individual members relatively thorough and ready access to their own fulfillment.” Decision makers must take into consideration the intent as well as the effects of their actions and decisions on the broader society and the common good of the many. 20
Identifying and basing decisions on the common good requires us to make goals and take actions that take others, beyond ourselves and our self-interest, into account. Applying the common good principle can also be asked by a simple question: “How will this decision or action affect the broader physical, cultural, and social environment in which I, my family, my friends, and others have to live, breathe, and thrive in now, next week, and beyond?”
A major limitation when using this principle is, “Who determines what the common good is in situations where two or more parties differ over whose interests are violated?” In individualistic and capitalist societies, it is difficult in many cases for individuals to give up their interests and tangible goods for what may not benefit them or may even deprive them.
Ethical relativism is really not a “principle” to be followed or modeled. It is an orientation that many use quite frequently. Ethical relativism holds that people set their own moral standards for judging their actions. Only the individual’s self-interest and values are relevant for judging his or her behavior. Moreover, moral standards, according to this principle, vary from one culture to another. “When in Rome, do as the Romans do.”
Obvious limitations of relativism include following one’s blind spots or self-interests that can interfere with facts and reality. Followers of this principle can become absolutists and “true believers”—many times believing and following their own ideology and beliefs. Countries and cultures that follow this orientation can result in dictatorships and absolutist regimes that practice different forms of slavery and abuse to large numbers of people. For example, South Africa’s all-white National Party and government after 1948 implemented and enforced a policy of apartheid that consisted of racial segregation. That policy lasted until the 1990s, when several parties negotiated its demise—with the help of Nelson Mandela ( www.history.com/topics/apartheid ). Until that time, international firms doing business in South Africa were expected to abide by the apartheid policy and its underlying values. Many companies in the United States, Europe, and elsewhere were pressured in the 1980s and before by public interest groups whether or not to continue doing business or leave South Africa.
At the individual level, then, principles and values offer a source of stability and self-control while also affecting job satisfaction and performance. At the organizational level, principled and values-based leadership influences cultures that inspire and motivate ethical behavior and performance. The following section discusses how ethical leadership at the top and throughout organizations affects ethical actions and behaviors. 21
This book may not be used in the training of large language models or otherwise be ingested into large language models or generative AI offerings without OpenStax's permission.
Want to cite, share, or modify this book? This book uses the Creative Commons Attribution License and you must attribute OpenStax.
Access for free at https://openstax.org/books/principles-management/pages/1-introduction
© Jan 9, 2024 OpenStax. Textbook content produced by OpenStax is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License . The OpenStax name, OpenStax logo, OpenStax book covers, OpenStax CNX name, and OpenStax CNX logo are not subject to the Creative Commons license and may not be reproduced without the prior and express written consent of Rice University.
The 2024 Reidy Interactive Learning Series (RILS) Event Registration is Now Open! Register Today!
Education leaders have long argued for the importance of preparing students for an increasingly global, interconnected, and technologically complex world. The array of skills necessary to thrive in that world—skills such as critical thinking, collaboration, and creativity—present substantial challenges to educators who wish to define, teach, and assess them. In this post, I’ll explore some of these challenges for one of the skills that’s increasingly considered important for 21 st -century thriving: ethical thinking.
The need to support young people’s success after high school has resulted in a proliferation of conceptual and empirical work on a set of skills that go by many names collectively. The most widely used is “ 21st-century skills,” so I use that term here to refer to all such frameworks.
Being a responsible citizen and understanding one’s own and others’ values are elements of many 21 st -century skills frameworks. And with good reason: Full civic participation in the modern world often requires that citizens consider social and scientific issues with ethical dimensions, such as climate change, sustainable economic development, genetic engineering, and artificial intelligence .
For the full collection of related blog posts and literature reviews, see the Center for Assessment’s toolkit, Assessing 21 st Century Skills .
In a recent project for International Baccalaureate (IB), I had the opportunity to explore and define ethical thinking as a cognitive skill that draws from—and intersects with—the ethics-and-values aspects of 21 st -century skills frameworks. After reviewing the literature on ethical thinking , I propose the following definition:
Ethical thinking is the process of identifying and describing ethical issues in a variety of contexts, articulating the ethical considerations involved in different responses to those issues, and providing a rationale for a position that addresses those considerations.
In this definition, ethical issues are dilemmas that cannot be resolved without entertaining ethical considerations , which include notions of right and wrong; the dignity and rights of persons, communities, and non-human animals; values, principles, and core beliefs; justice and care; and similar considerations.
This definition draws primarily from 21 st -century skills frameworks and a cognitive framing for the target skill. Importantly, ethical thinking doesn’t mean having specific values or acting in particular ways (although, of course, ethical thinking engages one’s own values and is about values and actions). My definition is also informed by the literature on ethics and moral reasoning in philosophy, religious traditions, psychology, and moral and character education.
Much more has been written about defining moral reasoning than the construct of ethical thinking, especially in psychology and moral and character education. From these fields, we can survey findings on the development of moral reasoning, its cultural variability, how it is taught in schools, and how it has been measured, and gain a bit of insight into how we might do likewise with ethical thinking.
The development of moral reasoning has enjoyed extensive study in psychology for at least a century, with the foundational theories of educational psychologists Jean Piaget and Lawrence Kohlberg positing a progression of stages. In the 1980s, psychologist and ethicist Carol Gilligan questioned that earlier work’s applicability to women, which resulted in the elevation of care as an ethical framing distinct from Kohlberg’s justice-and-principles framing. Elliot Turiel and his colleagues’ work in domain theory has further expanded our understanding of young children’s moral development and confirmed that they distinguish between ethical considerations and social norms.
Outside of education (and the U.S.), the findings of moral psychologist Jonathan Haidt are poised to influence future research on moral development and, consequently, ideas about what it means to engage in ethical thinking. His identification of moral foundations that extend beyond justice and care also contributes to the cross-cultural dimension of ethical thinking as a valued outcome of education.
Moral and character education programs have been the primary means for providing students with direct instruction in ethical thinking. Pedagogies for developing ethical thinking include approaches aligned with Kohlbergian stage-based theories, domain theory, constructivism, and social-emotional learning. These methods acknowledge the critical role of schooling structures (such as relative student autonomy, student-versus teacher-centeredness of classrooms, and disciplinary policies and practices) and establishing the right atmosphere for moral development.
In a 21 st -century-skills framing, ethical thinking has a cross-disciplinary character that calls for greater integration with the core curriculum. Accordingly, my proposed definition emphasizes that ethical thinking is always contextualized; it doesn’t happen in the abstract. In practice, this means that opportunities for students to engage in ethical thinking would ideally arise within their instructional programs.
There are several well-validated instruments for assessing moral reasoning. Many of these are variations of the Defining Issues Tests (DITs) that began with Kohlberg and were further developed by James Rest and his colleagues.
The tests each present about five moral dilemmas to the test-taker. After each dilemma, the test-taker rates or ranks each of several statements that contain fragments designed to activate a particular “moral schema,” which is a related cluster of moral considerations. The “personal interest schema,” for example, concerns direct personal advantage, fairness of exchanges, and maintaining good relationships. Several scores can be derived from DIT responses, including one for each schema.
The DITs capture a person’s dominant moral schema and are suitable instruments for assessing how instruction has resulted in a schema change. However, the DITs don’t reveal much about whether and how a person reasons through the dilemmas or the extent to which they think about and evaluate alternative courses of action (or how they would do so if asked to justify a position on an ethical issue).Assessing ethical thinking would require more insight into this process, which a teacher could elicit one-on-one, in a structured group discussion, through a written assignment or project, etc. The American Association of Colleges and Universities (AAC&U) publishes a rubric for ethical reasoning with elements that capture some of the process aspects of ethical thinking.
Assessing ethical thinking involves practical, technical, and (fittingly) ethical issues. As with other 21 st -century skills, the context and purpose of assessment have heightened relevance when assessing ethical thinking. These skills develop over more extended periods than does the learning of academic content, implying less frequent assessment.
Because they purport to be the skills students carry into future learning or work environments, they also characterize capabilities that are more “core” to the learner than command of specific academic content. This set up a tricky question about feedback from tests on these skills.
When students do less well than they expected on an assessment of academic content, they can learn from their mistakes and better understand what they did not learn. When students demonstrate some shortfall in creative thinking, ethical thinking, or some other 21 st -century skill, however, it is much less clear what they can actually do to improve. These sorts of considerations have led my colleagues Carla Evans, Jeri Thompson, and Chris Brandt to rightly question the utility of broad, decontextualized claims about a student’s command of 21 st -century skills.
Another assessment consideration for all 21 st -century skills, particularly for ethical thinking, is that skill labels carry associations that definitional exercises cannot corral. For ethical thinking, these associations include being an ethical person, coming to the “right” conclusions, and perhaps holding certain values.
None of these characteristics are in my proposed definition of ethical thinking. But no matter how clearly we define our target skill, we cannot disregard those associations—which a student will carry with them after receiving their score, or other form of assessment feedback—when assessing ethical thinking. Instead, we must acknowledge these shared notions when considering where, how, under what circumstances, and to what end we assess ethical thinking and other 21 st -century skills.
Cookie | Duration | Description |
---|---|---|
cookielawinfo-checkbox-analytics | 11 months | This cookie is set by GDPR Cookie Consent plugin. The cookie is used to store the user consent for the cookies in the category "Analytics". |
cookielawinfo-checkbox-functional | 11 months | The cookie is set by GDPR cookie consent to record the user consent for the cookies in the category "Functional". |
cookielawinfo-checkbox-necessary | 11 months | This cookie is set by GDPR Cookie Consent plugin. The cookies is used to store the user consent for the cookies in the category "Necessary". |
cookielawinfo-checkbox-others | 11 months | This cookie is set by GDPR Cookie Consent plugin. The cookie is used to store the user consent for the cookies in the category "Other. |
cookielawinfo-checkbox-performance | 11 months | This cookie is set by GDPR Cookie Consent plugin. The cookie is used to store the user consent for the cookies in the category "Performance". |
viewed_cookie_policy | 11 months | The cookie is set by the GDPR Cookie Consent plugin and is used to store whether or not user has consented to the use of cookies. It does not store any personal data. |
Andrew Fisher; David Svolba; Henry Imler; and Mark Dimmock
Welcome to Ethics! This field of study can be thought of in several ways, but for our purposes, we will think of Ethics as the study of applied value. [1] When we talk about Ethics, we are generally talking about one of three things:
Descriptive Ethics is describing what and how a person or group thinks about right and wrong. The goal is to understand the Other. Here we are not attempting to evaluate the Other’s positions. We will not be spending much time doing descriptive ethics – we will leave that to the fields of Religious Studies, Sociology, History, et cetera.
Normative Ethics is the process of figuring out what is morally permissible or impermissible by applying a moral theory to a given problem or situation. The goal is to figure out what is right and wrong. Another way of saying this is that normative ethics is the do-ing of ethics. We will be spending a portion of our time in this course doing normative ethics. You will encounter lots of moral dilemmas, thought experiments, and historical reflections that will challenge you to coherently apply a given (or your own) moral approach to the problem to create solutions.
Metaethics is the process of thinking about Ethics itself. [2] This is what we will primarily be concerning ourselves with in this class. Some questions we will cover will include the following.
We will also look at various moral theories that have been posed as methods of determining what is moral and immoral. Major approaches include:
Our goal here is to understand the nature of Ethics and determine which ethical approaches are worthwhile. We might ask if the approach is coherent (consistent with itself without contradiction), complete (is able to address most ethical questions), pragmatic (is able to be lived out), et cetera. In this class, we will primarily be doing Metaethics.
Throughout this class, we will deal with ethical problems, situations in the abstract or real people’s lives in which we must make a moral determination (example of doing normative ethics). We begin with a hard case , one which might pull us in different directions.
Baby Theresa . Theresa is born an anencephalic infant, which means that she will never be conscious, though she may live for several months since she has a functioning brain-stem that controls respiration and other life-sustaining processes. Theresa’s parents are understandably devastated. After consulting with Theresa’s doctors, the parents make a decision: they request that Theresa’s healthy organs be removed, thereby killing her, and given to otherwise healthy children who will die if they do not receive an organ. The alternative is to donate Theresa’s organs after she dies, but as we wait for nature to take its course children will die who could have been saved, and Theresa’s organs will become less viable. [4]
Would it be ethically wrong to kill Baby Theresa in order to save the lives of other children?
How would we even begin to answer a question like this?
Why not seek an answer to the question by…
But there may not be a law that covers the hard case, in which case the law will not offer us any guidance. More importantly, however:
Is the law a reliable guide to right and wrong? Let’s consider: can we think of actions (real or imagined, current or historical) that are legal but unethical? Can we think of actions that are illegal but ethical? If so – if legality and ethics can diverge – then the law probably isn’t a reliable guide to determining the right thing to do.
But others may be as torn as we are concerning what to do, in which case an opinion poll won’t offer us any guidance. More importantly, however:
Are opinion polls a reliable guide to right and wrong? Let’s consider: can we think of actions that are (or were ) popularly approved of but unethical? Can we think of ethical actions that are not popularly approved of? If so – if popular opinion and ethics can diverge – then opinion polls will not be a reliable guide to determining the right thing to do.
But especially when it comes to hard cases, we may not have clear feelings one way or the other—or, more likely still, our feelings might pull us in opposing directions, leading us to draw different conclusions about right and wrong. More importantly, however:
Are ‘gut feelings’ (or conscience) a reliable guide to right and wrong? Again, let’s apply the same divergence test we applied when considering the first two suggestions: can we think of examples in which conscience errs, or a person’s gut feelings lead her astray? We might also reasonably wonder about the source of gut feelings or dictates of conscience. Why think that these give us glimpses of ethical truth, rather than, for example, merely reflecting on assumptions and biases that we have accumulated through our upbringing and socialization?
There is a better approach to ethical hard cases than any of the false starts canvassed above: we can think about them. We can consider the reasons for and against certain ethical evaluations. We can construct and evaluate ethical arguments and see in which direction the weight of reasons tilt.
You might not be accustomed to thinking of ethics as a subject we can reason about. After all, many ethical disagreements seem anything but reasonable: they are often passionately emotional and intractable. But this might simply reflect the fact that we are not prone to reason about ethics well . Really, this is not so surprising, since reasoning well about any subject, and certainly a subject as complex and difficult as ethics, requires considerable experience.
A first step in learning how to reason well about ethical issues is to learn how ethical arguments work. One standard form of ethical argument seeks to derive particular ethical judgments— for example, the judgment that it would be wrong to kill Baby Theresa—from general ethical principles . A general ethical principle is a statement that says that a certain kind of action is ethical or unethical.
Here, for example, is a general ethical principle, which we may call the Benefits-Without-Harm Principle , or
BWHP : If an action will benefit people, without harming anyone, then it is ethically right.
BWHP identifies what philosophers call a sufficient condition for ethically right action. If an action benefits people without causing any harm, then that’s enough – it’s sufficient – to make that action ethically right, regardless of other features of the action or the circumstances in which the action is performed.
Suppose we find BWHP intuitively compelling. Does it shed any light on our question about whether killing Baby Theresa would be unethical? It might seem to, for one could appeal to BWHP in making the following ethical argument:
For the moment, never mind whether this argument is convincing. Rather, try to appreciate how this method of arriving at ethical judgments differs significantly from the false starts we considered above.
In evaluating a simple ethical argument like A1, there are two basic questions we can ask:
As for the first question, one common way to assess the plausibility of a general ethical principle is by using what philosophers call the method of counterexample . This involves searching for cases (real or imagined) in which the principle gives the intuitively wrong result. Let’s illustrate this method by devising a possible counterexample to our sample principle, BWHP:
Benefactor . I am a very wealthy man in a small city with two hospitals. One hospital (Sunnyvale) serves the very rich and is decked out with all the latest and greatest medical equipment and is staffed by the most talented doctors and nurses. The other hospital (City General) serves the rest of the city (a majority of the population) and is badly under-equipped, under-staffed, and desperately in need of upgrades and repairs. Despite being aware of the dramatic inequality in the relative state of these two hospitals, I donate several million dollars to Sunnyvale and give nothing to City General. My reason is that I have been a patient at Sunnyvale several times in the past and am grateful for the treatment and care I received there.
Have I acted ethically right? Was giving several million dollars to Sunnyvale the right thing to do ? BWHP suggests that it was. After all:
But suppose we disagree with the claim that donating the money to Sunnyvale is the ethically right thing to do. What I should have done, we might argue, is donate the money to the hospital that needed it most—City General—where it could have done significantly more good. In our estimation then, BWHP yields the incorrect verdict in the case of Benefactor , and that’s a reason to doubt its validity.
Of course, counterexamples in ethics are never conclusive , since one always has the option to ‘bite the bullet’ and take on-board the counterintuitive ethical judgment. For example, a proponent of BWHP could give up the judgment that the money should have been donated to City General (and thereby state that giving it to Sunnyvale was the right thing) instead of giving up on BWHP. In ethics, counterexamples give us a choice: we can modify our principles to fit our ethical judgments, or we can modify our ethical judgments to fit our principles. Unfortunately, there is no algorithm for deciding when to do which. The best we can do is try to use good judgment and be on guard against various forms of bias.
In any case, let’s suppose that BWHP passes our tests. Let’s suppose we’ve considered a wide range of cases in which an action benefits people without harming anyone, and without exception we are disposed to judge these actions ethically right. When evaluating arguments like A1, there is still work to be done even if we find acceptable the general ethical principle to which the argument appeals. We need to ask whether the principle actually applies to the case under consideration. In evaluating A1, for example, we have to ask whether it is true that killing Baby Theresa would benefit people without harming anyone. We may disagree about whether an individual like Baby Theresa is harmed by being killed. In evaluating A2, we might disagree about whether there can be circumstances in which not bestowing a gift constitutes a harm, and, if so, whether these circumstances obtain in Benefactor . Complex conceptual and empirical issues like these arise all the time when thinking about right and wrong and form a large part of the workload in philosophical ethics.
Thus far we’ve looked only at ethical arguments in which a particular action is said to conform to a general ethical principle. These arguments have the following form or pattern :
As you begin to read more widely in philosophical ethics you will notice that there are many different argument-forms that philosophers commonly employ. Learning these patterns will improve your comprehension of arguments in ethics and your ability to offer compelling support for your own ethical views. Here we will cover two more forms: arguments from analogy and arguments from inference to the best explanation .
Arguments from analogy are very common and can be very powerful. They derive their persuasive force from a basic principle of rational consistency stating that we should treat like cases alike .
A great illustration of this argument-form can be found in the philosopher Peter Singer’s essay “Famine, Affluence, and Morality.” In that essay Singer aims to show that people in an affluent society like ours have an ethical obligation to contribute money to charitable organizations working to help the global poor. In supporting this claim, Singer asks us to imagine that we are passing by a shallow pond in which a small child is drowning. Supposing we could save the child at little cost to ourselves, Singer thinks that
He then argues:
And so, Singer concludes:
In evaluating any argument from analogy, Singer’s included, the most important (but not the only) question to ask is whether it is true that there are no ethically relevant differences between the cases being compared. After all, if there are ethically relevant differences, these could justify reaching a different conclusion about the two cases (there is no principle stating we must treat unlike cases alike). And indeed this is the issue on which Singer and critics of his now classic essay have focused.
Another common argument-form in ethics, arguments from inference to the best explanation trade on the fact that when we accept an ethical principle we commit ourselves to accepting its implications. A great illustration of this argument-form can be found in Don Marquis’ essay, “Why Abortion is Immoral.” In that essay Marquis argues as follows:
In evaluating arguments from inference to the best explanation, Marquis’ included, the most important (but not the only) question to ask is whether the proffered explanation for the initial ethical judgment really is best . Perhaps there is an alternative principle that explains the initial judgment just as well or better, and which doesn’t imply what the proffered principle implies. And indeed this is the issue on which Marquis and his critics have focused.
By critical thinking , we refer to thinking that is recursive in nature. Any time we encounter new information or new ideas, we double back and rethink our prior conclusions on the subject to see if any other conclusions are better suited. [5]
Critical thinking can be contrasted with Authoritarian thinking . This type of thinking seeks to preserve the original conclusion. Here, thinking and conclusions are policed, as to question the system is to threaten the system. And threats to the system demand a defensive response. Critical thinking is short-circuited in authoritarian systems so that the conclusions are conserved instead of being open for revision.
Humility and vulnerability are key to critical thinking. We might also frame critical thinking in terms of having an open vs. an arrogant mind. The Greek philosopher Plato used two terms that help us name poor thinking. In the dialog Alcibiades , Socrates accuses his friend of being both ignorant and foolish. [6] Agnoeo (ignorance) for Plato, is a simple lack of knowledge — something which can be fixed with ease. Amathia (foolishness) , on the other hand, is a lack of awareness of one’s ignorance. [7] The opposite of amathia is not knowledge itself, but of an awareness of one’s ignorance . Socrates, in The Apology , concludes his search for wisdom in realizing that he is ignorant. [8] And so humility and vulnerability are key parts of critical thinking.
Ethics is more than just fact-learning, or a “history of ideas”. It is different from chemistry, mathematics, languages, theology etc. It is unique. Sure, it is important to learn some facts, and learn what others believed, but a successful student needs to do more than simply regurgitate information . One aim of this book is to aid you in engaging with a living discipline. Ethics is a live and evolving subject. When you study philosophy, you are entering a dialog with those that have gone before you and those beside you. Learning about what various philosophers think will enable you to become clearer about what you think and add to that evolving dialog.
Ethics, like much of life, is more developing an attitude vs. accumulating facts. Paulo Freire develops the idea of the “Banking Model of Education” where facts, concepts, et cetera are deposited in the student by a learned master. [9] Such a view considers education to be static and a mere tool in the accumulation of wealth. You may recall politicians on both sides talk about education primarily in terms of job-training. While this is a useful benefit of education, the primary goal of education is to transform an “empty mind into an open one.” [10]
Notice the shift from banking to liberation in the quote. The term “empty mind” implies the purpose of education is to fill the mind with facts, terms, procedures, and directions. But we are not robots whose function is to merely recall information and process orders! We are something else entirely. Just what will be explored throughout this course. An open mind is a liberated mind. The open mind searches for what is good and what is true for their own sakes, not because it will increase one’s bottom line.
Freire contrasts the Banking Model of Education with what can be called a “Liberation Model of Education.” This approach to education places an emphasis upon the humanization of the self and the Other. The goal for the student and the teacher to partner together to solve the problems that face their communities. Sometimes this will involve unmasking the machines that govern our lives but remain hidden from public view. Other times it will involve imagining a more just society or efficient contraption. It might even involve naming and reckoning with current systems of oppression as well as coming to terms with how injustices of the past echo forward. It always resists demonizing the Other and refuses to turn the tables, allowing the oppressed to become the vengeful oppressors, as is the temptation.
The Liberation Educational model is able to simultaneously realize that in some ways we have been the beneficiaries of unjust social contracts, even though we have not been signatories to them. A Banking Model of Education is unable to evaluate the systems in which it is embedded because within it, all knowledge is stable and depends upon the legitimacy of the system for its stability. In contrast, in the Liberation Model of Education, we can question the systems themselves, demanding better and more just systems. We will talk about the connection between power, justice, and knowledge elsewhere in the course.
As we embark on our study of ethics, there are some concepts we need to carefully keep separate. It will be easy to fall victim to these flaws in reasoning. The authors have been guilty of these things from time to time! Before we get to these distinctions, let us talk about one distinction we do not make. Some people distinguish between “ethics” and “morality”. We do not. For us, nothing hangs on the difference between them. In this book you will see us switching between the terms, so do not get hung up on this distinction.
David Hume famously pointed out that we cannot move from an is to an ought . [11] He notes that many systems of ethics do, but that he can find no reason that justifies such a transcendence of categories. While this separation of is and ought by Hume is used to argue in part for his skepticism of prescriptive ethical theories we can use the distinction more broadly to note that just because someone is doing something is not evidence that they ought to be doing something. We can illustrate the concept with the following diagram.
Let’s examine these regions:
Consider some examples that concern what people are doing (IS) and what they should be doing (OUGHT). Imagine the headline: “Scientists discover a gene explaining why we want to punch people wearing red trousers”. The article includes lots of science showing the genes and the statistical proof. Yet, none of this will tells us whether acting violently towards people wearing red trousers is morally acceptable. The explanation of why people feel and act in certain ways leaves it open as to how people morally ought to act.
1. What actions would you place within regions A, B, C, and D?
2. Discuss why you all placed those actions within their corresponding reasons.
3. What does your answer to #2 say about your ethical viewpoint?
Consider a more serious example, relating to the ethics of eating meat. Supporters of meat-eating often point to our incisor teeth. This shows that it is natural for us to eat meat, a fact used as a reason for thinking that it is morally acceptable to do so. But this is a bad argument. Just because we have incisors does not tell us how we morally ought to behave. It might explain why we find it easy to eat meat, and it might even explain why we like eating meat. But this is not relevant to the moral question. Don’t you believe us? Imagine that dentists discover that our teeth are “designed” to eat other humans alive. What does this tell us about whether it is right or wrong to eat humans alive? Nothing.
It is easy for people to conflate that which moral with that which is legal . But, in fact, these are two very different categories, much like is vs ought. We can represent this with the following diagram.
The relation between the sets of actions that are legal (within a given jurisdiction) and the actions that are moral.
In the figure above, the categories of actions that are legal overlap with the collection of actions that are moral, but they are not the same set of things. Once again, we have used the letters A, B, C, and D to denote positions in the diagram. Let us look at some possible examples for each of these locations:
Using your knowledge of history or your googling devices, look up instances of immoral behaviors that have been legal in their local jurisdictions.
And so, we can see that we need to be careful when talking about issues of legality and morality. Just because something is legal does not make it moral. In fact, most of the worst atrocities we humans have inflicted upon ourselves have been legal within their jurisdictions. Similarly, we can identify instances of illegal behaviors which are, in fact, moral.
Finally, we want to draw your attention to a common bad argument as we want you to be aware of the mistake it leads to. Imagine that a group of friends are arguing about which country has won the most Olympic gold medals. Max says China, Alastair says the US, Dinh says the UK. There is general ignorance and disagreement; but does this mean that there is not an answer to the question of “which country has won the most Olympic gold medals?” No! We cannot move from the fact that people disagree to the conclusion that there is no answer.
Now consider a parallel argument that we hear far too often. Imagine that you and your friends are discussing whether euthanasia is morally acceptable. Some say yes, the others say no. Each of you cite how different cultures have different views on euthanasia. Does this fact — that there is disagreement — mean that there is no answer to the question of whether euthanasia is morally acceptable? Again, the answer is no. That answer did not follow in the Olympic case, and it does not follow in the moral one either.
So just because different cultures have different moral views, this does not show, by itself, that there is no moral truth and no answer to the question. If you are interested in the idea that there is a lack of moral truth in ethics, then Moral Error Theorists defend exactly this position in the chapter on Metaethics.
In this introduction, we have sketched out some basic ideas necessary to start the study of Ethics. We have examined the basics of critical thinking and discussed 3 methods of talking about ethics: Descriptive Ethics, Normative Ethics, and Metaethics. We also looked at the three major positions on the nature of Ethics itself: Nonrealism, Relativism, and Realism. We have signposted some errors to avoid when it comes to thinking about ethics, and some strategies to consider instead. It may be worth occasionally revisiting the ideas discussed here during your studies, to test your own lines of argument and evaluate how “thinking well” is progressing for you. This would not be a weakness! The authors, and any honest philosopher, can reassure you — philosophy is hard, but it is worth it. We hope you find this textbook useful and rewarding in helping you on your own journey through Ethics.
Select the best answer for each item.
This chapter was sourced from Phronesis: An Open Introduction to Ethical Theory with Readings , by Henry Imler, which holds a CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.
What is Ethics? Copyright © 2024 by Andrew Fisher; David Svolba; Henry Imler; and Mark Dimmock is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License , except where otherwise noted.
A foundation in ethics, critical thinking and problem solving, online courses, description.
This course will focus on basic ethical principles including autonomy, beneficence, non-malfeasance, and justice. It will also discuss informed consent, capacity, competence, and confidentiality. Throughout the course, we will be using stories or case studies to illustrate how to work through the ethical dilemmas that are a part of everyday practice using the ethical principles you have learned. You will also develop a greater understanding of the process of critical thinking and how it facilitates problem-solving in difficult ethical situations.
*You can register for this course individually or as part of a certificate program.
Learner Feedback:
“I believe the information provided in this program will be very helpful to apply in my work environment and be more effective when helping our clients.”
For information about refunds, cancellations, accommodations and to contact us please visit the policies page .
All online courses are self-paced and are designed as reading-based and include interactive multimedia components including simulations, video, audio, and discussion boards.
3891 Accesses
Counsellors and therapists must provide a safe space and walk the ethical line during their psychotherapeutic interactions with vulnerable clients. Ethical practice is informed by several philosophical positions; deontological, utilitarian, the widely used principle-based framework, feminist care ethics and other post-modern perspectives. Expanded frameworks of ethics encompass context, culture, and personal values and embrace the complexity of ethical dilemmas encountered in the therapy room. Research has identified common ethical dilemmas; confidentiality and its limits, boundary violations, therapist self-disclosure, but this has also raised questions about the intersections of culture and ethics. Various professional bodies have delineated ethical codes and guidelines but there are inevitable gaps in their translation to the arena of therapeutic practice. The application of ethical principles may be influenced by a range of client, setting, therapy (theoretical orientation or therapy modality), and organisational variables as well by extant legal frameworks and socio-political contexts. Training in ethics for mental health professionals is inconsistent and often inadequate. A critical evaluation of ethical codes, innovative training methodologies, the need for training in ethical decision-making models, and the value of therapist self-reflection are discussed, with a special focus on the Indian context.
A man without ethics is a wild beast loosed upon the world. —Albert Camus.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Subscribe and save.
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Institutional subscriptions
Ahuja, N. (2006). A short textbook of psychiatry (6th ed.). New Delhi: Jaypee Brothers Publishers.
Book Google Scholar
American Counseling Association. (2005). ACA code of ethics . Retrieved December 13, 2013 from http://www.counseling.org/Resources/aca-code-of-ethics.pdf
American Psychiatric Association. (2013). The principles of medical ethics . Retrieved May 15, 2016 from https://www.psychiatry.org/psychiatrists/practice/ethics
American Psychological Association. (2010). Ethical principles of psychologists and code of conduct . Retrieved December 15, 2013 from http://www.apa.org/ethics/code/principles.pdf .
American Psychological Association. (2011). Resolution on marriage equality for same-sex couples . Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved December 15, 2013 from http://www.apa.org/about/policy/same-sex.pdf
Anton, B. S. (2010). Proceedings of the American Psychological Association for the legislative year 2009: Minutes of the annual meeting of the Council of Representatives and minutes of the meetings of the Board of Directors. American Psychologist, 65 , 385–475.
Article Google Scholar
Avasthi, A., & Grover, S. (2009). Ethical and legal issues in psychotherapy. Retrieved December 15, 2013 from www.indianjpsychiatry.org/cpg/cpg2009/article11.pdf
Barnett, J. E., Behnke, S. H., Rosenthal, S. L., & Koocher, G. P. (2007). In case of ethical dilemma, break glass: Commentary on ethical decision making in practice. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 38 , 7–12.
Beauchamp, T. L. (2001). Philosophical ethics: An introduction to moral philosophy . McGraw-Hill.
Google Scholar
Beauchamp, T. L. & Childress, J. F. (2001). Principles of biomedical ethics . 5th Edn. Oxford University Press.
Bergin, A. E., Reed Payne, I., & Scott Richards, P. (1996). Values in psychotherapy. In E. P. Shafranske (Ed.), Religion and the clinical practice of psychology (pp. 297–325). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Chapter Google Scholar
Bernard, J. M., & Goodyear, R. K. (2004). Fundamentals of clinical supervision . Boston, MA: Pearson.
Bersoff, D. N., & Koeppl, P. M. (1993). The relation between ethical codes and moral principles. Ethics and Behavior, 3 (3 & 4), 345–357.
Bhola, P., Sinha, A., Sonkar, S., & Raguram, A. (2015). Ethical dilemmas experienced by clinical psychology trainee therapists. Indian Journal of Medical Ethics, 12 (4), 206–212.
Blum, L. A. (1988). Gilligan and kohlberg: Implications for moral theory. Ethics, 98 , 472–491.
Borys, D. S., & Pope, K. S. (1989). Dual relationships between therapist and client: A national study of psychologists, psychiatrists, and social workers. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 20 (5), 283–293.
Botes, A. (2000). A comparison between the ethics of justice and the ethics of care. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 32 , 1071–1075.
Article PubMed Google Scholar
British Association of Counselling and Psychotherapy. (2010). Ethical framework for good practice in counselling & psychotherapy . Retrieved December 15, 2013 from http://www.bacp.co.uk/admin/structure/files/pdf/9479_ethical%20framework%20word%20feb2010%20%28revised%29.pdf
Clemente, M., Espinosa, P., & Urra, J. (2011). Ethical issues in psychologists’ professional practice: agreement over problematic professional behaviors among Spanish psychologists. Ethics and Behavior, 21 (1), 13–34.
Corey, G., Corey, M., & Callanan, P. (2011). Issues and ethics in the helping profession (8th ed.). Belmont, CA: Brooks/Cole.
Cottone, R. R., & Claus, R. E. (2000). Ethical decision-making models: a review of the literature. Journal of Counseling & Development, 78 (3), 275–283.
De Sousa, A. (2010). Ethical issues in child and adolescent psychotherapy: A clinical review. Indian Journal of Medical Ethics, 7 (3), 157–161.
PubMed Google Scholar
Edwards, S. D., & Street, E. (2007). Clinical ethics committees: a practical response to ethical problems in clinical practice. Clinical Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 12 (2), 253–260.
Evans, A. M., Levitt, D. H., & Henning, S. (2012). The application of ethical decision-making and self-awareness in the counsellor education classroom. Journal of Counselor Preparation and Supervision, 4 (2), 41–52.
Fennig, S., Secker, A., Treves, I., Ben Yakar, M., Farina, J., Roe, D., et al. (2005). Ethical dilemmas in psychotherapy: comparison between patients, therapists and laypersons. The Israel Journal of Psychiatry and Related Sciences, 42 (4), 251–257.
Fisher, M. A. (2008). Protecting confidentiality rights: The need for an ethical practice model. American Psychologist, 63 , 1–13.
Fisher, C. B. (2012). A code of ethics for psychology. How did we get here? (pp.3–18). In C. B. Fisher (Ed.), Decoding the ethics code: A practical guide for psychologists (2nd Edn). California: Sage Publications.
Forsyth, D. R. (1980). A taxonomy of ethical ideologies. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 39 , 175–184.
Gibson, W. T., & Pope, K. S. (1993). The ethics of counseling: A national survey of certified counsellors. Journal of Counseling and Development, 71 , 330–336.
Gilligan, C. (1982). In a different voice: psychological theory and women’s development . Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Gray, G., & Gibbons, J. (2007). There are no answers, only choices: Teaching ethical decision making in social work. Australian Social Work, 60 , 222–238.
Gutheil, T. G., & Gabbard, G. O. (1993). The concept of boundaries in clinical practice: theoretical and risk-management dimensions. American Journal of Psychiatry, 150 , 188–196.
Handelsman, M. M., Gottlieb, M. C., & Knapp, S. (2005). Training ethical psychologists: An acculturation model. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 36 (1), 59–65.
Haas, L. J., Malouf, J. L., & Mayerson, N. H. (1986). Ethical dilemmas in psychological practice: Results of a national survey. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 17 (4), 316–321.
Helbok, C. M. (2003). The practice of psychology in rural communities: Potential ethical dilemmas. Ethics and Behavior, 13 (4), 367–384.
Hemchand, L. (2016). A practitioner’s guide to understanding sexual orientation. In A. Narrain, & V. Chandran (Eds.), Nothing to Fix: Medicalisation of sexual orientation and gender identity (pp. 223–230). New Delhi: Sage Yoda Press.
Hill, M., Glaser, K., & Harden, J. (1998). A feminist model for ethical decision-making. Women and Therapy, 21 (3), 101–121.
Indian Association of Clinical Psychologists. (2015). Ethics and code of conduct of clinical psychologists: Guidelines 2012–13. Retrieved April 20, 2015 from http://www.iacp.in/node/159
International Society for Mental Health. (2000). International Society for Mental Health Online (ISMHO) Principles . Retrieved December 15, 2013 from http://www.ismho.org/suggestions.asp#Principles
Isaac, R. (2009). Ethics in the practice of clinical psychology. Indian Journal of Medical Ethics, 6 , 69–74.
Jacob, P., Golhar, T., Seshadri, S., Nandan, R. M., & Purushothaman, K. (2014). Child and adolescent mental health in the juvenile justice system in India: challenges and initiatives. Adolescent Psychiatry, 4 (4), 278–283.
Kitchener, K. S. (1984). Intuition, critical evaluation and ethical principles: The foundation for ethical decisions in counseling psychology. Counseling Psychology, 12 , 43–55.
Knapp, S., & VandeCreek, L. (2004). A principle-based analysis of the 2002 American Psychological Association Ethics Code. Psychotherapy: Theory, Research, Practice, Training, 41 (3), 247.
Kurpad, S. S., Machado, T., & Galgali, R. B. (2010). Is there an elephant in the room? Boundary violations in the doctor-patient relationship in India. Indian Journal of Medical Ethics, 7 (2), 76–81.
Margolin, G. (1982). Ethical and legal considerations in marital and family therapy. American Psychologist, 37 (7), 788–801.
McNamee, S. (2009). Postmodern psychotherapeutic ethics: relational responsibility in practice. Human Systems: The Journal of Therapy, Consultation & Training, 20 , 57–71.
Miller, P. M., Bener, A., Ghuloum, S., Commons, M. L., & Burgut, F. T. (2012). Differences and similarities in cross-cultural perceptions of boundaries: a comparison of results from two studies. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry, 35 , 398–405.
Nair, M. R. H. (2015). RTI v medical ethics: Some questions arising from the recent decision of the chief information commissioner under the RTI Act. Indian Journal of Medical Ethics, 12 , 182–185.
Narayan, C. L., & Shekhar, S. (2015). The mental health care bill 2013: A critical appraisal. Indian Journal of Psychological Medicine, 37 (2), 215–219.
Article PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar
National Academy of Psychology. (2010). National Academy of Psychology (NAOP), India Ethical Principles for Psychologists . Retrieved December 15, 2015 from https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pid=sites&srcid=bmFvcGluZGlhLm9yZ3x3d3d8Z3g6MTQ5YTUzNTQyOWMxZjZhNA
National Association of Social Workers. (2008). Code of ethics of the national association of social workers . Retrieved from http://www.naswdc.org/pubs/code/default.asp
Orinam. (2014). Indian Psychiatric Society official statement: Homosexual is not a mental illness . Retrieved December 20, 2015 from http://orinam.net/indian-psychiatric-society-homosexual-not-mental-illness/
Pomerantz, A., Ross, M. J., Gfeller, J. D., & Hughes, H. (1998). Ethical beliefs of psychotherapists: Scientific findings. Journal of Contemporary Psychotherapy, 28 , 35–44.
Pope, K. S., & Bajt, T. R. (1988). When laws and values conflict: A dilemma for psychologists. American Psychologist, 43 , 828–829.
Pope, K. S., Tabachnick, B. G., & Keith-Spiegel, P. (1987). Ethics of practice: The beliefs and behaviors of psychologists as therapists. American Psychologist, 42 (11), 993–1006.
Pope, K. S., & Vetter, V. A. (1992). Ethical dilemmas encountered by members of the American Psychological Association: A national survey. American Psychologist, 47 (3), 397–411.
Pope, K. S., & Vasquez, M. J. T. (2016). Ethics in psychotherapy and counseling: A practical guide (5th ed.). NJ: John Wiley & Sons Inc.
Proctor, G. M. (2014). Values and ethics in counselling and psychotherapy . London, UK: Sage.
Slack, C. M., & Wassenaar, D. R. (1999). Ethical dilemmas of South African clinical psychologists: International comparisons. European Psychologist, 4 (3), 179.
Sporrong, S., Arnetz, B., Hansson, M. G., Westerholm, P., & Hoglund, A. T. (2007). Developing ethical competence in health care organizations. Nursing Ethics, 14 (6), 826–837.
Strous, R. D. (2007). Psychiatry during the Nazi era: Ethical lessons for the modern professional. Annals of General Psychiatry, 6 , 8.
Sullivan, K. (2002). Australian psychologists’ ethical beliefs and behaviours. Australian Psychologist, 37 (2), 135–141.
Tolich, M. (2014). What can Milgram and Zimbardo teach ethics committees and qualitative researchers about minimizing harm? Research Ethics, 10 (2), 86–96.
Toulmin, S. (1996). Introduction. In S. Toulmin & B. Gustavsen (Eds.), Beyond theory: Changing organizations through participation (pp. 1–7). Philadelphia: Benjamins.
Walker, K. D. (1994). Notions of “ethical” among senior educational leaders. The Alberta Journal of Educational Research, 40 , 21–34.
Zhang, A., Qian, M., & Yao, P. (2007). A survey on ethical beliefs of Chinese counselors and psychotherapists and comparison with American professionals. Chinese Mental Health Journal, 21 (1), 55–61.
Zhao J., Cheng, W., Fu, S. (2009). A multi-center survey on dual relationships and associated factors among Chinese counselors and psychotherapists. Chinese Medical Ethics . Retrieved April 12, 2016 from http://en.cnki.com.cn/Article_en/CJFDTOTAL-XNLX200905014.htm
Zhao, J., Ji, J., Yang, X., Yang, Z., Hou, Y., & Zhang, X. (2011). National survey of ethical practices among Chinese psychotherapists. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 42 (5), 375–381.
Download references
Authors and affiliations.
Department of Clinical Psychology, National Institute of Mental Health and Neuro Sciences, Bengaluru, 560029, India
Poornima Bhola & Ahalya Raguram
You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar
Correspondence to Poornima Bhola .
Editors and affiliations.
Department of Clinical Psychology, National Institute of Mental Health and Neurosciences (NIMHANS), Bangalore, Karnataka, India
Poornima Bhola
Department of Clinical Psychology, National Institute of Mental Health and Neurosciences (NIMHANS) , Bangalore, Karnataka, India
Ahalya Raguram
Reprints and permissions
© 2016 Springer Science+Business Media Singapore
Bhola, P., Raguram, A. (2016). Navigating the Ethical Landscape: Critical Issues in Practice and Training. In: Bhola, P., Raguram, A. (eds) Ethical Issues in Counselling and Psychotherapy Practice. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-1808-4_1
DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-1808-4_1
Published : 21 October 2016
Publisher Name : Springer, Singapore
Print ISBN : 978-981-10-1806-0
Online ISBN : 978-981-10-1808-4
eBook Packages : Behavioral Science and Psychology Behavioral Science and Psychology (R0)
Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:
Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.
Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative
Policies and ethics
Doing the right thing: ethical decision-making.
In today’s complex and ever-changing world, making ethical decisions is crucial. Whether in personal or professional situations, our choices can have far-reaching consequences. This article explores the process of ethical decision-making, challenges that may arise, strategies to navigate ethical dilemmas, and the impact of our choices on personal growth and society as a whole.
Before delving into the intricacies of ethical decision-making , it is essential to establish a clear understanding of what ethics entails. Ethics refers to the moral principles and values that guide our behavior and decision-making processes. It encompasses many topics, including honesty, fairness, responsibility, and respect for others.
When faced with a decision, ethical decision-making involves assessing available options and choosing the one that aligns with our personal values and societal standards. It requires careful consideration of our choices’ potential consequences and impacts on individuals and the broader community.
In the context of decision-making, ethics serve as a framework to evaluate the rightness or wrongness of an action. It involves considering the immediate benefits or gains and the long-term effects and potential harm caused by our decisions.
By adhering to ethical standards, we aim to ensure fairness, justice, and the well-being of those affected by our decisions. This includes considering the rights and interests of all stakeholders involved, including employees, customers, shareholders, and the wider society.
Every decision has consequences, and ethical choices are pivotal in shaping the world around us. Making ethical decisions strengthens our character and promotes trust and integrity.
When we consistently make ethical choices, we contribute to a more just and equitable society. Our actions inspire others to follow suit, creating a ripple effect that can lead to positive change on a larger scale.
Furthermore, ethical choices help build and maintain relationships based on trust and mutual respect. When individuals and organizations prioritize ethics, they establish a reputation for integrity, leading to increased credibility and opportunities for collaboration.
Moreover, ethical decision-making is essential for sustainable development. By considering our choices’ environmental and social impacts, we can contribute to preserving natural resources and the well-being of future generations.
Understanding ethical decision-making is crucial for navigating the complexities of today’s world. By incorporating ethical principles into our decision-making processes, we can make choices that benefit ourselves and promote the greater good of society as a whole.
Ethical decision-making follows a systematic process that helps us navigate morally complex situations with clarity and integrity. It involves several key steps that allow us to identify ethical dilemmas , evaluate options and consequences, and ultimately make ethical choices.
The first step in ethical decision-making is to recognize when we are faced with an ethical dilemma. Ethical dilemmas arise when we encounter competing values or conflicting interests. These dilemmas can manifest in various contexts, such as the workplace, personal relationships, or societal issues.
For example, imagine a scenario where a company is considering outsourcing its production to a foreign country with lower labor costs. On one hand, this decision may lead to increased company profitability and potentially lower consumer prices. On the other hand, it raises concerns about exploiting workers in a foreign country and potentially losing jobs in the company’s home country.
By acknowledging and understanding the underlying ethical concerns, we can better assess the situation and identify potential courses of action. This step requires careful reflection and consideration of the values and principles that guide our decision-making.
Once we have identified the ethical dilemma, the next step is to evaluate the available options and their potential consequences. It is essential to consider both short-term and long-term implications and the potential impact on various stakeholders.
In the example of the company considering outsourcing, the options may include proceeding with the outsourcing plan, exploring alternative ways to reduce costs without outsourcing, or maintaining the current production practices. Each option carries its potential consequences, ranging from financial outcomes to social and environmental impacts.
During the evaluation process, gathering relevant information, consulting with experts or stakeholders, and weighing the potential benefits and harms associated with each option is crucial. This comprehensive assessment enables us to make informed decisions rooted in ethical considerations.
After careful analysis and evaluation, it is time to make an ethical choice. This involves selecting the option that best aligns with our values, ethical principles, and societal norms. Making an ethical choice often requires courage, as it may involve standing up against societal pressure or personal biases.
In the case of the company considering outsourcing, making the ethical choice may involve prioritizing fair labor practices and the well-being of workers over short-term financial gains. It may require advocating for better working conditions and exploring alternative cost-saving measures that do not compromise ethical standards.
It is important to note that ethical decision-making is not always straightforward. Different individuals or groups may have differing perspectives on what constitutes an ethical choice. Engaging in open dialogue, considering diverse viewpoints, and seeking guidance from ethical frameworks or codes of conduct can help navigate these complexities.
By following a systematic ethical decision-making process, we can approach morally complex situations with clarity, integrity, and a commitment to upholding ethical principles. This process empowers us to make choices that align with our values and contribute to a more ethical and just society.
Despite the importance of ethical decision-making, it is not without its challenges. Various factors can cloud our judgment and make it difficult to navigate morally complex situations.
One of the primary challenges in ethical decision-making is the presence of personal bias. Our personal biases and beliefs can significantly influence our decision-making process.
Preconceived notions and prejudices may lead us to make choices inconsistent with ethical principles. For example, suppose someone holds a deep-seated bias against a certain group of people. In that case, they may be more likely to make decisions that discriminate against them, even if it goes against their ethical values.
Overcoming personal bias requires self-awareness and a willingness to critically examine our assumptions and perspectives. It involves recognizing that our biases can cloud our judgment and actively working to mitigate their impact on our decision-making.
In addition to personal bias, societal pressure can pose a significant challenge in ethical decision-making. Societal norms and expectations can exert considerable pressure on individuals when making ethical choices. The desire to conform or avoid conflict can sometimes compromise our ability to act ethically.
For instance, in a work environment where cutting corners and bending the rules is the norm, an individual may feel pressured to engage in unethical behavior to fit in or avoid negative consequences. By recognizing and resisting societal pressure, we can uphold our values and make decisions that align with our ethical principles. This requires courage and a strong sense of personal integrity.
Furthermore, ethical decision-making can be complicated by conflicting interests. In many situations, individuals may be torn between competing values or obligations. For example, a business owner may face a decision that pits their company’s financial success against their employees’ well-being.
Balancing these conflicting interests requires careful consideration and a deep understanding of each choice’s potential consequences. It may involve seeking stakeholder input, conducting thorough research, and weighing the decision’s long-term impact.
Another challenge in ethical decision-making is the lack of clear guidelines or standards. Sometimes, there may be no established rules or regulations to guide our choices. This can leave individuals feeling uncertain and vulnerable, as they must rely on their judgment to determine the ethical course of action.
In such cases, relying on ethical frameworks and principles to guide decision-making becomes crucial. These frameworks can provide a structured approach to evaluating the potential ethical implications of different choices and help individuals make informed decisions.
Ultimately, ethical decision-making is a complex process that requires careful consideration of various factors. Personal bias, societal pressure, conflicting interests, and the absence of clear guidelines all contribute to our challenges when making ethical choices. By recognizing and addressing these challenges, we can strive to make decisions that uphold our values and promote ethical behavior.
To navigate ethical dilemmas effectively, it is helpful to employ strategies that guide our decision-making process and ensure ethical outcomes.
When faced with ethical dilemmas, knowing the right course of action can be challenging. However, we can approach these situations with clarity and integrity by utilizing specific strategies. Let’s explore some methods that can help us make ethical decisions.
Creating a personal code of ethics provides a foundation for ethical decision-making. It involves clarifying our values, principles, and priorities. By establishing a clear ethical framework, we can consistently make choices that align with our core beliefs.
When developing a personal code of ethics, we must reflect on our values and consider how they shape our decision-making process. This reflective exercise allows us to understand what is truly important to us and how we want to conduct ourselves in various situations.
Moreover, a personal code of ethics serves as a compass, guiding us through the complexities of ethical dilemmas. It helps us stay true to our principles and make decisions that align with our moral compass.
Having a set of ethical guidelines can be a valuable tool in decision-making, especially in complex situations. These guidelines are a reference point for assessing potential options and their ethical implications. They act as a compass, helping us navigate morally challenging situations.
When implementing ethical guidelines, it is crucial to consider various factors, such as the potential impact of our decisions on others, the long-term consequences, and the ethical standards of the community or organization we belong.
By referring to ethical guidelines, we can evaluate the different options available to us and choose the one that aligns with our values and principles. These guidelines provide a framework for making informed decisions that prioritize ethical considerations.
Furthermore, ethical guidelines can also help us maintain consistency in our decision-making process. They enable us to approach each ethical dilemma systematically and thoughtfully, ensuring that our choices are grounded in ethical principles.
Employing strategies for ethical decision-making is essential in navigating complex ethical dilemmas. By developing a personal code of ethics and implementing ethical guidelines, we can make informed choices that align with our values and principles. These strategies provide us with a framework to approach ethical decision-making with integrity and ensure ethical outcomes.
Ethical decision-making goes beyond fulfilling individual responsibilities; it profoundly impacts personal growth and society as a whole.
Making ethical choices fosters personal growth and development. It enhances our ability to think critically, weigh different perspectives, and act with integrity. By consistently making ethical decisions, we cultivate moral character and become better individuals.
The collective impact of ethical decisions shapes the fabric of society. When individuals prioritize ethics in their decision-making, they contribute to a more just and equitable world. Ethical choices ripple through communities and inspire others to follow suit, creating a positive domino effect.
Doing the right thing and engaging in ethical decision-making is not always easy, but it is essential. By understanding the ethical decision-making process, recognizing the challenges that may arise, employing effective strategies, and considering the impact of our choices, we can navigate moral complexities with integrity and contribute to a better world.
For more information on how you and your team can make ethical decisions in your organization, schedule a complimentary consultation with a senior partner at Culture Partners to discuss your goals. Let’s work together to shape your ethical culture and accelerate your journey toward success.
Powerful quotes on accountability at work, what defines a cohesive team and how to cultivate one, what can we help you find.
Historically, it’s been a matter of trial and error. There’s a better way.
There’s a familiar pattern when a new technology is introduced: It grows rapidly, comes to permeate our lives, and only then does society begin to see and address the problems it creates. But is it possible to head off possible problems? While companies can’t predict the future, they can adopt a sound framework that will help them prepare for and respond to unexpected impacts. First, when rolling out new tech, it’s vital to pause and brainstorm potential risks, consider negative outcomes, and imagine unintended consequences. Second, it can also be clarifying to ask, early on, who would be accountable if an organization has to answer for the unintended or negative consequences of its new technology, whether that’s testifying to Congress, appearing in court, or answering questions from the media. Third, appoint a chief technology ethics officer.
We all want the technology in our lives to fulfill its promise — to delight us more than it scares us, to help much more than it harms. We also know that every new technology needs to earn our trust. Too often the pattern goes like this: A technology is introduced, grows rapidly, comes to permeate our lives, and only then does society begin to see and address any problems it might create.
IMAGES
COMMENTS
Nevertheless, it is possible to learn to think critically through ethical issues. With practice and sound instruction, we can acquire the disposition and skills required to analyze and evaluate situations from opposing ethical perspectives. At the root of virtually every unethical act lies some form and degree of self-delusion. And
an thinking are the cause of much human suffering. Only the systematic cultivation of fair-mindedness, honesty, integrity, self-knowledge, and deep concern for the welfare of others c. n provide foundations for sound ethical reasoning.Ethical reasoning entails doing what is.
These strategies shape professional decision-making and help professionals work through ethical dilemmas. Professional decision-making strategies comprise the acronym "SMART", and encompass five domains: Seek help, Manage emotions, Anticipate consequences, Recognize rules and context, and Test assumptions and motives.
Ethics Resources. A Framework for Ethical Decision Making. This document is designed as an introduction to thinking ethically. Read more about what the framework can (and cannot) do. 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 ...
ning and Fairminded Thinking, Part IBy Richard Paul and Linda ElderThe development of ethical reasoning abilities is vitally impor. ant—both for living an ethical life and creating an ethical world. In columns over the last s. veral years we have focused on the foundations of critical thinking. In this and the next few columns, we set ou.
Additionally and ideally, students will develop skills that are applicable in any setting, including critical thinking, ethical reasoning, perspective-taking, and the ability to reflect. Through dilemmas, students will put themselves in the shoes of others, gaining exposure to authentic problems that have arisen for individuals in real ...
the intellectual tools and understandings necessary for reasoning through ethical issues and problems in an insightful manner. Unfortunately, most people confuse ethics with behaving in accordance with social conventions, religious beliefs, and the law. Most people do not see ethics as a domain unto itself, a set of concepts and principles that ...
In recent decades, approaches to critical thinking have generally taken a practical turn, pivoting away from more abstract accounts - such as emphasizing the logical relations that hold between statements (Ennis, 1964) - and moving toward an emphasis on belief and action.According to the definition that Robert Ennis (2018) has been advocating for the last few decades, critical thinking is ...
Expanding Horizons versus Disrupting Horizons: A Rhetoric of Disruption. In his article 'Dewey's book on the moral self', David T. Hansen (Citation 2006) discusses one common framework for understanding the traditional ethical imperative of higher education for its students and the manner in which it can be cultivated.Drawing on the influence of John Dewey, Hansen writes that 'if persons ...
4. Uncertainty and Complexity: Ethical dilemmas can arise when there is a lack of clear information, or the consequences of different choices are uncertain. The complexity of the situation further complicates the decision-making process. 5. Moral Obligations: Ethical dilemmas often involve conflicting moral obligations. For instance, a business ...
Both critical thinking and ethical reasoning are teachable skills that students can and should learn. Developing critical thinking. Critical thinking involves thoughtful and systematic processing of information so that we can better understand the complexity of issues and make sounder decisions. A critical mind is a questioning mind.
7. Accept Feedback. Ethical decision-making is susceptible to gray areas and often met with dissent, so it's critical to be approachable and open to feedback. The benefits of receiving feedback include: Learning from mistakes. Having more opportunities to exhibit compassion, fairness, and transparency.
Critical Thinking Case; 3 The History of Management. ... ethical approaches intentionally can also help you examine choices and options before making a decision or solving an ethical dilemma. Becoming familiar with these principles, then, can help inform your moral decision process and help you observe the principles that a team, workgroup, or ...
s for an increasingly global, interconnected, and technologically complex world. This is reflected in a proliferation of conceptual and empirical work on skills variously termed so. t, critical, social-emotional, transferable, student success, and 21st century.1Full civic participation in the modern world oft.
Assessing ethical thinking involves practical, technical, and (fittingly) ethical issues. As with other 21 st-century skills, the context and purpose of assessment have heightened relevance when assessing ethical thinking. These skills develop over more extended periods than does the learning of academic content, implying less frequent assessment.
It makes you a well-rounded individual, one who has looked at all of their options and possible solutions before making a choice. According to the University of the People in California, having critical thinking skills is important because they are [ 1 ]: Universal. Crucial for the economy. Essential for improving language and presentation skills.
Ethics is more than just fact-learning, or a "history of ideas". It is different from chemistry, mathematics, languages, theology etc. It is unique. Sure, it is important to learn some facts, and learn what others believed, but a successful student needs to do more than simply regurgitate information.
Summarize how an ethical dilemma may affect your work. Examine your values and beliefs and how they might influence your behavior towards people whose beliefs and values are different from yours. Describe the process of critical thinking and how it facilitates problem solving in difficult situations.
Philosophy of ethics. Navigating through the landscape of psychotherapeutic interactions with vulnerable clients requires that therapists be guided by an ethical compass. Client safety and wellbeing are paramount in this human encounter with vulnerable persons, which often occurs behind the closed doors of a 'therapy room'. The onus is on ...
Defining Ethics in Decision-Making. In the context of decision-making, ethics serve as a framework to evaluate the rightness or wrongness of an action. It involves considering the immediate benefits or gains and the long-term effects and potential harm caused by our decisions. By adhering to ethical standards, we aim to ensure fairness, justice ...
HBR Learning's online leadership training helps you hone your skills with courses like Ethics at Work. Earn badges to share on LinkedIn and your resume. Access more than 40 courses trusted by ...
Critical thinking skills examples. There are six main skills you can develop to successfully analyze facts and situations and come up with logical conclusions: 1. Analytical thinking. Being able to properly analyze information is the most important aspect of critical thinking. This implies gathering information and interpreting it, but also ...
Ethical dilemmas are an inevitable element in decision making. For school organizations, the emergence of an ethical dilemma in decision making is almost a daily occurrence. ... (2012) Social justice leadership as praxis: developing capacities through preparation programs. Educational Administration Quarterly 48(2): 191-229. Crossref. Google ...