Ethics: My Own Perspective

Ethics: My Own Perspective People can hold deeply-held beliefs about why their particular moral choice is best; but, it is always essential to justify why one thinks a decision is right and another is wrong. Considering ethical predicaments from a variety of different perspectives will profit all.

Olivier Serrat 25/02/2020

1

People often ponder what it means to do the right thing. And, as if to underscore that ethics—which concerns itself with what is morally good or bad—is not an easy subject, quite differing approaches to ethical dilemmas have been proposed. People can hold deeply-held beliefs (and belief systems) about why their particular moral choice is best; but, it is always essential to justify why one thinks a decision is right and another is wrong. Considering ethical predicaments (e.g., individual vs. community, justice vs. mercy, short term vs. long-term, truth vs. loyalty) from a variety of different perspectives will profit all (Kidder, 2005).

A Blessed Encyclical

According to Merriam-Webster, the term "ethics" refers to the moral principles that govern a person's behavior or the conducting of an activity. "To me, it really seems visible today that ethics is not something exterior to the economy, which, as technical matter, could function on its own; rather, ethics is an interior principle of the economy itself, which cannot function if it does not take account of the human values of solidarity and reciprocal responsibility", Pope Benedict XVI is reported to have said. Beset by fake news in the Age of Complexity, we should be grateful for salutary reminders: ethics is not a detachable adjunct of the busyness of life but integral to its proper—ergo, principled—workings. Then again, the problem with reminders—as children know quite well—is that they pretty much train people to ignore them, knowing there will be more down the road. Besides, no matter how much we would want it to be, ethics is not the easiest of subjects. Past personal understanding of the core values of ethics (e.g., caring, fairness, honesty, integrity, respect, responsibility, right and wrong, trustworthiness), how might we discern more clearly the sundry applications of ethics in situations, muster ethical (or moral) courage when we should, and learn to display ethical leadership (whether we are in positions of authority or not)?

Casting Light or Shadow Blackburn (2001) remarked that "We have all learned to become sensitive to the physical environment … Perhaps fewer of us are sensitive to what we might call the moral or ethical environment" (p. 1). And yet, few topics are as important as ethics and few areas of human endeavor are as critical as ethical leadership, which has in point of fact been a recurrent topic of conversation and analysis over the centuries. Confucius, Plato, Machiavelli, Kant, Bentham, Mill, and Carlisle, to name a few, wrote about the moral obligations of leaders. Cutting through the clutter, but without prescribing specific action, Kant suggested a "categorical imperative" whereby we should only act in ways we would want everyone else in the same situation to act.

In business, without which there would be no goods or services of any kind (and so very few jobs), ethical leadership will keep morale high (by boosting growth and meaning); foster healthy workplace environments; encourage freedom of action (and so rein in micromanagement); attract better workers; ensure policies are legal; promote a strong public image; build customer and client loyalty; inspire trust among audiences and partners; instill confidence in potential investors; and, fundamentally, develop longlasting virtuous habits. Examples of poor ethical leadership in business are

2

unfortunately too common to list but would of course include the Enron, Global Crossing, Tyco, and Worldcom fiascos of 2001–2002, which focused the world's attention on the need to smarten up corporate governance. Portentously, in view of the impeachment trial of President Donald Trump on two charges of high crimes and misdemeanors (viz., abuse of power and obstruction of Congress), the monthly American business magazine Fast Company headed its 2015 "shortlist of leaders who shirked responsibility, or simply showcased a stunning lack of ethics, empathy, and integrity" with the name of the billionaire businessman, reality-TV host, and "Grand Old Party" (GOP) presidential candidate (Dishman, 2015).

In the 21st century, on top of business, reference must also be made to increasingly contentious arguments regarding the role of ethics in information and communication technology, notably smartphones. (This aside is warranted given the technology's omnipresence in societies, unavoidably also it seems in our public, private, and secret lives.) Social media were meant, The Economist (2019) hypothesized, to bring people together. But, "Today they are better known for invading privacy, spreading propaganda, and undermining democracy" (p. 13). There are now 3.5 billion smartphone users in the world and every one of them is a "reporter" of sorts: as a result, now that there are so many ways to supply feedback, the number of complaints that people lodge has risen astronomically. And yet, technology per se is not imbued with agency: what good or ill it brings is contingent on how people leverage it (The Economist, 2019). The Big Four tech companies (i.e., Google, Amazon, Facebook, Apple) should have foreseen that the deluge of information would overload our brains: all the more reason, then, to brush up on ethics, courtesy of which people can impose rules (and enact policies), accommodate change, and decide on trade-offs (The Economist, 2019).

A Delectus of Ethical Perspectives Helpfully, Johnson (2015) showcased five popular perspectives (or systems) for use in ethical decision-making: (1) utilitarianism, (2) Kant's categorical imperative, (3) justice as fairness, (4) pragmatism, and (5) altruism. (Ethical perspectives are often separated into three schools of thought, namely, consequentialist, duty-based, and virtue ethics: this is a useful way to understand the major concerns of ethics.) Utilitarianism, the brainchild of English philosopher, jurist, and social reformer Jeremy Bentham (1748–1832), is ends-based (and so part of the Consequentialist Framework): the fundamental axiom is that whatever produces the greatest good for the greatest number of people is right; accordingly, a utilitarian perspective would have us examine possible results from a course of actions, pick what consequence maximizes the general happiness, and frame political (and other) legislation toward that. Kant's categorical imperative, named after Prussian philosopher Immanuel Kant (1724–1804), is rule-based (and so part of the Duty Framework): one should follow only what principles one would want everyone else to follow, no matter the cost; this intuits fixed rules and the moral obligation to act in such a way that one's actions could become a universal standard. Justice as fairness, which owes to American philosopher John Rawls (1921–2002), is also rule-based (and so also part of the Duty Framework): reacting against utilitarianism, which despite

3

producing the greatest good for the greatest number might nonetheless disadvantage minorities, Rawls envisaged a "veil of ignorance" perspective; recognizing that inequalities exist in rights and opportunities, such attributes as age, ethnicity, gender, etc. ought to be hidden by a veil so no social group becomes entitled to any advantage over another. Pragmatism, of whom the most prominent spokesperson was American philosopher, psychologist, and educational reformer John Dewey (1859–1952), is endsbased (and so part of the Consequentialist Framework): but, unlike utilitarianism, Kant's categorical imperative, and justice as fairness, each of which puts forward a modus operandi for application (however different each may be), pragmatism places the process of decision-making at the center of ethical inquiry; pragmatism accepts that moral correctness can be let to evolve similarly to scientific knowledge, with creative solutions since there can be no perfection, but that there must always be an end in mind. Altruism, the belief in or practice of disinterested and selfless concern for the wellbeing of others, is care-based (and so part of the Virtue Framework): unlike utilitarianism, Kant's categorical imperative and justice as fairness, which from abstract moral principles underscore consequentiality, impartiality, and fairness, respectively, altruism upholds the importance of moral decision-making for needs-based caring of others; compassion is the primordial guideline.

Lesser known ethical principles that Johnson (2015) did not discuss include anarchist ethics, communitarianism, postmodern ethics, and role ethics, to name a few. Ethical perspectives that date further back in history but continue to hold relevance here and there include hedonism, which would have people fill time with intellectual pursuits and exercise good judgment in relationships; the Golden Mean, a practicable approach to finding compromise between conflicting points of view (or actions); and the Golden Rule, an ethic of reciprocity that—with echoes in many religions and cultures—enjoins people to treat others as they themselves might want to be treated.

Johnson's (2015) Ethical Perspectives: An Appreciative Inquiry Blackburn (2001) identified seven threats to ethics: (a) "the death of God", by which he refers to the collapse of many religious belief systems in the West from the 19th century; (b) relativism, which with the end of supernatural authority encourages different communities make up different rules; (c) egoism ("We are pretty selfish animals", p. 26); (d) evolutionary theory, which some take as meaning that human beings are "programmed"; (e) determinism and futility, which sped by pessimistic views of evolutionary theory lead some to believe it is "all in the genes" and ethical perspectives are therefore hopeless (p. 38); (f) unreasonable demands—"[We] should not demand too much from ourselves and each other" (p. 41); and (g) false consciousness— "[H]idden unconscious motivations, things that really move us, [may leave] ethical concerns exposed as mere whistles on the engine" (p. 44). Blackburn's (2001) seven threats to ethics appear decidedly "modern" and closely interlinked; some, such as "the death of God", may be more likely to face some societies than others; but, all can be expected to intensify with continuing developments in information and communication technology, intensifying globalization, and worsening degradation of natural resources and the environment. Forewarned by Blackburrn (2001), we can perhaps prepare.

4

Having surveyed the general ethical perspectives that Johnson (2015) isolated, and having sobered up with Blackburn's (2001) seven threats to ethics, I do not find it pertinent to profess a fondness for one particular perspective (or even one of the three schools). This is not because I place no faith in ethics: if life had no intrinsic value, objective meaning, or purpose there would be no need for nihilists to argue their case and breed skepticism. (Prey to their logic, true nihilists neither see the blessings of good conduct nor the dangers of misconduct: therefore, they must both avoid the former and practice the latter, which cannot make for an enjoyable life …) Even so, it is not the case that any of the three schools helps make perfect ethical decisions. Why? Because a perfect ethical perspective would have driven the others from the field a long time ago.

Nonetheless, knowing the pros and cons of each of the three schools can help decide which, or more likely what combination of schools, might be of use depending on the situation.

Some advantages of utilitarianism, for instance, are that it sets personal interests aside and builds on cumulative experience; but, decision makers can disagree about the greatest good and there can be unanticipated outcomes (Johnson, 2015, p. 158). Kant's categorical imperative demonstrates respect for others but moral obligations be at odds, especially when or where there is stress (Johnson, 2015, p. 160–161). Justice as fairness assigns equal weight to the freedom of the individual and the good of social groups but there can be lack of consensus about which rights are more important and divergence over the meaning of fairness (Johnson, 2015, p. 163–164). Pragmatism acknowledges limitations and exercises the imagination but lacks a moral center, which can trigger objectionable decisions (Johnson, 2015, p. 167–168). Altruism puts the needs of others at the forefront but can take many different forms; besides, it requires compassion, which may not always be in supply (Johnson, 2015, p. 175).

Making Ethical Decisions And so, in preference to holding this or that ethical perspective and applying it pell-mell, there is surely more relevance, coherence, effectiveness, efficiency, impact, and sustainability, serving also to conduce equity, in applying a frameworks approach to ethical dilemmas, be that the Consequentialist–Duty–Virtue Framework or, as the case might suggest, simpler frameworks such as the Blanchard–Peale Framework (1988).

(The Blanchard–Peale Framework raises three questions: Is it legal? Is it fair? How does it make me feel? There is also Molyneux's ethical decision-making model, Tucker's 5-question model, the Markkula Center approach, Davis's 7-step ethical decision-making model, and a couple of others, all of which follow comparable sequential thinking.)

Using a frameworks approach to make ethical decisions would have us, in turn, (a) make out the ethical issue; (b) take into consideration the party (or parties) involved; (c) collect all relevant data and information; (d) weigh alternatives and their implications and frame actions; (e) reach a decision and establish moral intent; (f) take and explain action; and (g) evaluate the outcome. Vitally, from yin–yang thinking, the consideration

5

and integration of alternatives would have us—across the decision tree—contemplate matters from a wholesome variety of ethical perspectives (e.g., utilitarian, Kant's categorical imperative, justice as fairness, pragmatism, altruism, etc.).

Concluding Remarks I have always used a frameworks approach to make ethical decisions and never had reason to regret the outcome. Every ethical perspective has shortcomings but it is true also that every ethical perspective does make a valuable contribution to moral problemsolving. Mastering the most widely used ethical perspectives—and bearing in mind such schools of thought as hedonism, the Golden Mean, and the Golden Rule—will heighten our awareness of and sensitivity to the moral environment, generate insights, and boost the likelihood that we will succeed as agents of ethics with win–win solutions. On occasion, we will need the strength and courage to do what we have concluded is right, especially if it is not to everyone's liking or might entail personal loss (Serrat, 2011).

That said, it stands to reason that the frameworks approach should empower analysis of and response to moral problems and so help leaders set the tone.

References Blackburn, S. (2001). Ethics: A very short introduction. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

Blanchard, K., & Peale, N. (1988). The power of ethical management. New York, NY: William Morrow and Company, Inc. Dishman, L. (2015, December). The 10 best and worst leaders of 2015. Fast Company.

Retrieved from https://www.fastcompany.com/3054777/the-10-best-and-worstleaders-of-2015 The Economist. (2019, December). Pessimism v progress. Retrieved from https://www.economist.com/leaders/2019/12/18/pessimism-v-progress Johnson, C. (2015). Meeting the ethical challenges of leadership: Casting light or shadow (5th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Kidder, R. (2005). Moral courage. New York, NY: William Morrow and Company, Inc. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2020). Evaluation criteria.

Retrieved from https://www.oecd.org/dac/evaluation/daccriteriaforevaluatingdevelopmentassista nce.htm Serrat, O. (2011). Moral courage in organizations. Manila: Asian Development Bank.