A Framework for Thinking Ethically

This document is designed as an introduction to thinking ethically. 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 ethical in the way it treats everyone.

What is Ethics?

Simply stated, ethics refers to standards of behavior that tell us how human beings ought to act in the
many situations in which they find themselves-as friends, parents, children, citizens, businesspeople,
teachers, professionals, and so on.

It is helpful to identify what ethics is NOT:

• Ethics is not the same as feelings. Feelings provide important information for our ethical choices.
Some people have highly developed habits that make them feel bad when they do something wrong,
but many people feel good even though they are doing something wrong. And often our feelings will tell
us it is uncomfortable to do the right thing if it is hard.

• Ethics is not religion. Many people are not religious, but ethics applies to everyone. Most religions do
advocate high ethical standards but sometimes do not address all the types of problems we face.

• Ethics is not following the law. A good system of law does incorporate many ethical standards, but law
can deviate from what is ethical. Law can become ethically corrupt, as some totalitarian regimes have
made it. Law can be a function of power alone and designed to serve the interests of narrow groups.
Law may have a difficult time designing or enforcing standards in some important areas, and may be
slow to address new problems.

• Ethics is not following culturally accepted norms. Some cultures are quite ethical, but others become
corrupt -or blind to certain ethical concerns (as the United States was to slavery before the Civil War).
"When in Rome, do as the Romans do" is not a satisfactory ethical standard.

• Ethics is not science. Social and natural science can provide important data to help us make better
ethical choices. But science alone does not tell us what we ought to do. Science may provide an
explanation for what humans are like. But ethics provides reasons for how humans ought to act. And
just because something is scientifically or technologically possible, it may not be ethical to do it.

Why Identifying Ethical Standards is Hard

There are two fundamental problems in identifying the ethical standards we are to follow:

1. On what do we base our ethical standards?

2. How do those standards get applied to specific situations we face?

 If our ethics are not based on feelings, religion, law, accepted social practice, or science, what are they
based on? Many philosophers and ethicists have helped us answer this critical question. They have
suggested at least five different sources of ethical standards we should use.

Five Sources of Ethical Standards

The Utilitarian Approach

Some ethicists emphasize that the ethical action is the one that provides the most good or does the
least harm, or, to put it another way, produces the greatest balance of good over harm. 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. Ethical warfare
balances the good achieved in ending terrorism with the harm done to all parties through death,
injuries, and destruction. The utilitarian approach deals with consequences; it tries both to increase the
good done and to reduce the harm done.

The Rights Approach

Other philosophers and ethicists 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 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 now argue that non-humans have rights, too. Also, it is often said that rights imply duties-in
particular, the duty to respect others' rights.

The Fairness or Justice Approach

Aristotle and other Greek philosophers have contributed the idea that all equals should be treated
equally. Today we use this idea to say that ethical actions treat all human beings equally-or if unequally,
then fairly based on some standard that is defensible. We pay people more based on their harder work
or the greater amount that they contribute to an organization, and say that is fair. But there is a debate
over CEO salaries that are hundreds of times larger than the pay of others; many ask whether the huge
disparity is based on a defensible standard or whether it is the result of an imbalance of power and
hence is unfair.

The Common Good Approach

The Greek philosophers have also contributed the notion that 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. This may be a system of laws, effective police
and fire departments, health care, a public educational system, or even public recreational areas.
The Virtue Approach

A very ancient approach to ethics is 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?"

Putting the Approaches Together

Each of the approaches helps us determine what standards of behavior can be considered ethical. 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 approaches. We
may not all agree to 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 approaches may not all answer the question "What is ethical?"
in the same way. Nonetheless, each approach gives us important information with which to determine
what is ethical in a particular circumstance. And much more often than not, the different approaches do
lead to similar answers.

Making Decisions

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 absolutely 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.

We have found the following framework for ethical decision making a useful method for exploring
ethical dilemmas and identifying ethical courses of action.

A Framework for Ethical Decision Making

Recognize an Ethical Issue
 1. Could this decision or situation be damaging to someone or to some group? Does this decision
involve a choice between a good and bad alternative, or perhaps between two "goods" or
between two "bads"?
2. Is this issue about more than what is legal or what is most efficient? If so, how?

Get the Facts

3. What are the relevant facts of the case? What facts are not known? Can I learn more about the
situation? Do I know enough to make a decision?
4. What individuals and groups have an important stake in the outcome? Are some concerns more
important? Why?
5. What are the options for acting? Have all the relevant persons and groups been consulted? Have
I identified creative options?

Evaluate Alternative Actions

6. Evaluate the options by asking the following questions:

Which option will produce the most good and do the least harm? (The Utilitarian Approach)
Which option best respects the rights of all who have a stake? (The Rights Approach)
Which option treats people equally or proportionately? (The Justice Approach)
Which option best serves the community as a whole, not just some members?
(The Common Good Approach)
Which option leads me to act as the sort of person I want to be? (The Virtue Approach)

Make a Decision and Test It

7. Considering all these approaches, which option best addresses the situation?
8. If I told someone I respect-or told a television audience-which option I have chosen, what would
they say?

Act and Reflect on the Outcome

9. How can my decision be implemented with the greatest care and attention to the concerns of all
stakeholders?
10. How did my decision turn out and what have I learned from this specific situation?

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, and Kirk O. Hanson.
It was last revised in May 2009.