8 Steps for Ethical decision making

Step One: Gather the Facts

The philosophical approaches dont tell us explicitly to gather the facts. But they
seem to assume that well complete this important step. You might be surprised
at how many people jump to solutions without having the facts. Ask yourself,
How did the situation occur? Are there historical facts that I should know? Are
there facts concerning the current situation that I should know?
Fact gathering is often easier said than done. Many ethical choices are
particularly difficult because of the uncertainty involved in them. Facts may
simply be unavailable. you should attempt to assemble the facts that are
available to you before proceeding.
Step Two: Define the Ethical Issues
Many of us have knee-jerk responses to ethical dilemmas. We jump to a solution
without really thinking through the ethical issues and the reasons for our
response Dont jump to solutions without first identifying the ethical issues or
points of values conflict in the dilemma. There are generally
multiple ethical issues that go back to the deontological, or principle-based,
theories. At a more personal level, there are the ethical issues related to
principles such as honesty, loyalty, and promise keeping. Is it more important to
be honest with a friend or to keep a promise to ones boss? Who is owed more
loyalty? Think about the situation from a justice or fairness perspective.
Points of ethical conflict may go back to the conflict between consequentialist
and deontological approaches. For example, if I tell the truth (consistent with the
principle of promise keeping), bad things will happen (negative consequences). A
consequentialist would think about the ethical issues in terms of harms or
benefits. Who is likely to be harmed? Who is likely to benefit from a particular
decision or action? A virtue ethics approach would suggest thinking about
the ethical issues in terms of community standards. Does your relevant
community identify a particular action as wrong? Why or why not?
Step Three: Identify the Affected Parties (the Stakeholders)
Both consequentialist and deontological thinking involve the ability to identify the
parties affected by the decision. The consequentialist will want to identify all
those stakeholders who are going to experience harm and benefits. The
deontologist might want to know whose rights are involved and who has a duty to
act in the situation.

Being able to see the situation through others eyes is a key moral reasoning
skill. Lawrence Kohlberg, developer of a key theory of moral reasoning, called
this skill role taking. Frequently, you have to think beyond the facts provided in
a case in order to identify all affected parties. It often helps to begin with the
individuals in the case who are immediately affected and then to progressively
broaden your thinking to incorporate larger groups.
Once stakeholders are identified, role-playing can help you to see the issue from
different stakeholder perspectives. In your classroom or your department, get
individuals to seriously play the relevant roles. This step incorporates the Golden
Rule: Treat others as you would like others to treat you. Imagine yourself as each
of the players in a decision situation. What decision would they reach and why?
Another consideration may be to ask whether you can test a potential decision
with affected parties before your prospective course of action is made final. The
objective is to gauge how various audiences will react and to be able to adjust or
fine-tune a decision along the way. One question you could ask yourself is, how
would this or that stakeholder react if this decision were made public?
Step Four: Identify the Consequences
After identifying the affected parties, think about the potential consequences for
each of these parties. This step is obviously derived from the consequentialist
approaches. It isnt necessary to identify every possible consequence. But you
should try to identify consequences that have a relatively high probability of
occurring and those that would have particularly negative consequences if they
did occur (even if the probability of occurrence is low). Who would be harmed by
a particular decision or action? Can you determine which solution would
accomplish the most net good? A popular version of utilitarianism asks the
question, Which decision or action will produce the greatest good for the
greatest number of people? Would telling a lie to your friend benefit the most
people? Or would it be better for all affected parties if you were to tell the truth?
LONG-TERM VERSUS SHORT-TERM CONSEQUENCES In ethical decisions,
its particularly important to think in terms of short-term and long-term
consequences. Are you confident that your position will be as valid over a long
period of time, even if circumstances or people change?
SYMBOLIC CONSEQUENCES Its also extremely important to think about the
potential symbolic consequences of an action. Every decision and action sends a
message; it stands for something. What message will a particular decision or
action send? What will it mean if it is misunderstood?

CONSEQUENCES OF SECRECY If a decision is made in private in order to

avoid some negative reaction, think about the potential consequences if the
decision were to become public.
Step Five: Identify the Obligations
Identify the obligations involved and the reasons for each. The obligations you
identify will vary depending on the people involved and the roles they play. For
example, our faith in our financial system depends in part on auditors obligation
to tell the truth about a companys financial difficulties. Similarly, our faith in
science as an institution depends on the integrity of the scientific data and how
scientists report it. The auditor and the scientist have a particularly strong
obligation to tell the truth.
Step Six: Consider Your Character and Integrity
In thinking about what you should do in an ethical dilemma, it can be useful to
consider what your relevant community would consider to be the kind of decision
that an individual of integrity would make in the situation. Begin by identifying the
relevant professional or societal community. Then, determine how community
members would evaluate the decision or action youre considering.
Remember the disclosure rule. It asks whether you would feel comfortable if your
activities were disclosed in the light of day in a public forum like the newspaers or
some other medium. If you would be uncomfortable telling your parents, children,
spouse, clergy, or ethical role model about your decision, you should rethink it.
This kind of approach can be especially valuable when a decision needs to be
made quickly. Suppose someone in your organization asks you to misrepresent
the effectiveness of one of your companys products to a customer. You can
immediately imagine how a story reporting the details of your conversation with
the customer would appear in tomorrows paper. Would you be comfortable
having others read the details of that conversation? The ideal is to conduct
business in such a way that your activities and conversations could be disclosed
without your feeling embarrassed.
Step Seven: Think Creatively about Potential Actions
Before making any decision, be sure that you havent unnecessarily forced
yourself into a corner. Are you assuming that you have only two choices, either
a or b? Its important to look for creative alternatives. Perhaps if youve been
focusing on a or b, theres another answer c. For example, what if you
received an extravagant gift from a foreign supplier. This situation could easily be
conceptualized as an a or b quandary. Should you accept the gift (which is
against company policy), or should you refuse it (which could be interpreted as a

slap in the face by this important supplier from a culture where gift giving is a
valued part of business relationships)? A potential c solution might be to accept
the item as a gift to the company that would be displayed in the headquarters
entrance, explaining that large personal gifts are against company policy.
Obviously, you would have to check with your company about the acceptability of
this c solution. But the idea is to think outside the box.
Step Eight: Check Your Gut
The emphasis in these steps has been on a highly rational fact-gathering and
evaluation process once you know that youre faced with an ethical dilemma. But
dont forget your gut. Remember that we are all hardwired to be empathetic and
to desire fairness. Empathy is an important emotion that can signal awareness
that someone might be harmed. And intuition is gaining credibility as a source for
good business decision making. We cant always say exactly why were
uncomfortable in a situation. But years of socialization have likely made us
sensitive to situations where something just doesnt feel quite right. So if your gut
is sending up red flags, give the situation more thought. In fact, this may be your
only clue that youre facing an ethical dilemma to begin with. Pay attention to
your gut, but dont let it make your decision for you. Once you know youre facing
an ethical dilemma, use the rational decision-making tools developed here to
help guide your decision making.

Ethics Case Study 1

Ravi Raj finishes a Ph.D. working on a problem that has aspects that
are directly patentable and solve a major problem in the Bio Tech
industry. His new job could be with Monsanto (World's Biggest Player
in GM Crops).
He arrives at the new job and discovers that the work done as a
student, which is in the patent process, will solve the problem at his
new company. If he reveals what he knows to his new employer he will
be an immediate hero, but will compromise the patent process at his
original institution. This step could have important financial
implications for the original institution in the form of royalties.
What should the student do?

Ethics Case Study 2

Vishnu has been recently appointed as the Principal of the local

government school in a small town. The majority of students in the
school are from local slum who cannot afford to buys books and notes
at the market prices.
Soon after the joining Vishnu found that there are very few books in
the school library. The vice Principal, a veteran teacher from the same
school, tells him that several requests to the local authorities and the
government agencies to improve the condition of the library have gone
in vain.
He found that the students of the school are flagrantly violating the
copyrights of the library books and getting them photocopied from the
shop inside the school since they cannot afford these books at the
market rate.
He gets a letter from the publisher of one of these library books about
the violation of copyrights of the books. Publisher also asks him to take
stern legal action against those involved in the copyright violation.

What should Vishnu do?

Dilemma of Ravi Raj
The Case studies related to Ethics would essentially involve Dilemma in
which we have to choose What is good or What is Right. The same
is true in this case as well. Ravi Raj is in the dilemma whether he
should utilize his past knowledge to his new employer or not.
There would have been no ethical dilemma in this case had the issue of
Patent would not have been there. In such case like a loyal and
efficient team member it would have been his duty to utilize his past
knowledge, for which he is actually paid for by his employer (i.e.
Monsanto).
To analyze this case we would first of all like to introduce theoretical
framework related to two different branches of Ethics. The branches
are:
1. Teleological
2. Deontological
We would like to discuss these branches in detail and come up with a
framework to solve such issues.
Teleological Ethics
According to this branch of Ethics, in the case of Ethical Dilemma, one
should essentially choose the option which would result into desirable
ends. Thus this branch of Ethics has its focus on the ends. Thats why
it is called Teleological. Word Teleo in Greek means end. Thus if we
go by this branch of ethics Ravi Raj should choose the option which
should produce the desirable ends. So in simple words this school of
thought focuses on What is good.
Now one thing is very important in this branch of ethics, and that is
desirable ends from whose perspective. In this case the desirable
ends for Ravi Raj (personal growth), Monsanto and Institute are
different. So what should Ravi choose?
The Teleological Ethics are further divided into two branches:

1.

Ethical Egoism

2.

Utilitarianism

Ethical Egoism says that only those ends are desirable which are in
the personal interests on an individual. Going by this branch of
Teleological Ethics, Ravi Raj should disclose the past knowledge to his
new employer, because in case he would be considered as a hero and
this option are best suited for his personal interests.
PS: Although Ethical Egoism is a branch of Ethics, please
refrain from using this in UPSC. The utilization of the
framework based on Ethical Egoism would not be appreciated
in UPSC. So we would advise not to adhere to this school of
thought in UPSC examination.
Utilitarianism: This branch of Ethics believes in maximizing the utility
from an action to everyone in the society or to maximum number. Thus
according to this school of thought only those ends are desirable which
produce maximum good to maximum number. Unlike Ethical Egoism
which talks about maximizing the interest on an individual,
utilitarianism believes that only those ends are desirable from which
maximum number of people in the society gets the maximum benefit.
Secondly one should ask two basic questions (Golden questions) while
applying this framework:
1.
What would happen to the society if everyone else in society
starts doing the same?
2.

Would the ends be desirable in the long run or only in short run?

Let us answer the two basic questions by assuming that Ravi

Raj agrees to disclose the past knowledge to Monsanto.
1.
What would happen to the society if everyone else in
society starts doing the same?
If everyone else starts violating the Patents laws, scientist and
researches would not get incentive for their toil and endeavors. In the
absence of incentive for research the institutions, companies and

individuals would be discouraged to take up research. Such a scenario

would be detrimental for the society.
2.
Would the ends be desirable in the long run or only in
short run?
In the short run the results would be desirable for personal growth of
Ravi Raj and Monsanto. But in the long run Ravi Raj and Monsanto can
face legal issues for violation of the patent laws.
Applying this framework, Ravi Raj should not disclose the past
knowledge to Monsanto.
Deontological Ethics
This branch of ethics focuses on duty. This branch is not at all
concerned with the ends or the consequences. While applying this
framework we would not keep ends or consequences of an action into
consideration. Thus this branch of Ethics deals with What is right
(unlike Teleological branch which deals with What is good).
According to this branch of ethics one has the duty to do the right
thing, even if it produces a bad result. Therefore in case of
deontological ethics, it is the duty and the intentions which prima
facie matter while deciding the morality of an action.
This branch of Ethics also advocates maintaining transparency in
functioning.
In case of Ravi Raj, he has the following duties:
1.

Duty towards his present employer to give his best in the work.

2.
Obligations towards his old institute to be preserve its
intellectual property
3.

Duty to obey legal laws of the land (including patent laws)

Since the institute has played a pivotal role in the research of Ravi Raj,
it is his moral duty to share the benefits of research with the institute.

While applying this branch of Ethics one should apply the following
simple golden rule:
Do not do unto others what you do not want others to do unto
to you
Applying this rule, Ravi would obliviously feel cheated if institute start
using his research for commercial purpose or otherwise without his
permission.
Therefore Ravi should not disclose his past knowledge without the prior
permission of his institute. Now also it wont be right on his part and
would be a question mark on his credibility if he remains silent when
he knows that his company is facing a issue for which he has a viable
solution. In such case Ravi should inform his company that he has the
solution for the issue, but that can only be used with prior permission
from his institute and within the ambit of Patent laws.

Case study 2
The Case
Vishnu has been recently appointed as the Principal of the
local government school in a small town. The majority of
students in the school are from local slum who cannot afford to
buys books and notes at the market prices.
Soon after the joining Vishnu found that there are very few
books in the school library. The vice Principal, a veteran
teacher from the same school, tells him that several requests
to the local authorities and the government agencies to
improve the condition of the library have gone in vain.
He found that the students of the school are flagrantly
violating the copyrights of the library books and getting them
photocopied from the shop inside the school since they cannot
afford these books at the market rate.

He gets a letter from the publisher of one of these library

books about the violation of copyrights of the books. Publisher
also asks him to take stern legal action against those involved
in the copyright violation.
What should Vishnu do?
Vishnu's dilemma
Quite often it happens that a person feels torn between two loyalties
(as in the case of Vishnu) and he or she does not know which way to
turn: how does one choose between two goods, each of which is
making an absolute demand on me?
On other occasions one as even more confused because one finds
himself or herself obliged to choose between two unavoidable evils.
Which to opt for? Finally, granted that one cannot do evil so that good
may come of it (the end does not justify the means), would it ever be
permitted to do something good, from which some evil, more or less
necessarily, will follow.
Notice, in none of these conflict situations are we dealing with a
choice between what is perceived as evil and what is perceived as
good. In such a case, what one should choose is clear: the good. This
may not be easy and one might have to flight against all manner of
inner revulsions and emotions. Fear of the consequences may weigh
heavily on one and he or she might well hesitate, feeling that unfair
demands are being made of him of her.
Golden Rule to Solve Conflict Situations
Golden Rule 1: Choose the lesser evil
Of two necessary evils, choose the leaser one. That seems obvious
enough except for the fact that it is not always easy to decide which of
the two or more evils concerned is the lesser one. Sometimes it is
fairly easy to make you choice.
For instance you are a pilot and, for some reason or the other plane is
going to crash very soon. You have just two choices to crash the plane

into either a maternity hospital or an old age home. For most of us, it
would be clear enough: crash into the old age home.
In the maternity hospital, however, there would be scores of babies
who deserve to be given a chance to live and know the world: or again,
if my brakes dont work and may car is hurtling down a narrow on my
right (no other choice!), obviously I should turn left because, that way,
Id kill one less person. However, let us not forget than in such
moments of confusion and split-second decisions making one can
hardly be expected to function reasonably and weigh up all the
consequences. One could hardly hold it against the poor pilot (or
driver) if, in his confusion he turned the wrong way!
Golden Rule 2: Choose the Greater Good
This is the obvious principles to invoke when choosing between two
goods. Most of the time, however, it is not clear what is the greater
good. In that case, one could employ St Augustines practical dictum to
this regard, ama et fac quod vis: love and do what you like or, to put it
more clearly, choose either, but do it from a perspective of love.
In his Existentialism and Humanism, Jean-Paul Sartre gives us an
interesting case, where a young lad, early in World War II, when France
was about to fall to the advancing Nazi hordes, had to make a difficult
decision: should he signs up to fight off the invaders or stay at home to
take care of his invalid mother? Applying theprinciple given above,
the choice is the boys. No ne can tell him objectively what the greater
good is. Let he decide for himself.
Golden Rule 3: The Double Effect
This concerns the controversial and conflict situation where one and
the same act produces two effects, one good and the other evil. Under
what conditions it would be morally justified to allow such an act?
Authors generally list four such conditions. They are as follows, accord
to the scholastic Celestine Bittle, in his Man and Morals, Milwaukee,
The Bruce Publishing Company, 1950 (pp.44-46). First, the action
directly intended must be good in itself or at least morally indifferent.
The reason for this is that morality is a matter of intention. If Mr X do

wrong unintentionally (e.g. injure someone in a game of football), he

cannot be held to blame for it unless, of course, he acted recklessly,
in which case my fault would be reckless behavior, not having injured
someone. Morality is not a mere matter of externals. Even a good
action may be rendered less worthy if it is done for a unworthy motive:
for instance, a person makes a big donation to the poor, not because
he cares for them, but because he wants to win votes.
Secondly, the good effect must follow from the action at least as
immediately as the evil effect; or the evil effect may follow from the
good effect. However, it is never morally right for the good effect to
be produced through the evil effect. This follows from the above.
Remember, good or evil is primarily in the intention.
We must always intend directly what is good or indifferent; if we
intend what is evil directly, we are doing something evil. This would
involve claiming that the end justifies the means.

The above-presented figures should make it clear why Case (I) and
Case (II) are permissible and Case (III) is not: it is the only one where
evil is directly intended. In this last case, moral evil makes an entry
into the intention of the agent.
Thirdly, the foreseen evil may not be intended or approved, but merely
permitted to occur. The reason for this is obvious enough and also
follows from the first condition. In Bittles words, If the evil effect were

intended or, when it occurred, approved, then the will itself thereby
would become evil in its inclination, and the action would be morally
wrong.
Finally, there must be proportionate and sufficient reason for
permitting the evil effect to occur while performing the good action.
Obviously, one could hardly justify an action which produced a minor
good effect and a proportionately high bad effect
Vishnu's case would belong to the Case (III) if he allows the students
to continue the photocopy as the immediate evil effect would be
violation of copy rights. Thus in no way he should allow the students to
go for the photocopy.
Now applying the two branches of Ethics in this case:
Teleological Ethics:
As discussed in the last case this branch of Ethics is related to the
"Ends" and deals with "What is good". The two golden questions that
we ask in the case of Teleological Ethics are:
1. What would happen to the society if everyone else in
society starts doing the same?
2. Would the ends be desirable in the long run or only in
short run?
Now the answers to these questions in this context would be based on
our assumption that Vishnu permits the students to go for photocopy:
1. What would happen if every body in the society would start
voilating the copyrights? This would be detrimental for the whole
knowledge industry and discourage writers and publishers to
come up with new books.
2. No doubt the permission for the photocopies would solve the
problem in the short run, but it can create legal issues in the long
run. Also it will give the message to the students that law of land
should be voilated if they think that end result would be good.
(The same philosophy on which the Naxalite movement is based

which considers that law of land favors the elites thus the
concept of State is coercive and should be destroyed for the
greater good).
Therefore at no cost Vishnu should allow the violation of copyrights in
his premises.
Deontological Ethics
This branch of Ethics is based on the principle of "Duty" and
"intentions". Thus here we are interested in "What is Right" irrespective
of its end results. The following are the duties of Vishnu as a Principle
of the School:
1. To ensure that school administration is carried out in an efficient
and legal manner.
2. To ensure that the available infrastructure and the resources
alocated to the school are utilized in the best possible and
efficient manner
3. To mobilize resources for the school if he thinks that they are
inadequate through proper channel
4. To ensure quality education to the students and in long run to
make them good citizens.
Please keep in mind that final resource alcoation to the school is
outside the purview and duty of Vishnu. He can only send requets to
the higher authority for this.
Keeping in mind the above duties Vishnu should do the following:
He should ban the photocopies of library books in the school
premises. He should warn the photocopy shopkeeper about the
same and convey the message to the students as well.
He should communicate the same to the publisher and request
him not to esclate the issue to court of law or the police as he
had already taken the steps on his end to ensure that copyrights
are not violated.

 Since he cannot himself allocate the resource, he should send

requests to the higher authority and can take the help of parents
to pressurize the local leaders to take the steps about the
condition of school library.
Since it is his duty to utilize the school resources in the best
possible manner for the benefit students he can take the help of
teachers and senior students to develop the study material,
circulation of these would not voilate the copyrights