A Case Studies Approach To Ethics Ethics is a practical as well as a theoretical discipline. Indeed, since, in the final analysis, the principal function that ethical theories serve is to provide a means to determine which behaviors are moral and which are immoral, most non-philosophers might consider it to be above all else a practical discipline. Thus, while the practical aspect is impossible without some prior discussion about the theoretical aspect, it is also arguable that the theoretical aspect without the practical application has little value to those whose principal interest in ethics is be able to assess ethical dilemmas and to resolve them in a conscientious and moral manner. This is the principal purpose in a case studies approach to ethics - to investigate the moral domain through cases where ethical principles arise and sometimes collide. �1. WHAT ARE CASE STUDIES? Case studies describe actual or possible situations in which one or more ethical issues arise or collide. These cases can be several paragraphs to several pages in length and, in the best ones, contain enough detail so that there is no one certain or obvious resolution. A case which describes the main character as a sociopath who contemplates serial murders and then inquires what the individual should do is a poor case, since on almost all moral theories such actions are immoral. Contrast this with a case it which an individual has a terminal and untreatable disease. In constant pain, the individual appeals to a close relative to provides them with the means to end their life. In this case traditional moral principles - that one should preserve life, that one should be compassionate and that each person has the right to self-determination - come into conflict. Thus, the best case studies are more subtle and present situations where it is essential to explore the details and to weigh and test various possibilities in order to reach an acceptable resolution. It is important to realize, however, that in most cases there is no one resolution that is without objection. �2. CASE STUDIES AND THEIR USE IN ETHICS As a means to explore and discuss ethical issues and problems, case studies augment the more traditional theoretical approach to ethics. In this respect case studies' ambiguousness is their most important asset, as this illustrates that in 'real life' moral situations are often messier than philosophers are wont to acknowledge. Moreover, case studies allow us: 1. To see what are sometimes rather obscure theoretical ideas and principles in actual situations. 2. To test these principles against actual situations in order to gauge their appropriateness or to see what their possible consequences might be. 3. To engage and evaluate our own moral intuitions. At various points throughout the course then we will consider specific case studies as a means to focus our theoretical discussions and as a means to illustrate and test the diverse ideas and principles we shall encounter. �3. CASE ANALYSIS: THE FIVE 'DS' 1. DESCRIBE the main characters and the relevant factual elements in the case. 2. DISCERN the most significant ethical issues in the case. 3. DETERMINE the main options available to agent(s). 4. DECIDE which is the (most) ethical option and create a plan to implement the option. 5. DEFEND the decision and the moral principles that it appeals to. STAGE 1: DESCRIBE Most cases will involve several individuals and numerous factual details-who, what, where, when and sometimes even why. It is essential to distinguish between the main characters in the case and those who have a more peripheral role and also between the important factual details and those details that have no real relevance to the case. The main guideline in this stage is to consider which characters' involvement raises ethical questions and which facts have possible ethical implications. It is important to note that in some cases (in particular, in professional ethics cases) the characters can be corporations as well as individuals. As concerns the factual information it is also essential to realize that (a) some facts are open to interpretation and (b) sometimes the case omits important facts. Keep these in mind since ambiguous information or information that the case fails to provide might influence the options available to the characters and thus, the case's analysis. STAGE 2: DISCERN As with factual information, most case studies will involve several ethical issues. In most cases, however, there will be a principal or main ethical issue and perhaps several collateral ethical issues, e.g., questions about euthanasia also involve questions about the right to die, the right to refuse medical treatment, and so on. Sometimes the connection between the issues will be accidental, while at other times (as in the euthanasia illustration) there is a logical connection. It is essential then to separate out the various ethical issues and to determine which is the most fundamental and what the connection is between the main issue and the other issues the case raises. A valuable guideline to use here is to consider (and list) the various moral rights and duties that the case involves. STAGE 3: DETERMINE Once the analysis describes the factual information and discerns the moral issues, it is then possible to determine what possible actions are open to the various characters. While it is impossible (and perhaps even inadvisable) to be exhaustive, it is important to determine what the main responses are. These actions should be a specific as possible (i.e., 'do what is right' is too ambiguous and so unacceptable as a possible action). In addition the actions must also be possible, since it is unacceptable to require the characters to do what is impossible. Thus, to require that someone determine the absolute truth in a situation is unacceptable. As concerns euthanasia, e.g., while it is impossible to determine the absolute truth about whether euthanasia or assistance in a suicide is moral or immoral in all cases, it is perhaps possible determine that there are some cases where it is acceptable, some cases where it is unacceptable and others where it is remains an open question. STAGE 4: DECIDE In this stage the focus in the case's analysis changes. The analyses in the previous stages are, in the main, exegetical, i.e., the purpose is to isolate and describe the important factual details and ethical issues that the case raises. While this does require some interpretation, all the information is (or should be) there within the case. Once this is done, however, the analysis must focus on what the group believes in a more direct and dramatic sense. Since the ultimate purpose in the case analysis is to resolve the basic ethical dilemma that the case poses, the question becomes: Given the various options available to the characters, what should the various characters do? Thus, the group must come to a decision as to which response represents the most ethical response in the circumstances in question. Note, that while in some cases this might require a single action, in other cases it might require several actions on the characters' parts. STAGE 5: DEFEND The final stage is perhaps the most difficult to non-philosophers (and sometimes even to philosophers), and that is to support the decision through rational and logical arguments. This requires that the group be able to support the moral principles that underlie their decision. It is inadequate to claim that the decision is correct because one believes that the moral principles it relies upon to be true, or was taught that the principles are true. These represent logical fallacies. The question is: What reasons are there to believe that the principles are true or are better than other applicable principles? Are these reasons rational and persuasive? Is it possible to construct a logical argument that demonstrates that one's chosen reasons are superior to the others? The problem here is that it is impossible to determine which moral principles are true in an absolute sense-all human knowledge, and that includes moral knowledge, has its limitations. Nevertheless, even without absolute knowledge, it is possible to demonstrate that some arguments are better or worse than other arguments. Thus it is essential that the group be able to support their final decision with precise, articulate and well-reasoned arguments. To do this the group needs to determine what precise moral principles underlie the alternative chosen in Stage 4. It crucial here to be as specific as possible-it is unacceptable to cite the Natural Law, the Categorical Imperative and the Greatest Happiness Principle and then end the analysis there. These are general principles and so are inadequate as complete justifications. It is essential then that the specific principles that the group uses be derivable through these more general principles. 4 also discusses considerations that will be valuable in the defense's construction and articulation. �4. A FINAL NOTE While it is implicit in the above process, it will perhaps still be worthwhile to note that at some point in the case's analysis it will be essential to determine the basic theoretical position that motivates the group's opinions. To do this the group will need to consider and discuss the differences (and similarities) between the basic theoretical strategies (i.e., the deontological, teleological and relativistic ethical strategies) and their respective positions on the ethical issues that the case raises. This is important, since the basic theoretical position the group assumes will have a direct influence on what the group discerns to be the most significant ethical issues in the case and determines to the be possible ethical responses. This decision will also determine which arguments and moral principles the group will appeal to in the final stage to support their decision. To consider euthanasia once again, the decision as to whether it is the intention (deontological ethics) or the consequences (teleological ethics) that matters most in a moral evaluation will determine whether and under what circumstances it is arguable that euthanasia is permissible. In particular it will determine the particular moral principles that the group's analysis relies upon, e.g., a deontological analysis will never judge happiness to be an important moral consideration (except perhaps to argue that it has no moral relevance whatsoever), whereas a teleological analysis might argue that it is the sole consideration that has moral relevance. Once the group chooses a general theoretical position, it might then be beneficial to refine the position even further, since there are numerous deontological, teleological and virtue ethical theories. In general: 1. A Kantian analysis will focus on the moral duties that the case involves and attempt to determine which duties are more fundamental. 2. A Virtue Ethics analysis will focus on the the professional's character and attempt to determine what virtues are relevant in the situation. 3. A Utilitarian analysis will attempt to determine which response will provide the greatest happiness to the most people. An additional consideration here will be whether the group's sentiments are more with Act or Rule Utilitarianism. So sometime prior to the decision as to what ought to be done in the case the group should decide whether their basic theoretical intuitions about moral evaluations are deontological, teleological or relativistic, and then determine the influences this will have on the case analysis.
