Ethical Decision-Making
1
Ethical Decision-Making Approach
William T. Noel, Sr.
Virginia Commonwealth University
Ethical Decision-Making
2
Ethical Decision-Making Approach
Determining one’s personal approach to ethical decision-making is similar to selecting a
Presidential candidate. Too many variables are present that weigh heavily on the choices we
make. Family influences, childhood experiences, and one’s commitment to his or her religion
all play a significant role in determining a philosophical framework. The easy way out is to
utilize Johnson’s Ethical Pluralism to blend frameworks to meet a need (Johnson, 2012).
Johnson’s perspective of Altruism is the preferred ethical decision-making approach for my
private life; however, in my public, professional life his perspective of Utilitarianism is the
best perspective to use (Johnson, 2012).
Philosophical Framework
In Johnson’s text, Meeting the Ethical Challenges of Leadership - Casting Light of
Shadow, he sums up utilitarianism as “attempting to do the greatest good for the greatest
number of people” (Johnson, 2012, p. 154). Doing the greatest good for the greatest number
of people is an absolute goal of mine when dealing with the students. Under this model, it is
justified to relax the rules for one person if it means protecting a larger part of the school
community.
The utilitarian analysis of this model makes it particularly strong because it offers a
roadmap to help determine ethical dilemmas. For instance, there is an ethical dilemma of
giving students a “get-out-of-jail-free” pass on minor offenses if they can offer valid
information on drug activity, theft, and/or vandalism. The first step in Johnson’s analysis
says to “clearly identify the action or issue under consideration” (Johnson, 2012, p. 154).
The ethical issue here is whether or not it is acceptable to relax school rules for those
students who offer information on criminal behavior.
Ethical Decision-Making
3
The next step is to determine the stakeholders who might be affected by this action
(Johnson, 2012). The building principal and his or her assistants might have to justify why
some students are seemingly above the law. Johnson’s third step in this ethical analysis calls
us to “determine the good and bad consequences for those affected” (Johnson, 2012, p. 154).
The ideal consequence from this action is that our students are learning in a drug-free school
and are safe from all negative elements. Conversely, the worst case scenario finds the
informing student experiencing some type of violence because of this agreement. Summing
up the good and the bad consequences is the last of Johnson’s four-step utilitarian analysis
(Johnson, 2012). He says “the action is morally right if the benefits outweigh the cost”
(Johnson, 2012, p. 154). Under this framework, using information brought forward by
students to eliminate objectionable behavior is morally correct.
Ethical Issue
It is difficult detect all of the undesirable activity that happens in a highly populated
public school. In an attempt to level the playing field, there are a couple of students who will
bring the administrative team pertinent information on drug activity, theft, and/or vandalism
for the exchange of a lesser penalty on minor infractions. For example, Leon Thomas usually
gets a day or two in In-School Suspension (ISS) for using his cell phone during the school
day, but if during his due process hearing, he offers factual information on who is
distributing marijuana in the building, those two days of ISS days become a day of cafeteria
duty. The ethical dilemma is whether or not to continue partnering with students as
confidential informants to rid the school of criminal activity.
Ethical Decision-Making
4
It was determined earlier that this ethical dilemma is the morally correct action under the
utilitarian analysis, but how does it relate to the four ethics? Justice, Critique, Care, and the
Profession are different approaches to dealing with ethical issues. Each of the four ethics will
be used to analyze the described ethical dilemma.
Justice
The ethics of justice refers to dealing with ethical dilemmas by doing what is legally
correct. This perspective focuses on what is right and fair concerning an individual’s rights.
John Rawls believed that certain principles of justice should be followed to address ethical
issues. One of the principles asserted that “everyone should have an equal opportunity to
qualify for office and jobs” (Johnson, 2012, p. 161). The ethical dilemma described above
did not exclude anyone from an office or from a job, but it did however, exclude them from
the same “get-out-of-jail-free” pass some students received. For Rawls, the ethics of justice
would not agree with the simulated ethical issue because some students had preferential
treatment and some did not due to an unwritten understanding.
Lawrence Kohlberg differed slightly with Rawls concerning the ethics of justice because
he felt it was more about morality, and less about the legal system. Kohlberg would be more
inclined to agree with the ethical predicament because it was a moral issue that met the
utilitarian analysis. Under Kohlberg’s third level of moral development, the question was
raised, How do my actions contribute to or detract from the optimal functioning of society?
The decision to slightly relax the school to solve a more serious problem contributes greatly
to the optimal functioning of school.
Ethical Decision-Making
5
Critique
Asking questions and challenging established practices are at the foundation of the ethic
of critique. Followers of this perspective do not simply accept the decisions and actions of
those in power without asking one question after the other. This particular ethic seems to
encourage people to be cynics, no matter how innovative or how worthwhile the idea might
be. The covertness of this ethical dilemma would raise too many questions in the minds of
critical theorists. As a result, the ethic of critique would conclude that this ethical dilemma is
not the morally correct action.
Care
This perspective, as the name implies, holds relationships, feelings and caring above all
else. This point is especially important in the school setting where a student’s welfare comes
before his or her test scores. If this approach holds the safety and security of students in such
high esteem, then the ethic of care would agree with the decision made in this ethical
dilemma. Deciding to relax the school laws is justified if it results in establishing a safe,
student-centered environment.
The ethic of care and the utilitarian framework are complementary in regards to their
view of relationships and people. These two approaches are akin to Bolman and Deal’s
Human Resource frame in that they “highlight the relationship between people and
organizations” (Boleman and Deal, 2008, p. 137). Likewise, the dilemma favors the students
within the school over the guidelines of the school. The decision reached in this dilemma
shows an absolute caring for the greatest number of people.
Ethical Decision-Making
6
Profession
Unlike the ethic of care, this perspective has individuals strictly following the
organization’s guidelines to the letter. The ethic of profession does not recognize feelings or
compassion; decisions in this perspective are black and white, right or wrong. For an
administrator to operate outside of the established rules goes against the ethics of profession.
Consequently, those who believe in this interpretation of the ethic of profession would
disagree with the practice of relaxing the rules in order to accomplish a greater good.
The ethic of profession goes deeper than the other ethics by asking four poignant
questions, discussed in class. These four questions however seem to support the decision
reached in the ethical dilemma. The questions are:
1. “What would the profession ask me to do?”
2. “What do various communities expect me to accomplish?”
3. “What about clashes of codes—does this exist, and is there a problem?”
4. “What should I take into account to consider the best interests? (Shapiro and
Stefkovich, 2011, p. 35).
The answer to these questions all support the decision made in the simulated dilemma. For
example, in the first two questions, the profession asks us to ensure the safety and security of
students, likewise the community also expects us to maintain a drug-free school. The
administrative team has yet to face a difference of opinion in these matters, which speaks to
the next point. And lastly, the best interest in this ethical dilemma is, without a doubt, the
welfare and safety of the entire student body.
Ethical Decision-Making
7
Decision-Making Model
Kidder’s Ethical Checkpoints is the decision-making model chosen to describe how to
best address the proposed ethical question. Rushworth Kidder offers a nine-step checklist that
will bring clarity to a questionable ethical issue (Johnson, 2012). Once again, the ethical
issue is whether or not it is morally correct to relax the school’s discipline policy for some
students, in exchange for vital information on criminal activity.
Kidder’s first checkpoint is to “Recognize that there is a problem” (Johnson, 2012, p.
248). This step forces us to take our head out of the sand, and recognize that there is a
problem that needs to be addressed. The administrative team in this scenario recognizes that
there is drug activity inside the walls of the building. Furthermore, the team realizes that they
are responsible for remedying that problem, which leads us to the second checkpoint.
Kidder says that once the problem has been recognized, we must “Determine the actor”
(Johnson, 2012, p. 248). In this dilemma, the actors are the members of the administrative
team, as well as the confidential student informants. These informants bring to the
administrative team, “adequate, accurate, and current information” that is vital to the goal of
ridding the school of drug activity (Johnson, 2012, p. 248). That act of collecting information
is Kidder’s third checkpoint, “Gather the relevant facts” (Johnson, 2012, p. 248).
Kidder’s fourth checkpoint is the “Test for right-versus-wrong issues” (Johnson, 2012, p.
248). According to Kidder, if the ethical decision is the correct choice, it must meet three
tests under this checkpoint. If the decision to relax the school’s discipline policy in exchange
for vital information gives a bad feeling within one’s soul, than it has failed the (stench test)
(Johnson, 2012). Kidder’s next test is the (front-page test) - this test asks the question, would
the decision to relax the school’s discipline policy in exchange for vital information cause
Ethical Decision-Making
8
discomfort if it was on the front page of the newspaper (Johnson, 2012). According to his
last test (the Mom test), if the decision to relax the school’s discipline policy in exchange for
vital information violates the moral code of a loved one, than the decision is not justified
(Johnson, 2012). Our ethical dilemma would not pass Kidder’s fourth checkpoint because
admittedly, it would not pass the front-page test.
The fifth checkpoint on Kidder’s list, the “Test for right-versus-right values” is the most
difficult because it places two positive values in opposition of one another. For this ethical
dilemma, fairness stands directly in the way of safety, and vice-versa. In order to reach the
desired goal of safety from drug activity, it is necessary to temporarily suspend fairness in
this situation. Accomplishing safety won out over fairness in this case because of the
utilitarian belief of the greatest good for the greatest number of people. This transitions
nicely to Kidder’s next checkpoint, “Apply the ethical standard and perspective”. As
mentioned before, the ethical principle that addresses this ethical dilemma best is Bentham’s
utilitarian approach.
Kidder urges individuals to “look for a third way” when dealing with an ethical dilemma.
He says, “Sometimes seemingly irreconcilable values can be resolved through compromise
or the development of a creative solution” (Johnson, 2011, p. 249). It is very obvious that the
two sides in this dilemma will not be able to sit and discuss the problem, because of this, an
imaginative solution was born. It is better to aggressively proceed in a manner that will
eradicate the problem, instead of dismissing its impact on the entire student body, or worse
pretending it does not exist.
“At some point we need to step up and make a decision” (Johnson, 2011, p. 249). “Make
a decision”, Kidder’s eighth checkpoint, cautions us against over-analyzing an issue to the
Ethical Decision-Making
9
point that nothing gets accomplished. Martin Luther King Jr. referred to this as the paralysis
of analysis. The last checkpoint in Kidder’s decision-making model is to “Revisit and reflect
on the decision”. Reflection and review is normal concerning any decision concerning
students; this is especially true in situations like the presented ethical dilemma.
Evaluation
The decision to relax the school’s discipline policy for some students, in exchange for
vital information on criminal activity is the ethical dilemma here. However, there is good
reason to conclude that this decision is the morally correct action to take. For example, this
decision will do the greatest good for the greatest number of people, which is taken from the
utilitarian framework. The choice in this ethical scenario also met the four-step utilitarian
analysis of an ethical problem.
Kidder’s Ethical Checkpoints also supports this decision to create an innovative way to
address a problem. Then, too, this decision met two of the three tests Kidder offered in his
fourth checkpoint. In conclusion, the decision to relax the school’s discipline policy in
exchange for information on criminal activity is absolutely justified, based on the Utilitarian
Framework and Kidder’s Ethical Checkpoints.
Ethical Decision-Making
10
References
Bolman, L. & Deal, T. (2008). Reframing Organizations: Artistry, Choice, and Leadership.
Johnson, C. (2012). Meeting the Ethical Challenges of Leadership: Casting Light or Shadow.
(4th ed.). Los Angeles: Sage Publishing, Inc.
Shapiro, J. P. & Stefkovich, J. A. (2011). Ethical Leadership and Decision Making in Education:
Applying Theoretical Perspectives to Complex Dilemmas. (3rd ed.). New York, NY:
Routledge