Running head: LOYALTY VERSUS CONNECTION?
Moral Reasoning Essays
Philip W. Holmes
Virginia Commonwealth University – EdD in Leadership (Cohort IV – 2016)
1
LOYALTY VERSUS CONNECTION?
2
In this paper, I will discuss a personal ethical dilemma that I recently faced. I will first
describe the dilemma, laying out the facts of the dilemma as objectively and accurately as
possible. I will review and rank the moral values that are relevant to the resolution of this
dilemma, choose the best proposal for solving it, and acknowledge the ramifications of this
choice. Finally, I will justify my conclusion against four ethical frameworks: the ethics of
critique, the ethics of care, the ethics of justice, and the ethics of profession.
Moral Dilemma Essay: Statement of Issue
My moral dilemma is a personal one.
I was born and raised in New England, and moved to Richmond immediately after
graduating from college in Massachusetts in 1985. After a short and failed marriage, I came out
of the closet and began to date men. In the summer of 1995, I met my current partner, Eric. He
is a native Virginian who was born and raised in the Northern Neck. In 1996, we started to live
together in Richmond. Last fall, we were married in Massachusetts.
One side of Eric’s family is well-educated, quite accomplished, and is based primarily in
Northern Virginia and in Richmond. The other side – the side that is relevant here – is based
primarily in the Northern Neck. This part of Eric’s family is mostly working class, with roots in
the Deep South. This part resonates with me, for my family on Cape Cod was also working
class, and when I visit with Eric’s Northern Neck relatives, I often feel like I have come home.
Eric has one sibling, an older sister named S, and they have always been very close. She
and Eric had a difficult childhood. Their parents were mismatched and their marriage was
unhappy; this unhappiness trickled down to their children. On top of that, Eric’s parents were
affected by his father’s medical condition, a rare hypo-parathyroid syndrome that was
misdiagnosed for decades. This condition caused erratic behavior that contributed to their
parents’ bankruptcy and eventual divorce during their children’s teen-age years.
Not surprisingly, both Eric and his sister acted out in various ways as their parents’
marriage disintegrated. S moved away soon after graduating from high school, went through a
series of menial jobs, and then moved in with a young man named T. She became pregnant. T
was unconcerned; they split up; and S was left with a very big decision: what does one do when
one is single, under-employed, and pregnant?
S decided to carry the child to term. Her aunt and uncle (from the Northern Neck side of
the family) offered to adopt the child, and S agreed. The child, a boy, was indeed adopted by S’s
aunt and uncle, who named him J, moved to Lynchburg, and raised him as their own son.
Critical to this dilemma is the fact that the family opted not to tell J that S was his birth mother.
S emerged from this experience with a more positive focus to her life. She went back to
school and eventually completed her bachelor’s degree. She obtained a job as a computer
scientist for the government, married a fellow computer scientist, and settled into a comfortable
upper-middle-class life.
LOYALTY VERSUS CONNECTION?
3
Eventually, J figured out the truth behind his status in the family – that S was his mother
and not his cousin. This was not a pleasant realization, and his resentment over being “lied to”
simmered throughout his own teen-age years.
I first met J when he was twelve years old, at S’s wedding. J had actually begun to
suspect at that point that he was S’s biological son, but had not yet shared those suspicions. I
had been with Eric for only a couple of years, and was viewed with some suspicion by his
Northern Neck relatives (who had little experience with gay couples). Perhaps for that reason –
because we both considered ourselves to be outsiders – J and I got along well immediately, and
he quickly became like a little brother to me. I am the youngest of four sons, and so perhaps I
was eager to become the older brother that my family situation never allowed me to be.
Shortly after S’s wedding, J announced to the family that he knew that he was S’s
biological son. This announcement strained the relations between S and J’s adopted parents, and
made J’s family status difficult to define. He was my partner’s biological nephew but “family
status” cousin, and he seemed to move between those two statuses without really accepting either
of them. Home schooled by his parents, and kept tightly within their religious community (they
are Jehovah’s Witnesses), J had an uneventful adolescence. Several years ago, in his early
twenties, J fell in love with a woman from his religious community and married her.
Over the years, Eric’s sister and her husband became increasingly more successful, and
built a large house in Northern Virginia. S’s relationship with J (which frankly was always
awkward) began to fade. Contributing to its demise was the fact that S and her husband spent
several years and many thousands of dollars trying to conceive a child. J’s family was not
particularly successful financially, and S’s frequent and ill-advised comments about how much
money they were spending on fertility treatments (many tens of thousands of dollars) rankled the
Northern Neck side of the family in general, and J in particular. S’s seeming lack of interest in J
as a newborn appeared to him to clash with her current obsession with conceiving another child
with her husband. S finally became pregnant two years ago, the result of the implantation in her
womb of a donor egg (donated by a nurse in Mexico, where the fertility treatment occurred) that
had been fertilized by her husband’s sperm. S and her husband opted to tell only a very few
people that S was actually not the child’s biological mother. J was not told. He still does not
know.
Last summer, J reached out to S for financial assistance. He and his wife had been living
in her parent’s basement apartment; however, her father became gravely ill, and it became clear
that they would have to strike out on their own. They decided that it was time for them to buy
their first house, and J approached his birth mother for help with the down payment.
S was in the middle of an extensive home renovation project (the great cost of which she
had unwisely trumpeted to J and others in the family). She initially agreed to give J several
thousand dollars. Then, she reneged on the offer, and tried to make it seem that she had actually
intended only a loan from the beginning. J had excitedly told his wife about S’s initial offer, and
was hurt by her sudden and unacknowledged change of heart. They exchanged angry words. S
called my partner that night and shared her version of the story. Eric has always been frustrated
by J’s relative lack of ambition, is very close and supportive of his sister, and he quickly
accepted S’s version as the truth.
Soon after, S and J had a massive argument. Years of confusion and resentment on both
sides were suddenly and unwisely vented. Eric defended his sister with a scathing email to J,
which triggered a final rupture between J and both Eric and S. I had managed to stay neutral
throughout the conflict; however, because I was Eric’s partner, J broke off relations with me, too.
LOYALTY VERSUS CONNECTION?
4
After several months of silence, J quietly reconnected with me on Facebook. He
explained that he was very angry with both S and Eric, and said that he would stay connected to
me but not with them (“you’ve been more like family than they have been,” he said). His emails
to me often contained angry and bitter comments about Eric’s and his sister’s behavior. At the
same time, both Eric and his sister continued to stew over J’s angry departure from their lives,
and often included me in those discussions. They did not know that I was back in frequent
contact with J, and J did not know that I was still being involved in their frequently unkind
discussions about him.
I was torn. I had never before kept a secret like this from my partner (now my husband).
I sympathized with J’s position (and frankly agreed with several of the points that he was making
about Eric’s sister!). Was it right of me to stay in contact with J, and to keep that connection a
secret from my partner?
Discovery Essay: Analysis of Dilemma
I sat down with a pen and legal pad and brainstormed the values that played a part in my
moral dilemma. The list was surprisingly long, which was a lesson in itself. When life is
decelerated, and one is forced to analyze the actions that one takes almost unconsciously, a
bewildering array of salient and interacting factors may emerge. Of course, it may also be true
that those with LCI preferences for Precision and Sequence simply create long lists.
In this case, the list contained nine values, in ranked order:
1. being honest with my partner/husband to the greatest extent possible;
2. supporting my partner/husband;
3. being honest with those who are close to me (outside of my partner/husband) to the
greatest extent possible;
4. being honest in general, to the greatest extent possible;
5. being reasonable and flexible (accepting that some areas are grey);
6. seeing more than one side to an issue;
7. accepting people for who they are; not judging;
8. keeping options open (and being patient with those who struggle with that ability); and
9. being loyal to loved ones, regardless of whether they are right or wrong.
LOYALTY VERSUS CONNECTION?
5
Effects of the Values Considered
The first four values pertain to being honest with my partner or with friends and family.
Obviously, when a dilemma is based in part at least on the question of whether to be honest,
personal values that pertain to honesty are going to play a huge role in the resolution of the
dilemma. The effects of these four “honesty values” will be immediate, obvious, and emotional.
The next two values (being reasonable and seeing more than one side to an issue) pertain
to personal flexibility. These values will mitigate to some extent the rigidity of the four values
that pertain to honesty. Johnson (2012) noted that Kant’s Categorical Imperative considers
honesty to be an inviolate, positive moral value; however, he also noted that such rigid and
blanket rules are easily stated but not so easily applied. I agree. Being reasonable, and seeing
more than one side to an issue, will help me see the grey areas that philosophers like Kant were
not so willing or happy to see, as will the next two values (accepting people for who they are and
keeping options open); however, these values will add time and possibly some frustration to the
resolution process, because they will slow me down and prevent an easy, black or white decision.
The last value (being loyal to loved ones, regardless of whether they are right or wrong)
will have a complicating and probably frustrating effect. In this dilemma, I love everyone
involved; however, I clearly cannot be loyal to each of them and at the same time resolve the
dilemma.
Possible Solutions to the Dilemma
After considering the values and possible effects, I came up with five possible solutions
to this dilemma:
1. do not tell Eric; keep things as they are with all parties;
2. do not tell Eric; break off the connection with J;
LOYALTY VERSUS CONNECTION?
6
3. tell Eric; do not tell J that I told Eric;
4. tell Eric; tell J that I told Eric; break off the connection with J; and
5. tell Eric; tell J that I told Eric; try to maintain the connection with J.
Proposed Course of Action
After reviewing my list of possible solutions, and then considering my rank-ordered list
of values, my choice was clear and immediate: Tell Eric; tell J that I told Eric; try to maintain
the connection with J.
Assumptions
I do not believe that there are any assumptions inherent in this solution, as each of the
three parts (tell Eric; tell J that I told Eric; try to maintain the connection with J) reflect actual
steps that I can take, and which rely on no assumptions (i.e., I did not say “keep” the connection
with J; I can only try to keep it).
Implications
The implications of this solution are fourfold. First, it is possible that Eric will be
unhappy with me for keeping the connection with J for as long as I did without letting him know.
While it is good, under my system of values, that I am coming clean with Eric, it is also true that
when one decides to be honest, one must also accept that one had to have been dishonest first.
Second, it is possible that J will be angry with me for telling Eric. Third, it is possible that Eric’s
sister, S, may be unhappy with me as well, if for no other reason than the fact that J reached out
to an in-law before reaching out to her. Finally, it is possible that I will not be able to maintain
the connection with J, and that I shall have to live with my role in losing connection with him.
These implications are all negative; however, there are positive implications, too. Eric
may be reassured both by the fact that I told him and also by the fact that J at least reached out to
LOYALTY VERSUS CONNECTION?
7
someone on this side of the family (so, there is hope that the breach with J may eventually be
repaired). S may also be reassured by this development. In addition, it is possible that J will stay
connected with me regardless of Eric’s awareness of it. Honesty is important to J, and he may
well appreciate my inability to be dishonest with Eric. Finally, if J does remain connected, this
solution may represent the first step toward a broader rapprochement with J.
Moral Rule and Moral Judgment
My guiding moral rule here is that one should be honest with one’s husband. My moral
judgment is that it was wrong for me to have kept the truth from Eric about my covert
reconnection with his estranged nephew, and therefore right for me to break silence and let all
involved parties know the truth.
Summary of the Discovery Essay
Moral dilemma
Was it right of me to stay in contact with J, and to keep that connection a secret from my
partner?
Values considered and ranked
I considered these values, in this order:
1. being honest with my partner/husband to the greatest extent possible;
2. supporting my partner/husband;
3. being honest with those who are close to me (outside of my partner/husband) to the
greatest extent possible;
4. being honest in general, to the greatest extent possible;
5. being reasonable and flexible (accepting that some areas are grey);
6. seeing more than one side to an issue;
LOYALTY VERSUS CONNECTION?
8
7. accepting people for who they are; not judging;
8. keeping options open (and being patient with those who struggle with that ability); and
9. being loyal to loved ones, regardless of whether they are right or wrong.
Moral judgment
My moral judgment is that it was wrong for me to have kept the truth from Eric about my
covert reconnection with his estranged nephew, and therefore right for me to break silence and
let all involved parties know the truth.
Moral rule
My moral rule is that one should be honest with one’s husband.
Justification Essay
Starratt’s Ethical Frameworks
Starratt (1991) posited the merging of three ethical constructs into a whole system that
would help educators and administrators view their roles and their schools through an ethical
lens. These lenses were the ethics of critique, the ethics of justice, and the ethics of care.
To these three lenses we can add the fourth lens of the ethics of the organization or of the
profession. Johnson (2012) noted that leaders “… act as ethics officers for their organizations,
exercising influence through the process of social learning and by building positive ethical
climates” (p. 317). Johnson (2012) further noted that leaders have a profound impact on the
ethics of their organizations not simply by virtue of specific ethics-related decisions and policies,
but by virtue of the examples they set for their employees, “and by making sure that ethical
messages aren’t drowned out by messages about tasks and profits” (p. 350).
Starratt (1991) noted that the ethics of critique are based on the notion that society is
inevitably riven by struggles and conflicts among persons or groups of persons, rooted in their
LOYALTY VERSUS CONNECTION?
9
unavoidable differences in values, desires, and needs. An ethical system grounded in critique
will ask pointed questions that will illuminate this struggle, and determine the structural
imbalances in power and influence that enable certain persons or groups of persons to succeed
and others to fail.
Starratt (1991) further noted that while the ethics of critique can illuminate the
imbalances in power and influence that are embedded in the structure of society, they do not
illuminate possible or optimal responses to those imbalances. They do not tell one what to do in
response. For that, one must rely on the ethics of justice.
Starratt (1991) noted that the ethics of justice must refer to a universal guideline that
applies both to the person and to the organization to which that person belongs. “The ethic of
justice,” he noted, “demands that the claims of the institution serve both the common good and
the rights of the individuals” (p. 194).
Finally, Starratt (1991) acknowledged that the ethics of justice are incomplete, in that
they do not offer guidance when one’s ethical stance or need is in opposition to another’s ethical
stance or need. In this case, the ethic of justice “must be complemented or fulfilled in an ethic of
love,” because the ethic of love “focuses on the demands of relationships… from a standpoint of
absolute regard” (p. 195).
In essence, this means that each person has a worth that is equal to every other person,
and “neither one can be used as a means to an end” (p. 195). The ethics of caring “requires
fidelity to persons, a willingness to acknowledge their right to be who they are, an openness to
encountering them in their authentic individuality, a loyalty to the relationship” (p. 195).
My Dilemma and the Ethics of Critique
LOYALTY VERSUS CONNECTION?
10
While the ethics of critique might on the surface seem to focus purely on larger
organizations or societal groups, the questions asked by this system of ethics are in fact
applicable to smaller groups of individuals. Looking at the relationship between Eric, his sister
S, J (her biological son and Eric’s nephew), and myself, it is appropriate to ask questions related
to the inherent differences in wants and needs being expressed by the parties in this conflict, and
to recognize their relative sources and extents of power.
In this conflict, much symbolic power was invested in the roles of the mother (S) and her
biological son (J). They were the primary players. Their history informed the current conflict.
Their inability to engage responsibly with each other was key to the intractable nature of the
conflict, and both of them took steps to involve other parties (S called Eric and J emailed me) as
part of an elaboration or broadening of the conflict. From the point of view of the ethics of
critique, I had to ask, who had the power in this conflict, and what was my role and my
husband’s role? It was clear that we were subsidiary to the central conflict between J and S; it
was clear that we might be used, even unintentionally, by these two strong personalities.
My Dilemma and the Ethics of Justice
Now that I had diagnosed the imbalance of power, via the ethics of critique, what could I
do? To answer that question, I turned to the ethics of justice.
Starratt (1991) noted that the ethics of justice “demands that the claims of the institution
serve both the common good and the rights of the individual in the school” (p. 194). My ethical
dilemma was a personal one, but I saw a way to connect my personal dilemma to this construct.
In my case, the claims of the family were analogous to the claims of the institution, and those
claims had to serve both the good of the family and the rights of the individual in the family.
LOYALTY VERSUS CONNECTION?
11
On the one hand, the claims of the family might have led me to believe that I should
retain my connection to J as long as possible, and to lie to my husband about that connection all
the while. To some extent, that could have served the interests of the family (by retaining a
connection to a beloved but estranged member). But, my husband and I also had rights within
the family, as individuals in our own relationship. Lying to my husband about my connection to
J could have had a corrosive impact on our relationship.
By allowing myself to remain connected to J without Eric’s awareness, I was
perpetuating the imbalance of power exposed by the ethics of critique. I was allowing myself to
be a tool with which J could remain connected to the family covertly, without being connected to
the family overtly. If I did not admit this connection, I would be a subsidiary partner in J’s
possible campaign to exert pressure on his mother and his uncle through me. Only by
acknowledging to all parties that J had reconnected to me, could I force him to admit that he had,
indeed, wanted to reach back out – that he had, indeed, wanted to reconnect with the family.
My Dilemma and the Ethics of Caring
As noted above, Starratt (1991) acknowledged that the ethics of justice are incomplete, in
that they do not offer guidance when one’s ethical stance or need is in opposition to another’s
ethical stance or need. J had a strong need to remain connected to the family without announcing
that need. I had a strong need, primarily, to be honest with my husband, and secondarily, as
noted in my list of relevant values, to be reasonable and flexible, to keep options open, and to be
loyal to loved ones, regardless of whether they are right or wrong. What does one do in the face
of strong, opposing needs?
As noted earlier, Starratt (1991) stated that the ethic of caring “focuses on the demands of
relationships… from a standpoint of absolute regard” (p. 195). Each person has a worth that is
LOYALTY VERSUS CONNECTION?
12
equal to every other person, and “neither one can be used as a means to an end” (p.195). I could
not allow myself to be the means by which J retained connection to his birth mother and uncle, if
in doing so I was degrading the worth of my relationship with my husband.
At the same time, I deeply respected and valued my relationship with J. For that reason, I
opted to work toward retaining my relationship with J after acknowledging to Eric and his sister
that we had reconnected. Though my connection with Eric was primary, it did not negate my
relationship with J.
My Dilemma and the Ethics of Profession
As this is a personal dilemma, it is tempting to conclude that the ethics of profession play
no part in its resolution. But, I prefer to conclude that from an ethical point of view, I am never
“off duty.” From an ethical point of view, my behavior while not at work should rise to the same
standards as my behavior in the office.
Also, as noted earlier, Johnson (2012) stated that leaders “are the ethics officers of their
organizations” (p. 317). By extrapolation, each member of the family is the ethics officer for that
family, and by example can likewise lead the overall family in a sound ethical direction.
Concluding Remarks
As I have stated in my ethics journal, I struggled initially with the concept of ethical
issues, thinking that I had few examples of such dilemmas from which to draw. I thought that I
simply had problems or conflicts that I had to manage. I never saw them through an ethical lens.
Within a few weeks, after reading our text, participating in classroom activities, and
making my regular journal entries, I concluded that I was in fact surrounded by ethical issues
every day. I had simply not couched my dilemmas in ethical terms.
LOYALTY VERSUS CONNECTION?
13
I have actually completed the proposed course of action stated above. I told J that I was
going to be honest with Eric about the fact that J had reconnected with me. I was actually honest
with Eric about this reconnection, and I did all that I could to retain the connection with J after
the exposure of what he had done. I am happy to report that Eric was not only pleased that I had
been honest with him, he was also pleased that J had reached out to me (that J had retained
connection with at least one member of the family). Neither was J angry with me. We are still
keeping in touch via Facebook and other means, and are slowly working toward a rapprochement
that I understand may still be a long time coming.
It never occurred to me that my actions were wrong. Though I am by nature an anxious
and fretful person, in this case I never doubted the steps I took to resolve the issue with J, Eric,
and Eric’s sister. After writing this paper, I have concluded that I actually completed (albeit
quickly and unconsciously) the ethical decision making process that I have laid out here. This is
a reassuring conclusion.
At the same time, I have learned that I cannot be sure that I have operated in an
appropriately ethical way in other areas of my life, in response to other dilemmas. I think I was
just lucky here, or perhaps I just chose a good and clean example of a dilemma that was
appropriately solved.
Life moves very quickly, and there are few overt or social rewards for stopping and
spending undue time wondering about the correct course of action. Most of the time, we are
encouraged by friends, colleagues, family, and superiors to just “get over it and move on.” I am
myself moving about as quickly now as I ever have in my adult life. Yet, in the relatively short
space of time that I took to write this paper, I saw the value of a clear and regular ethical
decision-making process. I am using that process to examine the steps I took to resolve two
LOYALTY VERSUS CONNECTION?
14
other ethical dilemmas that I did not choose to be the subject of this paper. I have not come to
easy conclusions yet. Rather than just move on, I have decided that (as the assignment page put
it), “some re-thinking is in order.”
Perhaps that is what ethics boils down to: thinking hard, thinking honestly, wrestling
with it, and choosing not to walk away until the dilemma is done – or, at least, the lesson has
been learned.
LOYALTY VERSUS CONNECTION?
15
References
Johnson, C. E. (2012). Meeting the ethical challenges of leadership: Casting light or shadow.
Los Angeles: Sage.
Starratt, R. J. (1991). Building an ethical school: A theory for practice in educational leadership.
Educational Administration Quarterly, 27(2), 185-202.