Transformative Ethics:
An Ethical Decision
Making Process
The Williams Institute for Ethics and Management
The Williams Institute for Ethics and Management
6615 N. Scottsdale Road, Suite 250
Scottsdale, AZ 85250
www.ethics-twi.org
480-517-1891
TWI is a 501(C)3 whose mission is to promote ethics in community.
©2008 The Williams Institute for Ethics and Management-No part of this material can be reproduced without consent of The Williams Institute for Ethics and Management.
2
The Williams Institute for Ethics and Management©
TWI History
The Williams Institute for Ethics and Management (TWI) was formed as a 501(C)(3) nonprofit corporation in 1993.
The Co-Founders
In early 1986, Linda M. Williams was working in a policy position at NASA Headquarters in
Washington, DC, when the Space Shuttle Challenger exploded on January 28, 1986, at
11:39 AM EST—73 seconds into its flight—killing all seven crew members. This moment
stands out as a vivid experience that led many to "rethink" how we approach organizational decision making.
Although decision makers were usually guided in their ethical decision making by the 83page Standards of Conduct for Employees of the Executive Branch, nothing in that document could have assisted NASA managers in avoiding the tragedy that January morning.
The Rogers Commission, appointed by President Reagan, found that NASA‘s organizational culture and decision-making processes had been a key contributing factor to the disaster.
Immersed in analysis related to questions of ethics surrounding the Challenger disaster
until her resignation from NASA in June 1988, Linda Williams decided to change direction
in her career and follow a long-standing vision to serve the community through the social
services sector. She realized that her undergraduate and graduate degrees in business
did not adequately equip her to make some of the tough decisions related to ethics. She
returned to school in 1990 and earned a PhD in ethics and public policy from the Arizona
State University College of Law and Social Sciences with the intent to form a nonprofit
corporation that could assist decision makers in addressing the kinds of ethical issues
they are faced with every day. Jim and Linda founded The Williams Institute for Ethics and
Management (TWI) in 1993 with Dr. Linda M. Williams serving as President and CEO. Jim
and Linda Williams retired in 2007.
The institute is being directed by CEO and President David Braaten, Ph.D. and a capable
staff and involves over 70 volunteers. TWI currently partners with public and private organizations across the globe to bring assessments, training and consulting. For more information on TWI and our clients, visit our web site at www.ethics-twi.org.
The Williams Institute for Ethics and Management©
3
Objectives
1. Define ethics and why ethics is important.
2. Understand the difference between Conformative Ethics and Transformative Ethics.
3. To become aware of individual perspectives, to articulate these perspectives, and then to apply these perspectives to make better, more consistent decisions.
4. To learn a simple but dynamic ethical decision-making process and how to
apply it.
5. Solicit a personal commitment for continued use of the processes learned
to improve your organization and your community.
―The strength of a nation derives from the integrity of the home.‖
-Confucius 551-479 BC
4
The Williams Institute for Ethics and Management©
Definition of Ethics
Ethics is:
Conformative Ethics
“Ethics is not about standards, rules
and sanctions in isolation from
society.
__________________________
Ethics is about people and their
relationships with one another.”
__________________________
-Dr. Linda Williams
Co-Founder, The Williams Institute
Webster's New Universal Unabridged Dictionary
__________________________
Transformative Ethics
__________________________
___________________________
___________________________
If laws and ethics are in conflict, which should you follow?
_________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________
―Standards and Codes of Conduct are necessary, but not sufficient.‖
-Dr. David Braaten, President, CEO
The Williams Institute for Ethics and Management
The Williams Institute for Ethics and Management©
5
What we don’t need:
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
―No
longer acceptable: Another training program on whether or
not to take the free cup of coffee.‖
-Tom Stone, Executive Director, FBI LEEDA
It is now necessary to teach ethics as part of the culture, as a decision making process, and not
something that you do because of criticism.
What we need:
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
―Ethics is not about standards, rules and sanctions in isolation from society.
Ethics is about people and their relationships with one another.‖
-Dr. Linda Williams
C0-Founder, The Williams Institute
6
The Williams Institute for Ethics and Management©
Case Study Paul Hamm: Tarnish on the Gold?
In August of 2004, Paul Hamm recovered from a fall on the vault to become the first American male to win an Olympic gold medal in the all around gymnastics competition. Two days
later, the International Gymnastics Federation announced that South Korea's Yang Taeyoung, who finished third, had been wrongly docked a tenth of a point on his second-to-last
routine, a difference which would have put him 0.051 points ahead of Mr. Hamm, assuming everything else remained the same. The South Koreans approached both the U.S. Olympic Committee and the IOC to no avail in hopes of adjusting the rankings. On the final day
of the games, Yang filed an appeal with the Court of Arbitration for Sport. In November of
2004, a three-judge panel from the Court of Arbitration for Sport dismissed the appeal on
the grounds that the rules of gymnastics require that any protest related to an alleged judging error must be made during the competition, on the field of play.
In Paul Hamm's once-in-a-lifetime-opportunity, ERC Board Chairman Steve Potts, former
member of the US Olympic Committee, wrote that Paul Hamm had the chance to create a
legacy of inspiring sportsmanship for all time by giving up the gold medal. "Paul Hamm is a
deserving winner," said Mr. Potts. "But, through no fault of his own, there is tarnish on his
medal." Mr. Potts went on to state, "The rules of a game exist to assure a level playing field
for the competitors. Making a wise decision under these circumstances requires recognition of the fact that rules are not our masters. Our sense of justice demands that we know
when to make an exception to the rule," he said.
How do you feel this situation should be resolved?
Should Paul give back his medal or keep it?
The Williams Institute for Ethics and Management©
7
A3 Ethics Process
Making Good Ethical Decisions
Can we make people ethical?
NO
But we can help people learn how to make good decisions.
A3=
Awareness X Articulation X Application
A commitment to personal ethics is about developing a moral self capable of dealing with
ethical issues as they arise. This program presents the A3 approach to ethical decision
making—
A3 = AWARENESS X ARTICULATION X APPLICATION
AWARENESS of the foundational principles that define our ethical perspectives and
those of others.
ARTICULATION, or the ability to express the basis for your position and to justify your
decision making process—the critical skill that enables you to communicate your
perspective to others.
APPLICATION or ACTION—using your understanding of the basis for making good
choices (Awareness) and your ability to explain the principles behind your position (Articulation) to integrate ethical decision making into your daily activities.
8
The Williams Institute for Ethics and Management©
Awareness
Before learning the process of making ethical decisions, it is helpful to understand the foundational principles that define our ethical perspectives and
those of others. These four perspectives represent theories that have been
studied and written about by philosophers, theologians and ethicists since
man has been studying ethics.
C.O.R.E. Perspectives
Character (Virtue Theory-Aristotle and Alasdair MacIntyre)
Obligation ( Deontological Theory-Immanuel Kant and John Rawls)
Responsibility (Utilitarian Theory-Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill
Equity (Postmodern Theory-Michel Foucault and David Harvey)
Your Ethics Awareness Inventory is a statically valid and reliable assessment.
Over 550,000 people have taken it since 1996 to develop greater ethical
competency.
The Williams Institute for Ethics and Management©
9
MOST LEAS T
- Wisdom
- Independence
- Efficiency
- Originality
__C__ __C__
__O__
__R__
__E__ __E__
Your Individual Score__O__
__R__
- Accomp lish ment of desired results
- Ability to remain flexib le
- Co mmit ment to treat others with high regard
- Demonstration of sound moral th inking
__R__
__E__
__O__
__C__
__R__
__E__
__O__
__C__
ETHICS AWARENESS INVENTORY©
SCORING SUMMARY
C
O
R
E
{Row
Totals}
MOST
= 24
LEAS T
= 24
COMB INED
SCORE
=
0
You may check the accuracy of your scoring, by making certain that the MOST and LEAS T rows each
add up to 24. If they do not, you will need to go back and find your error in transferring your answers fro m your
inventory. Next, subtract the number in the LEAS T row fro m the nu mber in the MOS T row in each of the four
columns. This will result in some negative scores. You may check the accuracy of your scores by making certain
that the numbers in the COMB INED SCORE row add up to 0. In the space provided below, record the letter category (C, O, R, or E) in wh ich your largest COMB INED SCORE appears (the letter represented by the largest
positive score). This letter corresponds to a key word in the ETHICS AWARENESS PROFILE that begins on
the following page.
__________
Record the letter category (C, O, R, or E) in which your smallest COMB INED SCORE appears (the letter represented by the largest negative score).
__________
10
The Williams Institute for Ethics and Management©
Character Perspective

Place more emphasis on what it is good to be, rather than what it is good to
do

Look beyond a person‘s actions to their character

Look for evidence of integrity, uprightness, virtue, and honor

Focus on whether or not a person is consistently striving to be a morally
good person
People I know _____________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
What identifies them as using this perspective? _________________________
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
―A person educated in mind and not in morals is a menace to society.‖
-Juanita Kidd Stout
The Williams Institute for Ethics and Management©
11
Obligation Perspective

Believe people have a moral obligation or duty to follow standards of right
and wrong.

Evaluative the intent behind a person‘s actions, rather than focusing on the
results of the actions

Believe all human beings have intrinsic value

Dislike policies or rules that deny individuals the opportunities they deserve
as human beings.
People I know _____________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
What identifies them as using this perspective? _________________________
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
12
The Williams Institute for Ethics and Management©
Results Perspective

Believe that what really counts is what people accomplish, not the process
used to get there

Look for concrete evidence in a person‘s actions

Believe actions speak louder than words-people must ―walk the walk‖ not
just ―talk the talk‖.

Believe the goal of ethics is to achieve the greatest possible good for the
greatest number of people.
People I know _____________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
What identifies them as using this perspective? _________________________
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
The Williams Institute for Ethics and Management©
13
Equity Perspective

Dislike absolute standards of right and wrong

View ethics as capable of accommodating many viewpoints

Look at the practical consequences of a person‘s actins

Don‘t believe in universal moral principles—no rule is appropriate for all
times and all situations
People I know _____________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
What identifies them as using this perspective? _________________________
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
14
The Williams Institute for Ethics and Management©
BLENDED CATEGORIES
It is possible to have ethical beliefs that are represented in more than one category. Most individuals agree with at least some characteristics in all four categories, and the relationship between these categories form your unique ethical style. Therefore, these categories should be viewed as broad
descriptions of typical patterns. The purpose of the ETHICS A WARENESS INVENTOR Y is to strengthen your understanding of your own belief system. The idea of blended categories takes your A
WARENESS a step further.
If your second largest positive score is within one or two points of your largest, you first will want to
take a look at the compatibility of the two scores. You may want to consider whether (a) you are experiencing an internal conflict in attempting to function in two distinguishable moral realms, or (b)
your ethical style is simply a unique blend of two categories. For example, an individual whose largest combined scores are C and O (within one or two points of each other) is likely to support the
idea that ethical principles without goodness are powerless and goodness without some standards
or principles of right and wrong is ineffective. The two categories can be supportive of one another.
However, an individual whose high categories are O and R may be experiencing some internal conflicts between his/her own feeling of moral obligation to individuals, on the one hand, while attempting to produce specific results for some group or organization on the other. A careful examination of these blended categories to identify possible internal conflicts is recommended.
Secondly, you may want to consider whether you are being challenged by situations in which people
are asking you to do things that conflict with your personal ethical beliefs. You may feel pressured
in some situations to reject your own standards of right and wrong, causing a feeling of internal conflict. In completing this ETHICS A WARENESS INVENTORY, you were instructed to answer the questions in accordance with your personal ethical beliefs. However, it is possible that your personal belief system is being challenged by others asking you to set aside your principles in order to be accepted in certain circumstances. Until you are able to explain your sincere beliefs and consistently
act in accordance with those beliefs without compromise, you will continue to experience internal
moral conflict. This will create discomfort for you, and it will be difficult to make ethical decisions
that you can stand behind.
Keep in mind that these descriptive categories represent only four recognized categories of ethical
philosophy and theory. Other schools of thought may be more closely related to your ethical belief
system. However, these common descriptions should provide insight into some of the significant
differences of opinion that may arise when you are trying to reach an ethical decision, especially
when working with others. A better understanding of the conflicts that arise between you and others
regarding what is the right thing to do will be helpful. Hopefully, the ETHICS A WARENESS INVENTORY will encourage you to explore other resources and try to understand different ethical styles. A
WARENESS of your ethical perspective is the first step toward making ethics a central part of your
daily life and developing a better working relationship with others.
The Williams Institute for Ethics and Management©
15
Frustrations
You probably have had occasion to experience some frustrations when dealing
with others who have made decisions that impact you. You may have disagreed or didn‘t understand their thinking. There may have been times when
you had difficulty getting others to understand why you made the choices you
made. These frustrations may have come from differences in the ethical perspectives that you and others have taken. Knowing this can help you better
understand yourself and others.
16
The Williams Institute for Ethics and Management©
FRUSTRATIONS YOU FACE IN ADDRESSING ETHICAL DILEMMAS:
Character Perspective
•
Because social inequalities exist in our society, not everyone has an equal opportunity
to develop the virtues you value so highly. In ethical discussions, you may be frustrated as
you begin to realize that not all people have similar values.
• You believe that development of character within individuals is a slow and deliberate
process that has been neglected in recent years. This kind of ideal goal is not compatible
with the tendency for some people to look for "quick fixes" for problems.
• Although you strongly believe that mere compliance with organizational rules is not sufficient to develop ethical character within individuals, you may work for an organization that
relies heavily on some system of ethical rules and sanctions. You view this as an "artificial"
ethical environment that is less than sincere.
• You are frustrated when ethical considerations appear to be tacked on to the "real
business" of organizational decision making—almost as an afterthought. You believe that
this disregard for ethics is a negative reflection on the character of the decision makers.
• The people you work with may not have had the benefit of appropriate moral guidance
throughout their lives, and they may not understand your perspective.

The word "integrity" is used by many in ethical discussions, but modeled by few.
_____________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________
The Williams Institute for Ethics and Management©
17
FRUSTRATIONS YOU FACE IN ADDRESSING ETHICAL DILEMMAS:
Obligation Perspective
•
What you determine to be the right choice may not appear to be the most beneficial
choice, in the short-run, for the organization you have agreed to support. The right choice
does not necessarily benefit the decision maker.
• You believe that cost-benefit analysis (weighing the cost versus benefit of a specific
decision) is inappropriate for addressing issues with ethical considerations, even though
this is the preferred decision-making tool for many organizations. For example, some of the
things that you hold most dear are not easily measured, e.g., right and wrong; good and
evil; and the value of a human life.
• Your belief that we have a moral duty or obligation to do what is right leaves little room
for compromise when ethical principles are being violated.
• You are frustrated to discover how various individuals define right and wrong, how conflicts are sometimes resolved in an organizational setting, and who resolves them.
• The people you work with may argue that certain factions of society are not capable of
acting in their own best interests. You consider this a faulty argument that was once used
to deny equitable treatment to women and minorities.

Defending your ethical perspective may result in economic hardship, e.g., a lost promotion or termination.
_____________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________
18
The Williams Institute for Ethics and Management©
FRUSTRATIONS YOU FACE IN ADDRESSING ETHICAL DILEMMAS:
Results Perspective
• The inability to adequately measure the far-reaching impacts of an ethical decision
may compel you to focus your decision making on the immediate scope of the problem,
thereby creating conflicts with those who are not results-oriented.
• You are frustrated by the wide variety of competing views regarding what is good for
society as a whole and by the process used to determine whose view ultimately prevails.
•
In attempting to maximize the general good, you will, at some point, need to decide
whether your goal is to improve the total benefit to society as a whole (the aggregate) or the
total benefit per person within society (the average). This definition will have a direct impact on your approach to ethical decision making.
•
People who cling to the idealistic notion of protecting the interests of some minority of
the population may stand in the way of achieving the good life for the majority.
•
People you work with may not share your ethical approach, thereby interfering with
your ability to achieve the desired results.

What is best for the greater good of society may not be best for you.
_____________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________
The Williams Institute for Ethics and Management©
19
FRUSTRATIONS YOU FACE IN ADDRESSING ETHICAL DILEMMAS:
Equity Perspective
•
Your commitment to frequent reconsideration of a wide variety of differing alternative
viewpoints is unsettling to others who seek a sense of security in believing that they have
made the "right" decision.
• It is difficult, expensive and time-consuming to adequately analyze the far-reaching impact of an ethical decision. Extensive public input and debate is essential to the development of policy that supports tolerance and respect for diversity.
•
In periods of crisis or chaos within your organization, short-term benefits and image
frequently triumph over ethics as the primary concern.
•
People you work with may not acknowledge the complexity of the world as you see it
and will tend instead toward recommending highly simplified "solutions" that appear to be
little more than window dressing.
• Without the structure provided by established standards of right and wrong, it is sometimes difficult to justify your ethical decisions to others. Consensus becomes an arduous
task.

In today's society, you are frustrated that those with the most power are attempting to
define what is important to individuals under their control.
_____________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________
20
The Williams Institute for Ethics and Management©
Values Underlying the CORE Ethical Perspectives
In most personal and professional situations, it is important to overcome communication problems that occur when people
approach ethical problems, questions or concerns from different ethical perspectives. An often effective way to do this is to
find common ground for agreement by identifying the underlying values of the ethical perspectives that are shared by the
people involved. Each of TWI‘s CORE perspectives has several underlying values. Some of these values are quite similar
and can be a point from which to work toward common agreement on how to approach the ethical issue or concern involved,
such as setting priorities or agreeing on what the results could be.
An important thought to keep in mind is that, in most cases, each of us is trying to make the best ethical decision in the situation given the information we have and how we prioritize our values. The path that each of us takes in prioritizing the values of a particular perspective informs the reasoning used in deciding what is the right thing to do and how ought to do it.
Recognizing this fact is a first step in mutual ethical problem solving.
When applying the four step ethical decision making process presented in the Ethical Awareness Inventory, it is important to
understand that these values inform our reasoning at each step, especially in step four. Knowing and using these values will
make your ethical reasoning more effective in determining the best ethical decision available to you, and others. They will
help you more productively communicate the ethical choices you make.
Character
Obligation
Fairness
Fairness to others
Integrity
Commitment to duty
Honor
Primacy of universal principles of right and wrong
Exemplary reputation
Reliability
Commitment to virtue and decency
Dignity
Focus on what it is good to be, rather than to do
Personal fortitude
Justice
Rational thought
Respect for ideals/values
Respect for individual decision making
Equal goodwill toward others
Equal respect for others
Personal excellence
Excellence in principles and duty
Obligation
Results
Fairness to others
Fairness toward society as a whole
Commitment to duty
Commitment to greatest good for greatest number
Primacy of universal principles of right and wrong
Bottom line oriented
Reliability
Willingness to sacrifice for the good of the whole
Dignity
Achievement of goals/productivity
Personal fortitude
Effectiveness/efficiency
Rational thought
Achievement of the good life for the majority
Respect for individual decision making
Respect for technical expertise
Equal respect for others
Equal opportunity for all
Excellence in principles and duty
Excellence in outcomes for everyone
The Williams Institute for Ethics and Management©
21
A3 Ethics Process
Making Good Ethical Decisions
A3=
Awareness X Articulation X Application
Articulation
Now that you have reviewed your Ethics Awareness Profile, you have begun to explore how
an awareness of your ethical perspectives are reflected in the language you use. The second step in the A3 process—Articulation—is how we communicate our perspectives to others. Communication is important to giving successful voice to your ethical perspective and
opinions. However, your ability to identify the perspectives of others through recognizing
the language they use will further assist you in understanding and speaking to the needs
and values of others. In addition, using the language of another‘s perspectives to better
communicate your own perspective will help others understand your position more clearly,
leading to greater success.
22
The Williams Institute for Ethics and Management©
Why is articulation important?
Have you ever been at a loss for words when asked ―Why did you do that?‘ Or, when discussing ethical issues, do you sometimes find it hard to express how you feel and why a
particular discussion is the correct one?
Unfortunately, when it comes to making tough decisions, the one who is the loudest or
most powerful gets their way. Many times, this happens because some individuals have a
problem articulating their beliefs and positions.
Being able to understand the perspective you are taking and then explain your decision in a
way that others can understand is an important skill for effective communication.
The Williams Institute for Ethics and Management©
23
24
The Williams Institute for Ethics and Management©
Perspectives
Personal Attributes: Practical, Equitable,
Sensitive, Advocate, Mediator
Absolutes are overrated. What counts is
common agreement about that which
positively affects the future of society.
Personal Attributes: Productive, Goaloriented, Global thinker, Systematic,
Analytical
Equity
Outcomes that demonstrate the “greatest
good,” based on sound assessments of facts
and process, are good decisions.
Results
Personal Attributes: Consistent, Committed,
Dependable, Respectful, “Straight arrow”
People are always an end in themselves,
never a means to an end. The Golden Rule is
non-negotiable.
Obligation
Personal Attributes: Trustworthy, Genuine,
Transparent, Compassionate, Honorable
Good people do good actions. Good intent
based on good character is more important
that good outcomes.
Character
Pragmatism
Experience
Cultural Sensitivity
Long-term Impact
Alternative Views
Critical Thinking
Diffusion of Power
Consequences
Greatest Good
Improvement
Effectiveness
Efficiency
Goals
Productivity
Duty
Intent
Code of Conduct
Ethical Principles
Human Dignity
Individual Freedom
Autonomy
Integrity
Excellence
Honesty
Honor
Justice
Compassion
Wisdom
Key Concepts
“We need to work to change bad
rules…”
“Diversity is important…”
“We need to hear from the
powerless…”
“Remember why we’re here…”
“Let’s be practical…”
“Keep the big picture in mind…”
“The best approach is a systemic
approach…”
“We need to focus on the bottom
line…”
“They have a right to…”
“They deserve better…”
“We have a duty to…”
“We owe it to them…”
“It’s only fair to…”
“It’s the right thing to do.”
“Based on good conscience…”
“We need to protect our
reputation…”
Key Phrases
Committed to…
Frequent review of policies
Fairness to all involved
Wider sense of community
Extensive broad input
Respect for diversity
Tolerance
Consensus
Committed to…
Measurable results
Impact studies
Cost benefit analysis
Getting the job done
Protecting group interests
Betterment of society
Accomplishment
Committed to…
Principle-oriented decisions
A moral compass
Ethics training
Equal opportunity for all
Professional standards
Respect for humane
treatment
Rules of order
Committed to…
Good judgment
Equal opportunity
Quality performance
Moral excellence
Exemplary role modeling
Sincerity
Strong personal values
Individual Style
Your ability to articulate your perspective is important to giving successful voice to your ethical perspective and opinions. An individual’s
language can often provide clues to the perspective they deem most important. Identifying another’ perspective through recognizing the
language they use will help you speak to their needs and values, as well as better communicate your own perspective leading to better
understanding and greater success.
Identifying Ethical Styles
The Ethics Awareness Inventory uses four ethical perspectives to assist individuals in enhancing communication and building stronger working relationships with others. These four
perspectives have a profound impact on how we conduct business and make decisions
and the words we choose to explain our positions.
The four perspectives are each based on a different foundation:
Character-based perspectives are based on personal virtue. Individuals who score highly on
this perspective place the most value on individual integrity, honesty, wisdom, benevolence
and justice. They look for evidence that an individual is really a good person—deep down
inside—and that goodness is evident in their character.
Example of a Character-based comment:
―I want to be able to take pride in our decision.‖
―Our reputation in the community is more valuable than anything else we do.‖
Obligation-based perspectives are based on a sense of duty to do what is right. People who
score highest on this perspective value an explanation for the rationale or intent behind a
person‘s actions. They want to see an indication that decisions are based on a commitment
to basic universal principles of respect that govern a strong commitment to the best interests of all individuals involved.
Example of an Obligation-based comment:
―We are clearly in violation of our professional standards.‖
―We have a duty to do the right thing for our clients.‖
Results-oriented perspectives are based on the consequences of actions taken. Those who
score highly on this perspective find value in the bottom line. They measure the success of
ethical decisions by seeking concrete evidence that a given approach provides the greatest
good for the greatest number of persons.
Example of a Results-based comment
―Our first commitment is to our employees, customers and stockholders.‖
―If we can‘t demonstrate strong results tied to goals, we‘re not doing our job.‖
Equity-based perspectives are based on practical experience consistent with contemporary
society. Individuals who score highest on this perspective value a regard for the cultures
and lives of all people involved—including those on the fringes. They look for broad representation in decision making that minimizes the inappropriate use of power relationships.
Example of an Equity-based comment:
―What do we expect the long-term impact to be for our grandchildren?‖
―We need to work on the basis of consensus, not majority rule.‖
The Williams Institute for Ethics and Management©
25
Understanding CORE
Key Words
Integrity
Individual Style
Circle the perspective that is
represented by the key words
Committed to…
Excellence
Honesty
C
Honor
Justice
Compassion
O
Consequences
R
E
Circle the perspective that is
represented by the key words
Efficiency
C
Pragmatism
O
R
E
Circle the perspective that is
represented by the key words
Committed to…
Impact studies
Getting the job done
Achieving good for society
Accomplishment
Committed to…
O
Equal opportunity for all
Professional standards
R
Circle the perspective that is
represented by the key words
Conscience
Rules of order
Human Dignity
C
26
O
R
E
circle the perspective that is
represented by the Individual
Style
C
O
R
Committed to…
Equal opportunity
Circle the perspective that is
represented by the Individual
Style
C
Quality performance
O
R
Individual Freedom
Autonomy
C
E
Good judgment
Code of Conduct
Ethical Principles
Circle the perspective that is
represented by the Individual
style
Respect for humane treatment
E
Intent
E
Ethics training
C
Distrust of Power
Duty
R
A moral compass
Long-term Impact
Distaste for Rules
Tolerance
Principle-oriented decisions
Cultural Sensitivity
Critical Thinking
Respect for diversity
Betterment of society
Practical Experience
Alternative Views
O
Cost benefit analysis
Goals
Productivity
Wider sense of community
C
Measurable results
Improvement
Effectiveness
Fairness to all involved
Consensus
Greatest Good
Bottom Line
Frequent review of policies
Circle the perspective that is
represented by the Individual
Style
Extensive broad input
Wisdom
Personal Character
Individual Style
Moral excellence
Exemplary role modeling
O
R
Sincerity
E
Strong personal values
The Williams Institute for Ethics and Management©
E
3
A Ethics Process
Making Good Ethical Decisions
3
A=
Awareness X Articulation X Application
Application
The Williams Institute for Ethics and Management©
27
Why do people act unethically?
Formula for bad decisions:
Opportunity + Emotion = Bad Decisions
One way to minimize bad decisions is to
Create a decision making ____________________________.
Formula for building trust:
Trust = Positive predictable behavior
Time
28
The Williams Institute for Ethics and Management©
ETHICAL DECISION MAKING
No matter which ethical perspective the ETHICS A WARENESS INVENTORY™ identified as
yours and no matter what your ethical style, the important thing to understand is that we all
face situations in which we must choose what we believe is "right." It is critical to develop a
process to guide us in our efforts to make good ethical decisions—one that will allow us to
consider a variety of aspects that affect not only our immediate decision but its impact on
other people. TWI offers four logical questions to ask yourself and others before making an
ethical decision:
TWI‘s Four Steps for Ethical Decision Making™
―WIPE‖ out bad decisions
1. Who would be affected by my decision?
W– Who
2. What would be the impact of my decision?
I-Impact
3. What ethical perspective is reflected by my decision?
P-Perspective
4. Can I justify my decision on ethical grounds?
E-Ethical Grounds
Positive Outcomes:
1. Everyone makes decisions based on common goals and objectives.
2. Creates a common modality.
3. Accountable to each other.
4. Promotes quality, consistent decisions.
5. Builds trust.
Build Trust =
Positive Predictable Behavior
Time
The Williams Institute for Ethics and Management©
29
Who will be affected by my decision?
The purpose of this question is to examine…

Who are the people most immediately impacted by my decisions?

Who else will be touched in some way by this decision-those not quite so obvious?

Who is strongly supporting a specific outcome? Why?

Who might have a strong opinion about this decision but lacks the power, money or status to be heard?

Who is affected in the short-run, and who may be affected a year or more from now?

What opportunities have all these stakeholders had to be heard? What did they have to
say?

Does my ethical decision making impact my family and friends? What do they think?
With which of these points do you do well? Which would you like to improve?
_____________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________
30
The Williams Institute for Ethics and Management©
What would be the impact of my decision?
The purpose of this question is to examine…

Have I compared a variety of alternative decisions?

What have all those who might be affected had to say about how each different decision might impact them?

Have I gotten input from all stakeholders? What do I need to do to get input from those
I have not heard?

What evidence exists to support my conclusions regarding the impact of various decisions?

Have I tailored my fact finding to fit some preconceived result or desired outcome I prefer?
With which of these points do you do well? Which would you like to improve?
_____________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________
The Williams Institute for Ethics and Management©
31
What ethical perspective is reflected by my decision?
The purpose of this question is to examine...

What do I believe is the best ethical decision in this case?

What CORE belief underlies each of the alternative decisions I considered? What CORE
belief underlies my decisions?
Character?
Obligation?
Results?
Equity?

Are there other factors that have influenced my decision making?
Pressure from above?
Pressure from peers?
Interest groups?
Personal financial gain?
Chance to get ahead?
Limited information?
Convenience?
Threats?
With which of these points do you do well? Which would you like to improve?
_____________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________
32
The Williams Institute for Ethics and Management©
Can I justify my decision on ethical grounds?
The purpose of this question is to examine…

Is my decision fair to everyone involved? What is the ethical basis I used to determine
its fairness?

Do I feel uncomfortable or frustrated with my decision? If so, Why? If not, why not?

If I were on the receiving end of this decision, would I feel that I had been treated fairly?

Does my decision fit my ethical perspective and style?

Would I feel comfortable having this story appear on the front page of my local newspaper? Would I be able to justify my decision if I were interviewed?

What ethical justification would I use to explain my decisions?

Would I use this case as an example to teach young people about making good ethical
decisions?

Have I rationalized my position in answering any of these questions?
With which of these points do you do well? Which would you like to improve?
_____________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________
The Williams Institute for Ethics and Management©
33
ETHICAL DECISION MAKING-A CASE STUDY
In a column appearing in The Arizona Republic, Steve Wilson shared the following story from his own
experience and invited readers to use his example to make some decisions about ethics in everyday life.
To come clean or play dumb in court…a personal case, a photo-radar ticket I didn‘t
pay…
A photo-radar camera once caught me speeding in Paradise Valley and identified
my license plate, but the picture was too dark to identify the driver. When I showed up in
court, the judge looked at the photo and asked whether I could tell who was driving. I said
the photo was too dark. He agreed and dismissed the ticket. I defended my behavior as consistent with the law and the rules of the photo-radar game. The picture didn‘t identify the
driver, and I had no obligation to incriminate myself.
The situation, I contended, was similar to being pursued for speeding by a police
car that has to stop because of a flat tire, or running a stop sign and not getting nabbed only
because the police didn‘t see it. If I should pay despite the incomplete evidence, why
shouldn‘t the driver who eludes a ticket thanks to the flat or all others who are able to get
away with committing a crime?
A C perspective based on Character is concerned with what it is good to be, rather than what it
is good to do. If Steve was working out of a C perspective, his primary objective would be to
protect his character and integrity. It is likely that he would have focused on maintaining a
spotless reputation.
An O perspective based on Obligation will focus on duty, what a rational person ought morally to
do. ―Obligation‖ or ―duty‖ in this case is not related to the letter of the law, but rather to
principles of moral duty. Steve‘s decision following an O perspective would likely lead him to
―treat persons in authority with honesty and respect,‖ thereby requiring him to ―‘fess up‖ to
the judge.
An R perspective based on Results places an emphasis on the consequences of our actions,
seeking to serve the greater good. The greater good, in Steve‘s case, would weight the benefits and costs. Steve may have made his decision based on the ‗bottom line‘ belief that
paying a fine would not make the streets any safer, but an R perspective would also take
into consideration the benefits associated with learning through consequences, funding of
public services, and teaching by example.
An E perspective based on Equity supports practical day-to-day experience as the only reasonable guide to action. It is likely that Steve‘s decision was based on his assessment that he is
not by nature an unlawful person, that he has learned from the experience already, that no
potential exists for ongoing threats to public safety, and that no significant far-reaching
damage will be done by not paying a fine. In addition, true justice requires guilt based on
evidence that leaves no doubt. However, a decision based on an E perspective would also
seek input from others in the community who may be affected.
34
The Williams Institute for Ethics and Management©
Keys to leading an ethical organization:
Four Pillars of an Ethical Organization
-Evidence of openness and commitment to ethical communication
(Transparency)
-Evidence of respect for individual judgment
(Respect)
-Evidence of organizational integration of performance integrity
(Performance)
-Evidence of individual trust and empowerment
(Trust)
My commitment to do something great:
I Will:
_____________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________
The Williams Institute for Ethics and Management©
35
Appendix
36
The Williams Institute for Ethics and Management©
Ethics Awareness Inventory©
Background Reading on Four Ethical Perspectives
Introduction and Background:
Research indicates that we have grown to think of ethics in terms of rules, oversight and compliance with established standards. Policy experts consistently attempt to address ethical problems
with more regulations and more laws, but ultimately normative and applied ethics are about relationships. The word ethics derives from the classical Greek terms ethos and ta ethika. To the ancient Greeks, ethos meant personal character, and ta ethika signified the investigation into the nature of a society‘s striving to achieve the virtuous life or the right way to live. Although a certain
number of ethics guidelines are always necessary within organizations, an emphasis on ethics as
‗compliance‘ can be detrimental to the growth of individual character and accountability. In addition, a focus on rules and regulations associated with ethics does not provide support for the moral
dialogue necessary when the rules are not quite sufficient or lack clarity in addressing ambiguous
ethical issues. The Ethics Awareness Inventory© (EAI) is useful in gaining insight into differing ethical perspectives and in developing a moral language for ethical decision making.
The EAI has been designed to support the process for developing a moral self capable of dealing
with ethical questions as they arise. An acute AWARENESS of the basis for our ethical perspective
and those of others is critical to facilitating effective communication. Without a clear understanding
of the general principles or concepts that define individual ethical perspectives and styles and the
source of our own approach to ethical decisions, we can be left with nothing more to add to the dialogue than ―It just doesn‘t feel right!‖ The EAI provides students with a starting point for exploring
the philosophical context for the primary principles they use in defining right and wrong. Many students have shared that prior to completing the EAI, they had never thought about the reasons why
one particular action ‗felt‘ right and another ‗felt‘ wrong.
Philosophical Framework:
(The) history of antiquity did not teach the inevitability of progress. It taught the perishability of republics, the transience of glory, the mutability of human affairs….This
tradition argued that republics lived and died by virtue—and that in the fullness of
time, power and luxury inexorably brought corruption and decay….Not only was man
vulnerable through his propensity to sin, but republics were vulnerable through their
propensity to corruption. History showed that, in the unceasing contest between corruption and virtue, corruption has always—up at least to 1776—triumphed….The
Founding Fathers saw the American republic not as a divine consecration but as the
test against history of a hypothesis. Yet the very faith in experiment implied the rejection of the classical republican dogma that time guaranteed decay.
Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr., The Cycles of American History (Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin Co., 1986),
pp. 6, 10. —Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr.
The Williams Institute for Ethics and Management©
37
What is this Concept Called ‘Ethics’?—Throughout the early 1990s, we were surrounded by evidence of the general public‘s perception that corruption is winning in its ‗unceasing contest‘ against
virtue. Frequent references to a lack of trust in our leaders were cited as evidence of people‘s
‗propensity to sin‘ and a republic‘s ‗propensity to corruption.‘ Now that we have entered the 21st
century, leaders are becoming increasingly aware of the need to address ethics within their constituency. But when the public and the news media make reference to an ‗ethical decline‘ among our
leaders and a concern for ‗personal ethics and values‘ in today‘s society, what exactly do they
mean? What do they perceive to be the problem? Is the concept of ‗ethics,‘ as reflected in public
opinion surveys, even subject to clear definition? Can there be any real consensus on the questions
or the responses without first examining the moral foundations of the individual and societal belief
systems underlying them?
Ethics, as a branch of philosophy, is concerned with morality, moral problems, and moral judgments, dealing with such elusive terms as ‗values,‘ ‗right,‘ and ‗good.‘ It deals with issues beyond
the realm of traditional rules and customs and unconscious habits. However, at its deepest level of
inquiry, public opinion takes a cursory look at possible contributing factors and solutions to unacceptable conduct. This approach to ethical thinking represents a critically deficient attempt at normative ethics.
We ought to view with suspicion the recent American addiction to easy and instant
moral indignation. It exhibits the kind of need to find a whipping boy which is characteristically a symptom of a deep, but unacknowledged unease about oneself.
—Alasdair MacIntyre
Typically, philosophical studies of professional ethics have tended to limit their level of inquiry to
case studies of ethical dilemmas and the application of traditional principles to specific hypothetical problems, a field of study often referred to as ‗applied ethics.‘ These studies of professional
ethics frequently reflect the gulf that exists between the work of moral philosophers and the daily
practice of professionals.
At this point, it might be useful, therefore, to explore what insight philosophical theory can bring to
bear on the public‘s increased concern for ethics and the possible dangers that exist in attempting
to separate philosophy from policy. Generally some benefit is derived from applying theory to a situation with which most readers of whatever background can identify. It is important to realize that
providing such an example for study is merely intended to be illustrative; the complexities of individuals and policy decisions do not always allow for the relatively simplistic definitions that these
sketches will portray.
The case upon which I will focus occurred 20 years ago on January 28, 1986. On that date, while I
was serving in a policy position at NASA Headquarters in Washington, DC, seven astronauts lost
their lives while the nation watched on network television, transfixed by the reality that NASA‘s highly-publicized ‗Teacher in Space‘ program had ended in disaster. That program became one of the
most visible public policy decisions of the late 20th century, and its impact continues to play a prominent role in nearly every policy decision at NASA today. Overshadowed by the ethical dilemma
posed by the decision to launch that morning despite less than ideal weather conditions and warnings from Thiokol engineers, in the months following the Challenger incident NASA officials were
faced
Alasdair MacIntyre, ―Why Are The Problems of Business Ethics Insoluble?‖ in Moral Responsibility and the Professions,
eds. Bernard Baumrin and Benjamin Freedman (New York, NY: Haven Publications, 1983), p. 351.
38
The Williams Institute for Ethics and Management©
with a barrage of criticism for a variety of other less-publicized ethical issues. The question we will
use for our analysis of the four theories represented in the Ethics Awareness Inventory© is whether
Christa McAuliffe, the person selected by NASA to be their Teacher in Space, should have been in
that space shuttle at all. Should NASA have launched the ‗Teacher in Space‘ program? Hindsight
always seeming to provide more keenness of perception than foresight, policy experts began to
question the advisability of NASA‘s inclusion of civilians in space exploration. What can each of the
four moral theories featured in the EAI contribute to a thoughtful analysis of this decision?
Character—The ‗Character‘ perspective in the EAI, represented by the letter C, is most closely
aligned with virtue theory for which the primary concern is what it is good to be, rather than what it
is good to do. In other words, this theory looks to an individual‘s character, rather than to an individual‘s duty, conduct, or actions. Morality focuses on judgment and the cultivation of virtues. This theory focuses more on the development of moral character, on the kind of traits one would consider
to be exemplary. In some respects, it goes beyond the expression of duty or obligation, and beyond
the expression of moral standards of right and wrong. Instead, it calls for the qualities of character
we can bring to bear on complex ethical decisions that require judgment, wisdom, and integrity in
order to choose between conflicting rules or standards of right and wrong.
Virtue theorists offer a critique of liberal moral theory and its emphasis on abstract principles, arguing that without virtue we would not be inclined to follow principles of duty. Mere compliance with
rules, no matter how well-intentioned, cannot be considered morality without being accompanied by
consistent voluntary striving to be morally good or virtuous, to cultivate those traits that go beyond
conformity to internalized rules of moral duty and obligation. Some moral theorists argue that, without some principles, we are unable or unwilling to provide an equal opportunity for individuals to
develop the virtues. This debate leads Frankena to the conclusion that the morality of duty and the
morality of virtues are ―two complementary aspects of the same morality…To parody a famous dictum of Kant‘s, I am inclined to think that principles without traits are impotent and traits without
principles are blind.‖
An exploration of how the virtues could play a significant role in a decision like the one to offer a
‗Teacher in Space‘ program would focus on an examination of the consistency of character traits
modeled by individual policy makers. Is the decision based on a set of moral rules and principles or
is it based on a set of virtues and traits of character—or both? Rather than merely reasoning about
what would constitute the appropriate moral rule to be applied in this circumstance, the virtue of
practical wisdom cultivated within the individual policy maker inevitably would result in an ethical
decision—through excellence of deliberation and character. The rote fulfillment of duty without the
attendant traits of character could not be considered a virtuous action. These traits or virtues include, among others, benevolence, justice, honesty, practical wisdom, conscientiousness, moral
courage, moral responsibility, integrity and good will.
By applying the Character perspective (virtue theory), the ethics involved in the decision to offer a
‗Teacher in Space‘ program could not be based solely on an obligation to moral rules or on an assessment of the results to be achieved or the benefits to be gained; it would require an emphasis
on the recognition of the role personal and social ideals play in the moral development of individuals. Rosemarie Tong discusses the importance of ideals—―The power of an ideal differs from the
force of a rule. It takes time to live up to an ideal, and failure to live up to it results in a sense of personal dissatisfaction.‖ And what of NASA‘s decision to offer a ‗Teacher in Space‘ program? Was the
focus on ideals and the moral development of individuals?
William K. Frankena, Ethics (Second Edition) (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1973), p. 65.
Rosemarie Tong, Ethics in Policy Analysis (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1986),
The Williams Institute for Ethics and Management©
39
Historically, virtue theory is the oldest normative theory in Western philosophy with its roots in ancient Greek civilization; refer to the writings of Plato and Aristotle. Later, however, medieval theologians built upon Greek virtue theory, but interest in this field declined during the 19th century. More
recently interest in virtue theory has been renewed through the writings of philosophers such as
Alasdair MacIntyre, Philippa Foot, and Sara L. Ruddick.
Obligation—The ‗Obligation‘ perspective in the EAI, represented by the letter O, is most closely
aligned with a deontological theory in which the focus is on an individual‘s duty or obligation to do
what is morally right. This theory looks to what we intend by our actions, rather than the consequences of our actions. Immanuel Kant is the philosopher most frequently associated with this
moral theory. By appealing to ‗conscience‘ and the notion that individuals are moved to action by
moral reason, Kant seeks to justify that ordinary moral judgments, in the Judeo-Christian tradition,
are legitimately true.
Kant offers us a ‗categorical imperative‘ by formulating three equal principles of morality:
1. Moral law must be universalizable. In other words, morality must be freely chosen by selfdetermining, rational agents if they are to be held responsible. Moral resolve is unqualified; intention is key. Duty must be done for duty‘s sake.
2. Moral law calls for us to treat each person, including ourselves, with respect. Respect for human dignity is the fundamental birthright of all rational persons. Kant‘s principle of humanity teaches us that human beings have intrinsic value and, therefore, must not be used solely to accomplish
one‘s own ends.
Moral law recognizes all rational beings as autonomous agents by virtue of their ability to make
their own decisions and to chart individual courses of action. Kant considered this notion of autonomy to be fundamental to human dignity and the source of all morality.
Using obligation to examine the ethical questions raised earlier regarding NASA‘s ‗Teacher in
Space‘ program and remembering that intention must be the focus of this perspective, we turn to
some key goals of the mission statement contained in The National Aeronautics and Space Act,
including:
…it is the policy of the United States that activities in space should be devoted to
peaceful purposes for the benefit of mankind.
…[the program should seek] expansion of human knowledge of the Earth and of
phenomena in the atmosphere and space.
In making the decision to offer opportunities for expanded knowledge to the American people
through the ‗Teacher in Space‘ program, NASA policy officials would be following a moral rule, or
principle, that they believed to be appropriate (universalizable under any circumstances). Such a
rule might be, ―Provide opportunities for individuals to grow.‖ In this case, NASA could use Obligation to justify the program rationally on the basis that it presents an opportunity for the growth of
human knowledge. If, however, the teacher‘s growth and the potential learning experience for the
nation‘s youth were actually secondary to a desire for material benefits to be derived by the agency, then individuals would be subject to treatment as means to some identified agency end, such
as an increased budget allocation from Congress. An action of this kind would be considered immoral or invalid under using this perspective.
See Immanuel Kant, Groundwork of the Metaphysic of Morals, in David Theo Goldberg, Ethical Theory and Social Issues: Historical Texts and Contemporary Readings (Fort Worth, TX: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc.,
1989), pp. 111-129.
40
The Williams Institute for Ethics and Management©
Kant seeks to establish a philosophical justification for general moral principles found within the
Judeo-Christian tradition. His work has exerted significant and lasting influence on modern moral
philosophy. More recently, the writings of John Rawls and W.D. Ross have expanded upon Kant‘s
work.
Results—The ‗Results‘ perspective in the EAI, represented by the letter R, is most closely aligned
with utilitarianism for which the primary concern is the consequences of our actions, seeking to
maximize the greatest balance of good over evil. This standard for measuring rightness or wrongness is referred to as the principle of utility. It is particularly appealing to consider the notion of being able to measure good and evil mathematically and efficiently in the interest of achieving a net
balance of good in people‘s lives. Moral rules are not determined by appealing to rationally determined duty and intention but rather by following the course of action that will result in consequences that best maximize utility. This major difference places the O perspective (deontology) and the R
perspective (utilitarianism) deeply at odds with one another.
Utilitarian theorists look to the benefits to be derived from a specific act or rule. The consequences
are of prime importance, and they ought to be objectively examined by using a value-neutral approach. Decisions must serve to maximize the social good. Utilitarians argue that the principle of
utility has the potential to achieve a greater level of social equality by providing principles to achieve
a greater average good—or a higher quality of life, on average, for each individual.
If NASA officials would determine that following the rule ‗Do not seek to expand human knowledge‘
could produce a greater net benefit for the agency than ‗Seek to expand human knowledge,‘ the
rule-utilitarians among them would not be in support of the ‗Teacher in Space‘ project. In fact, it
would be wrong in their view to pursue the project. An act-utilitarian, on the other hand, would be
willing to support the ‗Teacher in Space‘ project if it was part of a more general program that would
produce greater overall benefit than any other available option to achieve the desired result.
Utilitarianism is a tradition established in the late-18th and 19th centuries by English philosophers
and economists Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill. Their theory is based on the belief that an
action is right if it tends to promote happiness and wrong if it tends to produce the reverse of happiness. The happiness quotient applies not just to the performer of the action but also to everyone
affected by the decision. Other utilitarian philosophers include Henry Sidgwick, a late-19th century
Cambridge philosopher; G. E. Moore, a 20th century British philosopher; and R. M. Hare, an Oxford
philosopher who died in 2002.
Equity—The ‗Equity‘ perspective in the EAI, represented by the letter E, is most closely aligned with a
postmodern theory that emerged in the early 1970s and developed as a critique of the traditional
principles associated with philosophical thinking in ‗modern‘ times (generally considered as a part
of the Enlightenment project of the 18th century). This critique challenges five major characteristics
of modern thought (including deontology and utilitarianism): 1) its commitment to individualism; 2)
its commitment to equality; 3) the notion of social progress; 4) its commitment to universal principles shared by a common humanity and based on the concept of universal reason; and 5) its commitment to absolute truths, objective science, and the rational planning of ideal social orders.
Postmodern theorists place a greater focus on the inherent value and dignity of others than on individualism, placing more emphasis on the fragmentation of individuals in today‘s society. They reject
the rigidity of institutionalized standards, regarding rules themselves as intrinsically oppressive.
Postmodern theory is concerned with the instabilities of society and is characterized by an intense
distrust of traditional universal principles and moral values, viewing them as either outdated or
The Williams Institute for Ethics and Management©
41
oppressive. It is important that the individual be set free from the social limitations imposed by universal answers formulated by a body of experts. Pragmatism is the only guide to action; no principled solution is adequate for all time. Equality is not to be assessed by using standards of equal
opportunity. Postmodern theorists are responsible only to persons and actual communities in a society characterized by rapid and constant change and widespread insecurity. Michel Foucault suggests that we question the use of the theory or right to fix the legitimacy of power:
Let us not, therefore, ask why certain people want to dominate, what they seek,
what is their overall strategy. Let us ask, instead, how things work at the level of ongoing subjugation, at the level of those continuous and uninterrupted processes
which subject our bodies, govern our gestures, dictate our behaviours, etc….One
needs to investigate historically, and beginning from the lowest level, how mechanisms of power have been able to function…We need to see how these mechanisms
of power, at a given moment, in a precise conjecture and by means of a certain
number of transformations, have begun to become economically advantageous and
politically useful.
Using a critical pragmatic analysis, NASA officials would begin their decision making process by considering the far-reaching impact of implementing the ‗Teacher in Space‘ program. They would attempt to examine a number of alternatives reflecting a wide range of theoretical bases. Participation is seen as critical by postmodern theorists. Therefore, the decision making process would most
likely provide the opportunity for public discussion in partnership with top NASA leaders. Recognizing the belief that exclusionary, discriminatory, and oppressive power is objectionable and that the
dehumanization of human subjects is unacceptable, NASA officials would require the representation of voices that traditionally have not played an active role in decision making (including astronauts, teachers, parents, and students). This process would attempt to reach a decision reflecting
the best ethical judgment of stakeholders representing a variety of roles.
A group of French theorists brought postmodernism into the philosophical world—Michel Foucault,
Jacques Derrida, Roland Barthes, Jacques Lacan, and Julia Kristeva. Although these philosophers
were not originally associated with postmodernism, the publication of Jean-François Lyotard‘s Postmodern Condition in 1979 made the two nearly synonymous. Another reference is David Harvey‘s
The Condition of Postmodernity: An Enquiry into the Origins of Cultural Change (1990).
This background is intended to provide a broad perspective on different views of moral theory that
underlie some of the common belief systems of individuals. An examination of the escalation of a
public concern for ethics in recent years requires us to develop an understanding of the meaning
behind the public‘s perception and the manner in which current beliefs and values are supported
and justified. What principles of ethical thought are instrumental in reaching a particular judgment?
Ethics involves much more than the institutionalization of codes of ethics and standards of conduct. It includes an inquiry into what is right or good and the ability to give reasons for our judgment. Without this ability, individuals experience the discomfort that accompanies tensions between personal belief systems and institutionalized demands.
—Linda M. Williams, Ph.D.
Michel Foucault, ―Two Lectures.‖ In Power/Knowledge: Selected Interviews and Other Writings, 1972-1977, ed. Colin
Gordon (New York, NY: Pantheon Books, 1980), pp. 97-101.
42
The Williams Institute for Ethics and Management©
Readings in Ethics
GENERAL
 Perspectives in Business Ethics, Laura P. Hartment

The Power of Principles: Ethics for the New Corporate Culture, William J. Byron
CHARACTER READINGS
(C) Virtue Theory

After Virtue: A Study in Moral Theory, by Alasdair MacIntyre

The Nicomachean Ethics, by Aristotle, edited by Hugh Tredennick, J. A. K. Thomson,
and Jonathan Barnes
OBLIGATION READINGS
(O) Deontological Theory

Critique of Pure Reason, Immanuel Kant

Critique of the Power of Judgment, Immanuel Kant
The Williams Institute for Ethics and Management©
43
 Lectures on the History of Moral Philosophy, John Rawls and Barbara
Herman John Rawls (Author) › Visit Amazon's John Rawls Page
 A Theory of Justice, John Rawls
RESULTS READINGS
(R) Utilitarian Theory

Utilitarianism by John Stuart Mill (the book)

Utilitarianism and Other Essays by John Stuart Mill, Jeremy Bentham, and Alan Ryan

Consequentialism (Blackwell Readings in Philosophy), Stephen Darwell, Editor
Equity Reading
(E) Postmodern Theory
44

The Foucault Reader, Michel Foucault edited by Paul Rabinow

Philosophy and Social Hope, Richard Rorty

Postmodern History Reader, Keith Jenkins

Postmodern Ethics by Zygmunt Bauman
The Williams Institute for Ethics and Management©
Identifying Others‘ Perspective
Perspective
Key Words
Character
Place more emphasis
on what it is good to
be, rather than what it
is good to do
Integrity
Committed to…
Excellence
Good judgment
Honesty
Quality performance
Justice
Moral excellence
Compassion
Personal Character
Duty
Believe people have a
moral obligation or duty to follow standards
of right and wrong
Conscience
Intent
Equity
Dislike absolute standards of right and wrong
Sincerity
Strong personal values
Committed to…
Principle-oriented decisions
A moral compass
Ethics training
Ethical Principles
Equal opportunity for all
Human Dignity
Professional standards
Autonomy
Believe that what really counts is what people accomplish, not the
process used to get
there
Exemplary role modeling
Code of Conduct
Individual Freedom
Results
Equal opportunity
Honor
Wisdom
Obligation
Individual Style
Respect for humane treatment
Rules of order
Consequences
Committed to…
Greatest Good
Measurable results
Bottom Line
Impact studies
Improvement
Cost benefit analysis
Effectiveness
Getting the job done
Efficiency
Goals
Achieving good for society
Betterment of society
Productivity
Accomplishment
Pragmatism
Committed to…
Practical Experience
Frequent review of policies
Cultural Sensitivity
Fairness to all involved
Long-term Impact
Wider sense of community
Alternative Views
Extensive broad input
Critical Thinking
Respect for diversity
Distrust of Power
Tolerance
Distaste for Rules
Consensus
The Williams Institute for Ethics and Management©
45
The Williams Institute for Ethics and Management
6615 North Scottsdale Road
Suite 250
Scottsdale, Arizona 85250
480-517-1891
www.ethics-twi.org
46
The Williams Institute for Ethics and Management©