SLC 300 (601) Fall 2024 Leading with an Ethical Perspective

This module based on ethics and ethical decision making was a glimpse back into the past for me which I found interesting. Last fall I took contemporary moral issues with Dr. Krylow. The first half of this philosophy course was focused on the foundation and building blocks that made up philosophy. A large chunk of the foundation and building blocks we learned delt with different ethical lenses such as utilitarianism, Kantianism, and other ethical philosophies. In this class as the title of the class states we looked at moral issues that were happening in the world and dissected them through the different ethical lenses that we learned. However, in this module I got the opportunity to take my prior knowledge and new knowledge I learned through reading the articles and apply it to more relevant topics in my life such as the business world and ongoing ethical issues it faces. The business world is littered with ethical dilemmas at all points. Most people see these dilemmas as being either right or wrong. However, when we look at these dilemmas through different ethical lenses it may shed some light on the through process that went into the decision made. For example, Cisco, a leader in the tech industry, has repeated mass layoffs of its workforce multiple times a year. Most people on the outside, see it as highly unethical to fire a large amount of employess frequently. However, if we look at this situation from a utilitarian perspective it may make more sense. What if firing a couple of thousand employees here and there keeps the company at a profitable margin and allows all the other employees to reap the benefits and keep a stable job? This would benefit the majority in this situation. 

After reading this article, I realized how complex ethical decision-making can be. It’s not just about following rules or going with what feels right. Instead, it involves careful consideration of multiple perspectives and values. The article highlights six different lenses—Rights, Justice, Utilitarian, Common Good, Virtue, and Care Ethics—each offering a unique way to view and resolve ethical dilemmas.

I learned that ethics is not just a set of feelings, laws, or social norms. It’s more about understanding the deeper principles that guide our actions and decisions, such as fairness, respect, and compassion. For example, the Justice Lens emphasizes fairness and giving people what they deserve, while the Common Good Lens focuses on what benefits society as a whole. I found the Care Ethics Lens particularly interesting because it stresses empathy and the importance of relationships in ethical decision-making, which often gets overlooked in favor of more rule-based approaches.

The framework presented in the article provides a structured way to navigate tough decisions, asking us to consider how each option respects rights, treats people fairly, benefits the most people, and aligns with our own values and character. It’s a reminder that ethical choices are rarely black and white and often require us to balance competing values and interests.

Overall, the article deepened my understanding of how to think ethically in a variety of situations, from personal decisions to broader social issues. It also made me more aware of the need for open dialogue and reflection when faced with moral dilemmas, as different people might prioritize different ethical lenses based on their perspectives and values.

This article discusses the different ways we can approach moral dilemmas, presenting five distinct methods: the Utilitarian Approach, the Rights Approach, the Fairness or Justice Approach, the Common-Good Approach, and the Virtue Approach. Each of these frameworks offers a unique perspective for evaluating ethical issues, helping us consider the various factors involved in making responsible decisions.

The Utilitarian Approach involves three steps. First, we identify the different courses of action available to us. Second, we assess who will be affected by each option and how they will be impacted. Finally, we choose the action that will result in the greatest benefit and the least harm. This approach is about finding the balance that maximizes overall well-being and minimizes negative consequences.

The Common-Good Approach, on the other hand, encourages us to think beyond individual interests and consider what will benefit society as a whole. It highlights our interconnectedness and the importance of shared values and resources in building a healthy community. This perspective is crucial for addressing issues that affect everyone, such as public health, environmental sustainability, and social justice.

The Virtue Approach shifts the focus inward, prompting us to reflect on the kind of people we want to become and the virtues we should strive to embody, such as honesty, integrity, and compassion. It’s not just about what we do in specific situations, but about the kind of character we are developing over time.

Together, these approaches provide a well-rounded guide for making ethical decisions. They remind us that addressing moral dilemmas requires more than just gathering facts; we must also thoughtfully consider the values and principles at play. By applying this framework, we can better navigate the complexities of ethical decision-making and strive to act in ways that are fair, respectful, and beneficial to all.

The article “A Framework for Ethical Decision Making” offers a structured approach to making ethical choices by outlining five key methods: utilitarianism, rights, fairness, common good, and virtue ethics. The framework emphasizes considering consequences and moral principles when evaluating the ethics of a decision, stating, “The utilitarian approach deals with consequences; it tries both to increase the good done and to reduce the harm done.” This framework resonates with my personal experiences, especially when making a tough decision about switching careers. I found myself leaning on the practical approach, weighing the benefits my career change could bring me in terms of fulfillment, while also considering the potential downsides, such as leaving peers behind. The framework’s focus on maximizing good while minimizing harm mirrors how I approached that decision. This article reminds me of the ethical dilemmas posed in Daniel Quinn’s Ishmael. In Ishmael, the tension between “taker” and “leaver” societies can be analyzed through the lens of utilitarianism and common good approaches. While “takers” focus on domination and progress, often at the cost of ecological damage, “leavers” maintain practices that support the common good, emphasizing sustainability and harmony. Both texts address the complex balancing act between doing what benefits the individual versus what is best for the collective. On a broader scale, the ethical frameworks outlined in the article remind me of current debates around artificial intelligence and its development. The utilitarian approach is often invoked when discussing AI’s potential to improve lives, while the rights and fairness approaches are cited when addressing concerns about data privacy, job displacement, and bias. This ongoing debate mirrors the ethical concerns discussed in the text, as the world grapples with ensuring new technology benefits everyone while reducing harm.

Markkula Center for Applied Ethics. (n.d.). A framework for ethical decision making. Santa Clara University. https://www.scu.edu/ethics/ethics-resources/a-framework-for-ethical-decision-making/

DEJ 5:

The resource Frameworks for Ethical Analysis provides a structured approach to evaluating ethical dilemmas through diverse frameworks such as consequentialism, rights and responsibilities, and virtue ethics. According to the text, “The framework that people use to guide their ethical thinking will influence their decision-making” (Frameworks for Ethical Analysis, Science Learning Hub). This resource helps us understand how different approaches shape our perspectives and decisions in everyday life. This resource reminds me of times when I’ve faced ethical dilemmas at work. For example, when handling sensitive client information, I often weighed the consequences of sharing versus withholding certain details. I leaned on both professional responsibilities and the potential impact on others to make these decisions. This article helped me realize that I had been unconsciously using a blend of these ethical frameworks all along. The ethical frameworks outlined in the article reflect debates on AI ethics and data privacy, such as the ongoing discussions about companies using customer data. Consequentialism in the real world can be seen in corporate decisions where firms balance the benefits of data use against the potential harm to privacy. This article resonates with how real-world ethical concerns are analyzed and addressed in public policy and business. 

https://www.sciencelearn.org.nz/resources/2146-frameworks-for-ethical-analysis

Thinking Ethically by Manuel Velasquez, Claire Andre, Thomas Shanks, S.J., and Michael J. Meyer. Aug. 1, 2015

When reading “Thinking Ethically”, I found myself remembering times in which I was in a team environment and used some of these methods to analyze our own beliefs. Within this experience it felt very personal and like we covered a lot of moral issues. However, I found that in my opinion, a lot of the approaches on their own are not sufficient. In particular, the common good approach sounds really nice however, without clear definitions on what “the community” is as well as the social policies, systems, institutions, and environments that are considered “good for the community” there could be many ways in which this could be abused. In addition to this the Utilitarian approach which says that the most ethical action is the one that provides the greatest good for the largest number of people. I feel as if this approach increases discrimination. Minorities exist and should not be ignored when making ethical decisions. I would suggest that other methods and approaches be used in conjunction with this approach to insure the most long-term success. That is why I appreciate that the article concludes that all of these approaches should be used when analyzing a moral decision. The five key questions that are posed at the end of the article summarizes all of the approaches. The main problem that I encountered with these key five questions is the reality of where they are being asked and in what environments. I imagine these questions seem to appear within a meeting room with a set team of people. The people who are at the table get to answer these questions. But how do we decide who gets to sit at the table and answer these questions? 

Source: https://www.scu.edu/ethics/ethics-resources/ethical-decision-making/thinking-ethically/

I’m using the article, “40 years of storming: a historical review of Tuckman’s model of small group development” by Denise A. Bonebright. The different stages that Tuckman’s models uses are Forming, Storming, Norming, Performing, Adjourning. Forming is when the team comes together and gets to know each other and sets rules and has an understanding the team’s goals. Storming is when there might be some conflict with the team. Norming is when the team ends up resolving the conflict and the teams starts to work more effectively and role become clearer and focus on team goals. Performing stage is when the team is highly effective when it comes to teamwork and they are bale to make good decisions and solve problems. Lastly, adjourning is when the team reminiscences on the achievements and experiences they’ve had after they completed their goals. Which I feel like this only doesn’t happen in just jobs, but it happens in life. Families go through this, for example a couple going through their first couple of months of marriage and then having a baby. They try to discuss on what their roles are in their marriage, household, and even the baby. Then when it’s resolved and figure out their roles, everything works so smoothly and they can reflect on their experiences with each other and their new baby. Even a new head coach of basketball team going through different changes in their program, players might not know their roles on the team which can cause problems, but eventually figuring that out can end up helping the team get to their goals. All of these scenarios can be related to Tuckman’s model and can be used in daily life.

In this post, I’m using the article “How to Link Personal Values with Team Values” by Dennis Jaffe and Cynthia Scott. While reading this article, it reminded me how in our group assignment we had to choose a CEO based on what our values are as a company and what we want in that CEO. When giving our core values in our company and what characteristics we want in our future CEO, it’s important that we understood that our CEO is a reflection of our company’s values. In the article it says, “Personal values provide an important bridge to team values that everyone can commit to. Personal values are real in that they help guide people’s behavior.” Not everyone in this world have the same values and beliefs and that’s what makes teams unique because being able to understand other people’s values that are different than mine, we can able to work through different ideas and have a common goal or agreement. For example, I’m one of the leader’s on the women’s basketball team here at NC State, everybody has different values and beliefs, but we all have a common goal which is to win and get to the National Championship so being able to recognize these different core values can help us in the long run. I think that it’s better to have a diverse team because they bring different values and characteristics to help the team get to our common goal, as it said in the article that having the same values as a team can be easy, but having different values can make the team better in so many ways.

After reading the article “Frameworks for Ethical Analysis,” I gained insight into four key frameworks used for making ethical judgments. The first, Rights and Responsibilities, emphasizes the relationship between individuals’ rights and their corresponding duties. The second framework, Consequentialism, focuses on the outcomes of our actions, weighing the satisfactions and harms they produce. The third framework, Autonomy, raises the crucial question of whether individuals should have the right to make their own choices. Lastly, Virtue Ethics considers what is deemed good by the community, highlighting values such as respect and integrity.

The article underscores the importance of applying these frameworks in real-world situations, encouraging us to step outside our comfort zones. But why is Ethical Analysis essential? It offers a structured method for evaluating dilemmas, promotes consideration of diverse perspectives and values, and enhances accountability in decision-making. These frameworks are vital tools for navigating the challenges we may encounter, fostering both critical and creative thinking while encouraging ethical reflection. This helps ensure that decisions are made thoughtfully.

For instance, by examining different ethical frameworks, organizations can better align their strategies with their core values. Moreover, the process of ethical analysis encourages dialogue and collaboration among stakeholders, leading to more informed and balanced decisions. Ultimately, applying these frameworks not only strengthens individual decision-making but also cultivates a culture of ethical awareness within organizations.

I can relate this to a story I recently read about Fun and Function, a company grappling with the decision of which target market to prioritize. They utilized an ethical analysis framework to determine whether to focus on institutional markets or consumer markets.

Sources: https://www.sciencelearn.org.nz/resources/2146-frameworks-for-ethical-analysis https://www.inc.com/magazine/201110/case-study-targeting-the-right-market.html

After reading the article “A Framework for Ethical Decision Making,” I gained insight into the six ethical lenses that guide our decision-making processes. One lens that particularly resonated with me is the Common Good Lens. I’ve come to realize that our ethical choices are significantly shaped by the environments we inhabit, influenced by both our behaviors and social factors. This lens emphasizes the importance of our communities in ethical reasoning.

As highlighted by Santa Clara University (2021), “This approach suggests that the interlocking relationships of society are the basis of ethical reasoning and that respect and compassion for all others—especially the vulnerable—are requirements of such reasoning.” This quote struck me because it underscores how the communities we belong to impact our decision-making. I’ve noticed this in my own experiences, especially when working on group projects. When team members share a common goal and foster a positive atmosphere, decision-making becomes much smoother.

The framework for ethical decision-making reminds me of how I approach personal choices in my everyday life. Another lens that stood out to me is the Justice Lens, which focuses on fairness and equality. According to Santa Clara University (2021), “Equal treatment implies that people should be treated as equals according to some defensible standard such as merit or need, but not necessarily that everyone should be treated in the exact same way in every respect.” This principle is particularly relevant in collaborative settings. When creating team charters, we always establish guidelines to ensure that everyone is treated equitably and fairly.

Source: https://www.scu.edu/ethics/ethics-resources/a-framework-for-ethical-decision-making/