A Guide to Ethical Decision-making

When confronted with an ethical dilemma with regard to which one may care enough to get involved, here are some guidelines:

Ethical behavior is the product of moral sensitivity, (= recognition of the Intrinsic worth of each individual). of moral judgment, moral focus (motivation), and of moral character.

The following is a quote from a book by the late Rushworth Kidder. He was for many years the Executive Director and President of The Institute for Global Ethics: The book’s title is: Ethical Decision Making and Behavior.

]

SOURCE: uk.sagepub.com/upm-data/39590_Chapter7.pdf See pp. 29-30.
For details and deeper explanations you will want to read the entire chapter 7 of that book. It offers the pros and the cons which a research process entails. It provides arguments for each claim as to which is the effective procedure when resolving moral dilemmas. This Chaper 7 is illustrated with case studies. Reflecting upon these sharpens your moral decision-making capabilities.

Feedback?

Tell us, did you once resolve a moral dilemma? We welcome suggestions from your own experience in ethical decision-making!

DEFINING ETHICS

Ethics is about evaluating moral values and principles, and is concerned with working out a basis on which to follow these principles. These principles are neither rules nor absolutes; they are rather voluntary guidelines designed to make life easier, more comfortable, and more trouble-free. To comply with the moral principles, is “right.” Not to, is “wrong.”

Compassionate acts, such as are seen when a person gives a helping hand to another individual, something that occurs every day, are evidence of an objective moral order. Allow me to explain: Human beings want to survive. Actually they want more than mere survival. We are pre-wired to seek our personal benefit, of which survival is a minimum necessary requirement.

What does it take to survive? Well, it is a fact of Biology that for a cell in our body to be healthy it helps if the cells surrounding it are healthy. In the same way, if you, or I, or any individual, gets in trouble then we need our neighbors and family to help us out. We need the people around us. Let’s call them “our support group.”

Isn’t it so that each of the people around us has people around them who could serve as their support group? This keeps them strong. If one of the people around us, if anyone our support group has an infectious disease it is going to threaten the health of others in the group and make them less strong. This is just plain common sense!

So, we deduce, since you need the people around you as your suport, you also need the people around them. And where does it stop? It doesn’t. Therefore by logical reasoning we conclude that we need the entire human species as our “support group.”

It would seem that this is a basic fact of empirical ethics: The human race is a support group for each human individual.

We are, in conclusion, interdependent. [Let’s be mindful of this so that we may have awareness.] And thus it is in our personal best interest to cooperate.

Hence, let us seek harmonious cooperation; and we will be “doing the right thing.”

The essence of my theory is that “Ethics” is a perspective …a perspective on a human individual, or group of them. It arises when we view the human being as highly valuable, of indefinitely-high value. Also, the theory indicates that - if we are ethical - we will make things better, morally better. We are to add value if we want to be ethical. Lots of implications may be deduced from that definition (of the concept “Ethics”) and from that basic idea: Make things better!

One of them is: Do no harm! This in turn implies a renunciation of violence, cruelty, ruthless exploitation, greed, self-mutilation, lack of humility, etc.

What do you think with regard to any of these matters? Your comments, questions, and diiscussion are most welcome. Speak up.

On abortion and euthanasia – an analysis

The question is asked by Surreptitious:

While most of us agree that murder is wrong ….morally wrong, what about the matter of the legalization of abortion – or the issue of euthanasia? There are those who think these acts constitute murder.

Person A says both abortion and euthanasia are instances of murder and neither of them should be legalized.

Person B says that both abortion and euthanasia should be legalized; neither of them is murder.

How can we demonstrate logically that one is definitely right ethically, and one is definitely wrong - and which would it be?
Can such a proposition actually be demonstrated?

The answer is to define our central terms with precision.
Therefor, let us define the term “murder”in a measurable and concise way –and refer only to murder in the first degree:

Def. 1. “Human being" as understood here is "an individual having a personality.’
Def. 2. “Murder” [according to the Merriam Webster Dictionary] is defined as:
The killing of another human being with malice aforethought, characterized by deliberation or premeditation.

Thus, murder, by definition, is the premeditated killing of another person (an individual with personality) involving along with it some malice and some deliberation.

[size=83][It is also murder in the first degree if the muDrer occurs during the 3commission of another serious crime, as robbery or arson (first-degree murder, or murder one), and murder by intent but without deliberation or premeditation (second-degree murder, Murdertwo). So murder, occurring spontaneously in a fit of rage, is murer in the second degree. .
Juries may decide that the killing was accidental and this might, in U.S. law, be labeled ‘Murder in the third degree.”][/size]

Murder is morally wrong. Since neither a woman’s decision to abort her fetus, nor the process of euthanasia, involve any malice they are not examples of murder. With regard to the woman …it is, after all, her body – especially if the procedure is done before the fetus displays any signs of consciousness. If her doctor, for humanitarian reasons justifiably decides to perform a surgery late in the term it is ethical but perhaps earns a lower degree of morality than if the procedure takes place early in the pregnancy.
The woman has the same right to have an abortion as a man has the right to decide to have a vasectomy or any other elective surgery on his own body.

Any free person given oxygen in a medical setting has a right either to pull the oxygen mask off his face or to decline the offer of being put on a ventilator. This is equivalent to the right to ask to be put on hospice since one is suffering constant physical pain. Both are cases of voluntary suicide, in a sense, akin to euthanasia.

Comments?

Definitional morality?!

Thank you for your question.

Bertrand Russel showed us how to do an analysis. Would anyone deny that he was a philosopher?
Analytic Philosophy proceeds by defining terms. This is also essential to the method of science.

Does anyone else have any questions or comments? Reviews? Interpretations? Improvements to suggest?

Okay, let’s focus in on a context in which particular behaviors come into conflict over that which is deemed to be either morally right or morally wrong. And then discuss how an analysis from Bertrand Russell…an analysis derived from definitions…coupled with all that science might inform us of, can aid and abet us in either reconciling these conflicting goods or even in resolving them.

In your thread in re “Man amidst Mankind” your dilemma seems to be how to make an intelligent distinction between the personal self [the ‘me’ that you know] and the roles that you play [such as U.S. citizen, male, white guy, member of the human race], etc.

The genius philosopher, Robert S. Hartman, en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_S._Hartman gave us a way to do that when he invented/discovered the three basic dimensions of value on the values spectrum. They are S, E, and I - which are abbreviations for Systemic Value, Extrinsic Value, and Intrinsic Value.

Your dilemma is resolved by comprehending that your Self can be analyzed all three ways: Systemically you are a statistic “one organism among billions,” “a member of the human species,” “a white male, with all the privileges that bestows,” etc.

Extrinsically you are, say for example, a “father,” “a barber,” “a writer,” “a Martin Heidegger fan,” “someone with a good memory, and a keen sense of smell,” “at times I’m quite a gambler, although I’m usually risk-aversive,” etc., etc.

Intrinsically you are the one who tells himself, who affirms “I am that I am.” “I’m my self-identity, my moral principles and high standards: I won’t shop-lift even if tempted, I won’t cheat,” etc." “I feel good-will toward everyone,” “I radiate love,” “I am glad I have some responsibility.” “I’m ready to help out if I can,” Etc., etc.

You may say to yourself: “All of the above comprise my self-concept.”

Bottom line: we all have multiple selves.

…And we’ll never leave this world alive! True security is to realize: there is no security. We are all vulnerable, fallible, and - unless we have the gifts of a Mark Twain, an Angelo Giuseppe Roncalli, or a Plato, who will remember us 100 years from now? Only our legacy lives on.

Comments?

Actually, it is more about how the two become intertwined for any particular “I” out in any particular world such that the myriad variables that come to encompass “I”, first genetically, and then memetically [historically, culturally and experientially], in a world bursting at the seams with contingency, chance and change, would impact one’s reaction to conflicting goods in that given set of circumstances.

And here I suggest to others that they themselves choose that context.

Instead…

Okay, but what do your points here actually have to do my post above:

“…let’s focus in on a context in which particular behaviors come into conflict over that which is deemed to be either morally right or morally wrong. And then discuss how an analysis from Bertrand Russell…an analysis derived from definitions…coupled with all that science might inform us of, can aid and abet us in either reconciling these conflicting goods or even in resolving them.”

Or, better still, let’s focus in on a context pertaining to your “analysis” derived from your definitions coupled with all that science might have to offer in regard to either reconciling or resolving conflicting behaviors derived from conflicting value judgments pertaining to a context of your choice.

From my frame of mind, you still want the discussion to revolve largely around “serious philosophers” exchanging “general description intellectual contraptions” about ethics.

WTF

Yes, at this site I want to do philosophy; and if it can be done seriously, so much the better. Once here I gave an illustrative dilemma to resolve, and no interest was shown in that thread. I presented a real-life, dramatic example, but it didn’t help:No one cared about it. It was about a Woman’s Health counselor who had an STD from an ex-boyfriend; and she had a counselee who came in with an STD she caught from the same guy. I titled the thread “How Resolve This Dilemma?” Only about ten people opened it up to read it. No one had any comment on it.

I requested, iambiguous, that you initiate a thread or a post on ethics which does things your way, without the “intellectual contraptions” that I have, which either irritate you, or ‘turn you off.’ That way we will both be happy.

Good luck with your thread!

See the reviews of a precious book by Schoof & Clark entitled Living a Richer Life.
amazon.com/product-reviews/ … ewpoints=1
Then decide if you want to read it.

It contains some valuable guides to Ethical decision-making.

With regard to Ethical Decision-making and Ethical problem-solving, these five approaches – articulated by The Markkula Center for Applied Ethics - suggest that once we have ascertained the facts, we should ask ourselves five questions when trying to resolve a moral issue:
· What benefits and what harms will each course of action produce, and which alternative will lead to the best overall consequences?
· What moral rights do the affected parties have, and which course of action best respects those rights?
· Which course of action does not show favoritism or discrimination?
· Which course of action develops moral virtues?
· Which course of action advances certain general conditions that are to everyone’s advantage?

This ethical theory proposed here recommends that we focus on ensuring that the social policies, social systems, institutions, and environments on which we depend are beneficial to all. Examples of such include affordable health care, effective public safety, peace among nations, a just legal system, and an unpolluted environment.

For it makes sense for us to view ourselves as members of the same community, reflecting on broad questions concerning the kind of society we want to become and how we are to achieve that society. While respecting and valuing the freedom of individuals to pursue their own goals, it is preferable that we recognize and further those goals we – all over the planet - share in common.

This is not to imply that there is anything wrong with identification with a group such as personal choices that favor family, neighborhoods, religious groups, professional groups, political factions, etc.
We have the right to pursue happiness in our own unique way; yet still be aware of what helps the entire world community win. The idea that we can make our group prosperous at the expense of making another group poor is an ethical fallacy. It violates the Social Ethics principle that we stand or fall together.

Be clear that the above discussion is NOT claiming that identification with a group is unethical, or that personal choices that to favor family, or neighborhood, is wrong. It is not saying that we have only two identities - that of ‘self’, and that of ‘world citizen’. Let there be no confusion about that.

Your views are welcomed !

I came upon this brief article that came out last year. It is relevant to the subject of this thread. These six paragraphs are well-written; I believe you will find its contents to be informative. Also, the page offers links to related topics that concern enlightened and ethically-integrated business management and operation.

The title of the article is How to Conduct an Ethical Analysis.
Here is a link to it:
bizfluent.com/how-7795257-condu … lysis.html

Enjoy

Contrary to what Ecmandu claims, it seems that some people give a damn about ethics…

Thinkdr,

That article was absurd. Now here’s the deal. You decided to come after me by name.

Ethics requires wisdom. Something (wisdom) you are in very short supply of.

Nobody gives a fuck about your articles. Why? Immorality works better than morality here. If anything, the Donald Trumps of the world look at your articles as what not to do!

They literally read them and say, “if I do the exact opposite of thinkdr, I’ll be successful”

You are so fucking naive dude.

Here’s the deal…

I’m towing the line (not only for this species) but for existence as a whole.

Do you have any, ANY clue how your messages read to street smart people?

No you don’t.

I’m going to tell you again (emphatically) - if existence is ever win lose, it’s lose for everyone.

Did you fuck a woman thinkdr?

Sorry, hell for you! That’s a win lose scenario.

I hate your mind. You need to grow the fuck up.

Thanks a lot for wanting to help me.

In many ways, though, you sound like Trump.

It’s not about me – but if it were I would tell you my background and you would then have to conclude that I’m a bit more street-smart than anyone you know – yourself included. I’m a straight-cat, yet one who has ‘seen a thing or two.’

Define for us what you mean by “successful.”

Is Paul Manafort winning (the game of life)? […last I heard, he has leg shackles and a case of Covid19.]
It will be the same with many of Trump’s close buddies.

Does anyone here have anything to contribute to the project of helping to make humans more ethical? Do you know of someone who is doing so? If you do, report about it: tell us the good news!

You really don’t get it dude.

How can I say this diplomatically to you.

Nobody gives a fuck about morals anymore.

In life here, you have to be anti social to succeed.

It works 100% of the time.

Are you a revolutionary for ethics?

No, you’re not.

Greetings, Ecmandu:

You ask: “Are you a revolutionary for ethics?”

How would such an individual be described? What does he, or she, do?

You still haven’t told us what you mean by “succeed.” Are you a Materialist?

Soon Biden will appoint a new “Ethics czar.” He will also strive to get House Resolution One resubmitted, and passed by the Senate. It will make certain forms of corruption illegal. Hopefully, it will be enforced.

A revolutionary for ethics is someone who can entice all of existence with a better plan.

Words don’t mean much to people anymore when it comes to ethics. In order for them to mean something, they have to be EXTREMELY powerful.

Your words are still attached to solving the unsolvable: a zero sum reality. You might as well be pissing in the wind.

Most people don’t even know a spirit world exists on this plane of existence. And if they do, often they’ll resort to the insoluble god concept to get them through.

I’m not god. I’m just a guy who has a better plan than this one. That makes me an ethics revolutionary.

Am I going to threaten you with hell if you don’t obey me? Probably not. Depends on the transgression.

I always state that revenge and forgiveness are distractions. Distractions from what? Sending all beings to their personal heaven forever.

.

I do not believe that most people hold, as their reality, the notion that "If I win - in some way - then someone else has to lose." Nor do they hold the view that “Life is all about winning.” Sure, we all would like to have some money …but we don’t have to suffer from greed: for greed is a personality disorder, much like hoarding. To always feel “I’ll never have enough” is a sickness.

The ultimate goal of a systematic Ethics theory, as I have often taught, is to show the path to a Quality Life for one and all. In a sense, everyone will be ‘a winner.’

For further details as to what comprises “a Quality Life” and for a definition of “well being,” see the References below …which spell it out. When more people are educated to the extent that they see clearly the central concepts of ethics and morality - as elucidated in the Unified Theory of Ethics - I see no reason why they will not build a life and a society in which we can all thrive and flourish

Again, and I’m trying to be diplomatic with you (aside from liking you personally): it’s garbage.

You hit the problem right on the head of the nail:

Most people DON’T think that if they win, someone else loses. (Or they don’t care)

That’s the slumber of existence. Those are the walking dead.

The people who are awake understand that for everything they win here, someone loses.

You can’t handle that truth yet.

To be moral in a shitty world like this is to

A.) don’t do something breaking ones heart - by having it instead of them

B.) don’t break someone’s heart by not having it for yourself

I’ve told you many times now that I think you’re extremely naive. I hope you grow out of that phase.

Let’s get a few things clear:

1. I am naive. I confess that’s true. I’m also fallible and often mistaken. This current post though gives reliable and accurate information.

2. Fear can be a strong motivator; both for those who do evil, and for those who do good. In the case of the latter, people may behave in what seems to be an ethical manner because they fear violating a law and thus being subject to the penalty that the statute may prescribe.

It would be better if they had the correct motive, namely, they behaved in accordance with what the the Unified Theory of Ethics [the new paradigm] explains: It teaches that we are to Intrinsically-value other individuals in order to be ethical. This is an academic way of saying: act out of love – or at least respect (for a fellow member of of your species.
It would be better to recognize that we are all primates, and to help the evolution of human-kind along. We are evolving toward a world where eventually we all will conduct ourselves ethically, be motivated to avoid harming one another - because we want to be considerate of one another. And we want to reach the ultimate goal. That goal is a Quality Life for one and all.

3. Let’s agree that those who do not care about being ethical, those who do not or cannot care, are the sleepwalkers. They are the ‘walking dead.’ Their conscience is asleep. It needs to be awakened. Those who do care, who are caring, will work toward that end …to awaken, enlighten, educate. They will even mobilize and caampaign for it.

If you - someone who cares,one who is dedicated to honesty - encounter someone who is deceptive, one who deceives or lies, the way to handle it is to say to that person: “Let’s respect each other - okay?” “Out of respect we will not tell each other falsehoods, nor will we attempt to deceive - agreed? Is it a deal? Okay?”
“Yes. Sure!”
“That’s good. So from now on we’ll be completely honest with each other.”

You can put it into your own words, words suitable for the other to dig it. The point is to I-value the other person.

4. Love drives out fear. And that’s a fact .
   Try it. You’ll see!!

Comments? Discussion?

[To whom it may concern: Write your own thread; do not high-jack other people’s threads! … E–u, You know who I mean.]