|
Volume 4 Number 4 February
10, 2006 |
|
Solving dilemmas Resolving disputes between` ethics and non-ethical
interests requires a delicate balancing act As I noted last week not all dilemmas involving ethics are "ethical dilemmas." Often, what we're faced with are conflicts between our ethical standards and other non-ethical (as opposed to un-ethical) interests that we might have. True ethical dilemmas are, contrary to what many people might think, easier to solve. When resolving ethical dilemmas -- defined as a conflict between two ethical principles -- we can usually appeal to our ethical theory, assuming we've given it sufficient thought, to provide an answer. A good example of such an ethical dilemma is the one I posed last week. You're hiking in the woods with your children and become stranded with a blizzard bearing down on you. Having insufficient clothing and no food, the children's lives are in danger. You encounter a boarded-up cabin with a supply of food, clothing, and firewood, but the owner has made it clear he wants no one to enter, even if in dire need. Your dilemma here is that you're subject to two ethical principles. The first is the one you feel to protect and provide for your children and to keep them safe. The other is to respect the property rights and stated wished of another person concerning his property. Fortunately, the problem is easily solved -- no matter what ethical theory you subscribe to. Some people would solve the problem in a ham-handed kind of way. "My kids come first and the heck with him." As often happens in these sorts of cases, it is probably the right answer, but one reached without understanding how we came to that conclusion. It's much better to know why we got the answer, because it will help us when we encounter situations where the outcome isn't quite so clear. If you are a consequentialist, then your ethical theory will tell you that the good to be achieved by protecting your children -- even saving their lives -- outweighs whatever good is to be achieved by respecting the anti-social desires of the property owner. So, your kids win out. If you are a deontologist and believe in operating from ethical obligations, then you could argue that your special obligation to protect your children outweighs the general obligation you have to the property owner. Again, your kids win out. Most variations on either of these theories will get you to the same answer. Your kids always win. However, when you have an ethical principle pitted against other considerations, the situation gets a little murkier, and you need to consider numerous things in coming up with an answer. I don't have a handy, one-size-fits-all formula to get you to the answer, but I can tell you what factors you need to consider. First, you need to consider what's involved in the ethical principle: How stringent is it? What harm will come from not following it. Is it merely some personal code of ethics, is it a religious belief, or is it "universalizable," that is, can we make a case that it applies to everyone and that anyone who doesn't follow it is doing something wrong? Not all ethical lapses are created equal. Suppose you find out that your supervisor is pilfering a ream of copy paper every month or so to bring home for his kids. That's definitely wrong, but is a world away from finding out that your supervisor is running a child pornography ring out of the office. Your response to each situation is going to be markedly different. (For sake of discussion I'll ignore the legal ramifications.) Harm will result from both cases, but the harm from paper pilfering is minuscule -- a few cents on the bottom line -- compared to the harm caused by child pornography. Personal vs. universal moral codes is a tougher issue to resolve, but not necessarily difficult to understand. You may have religious beliefs that forbid you to dance. If you do, then it would be wrong for you to dance. However, it would be hard to make a case -- at least one that would be generally accepted -- that people who don't share your beliefs shouldn't dance, or that people who dance are bad people. You also need to consider whether you are being asked to participate directly, indirectly, or merely be present while other people do what you find objectionable. If your boss asks you to bring the pilfered paper to his car, it's much different than if you merely know that he's doing it. Another thing you need to consider is the burden you will bear in addressing or confronting the act you see as unethical. Then, you need to balance the nature and scope of the unethical act against the possible outcome. If your supervisor is pilfering small amounts of copy paper and you could be fired for turning him in, you might take a different approach than if your supervisor is engaging in child pornography. You may still lose your job for exposing the child pornography, but the nature of the act is so despicable that it may be a chance you have to take -- for your own sake. (I'm purposely ignoring the legal aspects that may require you to act.) Also, don't assume that becoming a "whistleblower" will protect you. Mark Twain warned us that "no good deed goes unpunished," and the recent history involving whistleblowers bears that out. You might also want to factor in whether your action will change the behavior you find unethical. Often it won't. If it's a minor point, and you will risk much from confronting it, then your action could be seen as quixotic. If it's a major ethical problem, then maybe the best you can do is to remove yourself from the situation. The bottom line is that every situation is different. There is no easy formula that will provide an answer for everyone. You have to weigh all the factors to make the decision that's best for you. This is the point where someone usually complains that this means ethics is totally relative and that I'm suggesting that any answer is just as good as any other -- a kind of ethical free-for-all. Nothing could be further from the truth. Just because there is more than
one right answer, doesn't mean that there are no wrong answers. Ask a group
of people what is the best way to get from It's no different with ethics. Some people will apply different weights to the factors involved -- and they will come up with a different answer than you might come up with. It would be arrogance to suggest that you have the right answer. This doesn't rule out the fact that there are some answers that are just plain wrong. Tolerating your boss' child pornography ring because you're afraid he won't invite you to his holiday part is just wrong. On the other hand, losing your job and being unable to support your family for the sake of $10 worth of pilfered copy paper (which your boss' boss may already know about) isn't a smart move either, and you may fail in your obligation to take prudent measures to support your family. In between those two polar examples, even reasonable, ethical people are going to come up with different answers. I wish there were an formula that would allow people to make these decisions quickly and easily. There isn't, but it's all the more reason why reflecting on ethics -- especially the logical basis for your rules and principles -- is a worthwhile task. It makes a process a little smoother. |
|
© Copyright 2006 Carlton Vogt |