Making Ethical Decisions

In the face of unconscious bias, uncertainty, limited resources, and lots of (often unexamined) moral beliefs, what does it mean to go about making ethical decisions?

Harrington describes two conditions for ethical decision-making:

• 
  Having organizational values and purpose that are specific enough to offer guidance, known, and understood by all members of an organization.
• 
  Making space for dialogue on how to apply values and purpose in different scenarios

Harrington says that often staff don’t know how to employ organizational purpose and values in practical situations. They are too vague, too contradictory or paradoxical, and too anaemic. How values are understood and lived is something to talk about and make visible within organizations.

Rather than labelling decisions ethical/unethical, Harrington refers to a spectrum of better and worse decisions. Figuring out where a decision might land requires “trying on” different moral lenses. The first lens is your organization’s purpose and values. The next lenses are rooted in distinct moral traditions including justice, care, rights, utilitarianism, virtue, and the common good. These lenses enable organizational actors to surface their default logics, and carefully weigh alternative moral bases for decisions.

These six ethical lenses come from the fields of philosophy, ethics, and theology. They are a distillation of some of the key frameworks behind moral action.

This lens starts from the belief that humans have a dignity based on their human nature and their ability to choose freely what to do with their lives. On the basis of such dignity, humans have a right to be treated as ends in themselves and not merely as means to other ends.

Justice is the idea that each person should be given their due, and what people are due is often interpreted as fair or equal treatment. 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. There are different types of justice that address what benefits and burdens people are due in various contexts: distributive justice, corrective justice, restorative justice, etc.

This lens starts by asking, “How will [X] decision impact everyone affected?” and focuses on the consequences of our actions. Utilitarianism, a results-based approach, says that the ethical action is the one that produces the greatest balance of good over harm for as many stakeholders as possible. It requires an accurate determination of the likelihood of a particular result and its impact.

This lens treats life in community as a good in itself and requires that our actions contribute to that life. Core to this lens is a belief that the interlocking relationships of society are the basis of ethical reasoning and that respect and compassion for all others—especially the vulnerable—drive decision-making. This approach also calls attention to the common conditions that are important to the welfare of everyone—such as clean air and water, a system of laws, etc.

This lens says that ethical actions ought to be consistent with certain ideal virtues that provide for the full development of our common humanity. These virtues are dispositions and habits that enable us to act according to the highest potential of our character and on behalf of our moral values. Honesty, courage, compassion, generosity, tolerance, etc. are all examples of virtues. Virtue ethics asks of any action, “What kind of person will I become if I do this?” or “Is this action consistent with my acting at my best?”

Care ethics is rooted in relationships and in the need to listen and respond to individuals in their specific circumstances, rather than merely following rules or calculating utility. It privileges the flourishing of embodied individuals in their relationships and values interdependence, not just independence. It relies on empathy to gain a deep appreciation of the interest, feelings, and viewpoints of each stakeholder, employing care, kindness, compassion, generosity, and a concern for others to resolve ethical conflicts. Care ethics holds that options for resolution must account for the relationships, concerns, and feelings of all stakeholders.

The lenses introduce different mindsets and standards of behaviour that can be considered right and good. Each of us will gravitate to some lenses (and their moral foundations) more than others, and organizations will have better matches too, based on their values and purpose.

There may be disagreement about the content of specific lenses; for example, what constitutes the common good or what is considered a harm or a good. That’s healthy. Only by experimenting with different moral lenses, and engaging in open dialogue, can we achieve some of the rigour necessary for ethical decisions.

As Josh Rottman argues, a good decision often takes multiple logics into account. It often makes sense to come up with solutions that reflect a couple of core values, provided they are not contradictory, rather than one value in the extreme.

Josh Rottman’s research asks how hard it is to shift people’s moral beliefs. He finds that it is much easier to do so in childhood, when people are more open to considering a different moral logic. With adults, Rottman finds interventions have far less effect.

One antidote to the rigidity of adult decision-making is transparency. Especially for organizations that serve a community, making transparent the moral beliefs behind a decision can confer legitimacy. Only when explicit can values and choices be contested or actively supported.

• 
  Values-led

  Ethical decision-making is about rigorously applying clearly defined purpose and values.
  
• 
  Organizations need two things to support ethical decisions

  First, mission, vision, and values statements that are clear and specific enough to provide guidance; and, second, space made for staff dialogue on how to apply values and purpose in different scenarios
  
• 
  Thinking on a spectrum

  Rather than thinking of decisions as ethical or unethical, it may be more helpful to consider them on a spectrum of better and worse decisions, comparing options.
  
• 
  Applying lenses for a more rigorous process

  Decision-makers can use resources to test possible decisions against different values and ethical reasoning.
  
• 
  Many values, not one

  The best decisions generally balance a few compatible values rather than pursuing one over all others.

Experiences & Observations

Think of a time when you have felt really good about a process to come to a consequential decision. Think of a time when you have been uncomfortable with such a process. What was happening?

Reactions & Impressions

What did you notice about which lenses and distributive logics resonated most with you? Which logics have you consciously or unconsciously employed most at work, at home, or in your own personal giving choices?

Questions & Hunches to test

Thinking of a decision-making process that is relevant to your role with a foundation you are close to, consider what it could look like if you applied a different lens or distributive logic to bring organizational values alive.