Lenses for Ethical Decision Making

CDANZ ran an ethical workshop a while ago to help practitioners work through ethical dilemmas (2020). A six step framework was used for that mahi which was assumed at the time to be based on either the six step method from Bond (2005) or the Velasquez et al. (2009) model - the Framework for Ethical Decision Making - created at the Markkula Centre for Applied Ethics at Santa Clara University.

While I have explored Bond (2005) before on this blog (here), and have run through an earlier version of the Velasquez model (here; by Cavanagh et al., 1981), I have not stepped through the thinking behind the Cavanagh et al, (1981) model, which uses six ethical lenses to determine what ethical issues exist. Those six ethical lenses are as follows:

• Rights: perhaps an ethical action is that which respects the moral rights and responsibilities of those affected, because, due to our freedom of choice, we have 'human dignity' conferring our right to be treated as ends in ourselves, and not just as means to another's ends. The moral rights are debated, and some infer all animals have them (and I suspect the world is going this way), and include freedom of life choices, to be told the truth, not avoid harm, to personal privacy (Velasquez et al., 2009).
• Justice: people are due fair or equal treatment, to treated as equals - not exactly the same - but equitably. Perhaps parity is a better term. This section includes "social justice (structuring the basic institutions of society), distributive justice (distributing benefits and burdens), corrective justice (repairing [... injustice]), retributive justice ([...] punish[ing] wrongdo[ing]), and restorative or transformational justice" (Velasquez et al., 2009)
• Utilitarianism: This focuses on results, where an "ethical action is the one that produces the greatest balance of good over harm for as many stakeholders as possible". We need to have crystal clear foresight on the likely outcomes and costs: in an "ethical corporate action, then, is the one that produces the greatest good and does the least harm for all who are affected—customers, employees, shareholders, the community, and the environment. Cost/benefit analysis is a[...] consequentialist approach" (Velasquez et al., 2009)
• Common Good:  our actions should contribute to the collective community good, where "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", while accounting for those "common conditions [...] important [for] everyone—such as clean air and water, a system of laws, effective police and fire departments, health care, a public educational system, or even public recreational areas.  [...] [T]he common good lens highlights mutual concern for the shared interests of all members of a community" (Velasquez et al., 2009)
• Virtue: an old ethics philosophy suggests our "actions ought to be consistent with certain ideal virtues that provide for the full development of our humanity", to develop our character and align with "values like truth and beauty. Honesty, courage, compassion, generosity, tolerance, love, fidelity, integrity, fairness, self-control, and prudence 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?'" (Velasquez et al., 2009)
• Care: relationships drive our compassion and care of those around us. It is not about rules or costs: it is about growth, nurturing, community, and love, growing "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. Focusing on connecting intimate interpersonal duties to societal duties, an ethics of care might counsel, for example, a more holistic approach to public health policy that considers food security, transportation access, fair wages, housing support, and environmental protection alongside physical health" (Velasquez et al., 2009)

When we stop to consider these six ethical lenses, we can see that asking a range of questions after considering these can help us make a more ethical decision. By taking this range of six philosophical lenses into account we open ourselves up to many different perspectives (Velasquez, 2009, 2015). 

And, on reflection, I think that the Velasquez model is useful for background thinking, but is not the model that was used in the CDANZ work. I think that was likely to be the Bond model (2005).

However, Velasquez et al. (2009, 2015) have come up with eleven steps to follow these lenses, which I will explore in a later post.

Sam

References:

Bond, T. (2005). Standards and Ethics for Counselling in Action (Counselling in Action series) (3rd ed.). SAGE Publications Ltd.

Cavanagh, G. F., Moberg, D. J., & Velasquez, M. (1981). The Ethics of Organizational Politics. Academy of Management Review 6(3), 363-374. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1981.4285767

CDANZ. (2020, October 29). CDANZ Webinar: Ethical scenarios in career practice [video]. Career Development Association of New Zealand. https://drive.google.com/file/d/1f7-cmGvGxUGK9KZraXheRaR6En2N57HE/view

Velasquez, M., Moberg, D., Meyer, M. J., Shanks, T., McLean, M. R., DeCosse, D., André, C., Kirk, O., & Hanson, K. O. (2009). A Framework for Ethical Decision Making. Markkula Center for Applied Ethics at Santa Clara University. https://www.scu.edu/ethics/ethics-resources/a-framework-for-ethical-decision-making/

Velasquez, M., André, C., Shanks, T., & Meyer, M. J. (2015). Thinking Ethically. Markkula Center for Applied Ethics at Santa Clara University. https://www.scu.edu/ethics/ethics-resources/ethical-decision-making/thinking-ethically/