https://blog.hubspot.

com/marketing/ethical-decision-making
https://status.net/articles/ethical-decision-making-process-model-framework/
https://www.basicknowledge101.com/categories/morality.html
https://www.thegreatcoursesdaily.com/ethics-know-right-wrong/
https://philosophynow.org/issues/123/How_Can_I_Know_Right_From_Wrong
https://www.thegreatcoursesdaily.com/ethics-know-right-wrong/
https://ethics.csc.ncsu.edu/old/12_00/basics/whistle/rst/wstlblo_policy.html

According to virtue-based theories, “virtues and moral abilities are not innate but can be
acquired and learned through practice.” Have students write a two- to three-page paper
reflecting on the following questions: What are moral abilities? How does one learn to care
about the impact of one’s behavior on others? How does one determine what is morally right
or wrong? How does one resolve competing values, like job security and whistle-blowing?
How does one commit to following through on ethical decisions?"
Q- What are moral abilities?
Moral Ability is to act according to one’s moral values and standards. When people
demonstrate prosocial and moral behaviour & when they share, help, co-operate,
communicate, sympathize or in otherwise they demonstrate ability to care about others.
A number of elements affect whether an individual will act morally. The ability to reason
about moral issues provides a basic level of understanding necessary for moral action.
According to Kohlberg’s theory of moral development, individuals progress through stages of
moral reasoning with higher order reasoning including concepts of fairness, justice and
welfare. Through the process of reasoning and judgment, an individual is able evaluate
interpret the moral situation, formulate the moral ideal and choose a course of action that
corresponds to one’s moral values. Thus, higher order moral reasoning may lead to greater
likelihood of moral behaviour.
Q-How does one learn to care about the impact of one’s behaviour on others?
Q-How does one determine what is morally right or wrong?

There is no magic formula, but there is a pathway which may help in situations of doubt.
First, ascertain the facts of a situation. Ignorance never promotes good decisions. Let others
thrust on you facts you would rather overlook. Second, and more difficult, try to predict the
consequences of the actions you might take. Unfortunately even correctly predicted
consequences themselves cause unforeseeable consequences. But even the most dedicated
non-consequentialist must consider consequences because actually conferring benefit on
others is an important moral principle, if not an overriding one. Third, look at the moral
principles which tell you to do one thing or the other. Those principles must be both valid and
relevant, which is often arguable. Catholics think that divorce is wrong, but Islam makes
divorce easy for men. You think that we must respect the sanctity of even a murderer’s life; I
think the principle of sanctity of life has been forsaken by murderers. Finally take the
decision.
However, rigid application of ethical rules may have seemingly unethical conclusions. The
majority of people would believe it wrong to lie in most circumstances yet right to lie in
specific situations, such as to save a life. Secondly, an emphasis upon the importance of duty
can give the impression that ethics is demanding and counter-intuitive, which is not entirely
convincing: it seems difficult to criticise a naturally generous person for not being truly
ethical because they do not act out of a sense of duty. Finally, although most would agree we
should respect and value others persons, we may accept treating others as a means if the end
is liable to have significantly more favourable consequences. For example, many people
would agree it is right to sacrifice the life of one person if it saves many lives, and in fact
wrong not to do so. So it seems that although people often have clear sentiments which tell
them when behaviour is right or wrong, they also accept that there are times when rigid
adherence to the same principles is problematic and/or unethical, making ethics as uncertain
as any other branch of philosophy. This means absolute ethical judgements on right and
wrong are difficult, so important ethical debates remain unresolved.
The majority of human beings have an innate sense of disgust at immoral acts, stemming
from empathy. If you want to know if your actions towards another individual are right or
wrong, just ask yourself if that’s how you would want to be treated. That’s the objectivity:
we’re living, aware creatures. Why complicate it more than that?
It might be inferred from the question that discerning right from wrong is essentially
cognitive. Thus, employing the terminology of Benjamin Bloom’s taxonomy of educational
objectives in the cognitive domain, I am able to recall things deemed right or wrong and I can
understand why they are so. I can apply my recall and understanding of right and wrong to
act appropriately in specific circumstances; I can analyse behaviours and determine which are
right and wrong; I can evaluate why some are right or wrong; and I can create more finely
nuanced conceptions of rightness or wrongness. This learning is acquired by trial and error,
and inferred from the reactions of other people to what I do or say
Q-How does one resolve competing values, like job security and whistle-blowing?

Whistleblowers, those individuals who call attention to possible wrongdoing within their
organizations, are the subjects of much controversy. Some say that whistleblowers are noble
characters, willing to sacrifice personally and professionally to expose organizational
practices that are wasteful, fraudulent, or harmful to the public safety. Others suggest that
whistleblowers are, by and large, disgruntled employees who maliciously and recklessly
accuse individuals they feel have wronged them in order to attain their own selfish goals.

The truth, as is often the case, probably lies somewhere between these two extremes.
Whistleblowers do call attention to genuine abuses of power by decision-makers in business
and government. They do often suffer retaliation for their ethical resistance. However,
whistleblowers may often be wrong in their accusations and their motives are not always
pure. Their actions can disrupt a workplace, and may cause serious harm to individuals
wrongly accused.

Whatever your personal view of whistleblowers and whistleblowing, as an organizational policy-

maker you must consider the issue objectively. It is not an issue that can be ignored, due to the
possible negative consequences for both your employees and your organization. For example, a
recent review of whistleblowing incidents shows that among the whistleblowers surveyed, 62% lost
their jobs, 18% felt that they were harassed or transferred, and 11% had their job responsibilities or
salaries reduced. Fifty-one percent of the incidents resulted in external investigations of the
companies involved, 37% in management shake-ups, 22% in criminal investigations Although these
outcomes may not be typical, they do point out the potential seriousness of whistle blowing.

Q- How does one commit to following through on ethical decisions?"

Ethical decision making is the process in which you aim to make your decisions in line with a code of
ethics. To do so, you must seek out resources such as professional guidelines and organizational
policies, and rule out any unethical solutions to your problem.

When you're making a major decision for your company, it can be tempting to choose the easiest or
most cost-effective course of action -- even if that option isn't the best from an ethical standpoint.

PLUS Ethical Decision-Making Model is one of the most used and widely cited ethical models.

It purposely leaves out anything related to making a profit so that leaders can focus on values
instead of a potential impact on revenue.

The letters in PLUS each stand for a filter that leaders can use for decision-making:

 P – Policies and Procedures:

Is the decision in line with the policies laid out by the company?
 L – Legal:
Will this violate any legal parameters or regulations?
 U – Universal:
How does this relate to the values and principles established for the organization to
operate? Is it in tune with core values and the company culture?
 S – Self:
Does it meet my standards of fairness and justice? This particular lens fits well with
the virtue approach that is a part of the five common standards mentioned above.

These filters can even be applied to the process, so we can have a clear ethical framework all along
the way. Defining the problem automatically requires one to see if it is violating any of the PLUS
ethical filters. It should also be used to assess the viability of any decisions that are being considered
for implementation, and make a decision about whether the one that was chosen resolved the PLUS
considerations questioned in the first step.