Ethics 09-The Act (Reason and Impartiality)

ETHICS
DR. LIONEL E. BUENAFLOR

Head-Social and Behavioural Sciences Department
Head-Batangas Heritage Center
University of Batangas
Part 2: The Act
(Reason and Impartiality)
Dr. Lionel E. Buenaflor

Reason and Impartiality
• Human beings have evolved as rational beings. Because
we are rational, we are able to take some facts as reasons
for behaving one way rather than another.
• Man is able to find reason for actions that would help
satisfy our desires, needs, and so on—or if it would
promote our interests.
• We ought to do what there are the strongest reasons for
doing.
• We consider morality as a matter of acting on reason.

• Basic Ideas: Each individual’s interest are equally

important.
• Therefore, each must acknowledge that other person’s
welfare is equally important as our own.
• Impartiality is a proscription against arbitrariness in
dealing with people.

“A conscientious moral agent is someone who is
concerned impartially with the interest of
everyone affected by what he or she does; who
carefully sifts facts and examines their
implications; who accepts principles of conduct
only after scrutinizing them to make sure they are
sound; who is willing to ‘listen to reason’ even
when it means that prior convictions may have to
be revised, and who, finally, is willing to act on the
results of this deliberation.

A Model for Moral Decision-Making
• You are the manager of a toxic waste dump that is
located outside of Sacramento, California. The parent
company is located downtown Los Angeles. Some years
ago, a cement “pond” was built in supposedly
impermeable soil. It was built to house toxic waste from
the firm’s operations throughout northern California.
• When the toxic waste was combined with other
chemicals, the waste was broken down, thereby
rendering it considerably less toxic and therefore safe to
be contained in the pond. This operation worked well
for a number of years.

• A few months ago, you noticed a change in the taste of
the drinking water in your office and home. As a result,
you ordered some tests to be run, and to your dismay,
the tests revealed some leakage that was moving toward
the water table.
• The engineers who conducted the tests were not able to
determine for sure if the waste was leaking into the
water table, since the soil outside the pond acts as a
partial filtering agent.

• Being a responsible manager and concerned about the
community, you report this to your boss in L.A. He
consults with the top management of the company and
their response is the same as his.
• Because the facility had passed the state inspection only
a few months earlier, they chose to ignore the problem
because of both the cost involved in clean-up and their
continuing compliance with the standards of the state.

• You maintain that the state’s standards clearly are not
adequate, but the company is adamant. They will do
nothing about the problem unless they are found to be in
violation of state standards. You protest that decision, and
they warn you to keep managing the facility and leave these
other decisions to the appropriate people.
• Your dilemma is compounded by the fact that the whistle-
blowers almost always lose their jobs (which you can ill
afford to have happen, since you have a wife and three
school-age children dependent on your income) and
frequently are blackballed from the industry.

• As the manager of the facility, what would you do in the
situation? How would you justify your actions? What are
the various options that you have as the manager?
• Perhaps as good a question as “What would you do?” in this
situation is the question “How would you decide what to
do?”
• The process of making a moral decision can be as important
as the decision itself and many ethical decision that people
encounter are so complex that it is easy to exhaust oneself
talking around the problem without actually making any
progress toward resolving it.

• The responses to many moral dilemma is “Where do I
start?” and the person who is faced with these decision
often needs direction that will enable him or her to
move constructively toward resolution and see the
forest as well as the trees.
• In order to adequately address the ethical dilemma that
people encounter regularly, the following is a model that
can be used to assure that all the necessary bases are
covered.

• This is not a formula that will automatically generate the
“right” answer to every ethical problem. Rather, it is a
guideline that is designed that all the right questions are
being asked in the process of ethical deliberation.
• What makes many moral dilemma so difficult is that the
scripture does not speak to the issue as clearly as one would
wish, because Scripture has not directly addressed the issue.
• More general principles can be brought to bear on the issue
at hand. However, in these instances, there is often
disagreement about which biblical principles are applicable
to the specific issue under discussion.

• To insist that all ethical dilemma are resolved simply by
appeal to biblical principles seems to oversimplify the matter.
• Certainly, many moral questions are resolved conclusively by
appeal to Scripture, but there are other cases in which that
does not happen.
• This is not to say that Scripture is not sufficient for the
believer’s spiritual life but that the special revelation of
Scripture is often supplemented by the general revelation of
God outside scripture.
• The following are the elements of a model for making moral
decisions:

Model for Decision-Making

1. Gather the Facts
• Frequently, ethical dilemmas can be resolved simply by

clarifying the facts of the case in question.
• In cases that prove to be more difficult, gathering the facts
is the essential first step prior to any ethical analysis and
reflection on the case.
• Thus, one is asking not only “What do we know?” but also
“What do we need to know?” in order to make an
intelligent ethical decision.

2. Determine the Ethical Issues
• Ethical issues are stated in terms of competing interests or
goods. It is these conflicting interests that actually make for
an ethical dilemma.
• The issues should be presented in a ____ versus ____ format
in order to reflect the interests that are colliding to a
particular ethical dilemma.
• E.g., in business ethics, there is often a conflict between the
right of a firm to make a far profit and its obligation to the
community.
• In the case given, that obligation pertains to the environment.

3. What principles have a bearing on the case?
• Clearly, biblical principles will be weighted the most

heavily. There may be other principles that speak to the
case that come from the sources.
• There may be constitutional principles or principles drawn
from natural law that supplement the biblical principles
that come into play here.
• The principles that come out of your sense of mission and
calling are also important to consider.

4. List the alternatives
• Part of the creative thinking involved in resolving an ethical

dilemma involves coming up with various alternative
courses of action.
• Although there will be some alternatives that can be ruled
out without much thought, in general, the more
alternatives are listed, the better the chance that the list
will include some high-quality ones.

5. Compare the Alternatives with the Principles
• The task is one of eliminating alternatives according to the

moral principles that have a bearing on the case.
• In many instances, the case will be resolved at this point, since
the principles will eliminate all alternatives except one.
• If a clear decision is not forthcoming, then the next part in the
model must be considered. At the least, some of the
alternatives may be eliminated by this step of comparison.

6. Weigh the consequences
• If the principles do not yield a clear decision, then a

consideration of the consequences of the remaining
available alternatives is in order. Both positive and
negative consequences are to be considered.

7. Make a Decision
• Deliberation cannot go on forever. At some point, a

decision must be made.
• Realize that one common element in ethical dilemma is
that there are not easy and painless solutions to them.
• Frequently, the decision that is made is one that involves
the least number of problems or negative consequences,
not one that is devoid of them.

CASE ANALYSIS: “ON WHISTLE-BLOWING: PROFIT VS. THE COMMON GOOD
1. Gather the Facts
• Although you are in a management position at the facility, you
do not have final authority over how the unit is run.
• You believe that there is a leak of toxic materials. This belief
comes from your experience as an engineer and a noticeable
difference in the taste of the community’s drinking water.
• Tests to determine whether the waste has reached the water
table are inconclusive so far.

1. Gather the Facts
• The facility has met all tests and guidelines issued by the state.
It is in compliance with state environmental regulations.
• You have a secure job with the company.
• You are aware that the people who blow the whistle on their
employer are most often fired from their job.
• You have lodged complaints with upper management, and
their response has been that they will not do anything about
the site until the state orders them to do so.

1. Gather the Facts
• Upper management still holds you in high regard but is getting

tired of your raising the issue of this leak with them.
• You have started buying bottled water for your family and are
discreetly encouraging your friends to do likewise.

• The ethical issues revolve around the conflict between profit
and the common good.
• Companies have a right to make a fair profit, and that profit
provides jobs and a good living to those in the community.
• On the other hand, the companies also have a responsibility to
avoid endangering the community in which they operate.
• Thus, one ethical issue is the conflict between profit and public
good, namely environmental protection.

• A second ethical issue concerns the manager himself. He has a
responsibility to his family.
• Yet, he has also an obligation as manager of the facility to do what
he can to insure that it is operated safely and does not harm the
community.
• This issue can be stated as responsibility to one’s family vs.
responsibility to community.
• This conflict is between the manager’s duty to tell the truth and his
duty to take care of his family.

• Here, the ethical issues involve chiefly a conflict of principles:
• For the manager, there are the principles of taking care of one’s
family; the importance of truth-telling, and the duty to prevent harm
when one has the power to do so.
• For the company, there is the interest in maximizing profit and in not
unnecessarily making expenditures that decrease the bottom line.
• This is balanced by its obligation to pursue profit in a morally
responsible way.

• An additional principle is that of employee loyalty to the
company that supports him, thus, not unnecessarily subjecting
the company to risk and negative publicity.
• Here, the weighting of the principles depends on the degree of
risk that is known at this time.
• Should the chances of the waste leaking into the water table
be great; that would cast more weight on the principle of
truth-telling and one’s duty to prevent harm to the community.

• If the manager simply suspects that there is a leak and does not
know how far it has proceeded, then the principles of loyalty to
one’s company and family care more weight.
• At this point, the manager does not have clear data. But if he
waits until the data becomes more conclusive, it may be too late
to clean up the damage without major expenses being incurred.
• The fact that the facility has passed all state inspections is
significant, but ethics involves responsibilities that go beyond
mere compliance with the law.

4. List the Alternatives
• There can be two main alternatives here—make the
information public, or keep quiet.
• First, he can make public the information about the leak.
• In an effort to keep the discussion within the company, he can
run his own tests, perhaps at his own expense or on his own
time to determine further if any leakage into the community’s
water table has occurred.

• He can then take that hard data to upper management and
request again, on the basis of new information, that they do
something to fix the lead and clean up the damage.
• However, ethical dilemmas do not frequently resolve
themselves so easily.
• Let’s assume that the manager undertakes additional testing of
the area and management still tells him to keep quiet. Then his
options for disclosing the information about the leak involve
“whistle-blowing.” This involves the risk of losing his job.

• He can take his concerns directly to the state environmental
regulations and request that they schedule an inspection of the
facility immediately. He can do this anonymously, but it is
unlikely that his involvement can remain a secret for long,
given his past record of complaints.
• Thus, whether it is done anonymously or directly, the result
will likely be the same.

• Another venue available to him is to take his concerns to the
press. However, the risk of losing his job and being blackballed
from the industry are even greater if he uses this option.
• The second alternative is to keep information to himself. He
can encourage his friends and others in the community to
avoid drinking the community’s drinking water. But this can be
taken out of control.

• Another approach to the second option is to clean up the
waste and fix the leak himself, using his budget for the facility
to fund the clean-up and repair.
• However, for the problem of this magnitude, it is unlikely that
it can be resolved without making a significant dent in his
budget, if it can be afforded at all.
• A substantial amount of budget, even if it is within his budget,
will likely be noticed by upper management, and he will risk
their censure.

• But this is less of a risk than blowing the whistle on the

company.
• For the sake of this discussion, let us assume that the amount
of money needed to fix the problem is more than the manager
can obtain.

5. Compare the Alternatives with the Principles
• The principles of truth-telling and the duty to prevent harm
suggest that the manager should make the information about
the leak public.
• His obligation to the company and to his family suggest that he
ought to keep the information to himself at least until he can
be sure whether the material has leaked into the water table.
• Let us assume that no clear decision is reached at this point.

6. Weigh the Consequences
• The remaining alternatives are for the manager to somehow
disclose the information or keep it to himself until the state
comes to test the facility again.
• The consequences of the two alternatives form mirror images
of each other. That is, for the most part positive consequences
of one option are the reverse of the negative consequences of
the other.

• The likely consequences of DISCLOSING THE INFORMATION
include the following:
• The company will either be tested immediately by the state or
it will be the object of much negative publicity. But remember,
the facility is in Sacramento and the company’s headquarters
are in L.A., more than 400 miles away.
• If the water is tested and found to be substandard, the burden
will be on the company to fix the problem. However, the
facility may still pas the state tests.

• The manager will likely lose his job for defying direct orders
from upper management. He may be blacklisted from the
industry and have to seek employment in another field.
• His family may have to move and he may suffer significant
financial distress.
• But if one is a religious person, he can depend on God’s
sovereignty in situations like these and trust God to provide for
the family.

• If the manager does not disclose the information, the likely
consequences will be the following:
• The leak will continue unabated, perhaps heading toward the
community’s water table.
• The manager will have to live with the knowledge that he had
the opportunity to save the community from harm and did not.
• His job will remain secure as well as his income and family
stability.

• Should the facility be investigated at a later point, he may be
blamed for harm to the community and he may be held liable.
• However, in his defense, he could refer to the correspondence
that he initiated with the head office to alert them to this
problem, thereby possibly taking himself off the hook.
• If the problem gets worse, at the least he will be held
responsible by his friends and peers in the community.

7. Make a Decision
• What would you do in the manager’s place? Is there sufficient

evidence to justify going “out on a limb” and making the
information public; either to the press or to the state?
• Does the biblical principle of self-sacrifice for the good of the
community tilt the decision toward disclosing the information?
• Of does the community also include one’s family giving the
manager a responsibility to them too?

7. Make a Decision
• Where does the sovereignty of God enter into the decision?

• If the manager does not have religious faith, will his decision
likely be different than if he does?

Classroom Discussion:
Do you think the Stages for Decision-

Making will be useful in making moral
decisions? Why or why not?

Ethics 09-The Act (Reason and Impartiality)

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Ethics 09-The Act (Reason and Impartiality)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

ETHICS

DR. LIONEL E. BUENAFLOR

Dr. Lionel E. Buenaflor

Dr. Lionel E. Buenaflor

• Basic Ideas: Each individual’s interest are equally

Dr. Lionel E. Buenaflor

Dr. Lionel E. Buenaflor

Dr. Lionel E. Buenaflor

Dr. Lionel E. Buenaflor

Dr. Lionel E. Buenaflor

Dr. Lionel E. Buenaflor

Dr. Lionel E. Buenaflor

Dr. Lionel E. Buenaflor

Dr. Lionel E. Buenaflor

Dr. Lionel E. Buenaflor

Dr. Lionel E. Buenaflor

• Frequently, ethical dilemmas can be resolved simply by

Dr. Lionel E. Buenaflor

Dr. Lionel E. Buenaflor

• Clearly, biblical principles will be weighted the most

Dr. Lionel E. Buenaflor

• Part of the creative thinking involved in resolving an ethical

Dr. Lionel E. Buenaflor

• The task is one of eliminating alternatives according to the

Dr. Lionel E. Buenaflor

• If the principles do not yield a clear decision, then a

Dr. Lionel E. Buenaflor

• Deliberation cannot go on forever. At some point, a

Dr. Lionel E. Buenaflor

Dr. Lionel E. Buenaflor

Dr. Lionel E. Buenaflor

• Upper management still holds you in high regard but is getting

Dr. Lionel E. Buenaflor

Dr. Lionel E. Buenaflor

Dr. Lionel E. Buenaflor

Dr. Lionel E. Buenaflor

Dr. Lionel E. Buenaflor

Dr. Lionel E. Buenaflor

Dr. Lionel E. Buenaflor

Dr. Lionel E. Buenaflor

Dr. Lionel E. Buenaflor

Dr. Lionel E. Buenaflor

Dr. Lionel E. Buenaflor

• But this is less of a risk than blowing the whistle on the

Dr. Lionel E. Buenaflor

Dr. Lionel E. Buenaflor

Dr. Lionel E. Buenaflor

Dr. Lionel E. Buenaflor

Dr. Lionel E. Buenaflor

Dr. Lionel E. Buenaflor

Dr. Lionel E. Buenaflor

• What would you do in the manager’s place? Is there sufficient

Dr. Lionel E. Buenaflor

• Where does the sovereignty of God enter into the decision?

Dr. Lionel E. Buenaflor

Do you think the Stages for Decision-

Dr. Lionel E. Buenaflor

You might also like