INTEGRATIVE ETHICS IE

Transcription

1 INTEGRATIVE ETHICS IE Under what circumstances should we evaluate behaviors using one ethical approach rather than another? What principles should we use to evaluate the quality of an ethical assessment? Which guides should we use to figure out whether we ve got the ethical assessment we want? How do we use the ethical approaches so that they work together or be integrated in order that our evaluation of behaviors can be systematic? Integrative Ethics Justice Virtue Ethics Deontological Governance Utilitarianism Behaviors Performances Outcomes How should I behave? What should I do? What impacts should I have?

2 Ethical Frame: The ethical approach, approaches, or combination or integration of approaches that is applied to evaluate the behavior. How do people actually choose ethical frames? Ethical frames are socially constructed, hence discretionary and potentially (though not necessarily) arbitrary. But the choice and/or construction of a frame can be influenced by a number of factors including the nature of the situation or context, the attributes of the evaluated entities, the nature of evaluated actions, the evaluation of relevant issues, perceived risk, and the perception, nature, and locus of responsibility. Some Frame Dynamics: I term the process by which ethical frames are constructed and designated ethical (or normative) agenda-building. In effect, a case has to be made that a particular frame is appropriate, or subject to wide consensus, or triggered by certain contexts or attributes, or other aspects. Those who control the definition of a frame, tend to control outcomes. Hence, contests over redefinition of ethical frames can be proxies for conflict over social benefits.

3 The greater the salience of an event subject to ethical evaluation, the greater the frame shrinking. That is, the perception of the event fills the frame so that only that event, and not neighboring events, receives ethical evaluation. The greater the consensus on an ethical frame, the greater the rigidity of that frame. That is, social consensus on ethical positions tends to anchor the ethical evaluation chosen, so that it is difficult to modify. Frame Triggers create biases toward use of some ethical frames over others. For example: - Perceptions of scandal bias toward employing the frame of virtue ethics. - Perceptions of vulnerability bias toward employing the deontological approach (moral principles) if the attribute applies to individuals or single groups or actors, and toward justice if the attribute applies to comparisons or relationships among groups or actors. - Perceptions of material loss bias toward employing a utilitarian approach, or a justice approach concerned with compensation or restoration.

4 What about the choice of ethical content -- how do we pick the particular normative guides or principles that guide what we do? The process by which particular normative guides are selected -- for example, particular guiding virtues; particular guiding moral principles -- is termed normative referencing. There is an implicit or explicit decision regarding which normative guides should dominate. When we have selected the normative guides to use, we have normative commitment. Normative engagement (actually choosing the principle or normative guide to follow -- think virtue ethics as example) vs. normative placeholding (selecting the method to be applied to decide which normative guide to follow -- think the categorical imperative as example). On the theory of normative referencing, see Barry Mitnick, Systematics and CSR: The Theory and Processes of Normative Referencing, Business & Society 34(1)(April 1995): 5-32.

5 What promotes normative engagement? genuinely preferred, not imposed. strongly preferred. central to those in the wider community. formalized or codified, making their expression clear, unambiguous, and easy to identify. - When the actor making the choice is in the position of an agent who must choose for those who cannot choose for themselves. Such an actor is termed a fiduciary.