Individuals and institutions use more than one approach to decision-making. They use a combination or hybrid of theories because moral stances often overlap and dictate differing approaches or perspectives and their use.  Because this is a reality, we must be diligent when studying the ethical theory of these seven concrete categories. We must be mindful that these classifications are theoretically artificial and must be applied in “real-life” situations to develop further meaning and understanding.  By studying these categories, we become more aware of the presumptions and assumptions of those involved in the decision-making process. Hopefully, we will be better equipped to evaluate moral processes and outcomes.

Consequentialist Thinking

• The teleological approach
• The issue of Utility
• Act and Rule Utility
• Jeremy Bentham and JS Mill

The first general category of ethical thinking is “consequentialist” thinking.  Individuals using this stance believe that the right action in any circumstance or dilemma produces results the result one, either individually or by group consensus, believes is valuable.

Consequentialists hold that ethical decisions can only be accurately judged on the merit of the result or outcome of the decision.  As a result, such philosophical theories as pragmatism and utilitarianism are often referred to as teleological theories. The term teleology comes from the Greek root “telos, ” loosely translated as the end, completion, purpose, or goal of any thing or activity.

An excellent example can be found in Aristotle’s stance on ethics. Aristotle maintains a form of teleology by arguing the result of individual happiness is the essential element when deciding the ethical nature of a subject. Using his idea of the balance point of life as the basis to determine the level of contentment, Aristotle reasons that one’s knowledge of the outcome is the most crucial element to consider when determining the moral validity of a situation.

Consequentiality theory may also be interpreted in the framework of utilitarianism. This moral stance argues that the most moral results in “the greatest amount of happiness for the greatest number.”  In both examples, Aristotle’s definition from the fourth century BC and the concept of utility basically center on England’s seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, offering a moral problem-solving approach central to the success and practical use of the theories.  This practicality or success can be understood by formulating other hybrid moral theories.  Philosophers such as Cornman and Frankena use consequentiality in their moral approaches, creating hybrids where moral outcomes are understood in the context of many possible outcomes.  In this sense, such thinkers see morality in terms of contextualism or the idea that situations, circumstances, and personalization play a large part in proper moral decision-making.

Natural Law

• Order of the world
• Reason
• Natural process
• Thomas Aquinas

The second approach to moral decision-making is natural law.  In this stance, we find arguments that base the morally correct decision on the ability to explore the natural world around us through proper reason.  Using our natural logic or reasoning ability, we can deduce proper moral assessment; thus, correct morality or decision-making should be based on natural processes or connected with nature cycles or natural laws around us.

At the core of this belief is the assertion that principles of human conduct can be derived from a proper understanding of humanity in the context of the universe as a rational whole.  The proper ethical choice can be found in contemplating individuals’ acknowledgment and acceptance of their place with each other and nature.

The prime example of this ethical approach is the Stoic movement of the late Hellenistic Greek and Roman Republic era.  According to the Stoics, one who wishes to live a moral life must understand that life is short and we are limited in our control of many factors.  Therefore, we must accept nature’s control by acknowledging that we are left with nothing in our lives except the ability to control our actions in response to the powers of nature.  Through our understanding of these factors, we should try to live humble life devoted to moral principles found in an organic approach to living that acknowledges this power.

Duty

• Deontological Thinking
• Categorical Imperative
• The Principle of Ends
• Immanuel Kant

The third ethical theory is the conception of duty. The central belief is that morality comes from doing what we understand to be the practical content and application of the convictions we acquire from the world around us and the people in it. This approach, best exemplified by the work of Immanuel Kant, is based on the philosophical conception of deontology.

Deontology refers to the belief that morality is only correctly understood in the context of moral necessity or obligation. Unlike consequentialist theory, deontological thinkers believe that truly right decisions are not based on practical results but rather the moral obligation inherent in the notion of duty found in the natural understanding and right employment of the concept of reason.

In Kant’s nineteenth-century theory, he points to two specific components that are the basis of duty-based ethical approaches.  Individuals often refer to the categorical imperative or a universal moral principle that can be upheld regardless of the situation and the principle of ends. The categorical imperative or universal principle argues that ethically the right decision must be based on the belief that the process of carrying out proper moral decision-making is more important or just as necessary as the proper, reasoned end.  Individuals who approach moral problem-solving from this perspective base their moral decision-making on their obligation to an absolutistic statement found in the base conception of this obligation to principles.   Look at the following link to analyze Kant’s central portion of this theory.

Rights

• History of Rights in the Western World
• Preservation of Rights
• The Golden Rule

This fourth moral category relies on the belief that morality is shaped by one’s determination and assessment of human rights.  This stance or moral decision-making process emphasizes justified expectations about the benefits to other people or society and what should be at the basis of that expectation of thought and behavior. These expectations are often understood as morally inherent provisions.

This view illustrates that we are entitled to rights provided we act towards others similarly, thus ensuring corresponding rights for them.  Founded within the English tradition, dating to at least the thirteenth century, the expectation of how we treat others has become connected with a core of values that define life and the importance of each individual.  Ethical evaluation is resolved by preserving agreed-upon respect for others through cooperation.  Right and wrong are abstracted within the framework of expectations concerning benefits for individuals and people in groups.

The process to determine mutual rights is understood through consistent and careful exploration of mutually agreed-upon factors, the preservation of which is exchanging certain essential agreed-upon benefits to the advantage of those involved.  In this sense, for the benefit of all, individuals base their moral conceptions on the practical application of daily life, the vision they have for how it should be carried out, and the preservation and betterment of that life through agreed-upon standards or the preservation of rights best understood in the conception of the idea of the golden rule, for example.

This ideology can also be understood in Thomas Hobbes’ ethical theory from the seventeenth century. He writes the harmful component of the golden rule is perhaps more productive.  He argues that “not doing for others what you don’t want to be done to you” may be a more moral way to formulate or work towards a more moral society.  Not getting in each other’s way by attempting to treat others as you would like to be treated. However, a demonstration of rights-based moral theory respects individual desires and rights. When doing this,  people do not infringe on others’ interests or violate their rights and/or their ability to adhere to proper moral principles.   This approach to morality relies upon understanding what is essential to most people involved in moral decision-making. It can often be seen in the formulation of laws that confirm the preservation of this conception of proper acquisition.

In thinking through the possible argument that ethical determination is founded in a discoverable and agreed-upon conception of what everyone is entitled to, listen to Robert Wright’s assessment of how compassion might be connected to the Golden Rule and our natural inclinations.  Wright argues that our ethical evaluation might be understood within this hybrid of theories by integrating rights, instinct, and natural law.

Virtue

• Ethos
• People We Respect
• Concepts We Prefer
• Simplistic and Natural

Virtue ethics is the fifth stance.  In studying “ethos” or character, thinkers believe morality is directly connected to peoples’ understanding of what is conceptually “good.”  The idea of a hierarchy of opinion, thought, or ideology becomes the focus of this perspective.  Its conceptualization is correlated with what “behaviors or thoughts” we prefer individuals to possess and less about the reality of where people are in their moral stances.

Virtue ethics is best understood in the framework of the understanding of the terms “ideals or forms”, used by Greeks such as Plato and Aristotle.  Their view maintains that humans have the innate inclination and ability to understand the concept of “betterment” in all avenues of life.  As a result, we must seek to understand “true wisdom” to grasp the values or virtues we hold dear.

By doing this, morality becomes both the compass and motivating factor for our lives.  It also becomes a guideline by encouraging us, through reason and knowledge, towards what are appropriate thoughts and behaviors while pushing us to realize that such ideas are not only subjective.  Thus, these ideals function as factors for proper behavioral practice.  In that process, we find meaning or progress in our lives.  One way to do this is to focus on people that we respect.  By analyzing their behavior and characteristics, we can internalize those values and make them part of our lives.

Authority

• The Importance of Belief
• Group or Individual Authority
• Revelation Based
• Conscience (Soul)

The sixth moral category highlights the concept of morality based on some form of authority, whether as a political, social, or cultural entity.  Often referred to as “belief ethics”, this approach can also be understood as determined by a form of a supernatural or natural authority figure who has given humanity a preferred way or manner of living.

This approach conceptualizes morality as a series of beliefs, concepts, or dictums given to humans for survival.  This belief often is directly connected with the understanding that morality can be closely linked to authority figures and to direct imperatives.  Thus, many assert or argue that religion and/or religious beliefs may be directly tied to one’s understanding of morality or ethical belief.  Therefore the issue is how one attains that moral understanding.

There are many plausible arguments, but I have narrowed it down to two that best explain this perspective.

1. Morality, though steeped in some form of a moral command, is usually connected with a unique situation or understanding, allowing this information to be divulged.  When this unique situation occurs, these ideas are often reason-based and/or virtue oriented and hold to conduct that enhances the well-being or “betterment” of those involved.
2. The authority-based approach to ethical conceptualization often asserts that conscience, or an innate awareness within us, confirms the validity of this understanding.  Thus, some authority-based interpretations argue that morality is known through the combination of directives and solid moral “feelings” or understanding coupled with a strong awareness of inner inclinations.  “Inner awareness” leads or confirms to us that such natural or supernatural authorities dictate proper moral principles.  In the end, authority becomes a basis for people to determine the right course of action in ethical decision-making, understanding that the human is part of that process but not the sole factor in formulating proper ethical standards and/or norms.

Instinct

• Community Standards
• Kinship & Nepotism
• Reciprocity

The last area of exploration is instinct. This study comes from the belief that morality stems from our natural urges or natural/biological phenomena.  This approach stresses the importance of understanding our instincts’ role in developing morality.  Instinct can be defined as a form of natural control or guidance that influence our thinking and behavior. It is central to how we relate to others in a community.

Unlike the other theories presented, this stance argues that community standards or moral stances are based on our natural need to preserve ourselves or our species/gene pool.  Therefore, morality is staked in self-preservation.

Individuals who defend this viewpoint believe they will naturally favor their kin or biological relations in moral decision-making.  Therefore, their moral stances rely upon biological factors, and they dictate their priorities and moral beliefs.  Additionally, this field of moral analysis asserts that our biological makeup or natural “being” influences us in two other ways.  One, we innately work towards reciprocity or the moral belief that exchanging goods and/or aid is central to morality; and two, the basis of actual ethical decision-making, can be found in sharing “favors” so that individuals benefit.

The core of reciprocity is found in individual right versus wrong assessments and uniting those factors with the self-interest found in community cooperation.  As a result, instinct morality seems to be motivated in many theories by the assumption that reality dictates moral choices and that community norms are simply a reflection of individual and natural rectifications that ultimately maximize individual survival. Listen to Jane Goodall to hear more about the argument of instinct-based morality as a plausible ethical decision-making outcome.

Franz De Waal has defended that animals can teach us much about moral behavior.  Listen to his analysis of the morality of animal behavior that supports the ideology of instinct ethics.

Ultimately, instinct ethics focuses on believing humans have become too complicated in our ethical evaluation.  We may rely too much on education, reason, and complex systems that have yielded unethical returns.  By attempting to return to what is most natural, theorists’ arguments support the idea that we would be more moral if we focused on community, cooperation, and natural need.

Final Thoughts on Seven Approaches to Ethical Problem Solving

The approaches discussed in this chapter are plausible arguments for how morality is formulated and discuss what factors affect how people conceptualize decision-making.  Leaders need to understand these approaches when they weigh difficult decisions or formulate business policies. What is perhaps just as important is that one takes these seven approaches and qualifies that knowledge with the understanding that these approaches are integrated into many ways.  Though these categories are “neat” and “tidy” by definition, they also are explored in an academic setting. The reality of the human experience dictates that we understand these elements in the context of integration.  A person who relies on instinct as the basis of moral decision-making in one instance might appeal to virtues or values in another.  Beyond this, it is commonplace to see individuals appeal to both in the same circumstance, thus creating, as listed above, hybrid theories.  A good example might be the understanding that authority-based ethical theory coincides with instinct and virtue, as individuals argue that God or some supernatural power created virtue, values, or instinct as an ethical gauge.

All appeal to both facets or are multi-layered in their approach to understanding the basics of moral theory and thus make the task of assessing these various approaches extremely difficult.  Perhaps the place to start in the estimation of University of Alabama professor James Rachels is to acknowledge these various approaches and work to see their unique overlapping components and specific connections.  Rachels offers two solid suggestions for dealing with moral basics that should help address these areas as one is confronted by their different stances.

• First, get as much factual knowledge as possible.
• Second, attempt to decrease subjective interpretations or human prejudice.

Taking these seven as the beginning of approaches, leaders can begin to understand how individuals approach moral decision-making more fully.  Developing awareness of these categories and their potential hybrids allows us to more clearly, effectively, and carefully address potential problems.

References:

Cotton, J. (2016, April 06). Immanuel Kant. Retrieved from https://www.theschooloflife.com/thebookoflife/immanuel-kant/

Goodall, J. (2002, March). What separates us from chimpanzees? Retrieved from https://www.ted.com/talks/jane_goodall_on_what_separates_us_from_the_apes

Waal, F. D. (n.d.). Moral behavior in animals. Retrieved from https://www.ted.com/talks/frans_de_waal_do_animals_have_morals

Wright, R. (2009, October). The evolution of compassion. Retrieved from https://www.ted.com/talks/robert_wright_the_evolution_of_compassion