Ethics Awareness Inventory©
Background and Description of the CORE Perspectives
As Applied to an Ethical Issue
Philosophical Framework:
(The) history of antiquity did not teach the inevitability of progress. It taught the perishability of republics, the transience of glory, the mutability of human affairs….This tradition argued that republics lived and died by virtue—and that in the fullness of time, power and luxury inexorably brought corruption and decay….Not only was man vulnerable through his propensity to sin, but republics were vulnerable through their propensity to corruption. History showed that, in the unceasing contest between corruption and virtue, corruption has always—up at least to 1776—triumphed….The Founding Fathers saw the American republic not as a divine consecration but as the test against history of a hypothesis. Yet the very faith in experiment implied the rejection of the classical republican dogma that time guaranteed decay.
—Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr.[1]
What is this Concept Called ‘Ethics’?—Throughout the early 1990s, we were surrounded by evidence of the general public’s perception that corruption is winning in its ‘unceasing contest’ against virtue. Frequent references to a lack of trust in our leaders were cited as evidence of people’s ‘propensity to sin’ and a republic’s ‘propensity to corruption.’ Now that we have entered the 21st century, leaders are becoming increasingly aware of the need to address ethics within their constituency. But when the public and the news media make reference to an ‘ethical decline’ among our leaders and a concern for ‘personal ethics and values’ in today’s society, what exactly do they mean? What do they perceive to be the problem? Is the concept of ‘ethics,’ as reflected in public opinion surveys, even subject to clear definition? Can there be any real consensus on the questions or the responses without first examining the moral foundations of the individual and societal belief systems underlying them?
Ethics, as a branch of philosophy, is concerned with morality, moral problems, and moral judgments, dealing with such elusive terms as ‘values,’ ‘right,’ and ‘good.’ It deals with issues beyond the realm of traditional rules and customs and unconscious habits. However, at its deepest level of inquiry, public opinion takes a cursory look at possible contributing factors and solutions to unacceptable conduct. This approach to ethical thinking represents a critically deficient attempt at normative ethics.
We ought to view with suspicion the recent American addiction to easy and instant moral indignation. It exhibits the kind of need to find a whipping boy which is characteristically a symptom of a deep, but unacknowledged unease about oneself.
Typically, philosophical studies of professional ethics have tended to limit their level of inquiry to case studies of ethical dilemmas and the application of traditional principles to specific hypothetical problems, a field of study often referred to as ‘applied ethics.’ These studies of professional ethics frequently reflect the gulf that exists between the work of moral philosophers and the daily practice of professionals.
At this point, it might be useful, therefore, to explore what insight philosophical theory can bring to bear on the public’s increased concern for ethics and the possible dangers that exist in attempting to separate philosophy from policy. Generally some benefit is derived from applying theory to a situation with which most readers of whatever background can identify. It is important to realize that providing such an example for study is merely intended to be illustrative; the complexities of individuals and policy decisions do not always allow for the relatively simplistic definitions that these sketches will portray.
The case upon which I will focus occurred 20 years ago on January 28, 1986. On that date, while I was serving in a policy position at NASA Headquarters in Washington, DC, seven astronauts lost their lives while the nation watched on network television, transfixed by the reality that NASA’s highly-publicized ‘Teacher in Space’ program had ended in disaster. That program became one of the most visible public policy decisions of the late 20th century, and its impact continues to play a prominent role in nearly every policy decision at NASA today. Overshadowed by the ethical dilemma posed by the decision to launch that morning despite less than ideal weather conditions and warnings from Thiokol engineers, in the months following the Challenger incident NASA officials were faced with a barrage of criticism for a variety of other less-publicized ethical issues. The question we will use for our analysis of the four theories represented in the Ethics Awareness Inventory© is whether Christa McAuliffe, the person selected by NASA to be their Teacher in Space, should have been in that space shuttle at all. Should NASA have launched the ‘Teacher in Space’ program? Hindsight always seeming to provide more keenness of perception than foresight, policy experts began to question the advisability of NASA’s inclusion of civilians in space exploration. What can each of the four moral theories featured in the Ethics Awareness Inventory© contribute to a thoughtful analysis of this decision?
Character—The ‘Character’ perspective in the EAI, represented by the letter C, is most closely aligned with virtue theory for which the primary concern is what it is good to be, rather than what it is good to do. In other words, this theory looks to an individual’s character, rather than to an individual’s duty, conduct, or actions. Morality focuses on judgment and the cultivation of virtues. This theory focuses more on the development of moral character, on the kind of traits one would consider to be exemplary. In some respects, it goes beyond the expression of duty or obligation, and beyond the expression of moral standards of right and wrong. Instead, it calls for the qualities of character we can bring to bear on complex ethical decisions that require judgment, wisdom, and integrity in order to choose between conflicting rules or standards of right and wrong.
Virtue theorists offer a critique of liberal moral theory and its emphasis on abstract principles, arguing that without virtue we would not be inclined to follow principles of duty. Mere compliance with rules, no matter how well-intentioned, cannot be considered morality without being accompanied by consistent voluntary striving to be morally good or virtuous, to cultivate those traits that go beyond conformity to internalized rules of moral duty and obligation. Some moral theorists argue that, without some principles, we are unable or unwilling to provide an equal opportunity for individuals to develop the virtues. This debate leads Frankena to the conclusion that the morality of duty and the morality of virtues are “two complementary aspects of the same morality…To parody a famous dictum of Kant’s, I am inclined to think that principles without traits are impotent and traits without principles are blind.”[3]
An exploration of how the virtues could play a significant role in a decision like the one to offer a ‘Teacher in Space’ program would focus on an examination of the consistency of character traits modeled by individual policy makers. Is the decision based on a set of moral rules and principles or is it based on a set of virtues and traits of character—or both? Rather than merely reasoning about what would constitute the appropriate moral rule to be applied in this circumstance, the virtue of practical wisdom cultivated within the individual policy maker inevitably would result in an ethical decision—through excellence of deliberation and character. The rote fulfillment of duty without the attendant traits of character could not be considered a virtuous action. These traits or virtues include, among others, benevolence, justice, honesty, practical wisdom, conscientiousness, moral courage, moral responsibility, integrity and good will.
By applying the Character perspective (virtue theory), the ethics involved in the decision to offer a ‘Teacher in Space’ program could not be based solely on an obligation to moral rules or on an assessment of the results to be achieved or the benefits to be gained; it would require an emphasis on the recognition of the role personal and social ideals play in the moral development of individuals. Rosemarie Tong discusses the importance of ideals—“The power of an ideal differs from the force of a rule. It takes time to live up to an ideal, and failure to live up to it results in a sense of personal dissatisfaction.”[4] And what of NASA’s decision to offer a ‘Teacher in Space’ program? Was the focus on ideals and the moral development of individuals?
Historically, virtue theory is the oldest normative theory in Western philosophy with its roots in ancient Greek civilization; refer to the writings of Plato and Aristotle. Later, however, medieval theologians built upon Greek virtue theory, but interest in this field declined during the 19th century. More recently interest in virtue theory has been renewed through the writings of philosophers such as Alasdair MacIntyre, Philippa Foot, and Sara L. Ruddick.
Obligation—The ‘Obligation’ perspective in the EAI, represented by the letter O, is most closely aligned with a deontological theory in which the focus is on an individual’s duty or obligation to do what is morally right. This theory looks to what we intend by our actions, rather than the consequences of our actions. Immanuel Kant is the philosopher most frequently associated with this moral theory. By appealing to ‘conscience’ and the notion that individuals are moved to action by moral reason, Kant seeks to justify that ordinary moral judgments, in the Judeo-Christian tradition, are legitimately true.
Kant offers us a ‘categorical imperative’ by formulating three equal principles of morality:
- Moral law must be universalizable. In other words, morality must be freely chosen by self-determining, rational agents if they are to be held responsible. Moral resolve is unqualified; intention is key. Duty must be done for duty’s sake.
- Moral law calls for us to treat each person, including ourselves, with respect. Respect for human dignity is the fundamental birthright of all rational persons. Kant’s principle of humanity teaches us that human beings have intrinsic value and, therefore, must not be used solely to accomplish one’s own ends.
- Moral law recognizes all rational beings as autonomous agents by virtue of their ability to make their own decisions and to chart individual courses of action. Kant considered this notion of autonomy to be fundamental to human dignity and the source of all morality.[5]
Using obligation to examine the ethical questions raised earlier regarding NASA’s ‘Teacher in Space’ program and remembering that intention must be the focus of this perspective, we turn to some key goals of the mission statement contained in The National Aeronautics and Space Act, including:
…it is the policy of the United States that activities in space should be devoted to peaceful purposes for the benefit of mankind.
…[the program should seek] expansion of human knowledge of the Earth and of phenomena in the atmosphere and space.[6]
In making the decision to offer opportunities for expanded knowledge to the American people through the ‘Teacher in Space’ program, NASA policy officials would be following a moral rule, or principle, that they believed to be appropriate (universalizable under any circumstances). Such a rule might be, “Provide opportunities for individuals to grow.” In this case, NASA could use Obligation to justify the program rationally on the basis that it presents an opportunity for the growth of human knowledge. If, however, the teacher’s growth and the potential learning experience for the nation’s youth were actually secondary to a desire for material benefits to be derived by the agency, then individuals would be subject to treatment as means to some identified agency end, such as an increased budget allocation from Congress. An action of this kind would be considered immoral or invalid under using this perspective.
Kant seeks to establish a philosophical justification for general moral principles found within the Judeo-Christian tradition. His work has exerted significant and lasting influence on modern moral philosophy. More recently, the writings of John Rawls and W.D. Ross have expanded upon Kant’s work.
Results—The ‘Results’ perspective in the EAI, represented by the letter R, is most closely aligned with utilitarianism for which the primary concern is the consequences of our actions, seeking to maximize the greatest balance of good over evil. This standard for measuring rightness or wrongness is referred to as the principle of utility. It is particularly appealing to consider the notion of being able to measure good and evil mathematically and efficiently in the interest of achieving a net balance of good in people’s lives. Moral rules are not determined by appealing to rationally determined duty and intention but rather by following the course of action that will result in consequences that best maximize utility. This major difference places the O perspective (deontology) and the R perspective (utilitarianism) deeply at odds with one another.
Utilitarian theorists look to the benefits to be derived from a specific act or rule. The consequences are of prime importance, and they ought to be objectively examined by using a value-neutral approach. Decisions must serve to maximize the social good. Utilitarian philosophers argue that the principle of utility has the potential to achieve a greater level of social equality by providing principles to achieve a greater average good—or a higher quality of life, on average, for each individual.
If NASA officials would determine that following the rule ‘Do not seek to expand human knowledge’ could produce a greater net benefit for the agency than ‘Seek to expand human knowledge,’ the rule-utilitarians among them would not be in support of the ‘Teacher in Space’ project. In fact, it would be wrong in their view to pursue the project. An act-utilitarian, on the other hand, would be willing to support the ‘Teacher in Space’ project if it was part of a more general program that would produce greater overall benefit than any other available option to achieve the desired result.
Utilitarianism is a tradition established in the late-18th and 19th centuries by English philosophers and economists Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill. Their theory is based on the belief that an action is right if it tends to promote happiness and wrong if it tends to produce the reverse of happiness. The happiness quotient applies not just to the performer of the action but also to everyone affected by the decision. Other utilitarian philosophers include Henry Sidgwick, a late-19th century Cambridge philosopher; G. E. Moore, a 20th century British philosopher; and R. M. Hare, an Oxford philosopher who died in 2002.
Equity—The ‘Equity’ perspective in the EAI, represented by the letter E, is most closely aligned with a postmodern theory that emerged in the early 1970s and developed as a critique of the traditional principles associated with philosophical thinking in ‘modern’ times (generally considered as a part of the Enlightenment project of the 18th century). This critique challenges five major characteristics of modern thought (including deontology and utilitarianism): 1) its commitment to individualism; 2) its commitment to equality; 3) the notion of social progress; 4) its commitment to universal principles shared by a common humanity and based on the concept of universal reason; and 5) its commitment to absolute truths, objective science, and the rational planning of ideal social orders.
Postmodern theorists place a greater focus on the inherent value and dignity of others than on individualism, placing more emphasis on the fragmentation of individuals in today’s society. They reject the rigidity of institutionalized standards, regarding rules themselves as intrinsically oppressive. Postmodern theory is concerned with the instabilities of society and is characterized by an intense distrust of traditional universal principles and moral values, viewing them as either outdated or oppressive. It is important that the individual be set free from the social limitations imposed by universal answers formulated by a body of experts. Pragmatism is the only guide to action; no principled solution is adequate for all time. Equality is not to be assessed by using standards of equal opportunity. Postmodern theorists are responsible only to persons and actual communities in a society characterized by rapid and constant change and widespread insecurity. Michel Foucault suggests that we question the use of the theory or right to fix the legitimacy of power:
Let us not, therefore, ask why certain people want to dominate, what they seek, what is their overall strategy. Let us ask, instead, how things work at the level of on-going subjugation, at the level of those continuous and uninterrupted processes which subject our bodies, govern our gestures, dictate our behaviours, etc….One needs to investigate historically, and beginning from the lowest level, how mechanisms of power have been able to function…We need to see how these mechanisms of power, at a given moment, in a precise conjecture and by means of a certain number of transformations, have begun to become economically advantageous and politically useful.[7]
Using a critical pragmatic analysis, NASA officials would begin their decision making process by considering the far-reaching impact of implementing the ‘Teacher in Space’ program. They would attempt to examine a number of alternatives reflecting a wide range of theoretical bases. Participation is seen as critical by postmodern theorists. Therefore, the decision making process would most likely provide the opportunity for public discussion in partnership with top NASA leaders. Recognizing the belief that exclusionary, discriminatory, and oppressive power is objectionable and that the dehumanization of human subjects is unacceptable, NASA officials would require the representation of voices that traditionally have not played an active role in decision making (including astronauts, teachers, parents, and students). This process would attempt to reach a decision reflecting the best ethical judgment of stakeholders representing a variety of roles.
A group of French theorists brought postmodernism into the philosophical world—Michel Foucault, Jacques Derrida, Roland Barthes, Jacques Lacan, and Julia Kristeva. Although these philosophers were not originally associated with postmodernism, the publication of Jean-François Lyotard’s Postmodern Condition in 1979 made the two nearly synonymous. Another excellent reference is David Harvey’s The Condition of Postmodernity: An Enquiry into the Origins of Cultural Change (1990).
This background is intended to provide a broad perspective on different views of moral theory that underlie some of the common belief systems of individuals. An examination of the escalation of a public concern for ethics in recent years requires us to develop an understanding of the meaning behind the public’s perception and the manner in which current beliefs and values are supported and justified. What principles of ethical thought are instrumental in reaching a particular judgment? Ethics involves much more than the institutionalization of codes of ethics and standards of conduct. It includes an inquiry into what is right or good and the ability to give reasons for our judgment. Without this ability, individuals experience the discomfort that accompanies tensions between personal belief systems and institutionalized demands. A knowledge of different views of moral theory makes it possible to explore more satisfactorily what the public might mean when referring to their perception of an ‘ethical decline’ in today’s society.
—Linda M. Williams, Ph.D.
EAI Author
Copyright 2008. The Williams Institute. Scottsdale AZ,
[1] Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr., The Cycles of American History (Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin Co., 1986), pp. 6, 10.
[2] Alasdair MacIntyre, “Why Are The Problems of Business Ethics Insoluble?” in Moral Responsibility and the Professions, eds. Bernard Baumrin and Benjamin Freedman (New York, NY: Haven Publications, 1983), p. 351.
[3] William K. Frankena, Ethics (Second Edition) (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1973), p. 65.
[4] Rosemarie Tong, Ethics in Policy Analysis (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1986), p. 89.
[5] See Immanuel Kant, Groundwork of the Metaphysic of Morals, in David Theo Goldberg, Ethical Theory and Social Issues: Historical Texts and Contemporary Readings (Fort Worth, TX: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc., 1989), pp. 111-129.
[6] Advisory Committee on the Future of the U.S. Space Program, “Report of the Advisory Committee on the Future of the U.S. Space Program” (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1990), p. 23.
[7] Michel Foucault, “Two Lectures.” In Power/Knowledge: Selected Interviews and Other Writings, 1972-1977, ed. Colin Gordon (New York, NY: Pantheon Books, 1980), pp. 97-101.