as_zeig_views_it

Ethical Decision-Making

"A Down-to-Earth Approach to
Ethical Decision-Making

Earle F. Zeigler

Humankind has won a recognizable semblance of victory over what is often a harsh physical environment despite the frequent tricks played on us by Mother Nature. Yet, any reasonably intelligent person in society today realizes that people have not yet been able to remove much of the social insecurity present in our lives as we seek to live together peacefully and constructively.

In an effort to help us, many philosophers and theologians have searched down through the ages for a normative ethical system that espouses a moral base upon which people could and should base their conduct. However, today as we approach the year 2000 C.E. there is still no non-controversial foundation on which the entire structure of ethics can be built. Perhaps there will never be.

In considering humankind's basic problems, the philosopher, E.A. Burtt, believed that the greatest danger to our future "lies in the disturbing emotions and destructive passions that he [man, primarily] has not yet overcome; the greatest promise lies in his capacity for a sensitive understanding of himself and his human fellows."

So, if our "distorting emotions and destructive passions" do indeed represent the greatest danger to the future, the application of a sound ethical approach to personal and professional living can be of inestimable assistance to people who are truly seeking a "sensitive understanding" of themselves and their associates.

However, as life becomes ever more complex in the late 20th century, there are at least six major ethical routes to decision-making extant in what we call the Western world. Everything considered, it can be argued that the availability "ethical smorgasbord" confronting humankind is in sad shape. Nevertheless, daily problems related to ethics and human values abound, problems that should somehow be resolved through sound ethical decision-making.

Further, the present way in which a young person initially learns how to make rational ethical decisions in North American society is also inadequate. A child and young person typically acquires such competency--or lack of it--implicitly through everyday experiences, including what direct guidance his/her elders may offer.

This laissez-faire approach is simply insufficient as the young person develops reasoning powers. We are faced, therefore, with a situation where we should be
helping young people to learn explicitly how to develop their own conscious convictions in which the mind leads and the emotions follow to the greatest possible extent.

In the past, moral philosophers offered general guidance as to what to do, what to seek, and how to treat others--injunctions that we should understand even today. As a rule, however, philosophers have not tried to preach to their adherents in the same way that theologians have felt constrained to do. These earlier moral philosophers did, however, offer practical advice that included a great variety of pronouncements on what was good and bad, or right and wrong. For example, the terms right and wrong apply only to acts, but the terms good and bad refer to (1) the effects of acts; (2) the motives which caused the act; (3) the intention of the person carrying out the act; and (4) the person who is the agent of a particular act.

Thus, we might say correctly that "although Smith is a good person, he acted wrongly--yet with good motives and intentions--when he punched Jones and broke his jaw. The consequences were bad, even though Jones had made some threatening gestures at Smith's smaller brother" (this example adapted from the philosopher Hospers).

In retrospect we now appreciate that values, morals, and ethical standards underwent an identity crisis in the 1960s, and the pendulum has been swinging back and forth quite violently ever since. Also, present-day academic philosophers in North America have largely turned their attention to so-called analytic philosophy with its detailed attention to language and related conceptual analysis.

As a result, insight into the human values and morality struggle has devolved to a small group of philosophers, and a much larger group of theologians, politicians, playwrights, comedians, and others. And yet no one can deny the great importance of ethics and human values. Nor can the belief be refuted that the question of personal and professional ethics is indeed on many people's front burner and has really been in a continuing state of flux in the last half of this century. The subject is actually so important that it truly demands careful monitoring at all times.

So what is one to do in what appears to be a "rudderless" world? For one reasonable answer that can be used by most people in a civilized society as a basis for elementary decision-making, a person could well consider a "trivium" approach recommended by ethicist Dick Fox of Cleveland State University to his undergraduate students. (The word trivium has been coined from the Latin meaning three roads converging into one--one ethical solution in this case.)

Proceeding, then, on the assumption that a reasonably intelligent person should be able to work out rationally what right and wrong ethical behavior is, a basic trivium approach is recommended for implementation as experience is being gained. This is one in which there is a progression from the thought of (earlier philosophers) Kant, to Mill, and Aristotle. It consists of the application of three "tests" (phrased as QUESTIONS) to be applied when one wishes to analyze an ethical problem or dilemma prior to making a decision as to which course to follow. These tests are called: (1) the test of consistency, or universalizability; (2) the test of consequences; and (3) the test of intentions.

Immanuel Kant's test of universalizability (or consistency), Step No. 1, is based on the idea that one should "act only on that maxim which one can will to be a universal law." So, despite some inherent weaknesses, I am nevertheless recommending that your first question to yourself when considering a specific response or action in regard to an ethical problem confronting you should be: "IS IT POSSIBLE OR DESIRABLE TO UNIVERSALIZE THIS ACTION TO ALL PEOPLE ON EARTH?

John Stuart Mill's test of consequences, Step No. 2, has been taken from the heritage of philosophic utilitarianism. Its base is the maxim "Act so as to bring the greatest good possible." So, invoking the test of consequences involves asking WHAT THE TOTAL EFFECTS OF A PLANNED ACTION WOULD BE. Further, the decision-maker should be concerned with the promotion of the maximum amount of net, not gross, happiness. At the same time, such thoughts as whether the planned action is fair, just, beneficent, and permits autonomy on the part of any other people concerned. At first glance applying this second test seems quite simple compared to the first test of universalizability (or consistency). But affairs are never as simple as they seem at first glance.

Aristotle's test of intentions, Step No. 3, is the third and final step to be applied in the little trivium recommended by Professor Fox. For this advice we turn to the ancient Greek philosopher, Aristotle, who asked in his Nicomachean Ethics, "WHAT WERE THE CONDITIONS UNDER WHICH THE ACT WAS PERFORMED?" Virtue, as defined by Aristotle, "is concerned with emotion and action, and emotions and actions that are voluntary are objects for praise or blame, while those that are involuntary are objects for pardon and sometimes for pity." So, depending on whether we are adjudging whether a person's actions were voluntary or involuntary, we may decide whether a person's questionable action is actually pardonable because it was carried out under compulsion or from ignorance, or whatever.

A very practical example employing these three tests to determine whether a person's action are good or bad, beneficial or evil, might be a situation where a person has committed a crime (e.g., murder). First, considering Test No. 1, we certainly would not wish to see such an act universalized and carried out against all people on earth. Second, using Test No. 2, this particular act (murder) obviously had most serious consequences and did not contribute to the greatest (net) good or happiness of anyone (in fact, the opposite was the case). Thus, employing Test No. 3, if we wish to judge this seemingly heinous crime as good, bad, or neutral, we need to know under what conditions the act was carried out. A law court definitely takes the results of Test No. 3 into consideration when rendering a judgment.

So there it is, admittedly presented in a most elementary fashion in the limited space available here. However, what is being recommended here was seen by Professor Richard Fox (Cleveland State University) as a good starting point in basic decision-making. Try it out the next time you face an individual or social problem where you are confronted in your own life with the need for sound ethical decision-making.

Note: This initial approach is amplified in some detail in Zeigler's A WAY OUT OF ETHICAL CONFUSION (2004) and in great detail in WHO KNOWS WHAT'S RIGHT ANYMORE? (2002). Further information may be found by clicking on the respective book cover at www.earlezeigler.com

Building a Personal Philosophy

BUILDING A PERSONAL PHILOSOPHY

Building a personal philosophy can be adventurous and extremely exciting. It can also be very rewarding despite the fact that it will be time-consuming and will require some painstaking effort now and in the future. Much care has been taken in the preceding pages to avoid bias and prejudice in presenting the various aspects of the major philosophical tendencies to you. At this point some might feel that the author should use, or at least is entitled to use, a few pages to tell you what he really believes. It is possible that you may feel you know already.

It would be relatively simple for me to build a strong case for a particular approach at this time. You might even forgive me for doing it. I well remember a retired philosophy of education professor who was engaged to teach a course as a "distinguished visiting professor" at Michigan. He knew that he wouldn't be around too much longer, and he just knew his particular philosophic stance was right. So he used his own text explaining his own approach and required no other contradictory readings whatsoever. I don't believe he was being fair to his students--unless he made crystal-clear exactly what he was doing. If he were to do that, the ethical thing for him to do was to permit his students to register for a different course if they decided to make such a move. Whatever, the really important issue right now, however, is for you to continue the development of your philosophy based upon your own experience and reflection.

May I suggest, also, that you consider Theodore Greene's warning given more than four decades ago:

No philosopher worthy of the name is a pure exemplification of any school or type, the wholly appropriate recipient of any handy philosophical label. He may prefer, and merit, some one label in reference to any other presently available, but if he actually functions as a philosopher he is devoting his life to the development and articulation of his own more or less distinctive beliefs, even if these fall primarily, or even wholly, within the confines of a historical school or tradition (1955, p. 91).

Five Possible Stages of Development

Ostrich Stage. You may find that you have been in the ostrich stage up to now. You may have buried your head in the sand (as this bird is reported to do periodically) and refused to allow yourself to become aware of the conflicting philosophies that exist in the world, in your culture, or within your specialized field of physical education and sport.

Cafeteria Stage. Or perhaps you may have climbed the ladder (in this instance a five-rung stepladder) a bit further and are at the cafeteria stage. This involves selecting some of this and some of that which looks appetizing for your philosophical fare. This eclectic approach has a great deal of appeal initially, but there appears to be strong evidence that it is generally regarded as philosophically indefensible. It may, of course, merely be one stage in an individual's development, but it is to be hoped that the devoted professional will soon make his or her way higher.

In assessing eclecticism, Wegener saw it as "a mosaic of diverse conceptions rather than a genuine integration of thought." He called it a "mixture" which he hoped would become a compound (1957, p. 31). As I see it, there is every reason to believe that a person will be attracted by certain elements of the various approaches. The fear I have is that a person may lift something out of context and insert it somewhere else where it simply does not belong. Thus I see this second stage simply as a resting place along the way up the ladder. If a person does not proceed higher into more rarefied air, I think he or she risks not achieving one's professional potential in the final analysis. (This goes back to my longstanding argument that a fine professional person should become a "missionary" for the promotion of the profession.)

Fence-Sitter Stage. The third rung of the ladder is a popular place. This rung has to be a strong one to hold all the people who have gotten this far and no further. I have designated this as the fence-sitter stage or level. Here we find people who have matured a bit more and have found, perhaps unconsciously to a degree, that they are inclining in one philosophic direction or another (e.g, to the left rather than the right; perhaps toward an existential-phenomenological orientation as opposed to a group-oriented position). But beyond that they are unwilling to go. Why? Maybe they're too lazy intellectually, if such a distinction may be made. Perhaps they're vaguely afraid of the consequences of a determined stand. We are told that all too many people are still inclined to be "organization" men or women who don't wish to rock the boat for fear of the possible consequences. Then again, there are often other reasons not disclosed. The late Princeton philosopher, Kaufmann (1973, Chap. 1), coined the term decidophobia for a person's fear of autonomy and/or decision-making.

Stage of Early Maturity. In time I fervently hope that you will at least rise to the fourth rung on this proposed philosophical ladder. This I call the stage of early maturity. At this point the individual professional has wrestled with herself or himself and the immediate social environment. This person has achieved a quality of unity or harmony that is characteristic of a philosophical position or stance that is reasonably logical or consistent in its various departments. She, if this is the case, is able to justify her convictions (which may earlier have been only tentative persuasions) intellectually to the extent that scientific knowledge, and perhaps faith, can assist her. As a result she has developed strong attitudes that are reflected in the moral ardor of her personal and professional life. It is probably not necessary to say that there is plenty of room on this rung of the ladder. Beware of the strong possibility of intolerance and fanaticism at this point!

Stage of Philosophical Maturity. As you mature still further, I hope that you will gradually achieve wisdom as well as mere knowledge. If you do, you may arrive at the stage of philosophical maturity. This level of personal and professional development can come from a broad and sound experience, diligent study, and ordered reflection. It is at this point that we as individuals realize the supreme importance and need for a certain amount of agreement or consensus on a nation-wide, indeed on a worldwide, basis.

Our world has reached a stage where the need for "peaceful strife" is infinitely greater than the types of struggles that have taken place in the past, and which are continuing in the present with seemingly little hope of resolution. At this level on the ladder, we most certainly realize the unique aspects of our own considered position and the importance of a continuing search for truth, however it may be best defined. And yet we should be tolerant of others and their beliefs, realizing that a most sincere effort should be made to increase the boundaries of any level of consensus that has been achieved. After all, it is quite possible, and seemingly quite probable, that only one position is truly right in the final analysis.

Conclusion

No matter which stage of philosophical development you may be at presently, you may find it necessary to retrace the various steps that have been recommended to assist you to build a personal philosophy that is logical, consistent, and systematic. Obviously, there is no hard and fast progression to which you must adhere. The steps that have been suggested should at least serve as a point of departure. It is with this in mind that I have included here an appendix that should help you understand a bit better where you stand right now.

Keep in mind that the philosophic quest is a never-ending one! You won't suddenly, at some later stage of your development, find all the answers to the problems and issues that confront you right now. But you will be leading a greatly enriched life that may truly be an "adventure of ideas," as Whitehead has so aptly expressed it.

Each of you should earn the right to be an influential person in your chosen field or research specialty relating to the profession--at least within your own sphere of operation, and hopefully much further. The field of developmental physical activity in sport, exercise, and related expressive activities has a truly unique contribution to make in the lives of all people everywhere whatever their age or condition may be. Whatever your philosophical position may be, understand it as fully as possible. If you do, it may enable you to live up to the highest standards of your profession. Ours can become a proud profession, if each of us strives to help people realize all the values that life has to offer.

This material was taken from Chapter 14 of Socio-Cultural Foundations of Physical Education and Education by Earle F. Zeigler. It was published by Meyer and Meyer, Aachen, Germany in 2003. For more information go to www.earlezeigler.com, and then click on Meyer & Meyer on the bottom of the home page.