A FRAMEWORK FOR ETHICAL DECISION

MAKING
We all have an image of our better selves—of how we are when we act ethically or are
“at our best.” We probably also have an image of what an ethical community, an ethical
business, an ethical government, or an ethical society should be. Ethics really has to do
with all these levels—acting ethically as individuals, creating ethical organizations and
governments, and making our society as a whole more ethical in the way it treats
everyone.

What is Ethics?
Ethics refers to standards and practices that tell us how human beings ought to act in
the many situations in which they find themselves—as friends, parents, children, citizens,
businesspeople, professionals, and so on. Ethics is also concerned with our character. It
requires knowledge, skills, and habits.

Ethics refers to standards and practices that tell us how human beings ought to act in
the many situations in which they find themselves—as friends, parents, children, citizens,
businesspeople, professionals, and so on. Ethics is also concerned with our character. It
requires knowledge, skills, and habits.

It is helpful to identify what ethics is NOT:

 Ethics is not the same as feelings. Feelings do provide important information

for our ethical choices. However, while some people have highly developed
habits that make them feel bad when they do something wrong, others feel good
even though they are doing something wrong. And, often, our feelings will tell us
that it is uncomfortable to do the right thing if it is difficult.
 Ethics is not the same as religion. Many people are not religious but act
ethically, and some religious people act unethically. Religious traditions can,
however, develop and advocate for high ethical standards, such as the Golden
Rule.
 Ethics is not the same thing as following the law. A good system of law does
incorporate many ethical standards, but law can deviate from what is ethical. Law
can become ethically corrupt—a function of power alone and designed to serve
the interests of narrow groups. Law may also have a difficult time designing or
enforcing standards in some important areas and may be slow to address new
problems.
  Ethics is not the same as following culturally accepted norms. Cultures can
include both ethical and unethical customs, expectations, and behaviors. While
assessing norms, it is important to recognize how one’s ethical views can be
limited by one’s own cultural perspective or background, alongside being
culturally sensitive to others.
 Ethics is not science. Social and natural science can provide important data to
help us make better and more informed ethical choices. But science alone does
not tell us what we ought to do. Some things may be scientifically or
technologically possible and yet unethical to develop and deploy.

Six Ethical Lenses

If our ethical decision-making is not solely based on feelings, religion, law, accepted
social practice, or science, then on what basis can we decide between right and wrong,
good and bad? Many philosophers, ethicists, and theologians have helped us answer
this critical question. They have suggested a variety of different lenses that help us
perceive ethical dimensions. Here are six of them:

The Rights Lens

Some suggest that the ethical action is the one that best protects and respects the
moral rights of those affected. This approach starts from the belief that humans have a
dignity based on their human nature per se or on their ability to choose freely what they
do with their lives. On the basis of such dignity, they have a right to be treated as ends
in themselves and not merely as means to other ends. The list of moral rights—including
the rights to make one's own choices about what kind of life to lead, to be told the
truth, not to be injured, to a degree of privacy, and so on—is widely debated; some
argue that non-humans have rights, too. Rights are also often understood as implying
duties—in particular, the duty to respect others' rights and dignity.

The Justice Lens

Justice is the idea that each person should be given their due, and what people are due
is often interpreted as fair or equal treatment. Equal treatment implies that people
should be treated as equals according to some defensible standard such as merit or
need, but not necessarily that everyone should be treated in the exact same way in
every respect. There are different types of justice that address what people are due in
various contexts. These include social justice (structuring the basic institutions of
society), distributive justice (distributing benefits and burdens), corrective justice
(repairing past injustices), retributive justice (determining how to appropriately punish
wrongdoers), and restorative or transformational justice (restoring relationships or
transforming social structures as an alternative to criminal punishment).

The Utilitarian Lens

Some ethicists begin by asking, “How will this action impact everyone affected?”—
emphasizing the consequences of our actions. Utilitarianism, a results-based approach,
says that the ethical action is the one that produces the greatest balance of good over
harm for as many stakeholders as possible. It requires an accurate determination of the
likelihood of a particular result and its impact. For example, the ethical corporate action,
then, is the one that produces the greatest good and does the least harm for all who are
affected—customers, employees, shareholders, the community, and the environment.
Cost/benefit analysis is another consequentialist approach.

The Common Good Lens

According to the common good approach, life in community is a good in itself and our
actions should contribute to that life. This approach suggests that the interlocking
relationships of society are the basis of ethical reasoning and that respect and
compassion for all others—especially the vulnerable—are requirements of such
reasoning. This approach also calls attention to the common conditions that are
important to the welfare of everyone—such as clean air and water, a system of laws,
effective police and fire departments, health care, a public educational system, or even
public recreational areas. Unlike the utilitarian lens, which sums up and aggregates
goods for every individual, the common good lens highlights mutual concern for the
shared interests of all members of a community.

The Virtue Lens

A very ancient approach to ethics argues that ethical actions ought to be consistent with
certain ideal virtues that provide for the full development of our humanity. These virtues
are dispositions and habits that enable us to act according to the highest potential of
our character and on behalf of values like truth and beauty. Honesty, courage,
compassion, generosity, tolerance, love, fidelity, integrity, fairness, self-control, and
prudence are all examples of virtues. Virtue ethics asks of any action, “What kind of
person will I become if I do this?” or “Is this action consistent with my acting at my
best?”

The Care Ethics Lens

Care ethics is rooted in relationships and in the need to listen and respond to individuals
in their specific circumstances, rather than merely following rules or calculating utility. It
privileges the flourishing of embodied individuals in their relationships and values
interdependence, not just independence. It relies on empathy to gain a deep
appreciation of the interest, feelings, and viewpoints of each stakeholder, employing
care, kindness, compassion, generosity, and a concern for others to resolve ethical
conflicts. Care ethics holds that options for resolution must account for the
relationships, concerns, and feelings of all stakeholders. Focusing on connecting
intimate interpersonal duties to societal duties, an ethics of care might counsel, for
example, a more holistic approach to public health policy that considers food security,
transportation access, fair wages, housing support, and environmental protection
alongside physical health.

Using the Lenses

Each of the lenses introduced above helps us determine what standards of behavior and
character traits can be considered right and good. There are still problems to be solved,
however.

The first problem is that we may not agree on the content of some of these specific
lenses. For example, we may not all agree on the same set of human and civil rights. We
may not agree on what constitutes the common good. We may not even agree on what
is a good and what is a harm.

The second problem is that the different lenses may lead to different answers to the
question “What is ethical?” Nonetheless, each one gives us important insights in the
process of deciding what is ethical in a particular circumstance.

Making Decisions
Making good ethical decisions requires a trained sensitivity to ethical issues and a
practiced method for exploring the ethical aspects of a decision and weighing the
considerations that should impact our choice of a course of action. Having a method for
ethical decision-making is essential. When practiced regularly, the method becomes so
familiar that we work through it automatically without consulting the specific steps.

The more novel and difficult the ethical choice we face, the more we need to rely on
discussion and dialogue with others about the dilemma. Only by careful exploration of
the problem, aided by the insights and different perspectives of others, can we make
good ethical choices in such situations.

The following framework for ethical decision-making is intended to serve as a practical

tool for exploring ethical dilemmas and identifying ethical courses of action.
A Framework for Ethical Decision Making
Identify the Ethical Issues

1. Could this decision or situation be damaging to someone or to some group, or

unevenly beneficial to people? Does this decision involve a choice between a
good and bad alternative, or perhaps between two “goods” or between two
“bads”?
2. Is this issue about more than solely what is legal or what is most efficient? If so,
how?

Get the Facts

1. What are the relevant facts of the case? What facts are not known? Can I learn
more about the situation? Do I know enough to make a decision?
2. What individuals and groups have an important stake in the outcome? Are the
concerns of some of those individuals or groups more important? Why?
3. What are the options for acting? Have all the relevant persons and groups been
consulted? Have I identified creative options?

Evaluate Alternative Actions

1. Evaluate the options by asking the following questions:

 Which option best respects the rights of all who have a stake? (The Rights Lens)
 Which option treats people fairly, giving them each what they are due? (The
Justice Lens)
 Which option will produce the most good and do the least harm for as many
stakeholders as possible? (The Utilitarian Lens)
 Which option best serves the community as a whole, not just some members?
(The Common Good Lens)
 Which option leads me to act as the sort of person I want to be? (The Virtue Lens)
 Which option appropriately takes into account the relationships, concerns, and
feelings of all stakeholders? (The Care Ethics Lens)

Choose an Option for Action and Test It

1. After an evaluation using all of these lenses, which option best addresses the
situation?
 2. If I told someone I respect (or a public audience) which option I have chosen,
what would they say?
3. How can my decision be implemented with the greatest care and attention to the
concerns of all stakeholders?

Implement Your Decision and Reflect on the Outcome

1. How did my decision turn out, and what have I learned from this specific
situation? What (if any) follow-up actions should I take?

This framework for thinking ethically is the product of dialogue and debate at the Markkula
Center for Applied Ethics at Santa Clara University. Primary contributors include Manuel
Velasquez, Dennis Moberg, Michael J. Meyer, Thomas Shanks, Margaret R. McLean, David
DeCosse, Claire André, Kirk O. Hanson, Irina Raicu, and Jonathan Kwan. It was last revised on
November 5, 2021.