use critical thinking skills to work through ethical dilemmas

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• HHS Author Manuscripts

Navigating Complex, Ethical Problems in Professional Life: a Guide to Teaching SMART Strategies for Decision-Making

Tristan mcintosh.

1 Bioethics Research Center, Division of General Medical Sciences, Department of Medicine, Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis, St. Louis, MO, USA

Alison L. Antes

James m. dubois.

This article demonstrates how instructors of professionalism and ethics training programs can integrate a professional decision-making tool in training curricula. This tool can help trainees understand how to apply professional decision-making strategies to address the threats posed by a variety of psychological and environmental factors when they are faced with complex professional and ethical situations. We begin by highlighting key decision-making frameworks and discussing factors that may undermine the use of professional decision-making strategies. Then, drawing upon findings from past research, we present the “SMART” professional decision-making framework: seeking help, managing emotions, anticipating consequences, recognizing rules and context, and testing assumptions and motives. Next, we present a vignette that poses a complex ethical and professional challenge and illustrate how each professional decision-making strategy could or should be used by characters in the case. To conclude, we review a series of educational practices and pedagogical tools intended to help trainers facilitate trainee learning, retention, and application of “SMART” decision-making strategies.

Our aim is to illustrate how to effectively educate professionals on ways to apply decision-making strategies when they are faced with complex professional and ethical issues. Appropriate and effective application of these strategies is a trainable skill that can be developed in individuals from a range of backgrounds, disciplines, and career stages. We first explore the complexities of professional decision-making in a research context and highlight an innovative compensatory strategy framework. Then, we present a case example of proper and improper application of these strategies when navigating complex professional and ethical situations. We then showcase pedagogical techniques intended to integrate these compensatory strategies into training activities and facilitate retention and application of these strategies. The term “trainees” is used throughout and refers to any individual, regardless of career stage, who learns from and takes part in training on professional decision-making strategies. In sum, the intent of the present effort is to describe how to provide trainees with strategy-based knowledge and skills needed for professional decision-making. These strategies ultimately serve to facilitate better ethical decision-making and professionalism.

Professional Decision-Making Frameworks

Professionals, including those who conduct research, regularly face complex circumstances that require professional decision-making skills. Although professionalism has been defined in multiple ways, for the purposes of the present effort, we define professionalism as integrating ethics and other relevant factors (e.g., competence, collegiality, institutional and departmental culture) needed to ensure public trust and achieve the goals of the profession (e.g., healing in medicine, generating new knowledge in research) ( Stern and Papadakis 2006 ; Swick 2000 ; van Mook et al. 2009 ). Unfortunately, the nature of situations professionals encounter and unconscious self-serving biases all professionals have may undermine the effectiveness of professional decision-making. Therefore, professional decision-making necessitates careful navigation and includes weighing different options to address the issue at hand, forecasting likely implications of actions, and gathering more information from multiple reliable sources ( Antes et al. 2010 ; Stenmark et al. 2011 ).

Two different frameworks of professional decision-making can be useful when professionals are confronted with these challenging circumstances: 1) a rational decision-making framework ( Goodwin et al. 1998 ; Oliveira 2007 ), and 2) a psychological framework ( DuBois et al. 2015a ; Mumford et al. 2008 ). Rational decision-making, also referred to as normative decision-making, is characterized by adherence to a set of established principles that guide decision-making, often in a group setting ( Hoch et al. 2001 ; Oliveira 2007 ). Specifically, rational decision-making involves the identification of key components of a situation and justifying decisions related to this situation when different viewpoints are in conflict with one another ( DuBois 2008b , 2013 ). Moreover, those who engage in rational decision-making analyze a number of possible alternative outcomes prior to making a definitive choice and make their decision based on the most likely and best possible outcome ( Hoch et al., 2001 ). This type of decision-making lends itself well to circumstances when professionals are unsure how to address an ethical dilemma, when a group is trying to establish best policies, or when there is disagreement among stakeholders on issues such as relevant facts and norms ( DuBois 2013 ). As it relates to ethical dilemmas, rational decision-making facilitates identification of key ethical concerns that society acknowledges as integral to rational discussions about ethical issues ( DuBois 2013 ).

The psychological framework related to professional decision-making is characterized by a confluence of situational complexities and self-serving biases that influence the way people frame and approach problems ( Bazerman and Moore 2013 ; Mumford et al. 2008 ). Oftentimes, a “correct” or “best” approach to these problems may not be apparent because of factors such as conflicting interests or needing to address concerns of multiple stakeholders ( Dana and Loewenstein 2003 ; Mumford et al. 2007 ; Weick et al. 2005 ). Being able to make sense of and effectively respond to these problems hinges on one’s ability to manage biases and attend to and utilize relevant information appropriately. This approach to professional decision-making lends itself well to situations in which professionals, when faced with complex ethical dilemmas, intend to take the best course of action but have difficulty doing so due to personal and environmental constraints ( Antes 2013 ). Such constraints may include complexity of social dynamics, heightened emotions, conscious and unconscious biases, uncertainty, and ambiguity.

The present effort will highlight strategies intended to facilitate the psychological framework of professional decision-making, as opposed to rational decision-making, because these strategies enable bias management and quality information integration, application, and synthesis. Moreover, these strategies are beneficial in situations where environmental constraints act to undermine an individual’s intent to take the best possible course of action. These strategies help professionals deal with moral distress, situational limitations (e.g., political tensions, increases in regulations, cultural differences), and internal limitations (e.g., ignoring key elements of a situation, self-centered thinking, unwarranted certainty) ( DuBois et al. 2016 , 2015b ).

In what follows, we will demonstrate the utility of a psychological decision-making framework within the context of the research profession, the SMART professional decision-making framework: s eeking help, m anaging emotions, a nticipating consequences, r ecognizing rules and context, and t esting assumptions and motives. Research provides a useful context for illustrating SMART strategy training because research frequently involves complexity, ambiguity, assumptions, stress, ethical considerations, and conflicts of interest. Further, ethics training is mandated for all federally-funded research trainees and many key personnel on grants involving human or animal subjects. We believe the SMART professional decision-making framework can add value to ethics training programs in research and other professions.

Constraints to Professional Decision-Making

Several factors can interfere with optimal professional decision-making. We discuss four factors that can be effectively addressed through the use of SMART decision-making strategies: Complexity, ambiguity, biases, and unusually high or negative emotions.

Professionals must carefully address and navigate complex and dynamic issues throughout their careers. For researchers, complexity often characterizes data management, mentoring relationships, protection of research participants, institutional hierarchies, and conflicts of interest ( Anderson et al. 2007 ; DuBois 2008a ; Jahnke and Asher 2014 ). These issues oftentimes involve multiple competing goals, guidelines, and stakeholder interests and are not simple to address ( Werhane 2008 ).

For example, a researcher may have competing interests between their funding agency’s research priorities and their own profession’s methodological norms and standards. These conflicting interests and complex relationships between funding agencies and researchers may undermine confidence in the quality of research being conducted if not appropriately managed ( Irwin 2009 ). Researchers are responsible for identifying and navigating conflicts of interest. Navigating conflicts of interest necessitates reconciling conflicting values, perspectives, and agendas of multiple stakeholders at the individual, institutional, governmental, and national levels. Failing to do so may result in public mistrust of research, harm to others, tarnished personal and professional relationships, or ruined careers. Thus, professional decision-making strategies can be applied when attempting to identify, prioritize, and reconcile complex stakeholder interests. The multifaceted nature of ethical and professional situations in a research context has the potential to derail professional decision-making if not handled appropriately.

Uncertainty

It is common for individuals in research fields to be exposed to new and unfamiliar environments and projects where considerable gaps in knowledge may exist. Uncertainty may arise when regulations grow in complexity over time, when a researcher moves into a new research space, or when a researcher moves to a new nation with a different culture or an unfamiliar set of rules and norms ( Antes et al. 2017 ; DuBois et al. 2016 ). Navigating social and professional life in a new culture, with a new language, and with possibly different ethical standards can be challenging and stressful.

Uncertainty may inadvertently lead to the misinterpretation of norms and other social and professional cues integral to making professional and ethical decisions ( Palazzo et al. 2012 ). This is because individuals may lack essential information needed for interpreting a given situation appropriately ( Sonenshein 2007 ), which may result in failure to think of long-term downstream consequences of their actions or failure to consider the entire range of possible courses of action. Moreover, “unknown unknowns” may result in a breakdown of quality professional decision making if help is not sought from other individuals or resources that are able to provide sound guidance on these issues.

For example, a lab manager may task a new postdoctoral fellow with collecting data from participants using a certain technique, but the postdoc may be unfamiliar with the standard procedures for doing so. Tense lab dynamics between the lab manager and other lab members may worsen this uncertainty by making it uncomfortable or difficult for the postdoc to seek help from another lab mate. Similarly, these lab dynamics may signal to the postdoc that limited or hostile communication is the norm in the lab, which may prompt the postdoc to proceed with their work in isolation. Failure to seek help due to social ambiguities may result in costly protocol violations or detrimental outcomes for both the participants and researchers involved. Without proper use of professional decision-making strategies, facing uncertainty or unfamiliar norms may lead to poor decision-making and negative consequences.

Despite even the best intentions to maintain objectivity, professionals may be subject to unconscious biases when processing information ( Hammond et al. 1998 ; Kahneman 2003 ; Palazzo et al. 2012 ). This poses a considerable challenge to professionals who aim to accurately and objectively process available information relevant to a given situation and to make a sensible, unbiased decision ( Bazerman and Moore 2013 ). Many of these judgment errors, or cognitive distortions, are automatic, making it challenging for individuals to fully understand the negative influence of biases on decision-making and information processing ( Kahneman 2003 ; Moore and Loewenstein 2004 ). Biases such as rationalization ( Davis et al. 2007 ; DuBois et al. 2015a ), tunnel vision ( Posavac et al. 2010 ), self-preservation ( Bandura et al. 1996 ; Oreg and Bayazit 2009 ), rigorous adherence to the status-quo ( Samuelson and Zeckhauser 1988 ), and diffusion of responsibility ( Voelpel et al. 2008 ) may contribute to flawed decision-making on the part of professionals.

To illustrate, a researcher may cut corners during the informed consent process as they think to themselves, “nobody reads consent forms anyway” (i.e., assuming the worst) ( DuBois et al. 2015a ). In yet another example, a researcher may decide to drop outliers from a dataset without reporting it as they think to themselves, “it’s not like I fabricated any data” (i.e., euphemistic comparison). Both of these examples depict poor professionalism. These biased behaviors may occur subconsciously or be actively justified by an individual as in the cases above ( DuBois et al. 2015a ). Regardless, the characters in these examples failed to utilize professional decision-making strategies that could have helped inoculate against the effects of detrimental self-serving biases.

While professional decision-making requires a certain degree of objective and rational thought in order to be successful, professionals are not always rational and objective in their approach to making decisions ( Kahneman et al. 2011 ; Tenbrunsel et al. 2010 ). It is easy to see how heightened emotions could undermine professional decision-making, for example, when working long hours, applying for intensely competitive grant funding, dealing with a difficult colleague, or trying to impress a world-famous and notably erudite senior faculty member. Stress, negative emotions, or intense emotions left unregulated or unacknowledged have been shown to lessen the cognitive resources needed for effective professional decision-making ( Gino et al. 2011 ; Haidt 2001 ; Mead et al. 2009 ). When cognitive resources are depleted, reasoning is impaired and individuals tend to make hasty, biased decisions ( Angie et al. 2011 ; Bazerman and Moore 2013 ; Gross 2013 ). Professional decision-making strategies can help counteract these effects.

SMART Strategies

Despite obstacles to effective professional decision-making, certain compensatory strategies exist that enable professionals to help offset these obstacles. Taking a structured approach to making these decisions can help professionals effectively apply strategies that guide ethical decision-making, bias management, and quality information processing ( Bornstein and Emler 2001 ; DuBois et al. 2018 ; Thiel et al. 2012 ). Furthermore, this systematized thought process balances the aforementioned constraints that can negatively influence professional decision-making ( DuBois et al. 2015b ).

Building on the sensemaking work of Mumford ( Mumford et al. 2008 ) and the bias reduction work of Gibbs ( Gibbs et al. 1995 ), DuBois and his colleagues ( DuBois 2014 ; DuBois et al. 2015b ) in the Professionalism and Integrity in Research Program (P.I. Program) developed a structured decision-making aid to help professionals remember and recall a comprehensive set of compensatory strategies. Strategy-based training has proven to be effective in developing cognitive skills ( Clapham 1997 ), and has met success in increasing professional decision-making in the P.I. Program ( DuBois et al. 2018 ). These strategies shape professional decision-making and help professionals work through ethical dilemmas. Professional decision-making strategies comprise the acronym “SMART”, and encompass five domains: Seek help, Manage emotions, Anticipate consequences, Recognize rules and context, and Test assumptions and motives. Table 1 depicts key dimensions of each strategy and reflection questions that can be used to apply each strategy. While these strategies have distinct components, they are related to one another and conceptually overlap. Each professional decision-making strategy is described in detail below.

SMART strategies

Seeking Help

This strategy is characterized by 1) gathering information such as facts, options, and potential outcomes, 2) requesting the mediation of an objective third party, and 3) asking for and welcoming feedback and correction. By deliberately processing context-relevant information and consulting with objective others, it is possible to correct for biases and challenge initial assumptions ( Sonenshein 2007 ). This allows the information that may have been formerly disregarded or misconstrued to be revealed and utilized effectively ( Mumford et al. 2008 ). When attempting to apply this strategy, professionals should reflect on questions such as, “Do I welcome feedback or input from others?”, “Where could I seek additional unbiased, objective information or opinions?”, or “Have I owned up to mistakes and apologized to all involved to move forward?”

Managing Emotions

The strategy of managing stress and emotion is characterized by 1) identifying the emotions being experienced, 2) managing those emotions, and 3) acknowledging both positive and negative emotions such as excitement and anxiety. When attempting to apply this strategy, professionals should ask themselves questions such as, “What are my emotional reactions to this situation?”, “How are my emotions influencing my decision-making?”, “Would taking a timeout or a deep breath help the situation?”

Anticipating Consequences

The strategy of anticipating consequences is characterized by 1) anticipating consequences to both oneself and others, 2) anticipating both long-term and short-term consequences, 3) anticipating both positive and negative consequences, 4) considering formal and informal responses, and 5) managing and mitigating risk. When attempting to apply this strategy, professionals should reflect on questions such as, “What are the likely short- and long-term outcomes of a variety of choices?”, “Who will be affected by my decisions and how?” and “How can risks be minimized and benefits be maximized?”

Recognizing Rules and Context

This strategy is characterized by 1) recognizing formal rules, such as laws and policies, 2) recognizing informal rules, such as social norms, and 3) recognizing the power dynamics of individuals involved in a given situation. Professionals attempting to apply this strategy should ask themselves, “What are the causes of the problem in this situation that I can change?”, “What ethical principles, laws, or regulations apply in this situation?”, and “Who are the decision-makers in this situation?”

Testing Assumptions and Motives

This strategy is characterized by 1) addressing the possibility you might be making faulty assumptions, 2) examining your motives compared to the motives of others, and 3) comparing your assumptions and motives with those of others in an empathetic manner. When attempting to apply this strategy, professionals should reflect on questions such as, “Could I be making faulty assumptions about the intentions of others?”, “What are my motives?”, and “How will others view my choices?”

Not only have compensatory strategies been demonstrated to be a helpful tool for high-quality professional decision-making, but these strategies are also learnable, trainable, and applicable to a wide variety of challenges and situations ( DuBois et al. 2015b ; Kligyte et al. 2008 ). The generalizability of strategies is noteworthy because they apply across contexts (e.g., human subjects research, animal research, translational research) and challenges faced by professionals (e.g., compliance, personnel management, integrity, bias). Moreover, these compensatory strategies, when applied correctly, can facilitate more critical analysis of a problem, improve information gathering and information evaluation, and contribute to better decision-making that leads individuals to make more professional and ethical decisions ( DuBois et al. 2015b ; Thiel et al. 2012 ).

Compensatory Strategy Case Application

Below we present a case with an ethical, professional dilemma and discuss how each SMART strategy can be properly applied in this example. We then caution against flawed application of these SMART strategies and highlight potential pitfalls to effective strategy application. It should be noted that, while the main character in the following case is a research assistant, applying the SMART strategies is a skill that can be learned and utilized by individuals across career stages and professions. The dilemma is as follows:

Sara is a new research assistant in the social science lab of Dr Jackson. She recently emigrated from China. Knowing that Sara is great with quantitative data analysis, Dr. Jackson asked her to run some statistics on data gathered by other research assistants on a National Science Foundation (NSF) grant that Dr. Jackson received two years ago. She ran the statistics, but none of Dr. Jackson’s hypotheses were confirmed. She thinks the study was simply under-powered. When she speaks with Dr. Jackson, he tells her she is mistaken and he asks her to run the tests again. She does so with the same results as before. This time, Dr. Jackson is angry, calls her incompetent, and says he will give her one more chance before he hires a new research assistant to run the statistics. Sara is fearful that she will lose her student visa if she loses her funded position. She drops several outliers and changes the data for several subjects and produces results that Dr. Jackson likes very much.

The above illustration is a great teaching case because, at first glance, Sara appears to be a victim: Dr. Jackson did not help her to do good work; rather, he bullied her to get the results he wanted. At the same time, the case perfectly illustrates a failure to use good decision-making strategies in a stressful situation with competing interests where few good options readily present themselves. Sara made a very bad decision: she committed research misconduct through her data falsification, the project was federally-funded, and now she and her institution could be prosecuted for this federal crime. While not every difficult situation requires the use of every one of the SMART strategies, Sara may have benefited from using each of them.

Sara could have asked other research assistants, graduate students, or postdocs for help with addressing problems with analyses and strategies for approaching and communicating with Dr. Jackson. If issues with Dr. Jackson had been persistent overtime, Sara could have sought support from colleagues or other faculty members who could provide advice for navigating the troubling work relationship. Ideally, the environment in the department would allow Sara to feel comfortable approaching another faculty member or others for help. Sara could have referred to objective field standards for conducting the analyses and determining how to proceed after unsuccessful analyses. After conducting the initial analyses, Sara could have asked a member in her lab to re-run the analyses with her in attempt to address any potential mistakes. Doing so may have affirmed her initial findings and assuaged concerns that she had approached the analyses incorrectly. Sara could have involved a mediator, such as a university ombudsperson, to help find a viable solution if she was unable to do so after exhausting the aforementioned options. A more complete picture presents itself after seeking help and additional information, and more ethical and professional courses of action become more apparent.

Because of the threat the situation poses to Sara’s personal and professional goals, emotions run high in this scenario. Sara wishes to be successful in her career and education, maintain her position in the United States, and earn Dr. Jackson’s approval. Sara is also likely aware that Dr. Jackson wishes to maintain a successful reputation in his field, publish interesting findings, and be productive throughout his career. She should introspectively identify her emotional reactions of anxiety, fear, frustration, and stress. When Sara was chastised by Dr. Jackson, she could have taken a “time out” to calm down and acknowledge how her emotions could override taking a more rational approach to addressing the problem instead of hastily reacting to Dr. Jackson’s response. At a broader level, taking time to manage stress each day would help Sara cope with the pressures and day-to-day stressors of her work. By identifying and managing the range of emotions experienced when faced with ethical and professional situations, clearer and more thoughtful judgment is likely to result.

Considering both the long-term and short-term consequences for all possible individuals is central to making a quality professional and ethical decision. Specifically, Sara should consider how falsifying data could end up negatively impacting not only her career trajectory and her immediate ability to work in the United States, but the careers and reputations of Dr. Jackson, her fellow lab mates, and the university where she works. Data falsification also undermines public trust in the field and scientific enterprise more broadly. In addition to attempting to minimize risk, Sara could have also considered how to maximize the benefits of, or make the best of, the situation. Perhaps by addressing the limitations of the analytical approach and bringing the analysis issue to light, a learning opportunity for everyone in the lab could have presented itself, paving the way for smoother management of similar situations in the future. Forecasting downstream consequences for all individuals that could be impacted by a given course of action is essential to maximizing benefits and minimizing harm to oneself and others.

Taking time to identify formal laws and policies and informal professional and social norms will help elucidate the context in which an ethical or professional dilemma unfolds. Sara could have identified the causes of problems and tensions in the situation, including publication pressures, Sara being new to the job, job stressors, and the like. By doing so, she could have more concretely comprehended the factors that limit her choices and could have avoided tunnel vision or narrow-mindedness in approaching the problem. Sara could have taken time to reflect on relevant ethical principles and regulations as they relate to falsifying data. Doing so may have cued her to not manipulate the data to obtain certain findings.

For better or worse, Dr. Jackson is her supervisor, and she must figure out a way to navigate the interpersonal problem in the case: He is upset and has threatened to fire her. Some of the strategies described above under “Seeking Help” might assist her in navigating the political dimension of this situation. Additionally, if these strategies fail, she should recognize that Dr. Jackson’s lab is situated within a larger institutional context. She could have reached out to other individuals within the university (e.g., department chair, research integrity officer) who prioritize responsible research and mentoring after exhausting alternative courses of action. These individuals, in turn, could have provided support and helped Sara navigate a path forward. Realizing the entirety of the context opens up a wider realm of options in navigating this challenging and threatening situation.

Understanding the motives of oneself and others provides the opportunity to consider multiple perspectives and take steps to avoid biased decision-making. While it can be challenging when one feels affronted, it can be helpful to consider the perspective and motives of other parties in the situation. For example, Sara could have considered whether Dr. Jackson was having a stressful day and overreacted when she initially approached him. She could have better managed self-serving and self-protecting biases perpetuated by her fear of not being allowed to work in Dr. Jackson’s lab by acknowledging how they may be distorting her perception of the situation. Sara might have questioned whether her analysis was correct; perhaps she did make an error and the study was not underpowered. That is, Sara should have questioned her assumption that, if she did conduct the analyses correctly, falsifying data was the only available option that would allow her to keep her position. Seldom is professional decision-making served well by engaging in simplistic either-or thinking. It is likely that multiple alternate courses of action would have presented themselves if she had engaged these strategies. Being proactive in managing biases by engaging in self-reflection and considering the perspectives and motives of others is beneficial to quality professional decision-making.

Questioning one’s assumptions is also a classic emotion management strategy used in cognitive behavioral therapy. Sometimes just realizing that we are making assumptions about how others perceive the situation and about our limited options can relieve anxiety.

Evaluate and Revise

If one wishes to take these strategies a step further to engage in “SMART-ER” professional decision-making, they can: 1) Evaluate their decision and its outcomes and 2) Revise future behavior in similar situations. By acknowledging what did and did not work well in past situations and attempts at strategy use, modified and improved approaches to professional decision-making can be taken when faced with other professional and ethical challenges in the future.

Considerations for Applying SMART Strategies

While the SMART strategies are an excellent tool for professional decision-making, it is equally important to recognize the several important considerations when utilizing this approach. While a five-part decision-making aid has the opportunity to be highly useful for navigating complex, ambiguous professional situations, it is not a perfect algorithm or panacea for all ethical and professional conundrums. Given situational limitations and available contextual information, it may not always be possible to use each strategy fully, and challenges navigating the problem will still exist. Not all strategies will be equally applicable across all situations and may not be applied in the same order in all situations. However, SMART strategies are generalizable to myriad contexts, professions, and dilemmas and are not limited to major ethical transgressions such as fabrication, falsification, and plagiarism.

An additional consideration for using SMART strategies is that people may have a preference for or tendency to use one strategy over the others. While the SMART strategies are interrelated, over-attending to one strategy may result in biased or incomplete information gathering and information processing and, ultimately, sub-optimal professional decisions. When individuals face emotional, stressful, or ethically-charged situations, it is important that they consider and use multiple strategies to inform well-rounded decision-making. When educating trainees on SMART strategies, educators should encourage trainees to use a balanced approach and consider multiple strategies.

Perhaps one of the most considerable challenges educators may encounter is motivating trainees to use these compensatory strategies regularly. Simply teaching the strategies does not guarantee constructive application of strategies. In situations where individuals are overconfident or rushed to solve a problem that needs to be resolved quickly, immediately turning to the SMART strategies is unlikely to be an automatic course of action. Furthermore, if individuals engage in cognitive distortions in such a way that disengages from compliance or harms quality professional decision-making, they may fail to see the need or utility of SMART strategies ( DuBois et al. 2015a ). Educators should make professionals aware of how they might fall prey to these pitfalls.

A final consideration is that other mechanisms exist aside from training professionals to use SMART strategies that reinforce the recall and application of professional decision-making strategies. Such mechanisms include creating ethical and supportive organizational and departmental cultures, developing and enacting ethical leadership and management practices, and establishing institutional policies and procedures that reinforce the use of professional decision-making strategies.

Training SMART Strategies

Below, we examine practices that are useful in conducting professional decision-making training programs and creating pedagogical tools that can be implemented by a research ethics or professionalism course instructor. We focus on training practices designed for adult learners that support their professional growth and advancement ( Knowles et al. 2012 ). This is not an exhaustive list of considerations for designing and planning for an ethics or professionalism training program, and a systematic approach should be taken when developing any instructional program ( Antes 2014 ; Antes and DuBois 2014 ). Rather, the pedagogical practices described below were selected because of their implications for the transfer of complex skills, such as professional decision-making, to the workplace after training has occurred. That is, facilitating trainee learning, retention, and application of the content learned during training is essential to improving professional decision-making and making the training successful ( Noe 2013 ).

SMART Training Program Practices

Establish learning objectives.

Prior to presenting training content, provide trainees with stated objectives of the training program that define the expected outcomes of training and what it is they will be expected to accomplish as a result of completing the training ( Moore et al. 2008 ). Doing so alerts trainees to what is important and helps consolidate learning. Learning objectives have three components: 1) a statement of expected performance standard or outcome, 2) a statement of the quality or level of expected performance, and 3) a statement of the conditions when a trainee is expected to perform the skill learned in training ( Mager 1997 ). An example learning objective for a professional decision-making, or “SMART” strategies-focused, training is: Trainees will be able to apply professional decision-making strategies when they are faced with uncertain, complex, and high-stakes professional and ethical decisions in the workplace.

Create Meaningful Content

Explaining to trainees how a SMART strategies-focused training will directly benefit them and describing how training content is specifically linked to experiences in their profession will help garner buy-in from trainees ( Smith-Jentsch et al. 1996 ). Trainee dedication to achieving learning objectives is essential for learning and retention to occur and for transferring knowledge and skills to the work environment ( Goldstein and Ford 2002 ; Slavin 1990 ). To demonstrate the benefits of training, the content of training needs to be practically useful and applicable. This includes presenting content that is relevant to trainees’ professions and that addresses ethical and professional issues they have faced or are likely to face in their careers. Discussing a case or critical incident that the trainees have encountered, or something similar to what they have encountered, is an effective way to get them engaged with and derive meaning from training content.

Engage Multiple Pedagogical Activities

Pedagogical activities that occur during training reinforce key training concepts, help trainees derive meaning from training content, and facilitate active learning of professional decision-making skills. How trainees learn is equally as important as what trainees learn during training. Integrating case studies, individual reflection activities, think-pair-share exercises, and role plays into training fosters learning more than a traditional lecture format ( Bransford et al. 1999 ; DuBois 2013 ; Handelsman et al. 2004 ). These pedagogical activities vary in terms of their complexity and length, resulting in dynamic training content. Engaging trainees with these activities provides them with the opportunity to examine and connect their existing knowledge, experiences, and perspectives to the learning material. Table 2 provides a brief overview of how to implement various pedagogical activities, along with estimated level of complexity and duration.

Pedagogical activities

Case Studies

Applied to professionalism and research, case-based learning consists of using factual or fictional scenarios to illustrate examples of complex and ambiguous ethical and professional situations researchers may face ( Bagdasarov et al. 2013 ; Johnson et al. 2012 ; Kolodner 1992 ). Case-based learning helps trainees link course concepts to realistic, real-world scenarios by immersing themselves in these scenarios and exploring how to apply professional decision-making strategies ( Miller and Tanner 2015 ). The positive effects of case-based learning are magnified when trainees work together in small groups to collectively seek out important information, ask relevant questions, and find solutions to the problem ( Allen and Tanner 2002a ). This enables greater breadth and depth of understanding of decision-making strategies that can be used to address issues related to the case. Trainees can also use what they learned during this practice when applying these decision-making skills to a situation in the future that is similar. That is, trainees can draw upon their case-based knowledge to make sense of future professional and ethical situations and navigate these situations when they arise ( Kolodner et al. 2004 ).

Individual Reflection

Because of the personal and interpersonal nature of ethical and professional problems, reflecting on personal experiences and processing cases individually reinforces the knowledge base that influences ethical and professional decision-making ( Antes et al. 2012 ). Moreover, when professionals are confronted with ethical dilemmas, they are likely to draw upon personal experiences to make sense of the dilemma and generate solutions ( Mumford et al. 2000 ; Scott et al. 2005 ; Thiel et al. 2012 ). Drawing on past experiences allows professionals to consider important aspects of these past experiences such as causes and outcomes, which are essential for effective professional decision-making ( Stenmark et al. 2010 ).

Think-Pair-Share

Think-pair-share activities consist of having students initially think about a solution to a problem individually, then pairing with a neighboring student to exchange ideas, and finally reporting out to the larger group key points from their discussion ( Allen and Tanner 2002b ). Discussion between peers enhances understanding of complex subject matter even when both trainees are uncertain initially ( Smith et al. 2009 ). This may be due to the cognitive reasoning and communication skills needed to relay and justify perspectives about complex subject matter to others. Conversely, similar evaluative skills are needed to appraise the viewpoints of the other and determine if their explanation and rationale make sense in context.

Role plays are training activities where trainees take on the role of someone in a hypothetical scenario and model what it is like to have the perspective of that character ( Thiagarajan 1996 ). For example, trainees in a role play can model social interactions between characters faced with an ethical or professional dilemma regarding authorship, human subjects protections, mentor-trainee relationships, or data management ( DuBois 2013 ). Role plays enable trainees to learn how to identify, analyze, and resolve these dilemmas because they provide trainees with the opportunity to practice navigating these situations ( Chan 2012 ; DuBois 2013 ). This technique is particularly effective in trainings that involve exploration and acquisition of complex social skills, such as professional decision-making ( Noe 2013 ). Role play activities have been shown to be effective in ethics instruction ( Mumford et al. 2008 ). They can involve a select few volunteers who perform for the class while the remainder of trainees observe, or involve all trainees divided into small groups of two or three where all trainees take part in the role play activity. Role play activities have been shown to promote a deep understanding of the complexities involved with ethical and professional dilemmas ( Brummel et al. 2010 ).

In order to be effective, however, certain activities must take place before, during, and after the role play ( Noe 2013 ; Thiagarajan 1996 ). Specifically, before the role play, trainees should be provided with background information that gives context for the role play and a script with adequate detail for trainees to understand their role. During the role play, actors and observers should be able to hear and see one another, and trainees should be provided with a handout detailing the key issues of the role play scenario. After the role play has commenced, both actors and observers should debrief on their experience, how the role play relates to the concepts being taught in training, and key takeaways. Trainees should also be provided with feedback in order to reinforce what was learned during the role play experience ( Jackson and Back 2011 ).

Provide Practice Opportunities

Trainees will need multiple opportunities to practice applying the professional decision-making skills they are learning. Practice opportunities can take the form of the various pedagogical tools, as discussed above, including case studies, individual reflection, and role-play activities. These tools promote active learning and create a safe mechanism for trainees to experiment with SMART strategy application ( Bell and Kozlowski 2008 ). Instructors should also have trainees periodically recall the SMART strategies throughout training. This active recall will increase the likelihood of strategy use beyond practice during training.

Give Feedback

Immediately after each practice activity, instructors should provide feedback to trainees by noting what was done well and where there are opportunities for change or improvement. Feedback should be specific and frequent in order to convey to trainees what resulted in poor professional decision-making performance and good professional decision-making performance ( Gagné and Medsker 1996 ). Carefully guiding feedback-oriented discussions can further enhance learning, retention, and application of SMART strategies.

Professionals across various fields, especially in research contexts, encounter complex situations involving multiple stakeholders that necessitate professional decision-making skills. Fortunately, these skills are trainable, and the SMART strategies decision tool helps facilitate professional decision-making skill retention and application. In the present effort, we approach professional decision-making using a compensatory strategy framework and showcase how each of the SMART strategies could be applied to a scenario involving a professional dilemma. We also discuss how to maximize the effects of a SMART strategy-oriented training program and highlight pedagogical tools to guide SMART strategy education.

This paper provides a guide for educators and institutions with the goal of integrating training on professional decision-making skills into their curriculum. We provide educators with a robust understanding of the steps involved in mitigating negative effects of self-serving biases and making sense of complex professional dilemmas. Additionally, we discuss the individual-level and environmental-level constraints that influence the way problems are framed and approached, and the strategies that individuals can use to counteract the negative effects of these constraints on decision-making. Educators can take this understanding, along with the knowledge of effective training and pedagogical practices, to create training content that prepares its trainees to effectively navigate multifaceted professional issues they may face in their careers.

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank John Gibbs, John Chibnall, Raymond Tait, Michael Mumford, Shane Connelly, and Lynn Devenport for their insight and prior work that led to many of the ideas discussed in this manuscript.

Funding/Support This paper was supported by the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences (UL1 TR002345). The development of the Professionalism and Integrity in Research Program (PI) was funded by a supplement to the Washington University Clinical and Translational Science award (UL1 TR000448). The U.S. Office of Research Integrity provided funding to conduct outcome assessment of the PI Program (ORIIR140007). The effort of ALA was supported by the National Human Genome Research Institute (K01HG008990).

Conflict of Interest The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.

• Allen D, & Tanner K (2002a). Answers worth waiting for: One second is hardly enough . Cell Biology Education , 1 , 3–5. [ Google Scholar ]
• Allen D, & Tanner K (2002b). Approaches to cell biology teaching: Questions about questions . Cell Biology Education , 1 , 63–67. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Anderson MS, Horn AS, Risbey KR, Ronning EA, De Vries R, & Martinson BC (2007). What do mentoring and training in the responsible conduct of research have to do with scientists' misbehavior? Findings from a National Survey of NIH-funded scientists . Academic Medicine: Journal of The Association of American Medical Colleges , 82 , 853–860. 10.1097/ACM.0b013e31812f764c. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Angie AD, Connelly S, Waples EP, & Kligyte V (2011). The influence of discrete emotions on judgement and decision-making: A meta-analytic review . Cognition & Emotion , 25 , 1393–1422. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Antes AL (2013). An ethics instructor’s guide to sensemaking as a framework for case-based learning (Vol. 1 ): Office of Research Integrity. [ Google Scholar ]
• Antes AL (2014). A systematic approach to instruction in research ethics . Accountability in Research: Policies and Quality Assurance , 21 , 50–67. 10.1080/08989621.2013.822269. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Antes AL, & DuBois JM (2014). Aligning objectives and assessment in responsible conduct of research instruction . Journal Of Microbiology & Biology Education , 15 , 108–116. 10.1128/jmbe.v15i2.852. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Antes AL, Wang X, Mumford MD, Brown RP, Connelly S, & Devenport L (2010). Evaluating the effects that existing instruction on responsible conduct of research has on ethical decision making . Academic Medicine: Journal of the Association of American Medical Colleges , 85 , 519–526. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Antes AL, Thiel CE, Martin LE, Stenmark CK, Connelly S, Devenport LD, & Mumford MD (2012). Applying cases to solve ethical problems: The significance of positive and process-oriented reflection . Ethics & Behavior , 22 , 113–130. 10.1080/10508422.2012.655646. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Antes AL, English T, Baldwin KA, & DuBois JM (2017). The role of culture and acculturation in researchers' perceptions of rules in science . Science and Engineering Ethics , 24 , 1–31. 10.1007/s11948-017-9876-4. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Bagdasarov Z, Thiel CE, Johnson JF, Connelly S, Harkrider LN, Devenport LD, & Mumford MD (2013). Case-based ethics instruction: The influence of contextual and individual factors in case content on ethical decision-making . Science and Engineering Ethics , 19 , 1305–1322. 10.1007/s11948-012-9414-3. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Bandura A, Barbaranelli C, & Caprara GV (1996). Mechanisms of moral disengagement in the exercise of moral agency . Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 71 , 364–374. 10.1037/0022-3514.80.1.125. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Bazerman MH, & Moore DA (2013). Judgment in managerial decision making (8th ed.). New York: Wiley. [ Google Scholar ]
• Bell BS, & Kozlowski SW (2008). Active learning: Effects of core training design elements on self-regulatory processes, learning, and adaptability . Journal of Applied Psychology , 93 , 296–316. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Bornstein BH, & Emler AC (2001). Rationality in medical decision making: A review of the literature on doctors’ decision-making biases . Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice , 7 , 97–107. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Bransford JD, Brown A, & Cocking R (1999). How people learn: Mind, brain, experience, and school . Washington, DC: National Research Council. [ Google Scholar ]
• Brummel BJ, Gunsalus C, Anderson KL, & Loui MC (2010). Development of role-play scenarios for teaching responsible conduct of research . Science and Engineering Ethics , 16 , 573–589. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Chan ZC (2012). Role-playing in the problem-based learning class . Nurse Education in Practice , 12 , 21–27. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Clapham MM (1997). Ideational skills training: A key element in creativity training programs . Creativity Research Journal , 10 , 33–44. [ Google Scholar ]
• Dana J, & Loewenstein G (2003). A social science perspective on gifts to physicians from industry . Journal of the American Medical Association , 290 , 252–255. 10.1001/jama.290.2.252. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Davis MS, Riske-Morris M, & Diaz SR (2007). Causal factors implicated in research misconduct: Evidence from ORI case files . Science and Engineering Ethics , 13 , 395–414. 10.1007/s11948-007-9045-2. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• DuBois JM (2008a). Identifying and managing conflicts of interest. In Ethics in mental health research: Principles, guidance, and cases (1st ed., pp. 202–224). Oxford, New York: Oxford University Press. [ Google Scholar ]
• DuBois JM (2008b). Solving ethical problems: Analyzing ethics cases and justifying decisions : New York: Oxford University Press. [ Google Scholar ]
• DuBois JM (2013). ORI casebook: Stories about researchers worth discussing .
• DuBois JM (2014). Strategies for professional decision making: The SMART approach . St. Louis: Professionalism and Integrity in Research Progra. [ Google Scholar ]
• DuBois JM, Chibnall JT, & Gibbs JC (2015a). Compliance disengagement in research: Development and validation of a new measure . Science and Engineering Ethics , 22 , 965–988. 10.1007/s11948-015-9681-x. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• DuBois JM, Chibnall JT, Tait RC, Vander Wal JS, Baldwin KA, Antes AL, & Mumford MD (2015b). Professional decision-making in research (PDR): The validity of a new measure . Science and Engineering Ethics , 22 , 391–416. 10.1007/s11948-015-9667-8. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• DuBois JM, Chibnall JT, Tait RC, & Vander Wal JS (2016). Lessons from researcher rehab . Nature , 534 , 173–175. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• DuBois JM, Chibnall JT, Tait RC, & Vander Wal JS (2018). The professionalism and integrity in research program: Description and preliminary outcomes . Academic Medicine , 93 , 586–592. 10.1097/acm.0000000000001804. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Gagné RM, & Medsker KL (1996). The conditions of learning: Training applications . Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt-Brace. [ Google Scholar ]
• Gibbs JC, Potter G, & Goldstein A (1995). The EQUIP program: Teaching youth to think and act responsibly . Champaign, IL: Research Press. [ Google Scholar ]
• Gino F, Schweitzer ME, Mead NL, & Ariely D (2011). Unable to resist temptation: How self-control depletion promotes unethical behavior . Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes , 115 , 191–203. 10.1016/j.obhdp.2011.03.001. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Goldstein IL, & Ford KJ (2002). Training in organizations: Needs assessment, development, and evaluation (4th ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth/Thomson Learning. [ Google Scholar ]
• Goodwin P, Wright G, & Phillips LD (1998). Decision analysis for management judgment . Chichester, England: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.. [ Google Scholar ]
• Gross JJ (2013). Emotion regulation: Taking stock and moving forward . Emotion , 13 , 359–365. 10.1037/a0032135. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Haidt J (2001). The emotional dog and its rational tail: A social intuitionist approach to moral judgment . Psychological Review , 108 , 814–834. 10.1037//0033-295x.108.4.814. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hammond JS, Keeney RL, & Raiffa H (1998). The hidden traps in decision making . Harvard Business Review , 76 , 47–58. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Handelsman J, Ebert-May D, Beichner R, Bruns P, Chang A, DeHaan R, Gentile J, Lauffer S, Stewart J, Tilghman S, & Wood W (2004). Scientific teaching . Science , 304 , 521–522. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hoch, Kunreuther H, & Gunther R (2001). Wharton on making decisions . New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.. [ Google Scholar ]
• Irwin RS (2009). The role of conflict of interest in reporting of scientific information . Chest , 136 , 253–259. 10.1378/chest.09-0890. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Jackson VA,& Back AL (2011). Teaching communication skills using role-play: An experience-based guide for educators . Journal of Palliative Medicine , 14 , 775–780. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Jahnke LM, & Asher A (2014). The problem of data: Data management and curation practices among university researchers . In Council on Library and Information Resources Retrieved from http://www.clir.org/pubs/reports/pub154/problem-of-data . [ Google Scholar ]
• Johnson JF, Bagdasarov Z, Connelly S, Harkrider LN, Devenport LD, Mumford MD, & Thiel CE (2012). Case-based ethics education: The impact of cause complexity and outcome favorability on ethicality . Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics , 7 , 63–77. 10.1525/jer.2012.7.3.63. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kahneman D (2003). A perspective on judgment and choice - mapping bounded rationality . American Psychologist , 58 , 697–720.i 10.1037/0003-066x.58.9.697. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kahneman D, Lovallo D, & Sibony O (2011). Before You Make That Big Decision … Harvard Business Review , 89 , 50–60. Retrieved from <Go to ISI>://WOS:000290694700034. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kligyte V, Marcy RT, Waples EP, Sevier ST, Godfrey ES, Mumford MD, & Hougen DF (2008). Application of a sensemaking approach to ethics training in the physical sciences and engineering . Science and Engineering Ethics , 14 , 251–278. 10.1007/s11948-007-9048-z. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Knowles MS, Holton III EF, & Swanson RA (2012). The adult learner (7th ed.). Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann. [ Google Scholar ]
• Kolodner JL (1992). An introduction to case-based reasoning . Artificial Intelligence Review , 6 , 3–34. [ Google Scholar ]
• Kolodner JL, Owensby JN, & Guzdial M (2004). Case-based learning aids . Handbook of Research on Educational Communications and Technology , 2 , 829–861. [ Google Scholar ]
• Mager RF (1997). Preparing instructional objectives (5th ed. ed.). Belmont: Lake Publishing. [ Google Scholar ]
• Mead NL, Baumeister RF, Gino F, Schweitzer ME, & Ariely D (2009). Too tired to tell the truth: Self-control resource depletion and dishonesty . Journal of Experimental Social Psychology , 45 , 594–597. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Miller S, & Tanner KD (2015). A portal into biology education: An annotated list of commonly encountered terms . CBE—Life Sciences Education , 14 , fe2. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Moore DA, & Loewenstein G (2004). Self-interest, automaticity, and the psychology of conflict of interest . Social Justice Research , 17 , 189–202. [ Google Scholar ]
• Moore S, Ellsworth JB, & Kaufman R (2008). Objectives—Are they useful? A quick assessment . Performance Improvement Quarterly , 47 , 41–47. [ Google Scholar ]
• Mumford MD, Zaccaro SJ, Harding FD, Jacobs TO, & Fleishman EA (2000). Leadership skills for a changing world: Solving complex social problems . The Leadership Quarterly , 11 , 11–35. [ Google Scholar ]
• Mumford MD, Friedrich TL, Caughron JJ, & Byrne CL (2007). Leader cognition in real-world settings: How do leaders think about crises? The Leadership Quarterly , 18 , 515–543. 10.1016/j.leaqua.2007.09.002. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Mumford MD, Connelly S, Brown RP, Murphy ST, Hill JH, Antes AL, Waples EP, & Devenport LD (2008). A sensemaking approach to ethics training for scientists: Preliminary evidence of training effectiveness . Ethics & Behavior , 18 , 315–339. 10.1080/10508420802487815. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Noe RA (2013). Employee training and development (6th ed.): McGraw-Hill. [ Google Scholar ]
• Oliveira A (2007). A discussion of rational and psychological decision-making theories and models: The search for a cultural-ethical decision-making model . Electronic Journal of Business Ethics and Organization Studies , 12 , 12–13. [ Google Scholar ]
• Oreg S, & Bayazit M (2009). Prone to bias: Development of a bias taxonomy from an individual differences perspective . Review of General Psychology , 13 , 175–193. [ Google Scholar ]
• Palazzo G, Krings F, & Hoffrage U (2012). Ethical blindness . Journal of Business Ethics , 109 , 323–338. 10.1007/s10551-011-1130-4. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Posavac SS, Kardes FR, & Brakus JJ (2010). Focus induced tunnel vision in managerial judgment and decision making: The peril and the antidote . Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes , 113 , 102–111. [ Google Scholar ]
• Samuelson W, & Zeckhauser R (1988). Status quo bias in decision making . Journal of Risk and Uncertainty , 1 , 7–59. [ Google Scholar ]
• Scott GM, Lonergan DC, & Mumford MD (2005). Conceptual combination: Alternative knowledge structures, alternative heuristics . Creativity Research Journal , 17 , 79–98. [ Google Scholar ]
• Slavin RE (1990). Cooperative learning: Theory, research, and practice . Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. [ Google Scholar ]
• Smith MK, Wood WB, Adams WK, Wieman C, Knight JK, Guild N, & Su TT (2009). Why peer discussion improves student performance on in-class concept questions . Science , 323 , 122–124. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Smith-Jentsch KA, Jentsch FG, Payne SC, & Salas E (1996). Can pretraining experiences explain individual differences in learning? Journal of Applied Psychology , 81 , 110–116. [ Google Scholar ]
• Sonenshein S (2007). The role of construction, intuition, and justification in responding to ethical issues at work: The sensemaking-intuition model . Academy of Management Review , 32 , 1022–1040. [ Google Scholar ]
• Stenmark CK, Antes AL, Wang X, Caughron JJ, Thiel CE, & Mumford MD (2010). Strategies in forecasting outcomes in ethical decision-making: Identifying and analyzing the causes of the problem . Ethics & Behavior , 20 , 110–127. doi:Pii 920034165. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Stenmark CK, Antes AL, Thiel CE, Caughron JJ, Wang XQ, & Mumford MD (2011). Consequences identification in forecasting and ethical decision-making . Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics , 6 , 25–32. 10.1525/jer.2011.6.1.25. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Stern DT, & Papadakis M (2006). The developing physician—Becoming a professional . New England Journal of Medicine , 355 , 1794–1799. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Swick HM (2000). Toward a normative definition of medical professionalism . Academic Medicine , 75 , 612–616. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Tenbrunsel AE, Diekmann KA, Wade-Benzoni KA, & Bazerman MH (2010). The ethical mirage: A temporal explanation as to why we are not as ethical as we think we are . Research in Organizational Behavior: An Annual Series of Analytical Essays and Critical Reviews , 30 , 153–173. 10.1016/j.riob.2010.08.004. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Thiagarajan S (1996). Instructional games, simulations, and role-plays. In Craig R (Ed.), The ASTD training and development handbook (4th ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill. [ Google Scholar ]
• Thiel CE, Bagdasarov Z, Harkrider LN, Johnson JF, & Mumford MD (2012). Leader ethical decision-making in organizations: Strategies for sensemaking . Journal of Business Ethics , 107 , 49–64. 10.1007/s10551-012-1299-1. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• van Mook WNKA, van Luijk SJ, O'Sullivan H, Wass V, Harm Zwaveling J, Schuwirth LW, & van der Vleuten CP (2009). The concepts of professionalism and professional behaviour: Conflicts in both definition and learning outcomes . European Journal of International Medicine , 20 , e85–e89. 10.1016/j.ejim.2008.10.006. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Voelpel SC, Eckhoff RA, & Förster J (2008). David against goliath? Group size and bystander effects in virtual knowledge sharing . Human Relations , 61 , 271–295. [ Google Scholar ]
• Weick KE, Sutcliffe KM, & Obstfeld D (2005). Organizing and the process of sensemaking . Organization Science , 16 , 409–421. 10.1287/orsc.1050.0133. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Werhane PH (2008). Mental models, moral imagination and system thinking in the age of globalization . Journal of Business Ethics , 78 , 463–474. [ Google Scholar ]

A Framework for Ethical Decision Making

• Markkula Center for Applied Ethics
• Ethics Resources

This document is designed as an introduction to thinking ethically. Read more about what the framework can (and cannot) do .  

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. 

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.

( For further elaboration on the rights lens, please see our essay, “Rights.” )

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).

( For further elaboration on the justice lens, please see our essay, “Justice and Fairness.” )

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.

( For further elaboration on the utilitarian lens, please see our essay, “Calculating Consequences.” )

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.

( For further elaboration on the common good lens, please see our essay, “The Common Good.” )

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?”

( For further elaboration on the virtue lens, please see our essay, “Ethics and Virtue.” )

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.

( For further elaboration on the care ethics lens, please see our essay, “Care Ethics.” )

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.

Identify the Ethical Issues

• 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”?
• Is this issue about more than solely what is legal or what is most efficient? If so, how?

Get the Facts

• 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?
• What individuals and groups have an important stake in the outcome? Are the concerns of some of those individuals or groups more important? Why?
• What are the options for acting? Have all the relevant persons and groups been consulted? Have I identified creative options?

Evaluate Alternative Actions

• 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

• After an evaluation using all of these lenses, which option best addresses the situation?
• If I told someone I respect (or a public audience) which option I have chosen, what would they say?
• 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

• 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.

Navigating the Ethical Decision Making Process: A Guide for Ethical Dilemmas

Navigating Ethics in the Workplace

In our complex and interconnected world, individuals and organizations often face ethical dilemmas that require careful consideration and decision-making. The ethical decision making process is that involves analyzing and evaluating various options to make choices that align with moral principles and values. It serves as a moral compass, guiding us towards actions deemed right or good while helping us navigate challenging ethical situations.

Table of Contents

Understanding Ethical Dilemmas

Ethical dilemmas are situations where individuals or organizations face conflicting moral principles or values, making it difficult to determine the right course of action. These dilemmas often arise when there is a clash between different ethical considerations or when no clear-cut solution fully satisfies all parties involved.

Ethical dilemmas can emerge in various contexts, including personal relationships, professional settings, and societal issues. They can range from straightforward decisions with relatively low stakes to complex, morally ambiguous scenarios with far-reaching consequences.

To better understand ethical dilemmas, let’s explore some key aspects:

1. Conflicting Values:  Ethical dilemmas often involve conflicting values or principles. For example, a healthcare professional may face a dilemma when the principle of patient autonomy conflicts with the duty to protect patient confidentiality.

2. Limited Resources:  A scarcity of resources can give rise to ethical dilemmas. When resources are limited, individuals or organizations may face difficult choices in allocating those resources, leading to moral conflicts and challenges.

3. Multiple Stakeholders:  Ethical dilemmas frequently involve multiple stakeholders with interests and perspectives. Balancing these interests and finding a solution that satisfies everyone can be extremely challenging.

4. Uncertainty and Complexity : Ethical dilemmas can arise when there is a lack of clear information, or the consequences of different choices are uncertain. The complexity of the situation further complicates the decision-making process.

5. Moral Obligations:  Ethical dilemmas often involve conflicting moral obligations. For instance, a business executive may need help choosing between maximizing profits for shareholders and ensuring fair treatment for employees.

Key Components of Ethical Decision-Making

Ethical decision-making is a deliberate and systematic process that helps individuals and organizations make choices aligned with moral principles and values. While the specific steps may vary depending on the context, several key components are integral to ethical decision-making. Let’s explore these components:

• Identifying the Ethical Issue:  The first step in ethical decision-making is identifying the ethical issue or dilemma. It involves recognizing the conflict between different values or principles and understanding the underlying moral concerns.
• Gathering Relevant Information:  Ethical decision-making requires comprehensive and accurate information about the ethical issue. It includes understanding the context, considering relevant facts, and exploring different perspectives.
• Considering Different Perspectives:  It is important to consider the viewpoints and interests of all stakeholders involved in the ethical dilemma. It involves actively seeking diverse perspectives and empathetically understanding the concerns and values of others.
• Analyzing Potential Consequences:  Ethical decision-making involves a thorough analysis of the potential consequences of different courses of action. It includes considering short-term and long-term outcomes and their potential impact on other individuals or groups.
• Evaluating Available Alternatives:  Generating and evaluating various alternatives is crucial in ethical decision-making. It involves brainstorming and considering different options that could address the moral issue in a morally acceptable manner.
• Applying Ethical Frameworks and Principles:  Ethical decision-making often involves using established ethical frameworks or principles to guide the decision-making process. These frameworks can provide a structured approach and guidelines for assessing the moral implications of different choices.
• Reflecting on Personal Values:  Ethical decision-making requires self-reflection and introspection. It involves examining one’s values, beliefs, and biases to ensure that personal values do not influence decision-making.

Ethical Decision-Making Models

Ethical decision-making models provide frameworks and processes to guide individuals and organizations in making moral choices. These models offer structured approaches that help assess and analyze ethical dilemmas, consider relevant factors, and arrive at ethically sound decisions. Here are some prominent ethical decision-making models:

• The Utilitarian Model:  The utilitarian model, associated with philosophers like Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill, focuses on maximizing overall happiness or utility. Ethical decisions should aim to produce the greatest net benefit for many people. This model involves assessing the potential consequences of different actions and selecting the one that maximizes overall well-being.
• The Deontological Model:  Deontological ethics, influenced by philosopher Immanuel Kant, emphasizes moral duties and principles. According to this model, ethical decisions should be guided by universal moral principles, regardless of their consequences. Key principles include the categorical imperative, which requires treating individuals as ends in themselves and not merely as a means to an end.
• The Virtue Ethics Model: Virtue ethics, rooted in the works of Aristotle, focuses on cultivating virtuous character traits. This model suggests that ethical decisions should be based on personal virtues such as honesty, integrity, courage, and compassion. It emphasizes the development of good character and the pursuit of excellence in ethical behaviour.  
• The Rights-Based Model: The rights-based model focuses on individual rights and justice. IEthicaldecisions should respect and protect the rights of all individuals involved. This model emphasizes fairness, equality, and the notion that individuals have inherent rights that should not be violated.  
• The Ethical Decision Making Process Model provides a step-by-step process for making ethical decisions. It typically involves identifying the moral issue, gathering relevant information, considering alternative options, evaluating the consequences, applying ethical principles or frameworks , deciding, and reflecting on the outcome.  
• The Four-Component Model: Developed by James Rest, the four-component model comprises four sequential stages: moral sensitivity, moral judgment, moral motivation, and moral action. It highlights the importance of recognizing moral issues, making informed judgments, being motivated to act ethically, and translating intentions into ethical actions.  
• The Integrative Ethical Decision-Making Model  combines elements from various ethical frameworks and decision-making processes. It encourages a comprehensive approach by considering consequences, duties, virtues, and rights. It emphasizes the need to weigh different perspectives and make a balanced, ethical decision.

It’s important to note that these models are not mutually exclusive, and their application may vary depending on the situation. Ethical decision-making models serve as valuable guides, helping individuals and organizations navigate ethical dilemmas and make more informed and moral choices.

Factors Influencing Ethical Decision-Making

Ethical decision-making is influenced by many factors that can shape our perception, reasoning, and choices when confronted with ethical dilemmas. These factors can vary depending on individual, cultural, and contextual considerations. Here are some key factors that commonly influence ethical decision-making:

• Personal Values and Beliefs:  Personal values and beliefs play a significant role in ethical decision-making. Our moral compass, shaped by upbringing, culture, and life experiences, guides our perceptions of right and wrong. Our values and beliefs influence the principles we prioritize and the ethical frameworks we apply when making decisions.
• Organizational Culture and Policies:  The culture and policies of the organization or institution we belong to can significantly impact ethical decision-making. Corporate values, norms, and codes of conduct shape the ethical environment and can influence our choices. Strong ethical leadership, commitment to integrity, and clear ethical guidelines foster a culture that supports ethical decision-making.
• Legal and Regulatory Considerations:  Laws and regulations provide a legal framework for ethical decision-making. Legal requirements and compliance obligations can shape the boundaries and constraints within which individuals and organizations make moral choices. Compliance with laws and regulations is often a baseline expectation for ethical behaviour.
• Social and Cultural Influences:  Social and cultural norms, expectations, and pressures can influence ethical decision-making. The values and moral standards upheld by the larger society or community in which we operate can shape our perceptions of acceptable or unacceptable behaviour. Social approval or disapproval, social norms, and the desire to conform can impact our ethical choices.
• Professional Standards and Ethical Codes:  In specific professional contexts, such as healthcare, law, or business, there are often established professional standards and codes of ethics. These standards provide guidance and expectations for ethical behaviour within these professions. Adhering to professional principles and standards can influence ethical decision-making in these domains.
• Cognitive Biases:  Cognitive biases are inherent biases in human thinking that can distort ethical decision-making. Biases such as confirmation bias (favouring information that confirms existing beliefs), availability bias (relying on readily available data), and anchoring bias (being influenced by initial information) can impact the way we perceive and evaluate ethical dilemmas.
• Time Pressure and Stress:  Time pressure and stress can affect ethical decision-making. When faced with time constraints or high-pressure situations, individuals may be more prone to shortcuts, biased thinking, or decisions prioritizing immediate outcomes over long-term ethical considerations.
• Peer Influence and Social Pressure:  The influence of peers, colleagues, or superiors can shape ethical decision-making. Social pressures to conform, fear of disapproval, or the desire to please others can impact our choices. Peer support and ethical role models can also positively influence ethical decision-making.
• Moral Development and Ethical Competence:  Individual moral development and ethical competence   can influence decision-making. Moral reasoning abilities, ethical awareness, and the capacity for righteous judgment can impact the quality and integrity of ethical decision-making.

Recognizing and understanding these factors can help individuals and organizations navigate ethical decision-making more effectively. By actively considering these influences, seeking diverse perspectives, and engaging in reflective and critical thinking, we can enhance our ethical decision-making capabilities and promote ethical behaviour in various contexts.

Ethical Decision Making Process in Practice

Ethical decision-making in practice involves applying principles and processes to real-life situations. It requires individuals and organizations to navigate complex ethical dilemmas and make choices that align with moral values and principles. Here are some key aspects of ethical decision-making in practice:

• Contextual Analysis:  Ethical decision-making requires understanding the specific context in which the dilemma arises. It includes considering the stakeholders involved, the values and norms of the particular setting, and any relevant laws or regulations. Analyzing the context helps identify the situation’s ethical dimensions and determine the appropriate course of action.
• Gathering Information:  To make informed ethical decisions, it is crucial to gather relevant information about the issue. It may involve researching facts, consulting experts, seeking different perspectives, and considering the potential consequences of various choices. Gathering comprehensive information enables a more comprehensive understanding of the ethical implications and aids in evaluating alternatives.
• Applying Ethical Frameworks and Principles:  Ethical decision-making involves using ethical frameworks or principles to guide the decision-making process. It may include considering utilitarianism, deontological ethics, virtue ethics, or other relevant ethical theories. Applying these frameworks helps analyze the situation, evaluate options, and assess the moral implications of different choices.
• Balancing Conflicting Interests:  Ethical decision-making often involves balancing conflicting interests and values. It requires considering the perspectives and needs of all stakeholders involved and seeking equitable and fair solutions. It may involve compromising or finding creative ways to address competing concerns while upholding ethical principles.
• Collaboration and Consultation:  Ethical decision-making benefits from cooperation and consultation with others. Seeking input from diverse stakeholders, engaging in open dialogue, and considering different viewpoints can enrich decision-making. Collaboration also helps address biases, broaden perspectives, and ensure a more inclusive and ethical outcome.
• Ethical Leadership:  In organizational contexts, ethical leadership influences ethical decision-making. Leaders play a crucial role in setting the tone, promoting ethical values, and establishing a culture of integrity. Ethical leaders model honourable behaviour, provide guidance, and create an environment encouraging open discussions about moral dilemmas.
• Ethical Reflection and Evaluation:  After making a moral decision, reflecting on the process and evaluating the outcome is important. This reflection helps in learning from the experience, identifying areas for improvement, and refining ethical decision-making skills. Assessing the consequences of the decision also informs future choices and contributes to continuous moral growth.
• Ethical Courage:  Ethical decision-making often requires courage to stand up for what is right, even facing challenges or potential consequences. It involves maintaining integrity, staying true to ethical principles, and taking risks when necessary.

Ethical decision-making in practice is a continuous process that involves ongoing learning, self-reflection, and improvement. Individuals and organizations must navigate complex moral landscapes with ethical awareness, critical thinking, and a commitment to ethical values. Integrating ethical decision-making into everyday practices can foster a culture of integrity and contribute to positive ethical outcomes in various domains.

Ethical Leadership and Decision-Making

Ethical leadership plays a critical role in shaping ethical decision-making within organizations and influencing the behaviour of individuals. Ethical leaders set the tone, establish expectations, and guide ethical behaviour. They are role models, demonstrating integrity, transparency, and a commitment to moral values. Here are key aspects of the relationship between ethical leadership and decision-making:

• Setting Ethical Standards:  Ethical leaders establish clear ethical standards and expectations for organizational behaviour. They articulate a shared vision of ethical conduct, promoting honesty, fairness, respect, and social responsibility. These standards serve as guiding principles for ethical decision-making at all levels of the organization.
• Creating a Culture of Integrity:  Ethical leaders foster a culture of integrity where ethical decision-making is valued and encouraged. They create an environment that promotes open communication, honest discussions, and the opportunity to raise ethical concerns without fear of reprisal. Such a culture supports individuals in making moral choices and safeguards against unethical behaviour.
• Promoting Ethical Decision Making Processes: Ethical leaders advocate using systematic and principled ethical decision making processes within the organization. They encourage individuals to consider different perspectives, gather relevant information, and apply ethical frameworks when faced with ethical dilemmas. By promoting structured decision-making processes, ethical leaders ensure that moral choices are well thought-out and based on solid ethical reasoning.
• Role Modeling Ethical Behavior:  Ethical leaders lead by example, serving as role models for ethical behaviour. They demonstrate integrity, consistency, and ethical conduct in their actions. By consistently aligning their behaviours with moral values, they inspire others to do the same and reinforce the importance of ethical decision-making.
• Ethical Decision-Making Support:  Ethical leaders support and guide individuals facing ethical dilemmas. They offer resources, mentorship, and opportunities for honest discussions. Ethical leaders are approachable and accessible, creating an environment where individuals feel comfortable seeking guidance and advice when making difficult moral choices.
• Holding Accountable for Ethical Conduct:  Ethical leaders hold individuals accountable for their ethical conduct. They establish mechanisms to ensure adherence to ethical standards and address unethical behaviour promptly and appropriately. By promoting accountability, ethical leaders reinforce the importance of ethical decision-making and create a culture where ethical lapses are not tolerated.
• Long-Term Ethical Perspective:  Ethical leaders adopt a long-term perspective in decision-making. They consider the potential consequences and ethical implications of decisions beyond short-term gains. Ethical leaders prioritize sustainable and socially responsible outcomes, considering the impact of decisions on stakeholders, the environment, and the wider society.
• Ethical Communication:  Ethical leaders foster open and transparent communication. They encourage honest and ethical communication within the organization, ensuring that relevant information is shared and different viewpoints are heard. Ethical leaders create an environment where moral considerations are part of the dialogue, enabling more informed and ethical decision-making.

Ethical leadership has a profound impact on ethical decision-making within organizations. Ethical leaders promote ethical decision making processes by cultivating a culture of integrity, providing guidance, modelling ethical behaviour and contributing to a more ethical organizational climate.

Overcoming Challenges and Ethical Decision-Making Pitfalls

Ethical decision-making can be complex and challenging, with various pitfalls and biases hindering the process. It is important to be aware of these challenges and take steps to overcome them. Here are some common challenges and strategies for overcoming them:

• Cognitive Biases:  Cognitive biases are inherent biases in human thinking that can influence ethical decision-making. Biases such as confirmation, availability, and anchoring biases can distort our perception of ethical dilemmas and hinder objective analysis. Engaging in critical thinking, actively seeking out diverse perspectives, and challenging our assumptions are crucial to overcoming biases. Reflecting on the situation and objectively examining the evidence can help counteract cognitive biases.
• Emotional Influences:  Emotions can strongly influence ethical decision-making. Strong emotions like fear, guilt, or personal attachments can cloud judgment and lead to biased decisions. It is important to recognize and manage emotions in ethical decision-making. Taking a step back, seeking input from others, and considering the long-term moral consequences can help mitigate the impact of emotions.
• Moral Relativism:  Moral relativism is the belief that ethical decisions are subjective and vary from person to person or culture to culture. It can lead to ethical ambiguity and make reaching a consensus on ethical choices challenging. To overcome moral relativism, engaging in ethical reasoning and considering universal principles and values that can guide ethical decision-making is important. Engaging in dialogue and seeking input from diverse perspectives can also help gain a broader understanding of ethical issues.
• Time Constraints and Pressure:  Ethical decision-making can be compromised when there are time constraints or high-pressure situations. The pressure to make quick decisions can lead to shortcuts or overlooking important ethical considerations. To address this challenge, it is important to prioritize ethical decision-making, even in time-sensitive cases. Taking a moment to pause, seeking advice from others, and considering the potential long-term consequences can help make more ethical choices.
• Lack of Information:  There needs to be more complete information to ensure ethical decision-making. With a comprehensive understanding of the moral issue and its implications, it becomes easier to make informed choices. To overcome this challenge, gathering as much relevant information as possible is important. Conducting research, seeking expert advice, and consulting multiple sources can help obtain a complete picture of the ethical dilemma.

  Conflicting Interests and Pressures: Ethical decision-making can become challenging when conflicting interests or external pressures exist. These pressures may come from stakeholders, financial considerations, or the desire to maintain relationships. It is important to identify and address these conflicts openly and transparently. Upholding ethical principles and values, seeking compromise, and considering the long-term impact can help navigate conflicting interests.  

• Lack of Ethical Awareness and Education:  A lack of ethical awareness or education can hinder ethical decision-making. With a solid understanding of ethical frameworks, principles and the ability to analyze ethical dilemmas, individuals may be able to make moral choices. To overcome this challenge, individuals should seek moral education and training opportunities. Developing ethical reasoning skills and staying updated on ethical standards can enhance decision-making capabilities.
• Lack of Accountability:  Ethical decision-making can be compromised when there is a lack of accountability for unethical behaviour. When individuals or organizations are not held accountable for their actions, it can erode trust and discourage ethical decision-making. To address this challenge, it is important to establish clear mechanisms for accountability, such as moral codes of conduct, reporting tools, and consequences for unethical behaviour.

Individuals and organizations can enhance their ethical decision-making capabilities by being aware of these challenges and employing strategies to overcome them. Emphasizing critical thinking, moral reasoning, open communication, and ongoing ethical education can help navigate the complexities of ethical dilemmas and promote a culture of integrity.

The ethical decision making  process is that guides individuals and organizations in navigating complex ethical dilemmas. By considering ethical principles, analyzing consequences, and applying structured decision-making processes, we can strive to make choices that uphold integrity, fairness, and social responsibility .

Throughout this article, we have explored the key components of ethical decision-making, including identifying the moral issue, gathering relevant information, considering different perspectives, analyzing consequences, evaluating alternatives, and applying ethical frameworks. We have also discussed various ethical decision-making models and the factors influencing moral choices.

Ethical decision-making has its challenges. Cognitive biases, emotional influences, time constraints, and conflicting interests can pose obstacles. However, by recognizing these challenges and employing strategies such as critical thinking, reflection, seeking diverse perspectives, and managing emotions, we can overcome these pitfalls and make more informed and ethical decisions.

Ethical leadership is vital in fostering a culture of integrity and influencing ethical decision-making within organizations. Ethical leaders set clear standards, promote ethical behaviour, and provide guidance and support to individuals faced with ethical dilemmas. They serve as role models, ensuring that ethical considerations are integrated into everyday practices.

 Ethical decision-making is a continuous process that requires ongoing learning, self-reflection, and a commitment to moral values. Individuals and organizations can contribute to a more just and responsible society by prioritizing ethical decision-making. Let us strive to embrace ethical decision-making as a fundamental principle, empowering ourselves and others to make choices that promote the greater good and uphold our moral obligations.

FOLLOW SOCIALS

Latest posts.

Creative Ways to Use AR Filters to Boost User Engagement

Unlocking the Potential of SEO in E-Commerce: Strategies for Organic Growth

Working From Home: 9 Tips To Boost Productivity

Corporate Social Responsibility Integration

• Application 16
• Business 63
• Business Ethics 49
• Business ethics Movie 3
• business insurance 3
• Important Tips 18
• Managing Company 7
• Marketing 30
• Smart Tech 11
• Technology 8

Stakeholder Theory: Strategies for Organizational Success

Invest in Sustainable Companies

• You are here:
• The European Centre For Expertise, Networking & Resources In The Internationalisation Of Higher Education

Developing critical thinking and ethical global engagement in students

What do students need to know and be able to do when they graduate? Will they be able to work collaboratively to address complex global problems? These questions address one of the core purposes of international education: preparing a globally competent workforce, and, more importantly, globally competent human beings. This blog dives into just how to instill these skills in international students.

Higher education institutions and employers agree that critical thinking, as well as ethical reasoning and decision-making, are necessary skills to have and be able to translate into action. Acquisition of critical thinking and ethical reasoning skills and opportunities to apply these skills in globally relevant contexts (eg study abroad, exchanges, service learning, advocacy and activism on their campuses) has the potential for deep, meaningful, high-impact experiences that will better prepare students to be active and globally competent individuals. Both critical thinking and ethical reasoning are teachable skills that students can and should learn.

Developing critical thinking

Critical thinking involves thoughtful and systematic processing of information so that we can better understand the complexity of issues and make sounder decisions. A critical mind is a questioning mind. Hence, critical thinking develops through an inquiry-based learning process. Asking essential questions and posing problems or scenarios inspire a quest for knowledge and problem solving. Consider the following questions:

A critical mind is a questioning mind.

• What does ‘global community’ mean to you? Why is sustaining it important (or not)?
• How is one’s worldview (beliefs about self, others and the world) formed and transformed?
• Why is polarisation of worldviews on the rise in the world today?
• How can we shift the dynamic of how individuals with different, sometimes opposing, worldviews relate to each other?

Seeking answers to questions such as these is fundamental to understanding ourselves, others and the larger world, and being a change agent. However, in tackling collaborative problem-solving in the global context, students also need to be aware of the complexity of issues from multiple perspectives. They need to acquire dialogue skills, understand another’s point of view, be aware of one’s own assumptions, be self-aware and other-aware, and engage meta-cognitive skills (thinking about one’s own thinking). The ability to invite individuals with a different worldview from their own into a process of transformation and problem solving by listening closely to their perspectives is an integral part of dialogue and critical thinking. Furthermore, the ability to regulate one’s own emotions in the times when our core beliefs are being challenged is a fundamental skill for globally competent citizens.

Developing ethical global engagement

Ethical reasoning is an applied and teachable critical thinking skill, often enriched through international education. Cross-cultural experiences prompt encounters with difference, thereby causing cognitive dissonance and providing opportunities for a deeper application of ethical reasoning in real life.

One applied ethical reasoning programme offers a unique way of developing ethical reasoning skills for higher education students. Some of the characteristics of this programme follow:

Ethical reasoning develops over time

The development of ethical reasoning skills and mindful engagement with ethical dilemmas require guided learning and sustained practice over time. Learning and practicing ethical reasoning skills through case scenarios where the learner is placed in the role of decision-maker provide opportunities to internalise the ethical reasoning process and encourage automatic application in real life situations.

Engaging in inquiry before making a decision

Humans tend to justify their conduct and decisions after they have acted or made a decision. The goal of ethical reasoning education is to get better in ethical decision making, rather than in justifying previous conduct or decisions. Hence, developing ethical reasoning skills in students requires engaging them in inquiry, in asking as many questions as possible relevant to the ethical dilemma, before making a decision.

Inquiry process in groups yields richer learning experiences

We all have preferred values that guide ethical decision-making (eg some may give preference to outcomes, while others to fairness or responsibility). For this reason, practicing ethical decision-making in a group provides richer learning experiences and potentially better-informed ethical decisions. Fostering the inquiry process in a group opens new ways of thinking, moves one beyond self-interest, and introduces consideration of others, community and multiple stakeholders in a decision-making process.

Self-awareness and metacognitive skills are necessary for ethical global engagement

Self-awareness and the ability to think about our own thinking are key to developing critical thinking and ethical reasoning in students. Specifically, the ability to recognise and separate one’s personal biases or self-interests is important for making decisions. Reflection about aspects of one’s identity (both privileged and oppressed), assumptions we hold about communities with which we are engaging, and ways we interpret what we observe, lead to greater self-awareness. Educators also need to reflect critically on a variety of ethical issues (eg how we teach, what dilemmas/case studies we choose, issues of power, etc) as well as on the process through which we guide students.

A call for action

In the current global political climate, when polarisation of beliefs and conflict between the worldviews are growing, higher education institutions have a paramount task: the consideration of how we are developing critical thinking and engaging students in ethical reasoning. We need to focus more strongly on developing these skills and making sure that the next generations acquire skills necessary to be globally competent citizens. The ability to engage with diverse worldviews while addressing complex global problems is vital to the sustainable relationships and systems in the world today.

Related topics

You may also be interested in.

International graduate employability: whose job is it anyway?

Most HEIs can do more to ensure international graduates’ success after graduation.

Balancing employability with ‘employer-ability’

Securing and succeeding in employment shouldn’t be solely the responsibility of graduates and job-seekers.

Global internships: preparation for the new world of work

With skill shortages on the rise in developed economies, global internships offer one promising solution.

Alejandra Vicencio & Frank Ziegele: That first job in international education

Discover how recent graduates can step into that first job in international education as they transition from education to the world of work.

The employability dimension in joint programmes

What is the real impact of joint programmes on graduates’ career prospects? Recent studies provide a persuasive answer.

Bringing global perspectives to leadership in business

What makes a strong global leader, and how can diverse perspectives help them prepare for this success? Early access to international experiences is one key component.

• Business Essentials
• Leadership & Management
• Credential of Leadership, Impact, and Management in Business (CLIMB)
• Entrepreneurship & Innovation
• Digital Transformation
• Finance & Accounting
• Business in Society
• For Organizations
• Support Portal
• Media Coverage
• Founding Donors
• Leadership Team

• Harvard Business School →
• HBS Online →
• Business Insights →

Business Insights

Harvard Business School Online's Business Insights Blog provides the career insights you need to achieve your goals and gain confidence in your business skills.

• Career Development
• Communication
• Decision-Making
• Earning Your MBA
• Negotiation
• News & Events
• Productivity
• Staff Spotlight
• Student Profiles
• Work-Life Balance
• AI Essentials for Business
• Alternative Investments
• Business Analytics
• Business Strategy
• Business and Climate Change
• Creating Brand Value
• Design Thinking and Innovation
• Digital Marketing Strategy
• Disruptive Strategy
• Economics for Managers
• Entrepreneurship Essentials
• Financial Accounting
• Global Business
• Launching Tech Ventures
• Leadership Principles
• Leadership, Ethics, and Corporate Accountability
• Leading Change and Organizational Renewal
• Leading with Finance
• Management Essentials
• Negotiation Mastery
• Organizational Leadership
• Power and Influence for Positive Impact
• Strategy Execution
• Sustainable Business Strategy
• Sustainable Investing
• Winning with Digital Platforms

7 Ways to Improve Your Ethical Decision-Making

• 03 Aug 2023

Effective decision-making is the cornerstone of any thriving business. According to a survey of 760 companies cited in the Harvard Business Review , decision effectiveness and financial results correlated at a 95 percent confidence level across countries, industries, and organization sizes.

Yet, making ethical decisions can be difficult in the workplace and often requires dealing with ambiguous situations.

If you want to become a more effective leader , here’s an overview of why ethical decision-making is important in business and how to be better at it.

Access your free e-book today.

The Importance of Ethical Decision-Making

Any management position involves decision-making .

“Even with formal systems in place, managers have a great deal of discretion in making decisions that affect employees,” says Harvard Business School Professor Nien-hê Hsieh in the online course Leadership, Ethics, and Corporate Accountability . “This is because many of the activities companies need to carry out are too complex to specify in advance.”

This is where ethical decision-making comes in. As a leader, your decisions influence your company’s culture, employees’ motivation and productivity, and business processes’ effectiveness.

It also impacts your organization’s reputation—in terms of how customers, partners, investors, and prospective employees perceive it—and long-term success.

With such a large portion of your company’s performance relying on your guidance, here are seven ways to improve your ethical decision-making.

1. Gain Clarity Around Personal Commitments

You may be familiar with the saying, “Know thyself.” The first step to including ethics in your decision-making process is defining your personal commitments.

To gain clarity around those, Hsieh recommends asking:

• What’s core to my identity? How do I perceive myself?
• What lines or boundaries will I not cross?
• What kind of life do I want to live?
• What type of leader do I want to be?

Once you better understand your core beliefs, values, and ideals, it’s easier to commit to ethical guidelines in the workplace. If you get stuck when making challenging decisions, revisit those questions for guidance.

2. Overcome Biases

A bias is a systematic, often unconscious inclination toward a belief, opinion, perspective, or decision. It influences how you perceive and interpret information, make judgments, and behave.

Bias is often based on:

• Personal experience
• Cultural background
• Social conditioning
• Individual preference

It exists in the workplace as well.

“Most of the time, people try to act fairly, but personal beliefs or attitudes—both conscious and subconscious—affect our ability to do so,” Hsieh says in Leadership, Ethics, and Corporate Accountability .

There are two types of bias:

• Explicit: A bias you’re aware of, such as ageism.
• Implicit: A bias that operates outside your awareness, such as cultural conditioning.

Whether explicit or implicit, you must overcome bias to make ethical, fair decisions.

Related: How to Overcome Stereotypes in Your Organization

3. Reflect on Past Decisions

The next step is reflecting on previous decisions.

“By understanding different kinds of bias and how they can show themselves in the workplace, we can reflect on past decisions, experiences, and emotions to help identify problem areas,” Hsieh says in the course.

Reflect on your decisions’ processes and the outcomes. Were they favorable? What would you do differently? Did bias affect them?

Through analyzing prior experiences, you can learn lessons that help guide your ethical decision-making.

4. Be Compassionate

Decisions requiring an ethical lens are often difficult, such as terminating an employee.

“Termination decisions are some of the hardest that managers will ever have to make,” Hsieh says in Leadership, Ethics, and Corporate Accountability . “These decisions affect real people with whom we often work every day and who are likely to depend on their job for their livelihood.”

Such decisions require a compassionate approach. Try imagining yourself in the other person’s shoes, and think about what you would want to hear. Doing so allows you to approach decision-making with more empathy.

5. Focus on Fairness

Being “fair” in the workplace is often ambiguous, but it’s vital to ethical decision-making.

“Fairness is not only an ethical response to power asymmetries in the work environment,” Hsieh says in Leadership, Ethics, and Corporate Accountability . “Fairness–and having a successful organizational culture–can benefit the organization economically and legally as well.”

It’s particularly important to consider fairness in the context of your employees. According to Leadership, Ethics, and Corporate Accountability , operationalizing fairness in employment relationships requires:

• Legitimate expectations: Expectations stemming from a promise or regular practice that employees can anticipate and rely on.
• Procedural fairness: Concern with whether decisions are made and carried out impartially, consistently, and transparently.
• Distributive fairness: The fair allocation of opportunities, benefits, and burdens based on employees’ efforts or contributions.

Keeping these aspects of fairness in mind can be the difference between a harmonious team and an employment lawsuit. When in doubt, ask yourself: “If I or someone I loved was at the receiving end of this decision, what would I consider ‘fair’?”

6. Take an Individualized Approach

Not every employee is the same. Your relationships with team members, managers, and organizational leaders differ based on factors like context and personality types.

“Given the personal nature of employment relationships, your judgment and actions in these areas will often require adjustment according to each specific situation,” Hsieh explains in Leadership, Ethics, and Corporate Accountability .

One way to achieve this is by tailoring your decision-making based on employees’ values and beliefs. For example, if a colleague expresses concerns about a project’s environmental impact, explore eco-friendly approaches that align with their values.

Another way you can customize your ethical decision-making is by accommodating employees’ cultural differences. Doing so can foster a more inclusive work environment and boost your team’s performance .

7. Accept Feedback

Ethical decision-making is susceptible to gray areas and often met with dissent, so it’s critical to be approachable and open to feedback .

The benefits of receiving feedback include:

• Learning from mistakes.
• Having more opportunities to exhibit compassion, fairness, and transparency.
• Identifying blind spots you weren’t aware of.
• Bringing your team into the decision-making process.

While such conversations can be uncomfortable, don’t avoid them. Accepting feedback will not only make you a more effective leader but also help your employees gain a voice in the workplace.

Ethical Decision-Making Is a Continuous Learning Process

Ethical decision-making doesn’t come with right or wrong answers—it’s a continuous learning process.

“There often is no right answer, only imperfect solutions to difficult problems,” Hsieh says. “But even without a single ‘right’ answer, making thoughtful, ethical decisions can make a major difference in the lives of your employees and colleagues.”

By taking an online course, such as Leadership, Ethics, and Corporate Accountability , you can develop the frameworks and tools to make effective decisions that benefit all aspects of your business.

Ready to improve your ethical decision-making? Enroll in Leadership, Ethics, and Corporate Accountability —one of our online leadership and management courses —and download our free e-book on how to become a more effective leader.

About the Author

5.3 Ethical Principles and Responsible Decision-Making

• What are major ethical principles that can be used by individuals and organizations?

Before turning to organizational and systems levels of ethics, we discuss classical ethical principles that are very relevant now and on which decisions can be and are made by individuals, organizations, and other stakeholders who choose principled, responsible ways of acting toward others. 17

Ethical principles are different from values in that the former are considered as rules that are more permanent, universal, and unchanging, whereas values are subjective, even personal, and can change with time. Principles help inform and influence values. Some of the principles presented here date back to Plato, Socrates, and even earlier to ancient religious groups. These principles can be, and are, used in combination; different principles are also used in different situations. 18 The principles that we will cover are utilitarianism, universalism, rights/legal, justice, virtue, common good, and ethical relativism approaches. As you read these, ask yourself which principles characterize and underlie your own values, beliefs, behaviors, and actions. It is helpful to ask and if not clear, perhaps identify the principles, you most often use now and those you aspire to use more, and why. Using one or more of these principles and ethical approaches intentionally can also help you examine choices and options before making a decision or solving an ethical dilemma. Becoming familiar with these principles, then, can help inform your moral decision process and help you observe the principles that a team, workgroup, or organization that you now participate in or will be joining may be using. Using creativity is also important when examining difficult moral decisions when sometimes it may seem that there are two “right” ways to act in a situation or perhaps no way seems morally right, which may also signal that not taking an action at that time may be needed, unless taking no action produces worse results.

Utilitarianism: A Consequentialist, “Ends Justifies Means” Approach

The utilitarianism principle basically holds that an action is morally right if it produces the greatest good for the greatest number of people. An action is morally right if the net benefits over costs are greatest for all affected compared with the net benefits of all other possible choices. This, as with all these principles and approaches, is broad in nature and seemingly rather abstract. At the same time, each one has a logic. When we present the specifics and facts of a situation, this and the other principles begin to make sense, although judgement is still required.

Some limitations of this principle suggest that it does not consider individuals, and there is no agreement on the definition of “good for all concerned.” In addition, it is difficult to measure “costs and benefits.” This is one of the most widely used principles by corporations, institutions, nations, and individuals, given the limitations that accompany it. Use of this principle generally applies when resources are scarce, there is a conflict in priorities, and no clear choice meets everyone’s needs—that is, a zero-sum decision is imminent

Universalism: A Duty-Based Approach

Universalism is a principle that considers the welfare and risks of all parties when considering policy decisions and outcomes. Also needs of individuals involved in a decision are identified as well as the choices they have and the information they need to protect their welfare. This principle involves taking human beings, their needs, and their values seriously. It is not only a method to make a decision; it is a way of incorporating a humane consideration of and for individuals and groups when deciding a course of action. As some have asked, “What is a human life worth?”

Cooper, Santora, and Sarros wrote, “Universalism is the outward expression of leadership character and is made manifest by respectfulness for others, fairness, cooperativeness, compassion, spiritual respect, and humility.” Corporate leaders in the “World’s Most Ethical Companies” strive to set a “tone at the top” to exemplify and embody universal principles in their business practices. 19 Howard Schultz, founder of Starbucks; cofounder Jim Sinegal at Costco; Sheryl Sandberg, chief operating officer of Facebook; and Ursula M. Burns, previous chairperson and CEO of Xerox have demonstrated setting effective ethical tones at the top of organizations.

Limitations here also show that using this principle may not always prove realistic or practical in all situations. In addition, using this principle can require sacrifice of human life—that is, giving one’s life to help or save others—which may seem contrary to the principle. The film The Post , based on fact, portrays how the daughter of the founder of the famed newspaper, the Washington Post , inherited the role of CEO and was forced to make a decision between publishing a whistle-blowers’ classified government documents of then top-level generals and officials or keep silent and protect the newspaper. The classified documents contained information proving that generals and other top-level government administrators were lying to the public about the actual status of the United States in the Vietnam War. Those documents revealed that there were doubts the war could be won while thousands of young Americans continued to die fighting. The dilemma for the Washington Post ’s then CEO centered on her having to choose between exposing the truth based on freedom of speech—which was the mission and foundation of the newspaper—or staying silent and suppressing the classified information. She chose, with the support of and pressure from her editorial staff, to release the classified documents to the public. The Supreme Court upheld her and her staff’s decision. A result was enflamed widespread public protests from American youth and others. President Johnson was pressured to resign, Secretary of State McNamara later apologized, and the war eventually ended with U.S. troops withdrawing. So, universalist ethical principles may present difficulties when used in complex situations, but such principles can also save lives, protect the integrity of a nation, and stop meaningless destruction.

Rights: A Moral and Legal Entitlement–Based Approach

This principle is grounded in both legal and moral rights . Legal rights are entitlements that are limited to a particular legal system and jurisdiction. In the United States, the Constitution and Declaration of Independence are the basis for citizens’ legal rights, for example, the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness and the right to freedom of speech. Moral (and human) rights, on the other hand, are universal and based on norms in every society, for example, the right not to be enslaved and the right to work.

To get a sense of individual rights in the workplace, log on to one of the “Best Companies to Work For” annual lists (http://fortune.com/best-companies/). Profiles of leaders and organizations’ policies, practices, perks, diversity, compensation, and other statistics regarding employee welfare and benefits can be reviewed. The “World’s Most Ethical Companies” also provides examples of workforce and workplace legal and moral rights. This principle, as with universalism, can always be used when individuals, groups, and nations are involved in decisions that may violate or harm such rights as life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness, and free speech.

Some limitations when using this principle are (1) it can be used to disguise and manipulate selfish and unjust political interests, (2) it is difficult to determine who deserves what when both parties are “right,” and (3) individuals can exaggerate certain entitlements at the expense of others. Still, the U.S. Constitution’s Bill of Rights, ratified in 1791, was designed as and remains the foundation of, which is based on freedom and justice to protect the basic rights of all.

Justice: Procedures, Compensation, and Retribution

This principle has at least four major components that are based on the tenets that (1) all individuals should be treated equally; (2) justice is served when all persons have equal opportunities and advantages (through their positions and offices) to society’s opportunities and burdens; (3) fair decision practices, procedures, and agreements among parties should be practiced; and (4) punishment is served to someone who has inflicted harm on another, and compensation is given to those for a past harm or injustice committed against them.

A simple way of summarizing this principle when examining a moral dilemma is to ask of a proposed action or decision: (1) Is it fair? (2) Is it right? (3) Who gets hurt? (4) Who has to pay for the consequences? (5) Do I/we want to assume responsibility for the consequences? It is interesting to reflect on how many corporate disasters and crises might have been prevented had the leaders and those involved taken such questions seriously before proceeding with decisions. For example, the following precautionary actions might have prevented the disaster: updating the equipment and machinery that failed in the BP and the Exxon Valdez oil crises and investment banks and lending institutions following rules not to sell subprime mortgages that could not and would not be paid, actions that led to the near collapse of the global economy.

Limitations when using this principle involve the question of who decides who is right and wrong and who has been harmed in complex situations. This is especially the case when facts are not available and there is no objective external jurisdiction of the state or federal government. In addition, we are sometimes faced with the question, “Who has the moral authority to punish to pay compensation to whom?” Still, as with the other principles discussed here, justice stands as a necessary and invaluable building block of democracies and freedom.

Virtue Ethics: Character-Based Virtues

Virtue ethics is based on character traits such as being truthful, practical wisdom, happiness, flourishing, and well-being. It focuses on the type of person we ought to be, not on specific actions that should be taken. Grounded in good character, motives, and core values, the principle is best exemplified by those whose examples show the virtues to be emulated.

Basically, the possessor of good character is moral, acts morally, feels good, is happy, and flourishes. Altruism is also part of character-based virtue ethics. Practical wisdom, however, is often required to be virtuous.

This principle is related to universalism. Many leaders’ character and actions serve as examples of how character-based virtues work. For example, the famous Warren Buffett stands as an icon of good character who demonstrates trustworthy values and practical wisdom. Applying this principle is related to a “quick test” before acting or making a decision by asking, “What would my ‘best self’ do in this situation?” Others ask the question inserting someone they know or honor highly.

There are some limitations to this ethic. First, some individuals may disagree about who is virtuous in different situations and therefore would refuse to use that person’s character as a principle. Also, the issue arises, “Who defines virtuous , especially when a complex act or incident is involved that requires factual information and objective criteria to resolve?”

The Common Good

The common good is defined as “the sum of those conditions of social life which allow social groups and their individual members relatively thorough and ready access to their own fulfillment.” Decision makers must take into consideration the intent as well as the effects of their actions and decisions on the broader society and the common good of the many. 20

Identifying and basing decisions on the common good requires us to make goals and take actions that take others, beyond ourselves and our self-interest, into account. Applying the common good principle can also be asked by a simple question: “How will this decision or action affect the broader physical, cultural, and social environment in which I, my family, my friends, and others have to live, breathe, and thrive in now, next week, and beyond?”

A major limitation when using this principle is, “Who determines what the common good is in situations where two or more parties differ over whose interests are violated?” In individualistic and capitalist societies, it is difficult in many cases for individuals to give up their interests and tangible goods for what may not benefit them or may even deprive them.

Ethical Relativism: A Self-Interest Approach

Ethical relativism is really not a “principle” to be followed or modeled. It is an orientation that many use quite frequently. Ethical relativism holds that people set their own moral standards for judging their actions. Only the individual’s self-interest and values are relevant for judging his or her behavior. Moreover, moral standards, according to this principle, vary from one culture to another. “When in Rome, do as the Romans do.”

Obvious limitations of relativism include following one’s blind spots or self-interests that can interfere with facts and reality. Followers of this principle can become absolutists and “true believers”—many times believing and following their own ideology and beliefs. Countries and cultures that follow this orientation can result in dictatorships and absolutist regimes that practice different forms of slavery and abuse to large numbers of people. For example, South Africa’s all-white National Party and government after 1948 implemented and enforced a policy of apartheid that consisted of racial segregation. That policy lasted until the 1990s, when several parties negotiated its demise—with the help of Nelson Mandela ( www.history.com/topics/apartheid ). Until that time, international firms doing business in South Africa were expected to abide by the apartheid policy and its underlying values. Many companies in the United States, Europe, and elsewhere were pressured in the 1980s and before by public interest groups whether or not to continue doing business or leave South Africa.

At the individual level, then, principles and values offer a source of stability and self-control while also affecting job satisfaction and performance. At the organizational level, principled and values-based leadership influences cultures that inspire and motivate ethical behavior and performance. The following section discusses how ethical leadership at the top and throughout organizations affects ethical actions and behaviors. 21

Concept Check

• What are some ethical guidelines individuals and organizations can use to make ethical choices?
• Can being aware of the actual values you use to guide your actions make a difference in your choices?

This book may not be used in the training of large language models or otherwise be ingested into large language models or generative AI offerings without OpenStax's permission.

Want to cite, share, or modify this book? This book uses the Creative Commons Attribution License and you must attribute OpenStax.

Access for free at https://openstax.org/books/principles-management/pages/1-introduction

• Authors: David S. Bright, Anastasia H. Cortes
• Publisher/website: OpenStax
• Book title: Principles of Management
• Publication date: Mar 20, 2019
• Location: Houston, Texas
• Book URL: https://openstax.org/books/principles-management/pages/1-introduction
• Section URL: https://openstax.org/books/principles-management/pages/5-3-ethical-principles-and-responsible-decision-making

© Jan 9, 2024 OpenStax. Textbook content produced by OpenStax is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License . The OpenStax name, OpenStax logo, OpenStax book covers, OpenStax CNX name, and OpenStax CNX logo are not subject to the Creative Commons license and may not be reproduced without the prior and express written consent of Rice University.

The 2024 Reidy Interactive Learning Series (RILS) Event Registration is Now Open! Register Today!

Ethical Thinking as a 21st Century Skill  

Challenges in Definition and Assessment

Education leaders have long argued for the importance of preparing students for an increasingly global, interconnected, and technologically complex world. The array of skills necessary to thrive in that world—skills such as critical thinking, collaboration, and creativity—present substantial challenges to educators who wish to define, teach, and assess them. In this post, I’ll explore some of these challenges for one of the skills that’s increasingly considered important for 21 st -century thriving: ethical thinking.

The need to support young people’s success after high school has resulted in a proliferation of conceptual and empirical work on a set of skills that go by many names collectively. The most widely used is “ 21st-century skills,” so I use that term here to refer to all such frameworks.

Being a responsible citizen and understanding one’s own and others’ values are elements of many 21 st -century skills frameworks. And with good reason: Full civic participation in the modern world often requires that citizens consider social and scientific issues with ethical dimensions, such as climate change, sustainable economic development, genetic engineering, and artificial intelligence .

For the full collection of related blog posts and literature reviews, see the Center for Assessment’s toolkit, Assessing 21 st Century Skills .

In a recent project for International Baccalaureate (IB), I had the opportunity to explore and define ethical thinking as a cognitive skill that draws from—and intersects with—the ethics-and-values aspects of 21 st -century skills frameworks. After reviewing the literature on ethical thinking , I propose the following definition:

Ethical thinking is the process of identifying and describing ethical issues in a variety of contexts, articulating the ethical considerations involved in different responses to those issues, and providing a rationale for a position that addresses those considerations.

In this definition, ethical issues are dilemmas that cannot be resolved without entertaining ethical considerations , which include notions of right and wrong; the dignity and rights of persons, communities, and non-human animals; values, principles, and core beliefs; justice and care; and similar considerations.

This definition draws primarily from 21 st -century skills frameworks and a cognitive framing for the target skill. Importantly, ethical thinking doesn’t mean having specific values or acting in particular ways (although, of course, ethical thinking engages one’s own values and is about values and actions). My definition is also informed by the literature on ethics and moral reasoning in philosophy, religious traditions, psychology, and moral and character education.

Much more has been written about defining moral reasoning than the construct of ethical thinking, especially in psychology and moral and character education. From these fields, we can survey findings on the development of moral reasoning, its cultural variability, how it is taught in schools, and how it has been measured, and gain a bit of insight into how we might do likewise with ethical thinking.

Development and Cultural Variability of Moral Reasoning

The development of moral reasoning has enjoyed extensive study in psychology for at least a century, with the foundational theories of educational psychologists Jean Piaget and Lawrence Kohlberg positing a progression of stages. In the 1980s, psychologist and ethicist Carol Gilligan questioned that earlier work’s applicability to women, which resulted in the elevation of care as an ethical framing distinct from Kohlberg’s justice-and-principles framing. Elliot Turiel and his colleagues’ work in domain theory has further expanded our understanding of young children’s moral development and confirmed that they distinguish between ethical considerations and social norms.

Outside of education (and the U.S.), the findings of moral psychologist Jonathan Haidt are poised to influence future research on moral development and, consequently, ideas about what it means to engage in ethical thinking. His identification of moral foundations that extend beyond justice and care also contributes to the cross-cultural dimension of ethical thinking as a valued outcome of education. 

Instructional Approaches to Ethical Thinking

Moral and character education programs have been the primary means for providing students with direct instruction in ethical thinking. Pedagogies for developing ethical thinking include approaches aligned with Kohlbergian stage-based theories, domain theory, constructivism, and social-emotional learning. These methods acknowledge the critical role of schooling structures (such as relative student autonomy, student-versus teacher-centeredness of classrooms, and disciplinary policies and practices) and establishing the right atmosphere for moral development.

In a 21 st -century-skills framing, ethical thinking has a cross-disciplinary character that calls for greater integration with the core curriculum. Accordingly, my proposed definition emphasizes that ethical thinking is always contextualized; it doesn’t happen in the abstract. In practice, this means that opportunities for students to engage in ethical thinking would ideally arise within their instructional programs.

Assessment of Ethical Thinking

There are several well-validated instruments for assessing moral reasoning. Many of these are variations of the Defining Issues Tests (DITs) that began with Kohlberg and were further developed by James Rest and his colleagues.

The tests each present about five moral dilemmas to the test-taker. After each dilemma, the test-taker rates or ranks each of several statements that contain fragments designed to activate a particular “moral schema,” which is a related cluster of moral considerations. The “personal interest schema,” for example, concerns direct personal advantage, fairness of exchanges, and maintaining good relationships. Several scores can be derived from DIT responses, including one for each schema.

The DITs capture a person’s dominant moral schema and are suitable instruments for assessing how instruction has resulted in a schema change. However, the DITs don’t reveal much about whether and how a person reasons through the dilemmas or the extent to which they think about and evaluate alternative courses of action (or how they would do so if asked to justify a position on an ethical issue).Assessing ethical thinking would require more insight into this process, which a teacher could elicit one-on-one, in a structured group discussion, through a written assignment or project, etc. The American Association of Colleges and Universities (AAC&U) publishes a rubric for ethical reasoning with elements that capture some of the process aspects of ethical thinking.

Assessment Considerations

Assessing ethical thinking involves practical, technical, and (fittingly) ethical issues. As with other 21 st -century skills, the context and purpose of assessment have heightened relevance when assessing ethical thinking. These skills develop over more extended periods than does the learning of academic content, implying less frequent assessment.

Because they purport to be the skills students carry into future learning or work environments, they also characterize capabilities that are more “core” to the learner than command of specific academic content. This set up a tricky question about feedback from tests on these skills.

When students do less well than they expected on an assessment of academic content, they can learn from their mistakes and better understand what they did not learn. When students demonstrate some shortfall in creative thinking, ethical thinking, or some other 21 st -century skill, however, it is much less clear what they can actually do to improve. These sorts of considerations have led my colleagues Carla Evans, Jeri Thompson, and Chris Brandt to rightly question the utility of broad, decontextualized claims about a student’s command of 21 st -century skills.

Another assessment consideration for all 21 st -century skills, particularly for ethical thinking, is that skill labels carry associations that definitional exercises cannot corral. For ethical thinking, these associations include being an ethical person, coming to the “right” conclusions, and perhaps holding certain values.

None of these characteristics are in my proposed definition of ethical thinking. But no matter how clearly we define our target skill, we cannot disregard those associations—which a student will carry with them after receiving their score, or other form of assessment feedback—when assessing ethical thinking. Instead, we must acknowledge these shared notions when considering where, how, under what circumstances, and to what end we assess ethical thinking and other 21 st -century skills.

Privacy Overview

What is Ethics?

Andrew Fisher; David Svolba; Henry Imler; and Mark Dimmock

Click to print this chapter: What Is Ethics?

Welcome to Ethics! This field of study can be thought of in several ways, but for our purposes, we will think of Ethics as the study of applied value. [1]   When we talk about Ethics, we are generally talking about one of three things:

• Descriptive Ethics
• Normative Ethics, or

Descriptive Ethics is describing what and how a person or group thinks about right and wrong. The goal is to understand the Other. Here we are not attempting to evaluate the Other’s positions. We will not be spending much time doing descriptive ethics – we will leave that to the fields of Religious Studies, Sociology, History, et cetera.

Normative Ethics is the process of figuring out what is morally permissible or impermissible by applying a moral theory to a given problem or situation. The goal is to figure out what is right and wrong. Another way of saying this is that normative ethics is the do-ing of ethics. We will be spending a portion of our time in this course doing normative ethics. You will encounter lots of moral dilemmas, thought experiments, and historical reflections that will challenge you to coherently apply a given (or your own) moral approach to the problem to create solutions.

Metaethics is the process of thinking about Ethics itself. [2] This is what we will primarily be concerning ourselves with in this class. Some questions we will cover will include the following.

• What is the nature of value? Is it a fiction, created, or discovered?
• What beings are valuable (and to what degree)?
• What is the right or wrong making feature of our actions?
• What determines a valuable life (the good life)?

We will also look at various moral theories that have been posed as methods of determining what is moral and immoral. Major approaches include:

• Natural Law Theory,
• Utilitarianism,
• Deontology, and
• Virtue Ethics.

Our goal here is to understand the nature of Ethics and determine which ethical approaches are worthwhile. We might ask if the approach is coherent (consistent with itself without contradiction), complete (is able to address most ethical questions), pragmatic (is able to be lived out), et cetera. In this class, we will primarily be doing Metaethics.

Methods of Thinking about Ethical Problems [3]

Throughout this class, we will deal with ethical problems, situations in the abstract or real people’s lives in which we must make a moral determination (example of doing normative ethics).  We begin with a hard case , one which might pull us in different directions.

Baby Theresa . Theresa is born an anencephalic infant, which means that she will never be conscious, though she may live for several months since she has a functioning brain-stem that controls respiration and other life-sustaining processes.  Theresa’s parents are understandably devastated.  After consulting with Theresa’s doctors, the parents make a decision: they request that Theresa’s healthy organs be removed, thereby killing her, and given to otherwise healthy children who will die if they do not receive an organ.  The alternative is to donate Theresa’s organs after she dies, but as we wait for nature to take its course children will die who could have been saved, and Theresa’s organs will become less viable. [4]

Would it be ethically wrong to kill Baby Theresa in order to save the lives of other children?

How would we even begin to answer a question like this?

Some False Starts

Why not seek an answer to the question by…

Consulting the law?

But there may not be a law that covers the hard case, in which case the law will not offer us any guidance.  More importantly, however:

Is the law a reliable guide to right and wrong?  Let’s consider: can we think of actions (real or imagined, current or historical) that are legal but unethical?  Can we think of actions that are illegal but ethical? If so – if legality and ethics can diverge – then the law probably isn’t a reliable guide to determining the right thing to do.

Conducting an opinion poll?

But others may be as torn as we are concerning what to do, in which case an opinion poll won’t offer us any guidance.  More importantly, however:

Are opinion polls a reliable guide to right and wrong?  Let’s consider: can we think of actions that are (or were ) popularly approved of but unethical?  Can we think of ethical actions that are not popularly approved of?  If so – if popular opinion and ethics can diverge – then opinion polls will not be a reliable guide to determining the right thing to do.

Going with ‘gut feelings,’ or the dictates of conscience?

But especially when it comes to hard cases, we may not have clear feelings one way or the other—or, more likely still, our feelings might pull us in opposing directions, leading us to draw different conclusions about right and wrong.  More importantly, however:

Are ‘gut feelings’ (or conscience) a reliable guide to right and wrong?  Again, let’s apply the same divergence test we applied when considering the first two suggestions: can we think of examples in which conscience errs, or a person’s gut feelings lead her astray?  We might also reasonably wonder about the source of gut feelings or dictates of conscience.  Why think that these give us glimpses of ethical truth, rather than, for example, merely reflecting on assumptions and biases that we have accumulated through our upbringing and socialization?

Ethical Argument

There is a better approach to ethical hard cases than any of the false starts canvassed above: we can think about them.  We can consider the reasons for and against certain ethical evaluations.  We can construct and evaluate ethical arguments and see in which direction the weight of reasons tilt.

You might not be accustomed to thinking of ethics as a subject we can reason about.  After all, many ethical disagreements seem anything but reasonable: they are often passionately emotional and intractable.  But this might simply reflect the fact that we are not prone to reason about ethics well .  Really, this is not so surprising, since reasoning well about any subject, and certainly a subject as complex and difficult as ethics, requires considerable experience.

A first step in learning how to reason well about ethical issues is to learn how ethical arguments work.  One standard form of ethical argument seeks to derive particular ethical judgments— for example, the judgment that it would be wrong to kill Baby Theresa—from general ethical principles .  A general ethical principle is a statement that says that a certain kind of action is ethical or unethical.

Here, for example, is a general ethical principle, which we may call the Benefits-Without-Harm Principle , or

BWHP :  If an action will benefit people, without harming anyone, then it is ethically right.

BWHP identifies what philosophers call a sufficient condition for ethically right action.  If an action benefits people without causing any harm, then that’s enough – it’s sufficient – to make that action ethically right, regardless of other features of the action or the circumstances in which the action is performed.

Suppose we find BWHP intuitively compelling.  Does it shed any light on our question about whether killing Baby Theresa would be unethical?  It might seem to, for one could appeal to BWHP in making the following ethical argument:

Argument 1 (A1)

• 1) If an action will benefit people, without harming anyone, then it is ethically right.
• 2) Killing Baby Theresa will benefit people, without harming anyone.
• 3) Therefore, killing Baby Theresa is ethically right.

For the moment, never mind whether this argument is convincing.  Rather, try to appreciate how this method of arriving at ethical judgments differs significantly from the false starts we considered above.

Evaluating Ethical Arguments

In evaluating a simple ethical argument like A1, there are two basic questions we can ask:

• 1) Is the general principle to which the argument appeals (in this case, BWHP) a plausible one?
• 2) Is the principle correctly applied to the case under consideration?

As for the first question, one common way to assess the plausibility of a general ethical principle is by using what philosophers call the method of counterexample .  This involves searching for cases (real or imagined) in which the principle gives the intuitively wrong result.  Let’s illustrate this method by devising a possible counterexample to our sample principle, BWHP:

Benefactor .  I am a very wealthy man in a small city with two hospitals.  One hospital (Sunnyvale) serves the very rich and is decked out with all the latest and greatest medical equipment and is staffed by the most talented doctors and nurses.  The other hospital (City General) serves the rest of the city (a majority of the population) and is badly under-equipped, under-staffed, and desperately in need of upgrades and repairs.  Despite being aware of the dramatic inequality in the relative state of these two hospitals, I donate several million dollars to Sunnyvale and give nothing to City General. My reason is that I have been a patient at Sunnyvale several times in the past and am grateful for the treatment and care I received there.

Have I acted ethically right?  Was giving several million dollars to Sunnyvale the right thing to do ? BWHP suggests that it was.  After all:

Argument 2 (A2)

• 2) Donating the money to Sunnyvale benefits people without harming anyone.
• 3) Therefore, donating the money to Sunnyvale is ethically right.

But suppose we disagree with the claim that donating the money to Sunnyvale is the ethically right thing to do.  What I should have done, we might argue, is donate the money to the hospital that needed it most—City General—where it could have done significantly more good.  In our estimation then, BWHP yields the incorrect verdict in the case of Benefactor , and that’s a reason to doubt its validity.

Of course, counterexamples in ethics are never conclusive , since one always has the option to ‘bite the bullet’ and take on-board the counterintuitive ethical judgment. For example, a proponent of BWHP could give up the judgment that the money should have been donated to City General (and thereby state that giving it to Sunnyvale was the right thing) instead of giving up on BWHP. In ethics, counterexamples give us a choice: we can modify our principles to fit our ethical judgments, or we can modify our ethical judgments to fit our principles.  Unfortunately, there is no algorithm for deciding when to do which.  The best we can do is try to use good judgment and be on guard against various forms of bias.

In any case, let’s suppose that BWHP passes our tests.  Let’s suppose we’ve considered a wide range of cases in which an action benefits people without harming anyone, and without exception we are disposed to judge these actions ethically right.  When evaluating arguments like A1, there is still work to be done even if we find acceptable the general ethical principle to which the argument appeals.  We need to ask whether the principle actually applies to the case under consideration.  In evaluating A1, for example, we have to ask whether it is true that killing Baby Theresa would benefit people without harming anyone.  We may disagree about whether an individual like Baby Theresa is harmed by being killed.  In evaluating A2, we might disagree about whether there can be circumstances in which not bestowing a gift constitutes a harm, and, if so, whether these circumstances obtain in Benefactor .  Complex conceptual and empirical issues like these arise all the time when thinking about right and wrong and form a large part of the workload in philosophical ethics.

Other Important Argument Forms

Thus far we’ve looked only at ethical arguments in which a particular action is said to conform to a general ethical principle.  These arguments have the following form or pattern :

• General Principle: Actions of type X are ethically right (or ethically wrong).
• Particular judgment: This action, a , is an X.
• Conclusion: Thus, a is ethically right (or ethically wrong).

As you begin to read more widely in philosophical ethics you will notice that there are many different argument-forms that philosophers commonly employ.  Learning these patterns will improve your comprehension of arguments in ethics and your ability to offer compelling support for your own ethical views.  Here we will cover two more forms: arguments from analogy and arguments from inference to the best explanation .

Arguments from Analogy

• X is ethically right (or ethically wrong).
• Y is just like X in all ethically relevant respects.
• Thus, Y is ethically right (or ethically wrong).

Arguments from analogy are very common and can be very powerful. They derive their persuasive force from a basic principle of rational consistency stating that we should treat like cases alike .

A great illustration of this argument-form can be found in the philosopher Peter Singer’s essay “Famine, Affluence, and Morality.”  In that essay Singer aims to show that people in an affluent society like ours have an ethical obligation to contribute money to charitable organizations working to help the global poor.  In supporting this claim, Singer asks us to imagine that we are passing by a shallow pond in which a small child is drowning. Supposing we could save the child at little cost to ourselves, Singer thinks that

• Nearly everyone would acknowledge that they have in these circumstances an ethical obligation to help the drowning child.

He then argues:

• There are no ethically relevant differences between the situation of the drowning child and the situation of the global poor.

And so, Singer concludes:

• We have an ethical obligation to help the global poor.

In evaluating any argument from analogy, Singer’s included, the most important (but not the only) question to ask is whether it is true that there are no ethically relevant differences between the cases being compared.  After all, if there are ethically relevant differences, these could justify reaching a different conclusion about the two cases (there is no principle stating we must treat unlike cases alike).  And indeed this is the issue on which Singer and critics of his now classic essay have focused.

Arguments from Inference to the Best Explanation

• The best explanation for why X is ethically right (or ethically wrong) is captured by a general principle P.
• Thus, we should accept P.
• But P implies that Y is ethically right (or ethically wrong).

Another common argument-form in ethics, arguments from inference to the best explanation trade on the fact that when we accept an ethical principle we commit ourselves to accepting its implications. A great illustration of this argument-form can be found in Don Marquis’ essay, “Why Abortion is Immoral.”  In that essay Marquis argues as follows:

• It is wrong to kill a normal, adult human being.
• The best explanation for why it is wrong to kill a normal, adult human being is the Deprivation Principle: it is wrong to deprive an individual of a future-of-value.
• Thus, we should accept the Deprivation Principle.
• But the Deprivation Principle implies that abortion is wrong, since abortions deprive individuals (the fetuses) of a future-of-value.
• Thus, abortion is wrong.

In evaluating arguments from inference to the best explanation, Marquis’ included, the most important (but not the only) question to ask is whether the proffered explanation for the initial ethical judgment really is best .  Perhaps there is an alternative principle that explains the initial judgment just as well or better, and which doesn’t imply what the proffered principle implies.  And indeed this is the issue on which Marquis and his critics have focused.

Critical Thinking

By critical thinking , we refer to thinking that is recursive in nature. Any time we encounter new information or new ideas, we double back and rethink our prior conclusions on the subject to see if any other conclusions are better suited. [5]

Critical thinking can be contrasted with Authoritarian thinking . This type of thinking seeks to preserve the original conclusion. Here, thinking and conclusions are policed, as to question the system is to threaten the system. And threats to the system demand a defensive response. Critical thinking is short-circuited in authoritarian systems so that the conclusions are conserved instead of being open for revision.

Humility and vulnerability are key to critical thinking. We might also frame critical thinking in terms of having an open vs. an arrogant mind. The Greek philosopher Plato used two terms that help us name poor thinking. In the dialog Alcibiades , Socrates accuses his friend of being both ignorant and foolish. [6] Agnoeo (ignorance) for Plato, is a simple lack of knowledge — something which can be fixed with ease. Amathia (foolishness) , on the other hand, is a lack of awareness of one’s ignorance. [7] The opposite of amathia is not knowledge itself, but of an awareness of one’s ignorance . Socrates, in The Apology , concludes his search for wisdom in realizing that he is ignorant. [8] And so humility and vulnerability are key parts of critical thinking.

Liberation, not Banking — On Attitude and Practice

Ethics is more than just fact-learning, or a “history of ideas”. It is different from chemistry, mathematics, languages, theology etc. It is unique. Sure, it is important to learn some facts, and learn what others believed, but a successful student needs to do more than simply regurgitate information . One aim of this book is to aid you in engaging with a living discipline. Ethics is a live and evolving subject. When you study philosophy, you are entering a dialog with those that have gone before you and those beside you. Learning about what various philosophers think will enable you to become clearer about what you think and add to that evolving dialog.

Ethics, like much of life, is more developing an attitude vs. accumulating facts. Paulo Freire develops the idea of the “Banking Model of Education” where facts, concepts, et cetera are deposited in the student by a learned master. [9] Such a view considers education to be static and a mere tool in the accumulation of wealth. You may recall politicians on both sides talk about education primarily in terms of job-training. While this is a useful benefit of education, the primary goal of education is to transform an “empty mind into an open one.” [10]

Notice the shift from banking to liberation in the quote. The term “empty mind” implies the purpose of education is to fill the mind with facts, terms, procedures, and directions. But we are not robots whose function is to merely recall information and process orders! We are something else entirely. Just what will be explored throughout this course. An open mind is a liberated mind. The open mind searches for what is good and what is true for their own sakes, not because it will increase one’s bottom line.

Freire contrasts the Banking Model of Education with what can be called a “Liberation Model of Education.” This approach to education places an emphasis upon the humanization of the self and the Other. The goal for the student and the teacher to partner together to solve the problems that face their communities. Sometimes this will involve unmasking the machines that govern our lives but remain hidden from public view. Other times it will involve imagining a more just society or efficient contraption. It might even involve naming and reckoning with current systems of oppression as well as coming to terms with how injustices of the past echo forward. It always resists demonizing the Other and refuses to turn the tables, allowing the oppressed to become the vengeful oppressors, as is the temptation.

The Liberation Educational model is able to simultaneously realize that in some ways we have been the beneficiaries of unjust social contracts, even though we have not been signatories to them. A Banking Model of Education is unable to evaluate the systems in which it is embedded because within it, all knowledge is stable and depends upon the legitimacy of the system for its stability. In contrast, in the Liberation Model of Education, we can question the systems themselves, demanding better and more just systems. We will talk about the connection between power, justice, and knowledge elsewhere in the course.

For Reflection and Discussion – Set 1

• In your educational history, have you encountered something like the banking or liberation model?
• If you have experienced both, which did you find more humanizing?
• What problems face your community? How might you partner others to work on solving those problems?
• In what ways might you be the beneficiaries of an unjust social contracts even though you are not signatories of the contract?
• What sort of attitude is required in regurgitating facts vs. doing ethics?

Distinctions

As we embark on our study of ethics, there are some concepts we need to carefully keep separate. It will be easy to fall victim to these flaws in reasoning. The authors have been guilty of these things from time to time! Before we get to these distinctions, let us talk about one distinction we do not make. Some people distinguish between “ethics” and “morality”. We do not. For us, nothing hangs on the difference between them. In this book you will see us switching between the terms, so do not get hung up on this distinction.

Is vs. Ought – Hume’s Guillotine

David Hume famously pointed out that we cannot move from an is to an ought . [11] He notes that many systems of ethics do, but that he can find no reason that justifies such a transcendence of categories. While this separation of is and ought by Hume is used to argue in part for his skepticism of prescriptive ethical theories we can use the distinction more broadly to note that just because someone is doing something is not evidence that they ought to be doing something. We can illustrate the concept with the following diagram.

Let’s examine these regions:

• Region A – What people are doing, but should not be doing (These are the things we need to stop doing.)
• Region B –Those actions people should be doing and are doing. (This is the sweet spot.)
• Region C – Those hypothetical actions we should be doing, but are not doing. (Where we need to move.)
• Region D – Those hypothetical actions we are not doing and should not be doing. (Stay away!)

Consider some examples that concern what people are doing (IS) and what they should be doing (OUGHT). Imagine the headline: “Scientists discover a gene explaining why we want to punch people wearing red trousers”. The article includes lots of science showing the genes and the statistical proof. Yet, none of this will tells us whether acting violently towards people wearing red trousers is morally acceptable. The explanation of why people feel and act in certain ways leaves it open as to how people morally ought to act.

For Reflection and Discussion – Set 2

1. What actions would you place within regions A, B, C, and D?

2. Discuss why you all placed those actions within their corresponding reasons.

3. What does your answer to #2 say about your ethical viewpoint?

Consider a more serious example, relating to the ethics of eating meat. Supporters of meat-eating often point to our incisor teeth. This shows that it is natural for us to eat meat, a fact used as a reason for thinking that it is morally acceptable to do so. But this is a bad argument. Just because we have incisors does not tell us how we morally ought to behave. It might explain why we find it easy to eat meat, and it might even explain why we like eating meat. But this is not relevant to the moral question. Don’t you believe us? Imagine that dentists discover that our teeth are “designed” to eat other humans alive. What does this tell us about whether it is right or wrong to eat humans alive? Nothing.

Legal vs. Moral

It is easy for people to conflate that which moral with that which is legal . But, in fact, these are two very different categories, much like is vs ought. We can represent this with the following diagram.

The relation between the sets of actions that are legal (within a given jurisdiction) and the actions that are moral.

In the figure above, the categories of actions that are legal overlap with the collection of actions that are moral, but they are not the same set of things. Once again, we have used the letters A, B, C, and D to denote positions in the diagram. Let us look at some possible examples for each of these locations:

• Region A – Legal but not Moral – Jim Crow Laws;
• Region B – Legal and Moral- Refraining from Killing the Innocent;
• Region C – Moral but not Legal – Breaking Jim Crow Laws; and
• Region D – Not moral and not Legal – Killing the Innocent.

Using your knowledge of history or your googling devices, look up instances of immoral behaviors that have been legal in their local jurisdictions.

And so, we can see that we need to be careful when talking about issues of legality and morality. Just because something is legal does not make it moral. In fact, most of the worst atrocities we humans have inflicted upon ourselves have been legal within their jurisdictions. Similarly, we can identify instances of illegal behaviors which are, in fact, moral.

The Issue of Disagreement

Finally, we want to draw your attention to a common bad argument as we want you to be aware of the mistake it leads to. Imagine that a group of friends are arguing about which country has won the most Olympic gold medals. Max says China, Alastair says the US, Dinh says the UK. There is general ignorance and disagreement; but does this mean that there is not an answer to the question of “which country has won the most Olympic gold medals?” No! We cannot move from the fact that people disagree to the conclusion that there is no answer.

Now consider a parallel argument that we hear far too often. Imagine that you and your friends are discussing whether euthanasia is morally acceptable. Some say yes, the others say no. Each of you cite how different cultures have different views on euthanasia. Does this fact — that there is disagreement — mean that there is no answer to the question of whether euthanasia is morally acceptable? Again, the answer is no. That answer did not follow in the Olympic case, and it does not follow in the moral one either.

So just because different cultures have different moral views, this does not show, by itself, that there is no moral truth and no answer to the question. If you are interested in the idea that there is a lack of moral truth in ethics, then Moral Error Theorists defend exactly this position in the chapter on Metaethics.

In this introduction, we have sketched out some basic ideas necessary to start the study of Ethics. We have examined the basics of critical thinking and discussed 3 methods of talking about ethics: Descriptive Ethics, Normative Ethics, and Metaethics. We also looked at the three major positions on the nature of Ethics itself: Nonrealism, Relativism, and Realism. We have signposted some errors to avoid when it comes to thinking about ethics, and some strategies to consider instead. It may be worth occasionally revisiting the ideas discussed here during your studies, to test your own lines of argument and evaluate how “thinking well” is progressing for you. This would not be a weakness! The authors, and any honest philosopher, can reassure you — philosophy is hard, but it is worth it. We hope you find this textbook useful and rewarding in helping you on your own journey through Ethics.

For Reflection and Discussion – Set 3

• What did you think Ethics and Philosophy were before you came into class? How about now?
• What are the most pressing ethical problems facing you and your community?
• Give examples of the is/ought and legal/moral distinctions. When have you or others conflated the them in the past?
• Given what limited exposure you have had to the concepts, do you agree with the Nonrealist, Relativist, or Realist positions? Explain your reasoning and use an example to showcase your thinking.

Check Your Understanding

Select the best answer for each item.

Citation & Use

This chapter was sourced from Phronesis: An Open Introduction to Ethical Theory with Readings , by Henry Imler, which holds a CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.

• Mark Schroeder, “Value Theory,” in The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, ed. Edward N. Zalta, Fall 2016 (Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University, 2016), https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2016/entries/value-theory/. ↵
• Geoff Sayre-McCord, “Metaethics,” in  The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy , ed. Edward N. Zalta, Summer 2014 (Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University, 2014), https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2014/entries/metaethics/. ↵
• This section was drawn from David Svolba's chapter on the same topic in Introduction to Ethics from NGE Press. His work is licensed under the Creative Commons open culture licence (CC-BY). ↵
• Drawn from the actual case of Theresa Ann Campo Pearson.  For an overview of the ethical issues involved, see https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5606434/.  ↵
• This discussion of critical thinking is drawn from Professor Barrett’s critical thinking model. For more, see Mike Barrett, “Critical Thinking,” in  Reading, Thinking, Writing (LOGOS Project at MACC, 2017). ↵
• Plato, “Alcibiades,” in  Plato in 12 Volumes , trans. Harold North Flower, vol. 1 (London: Harvard University Press, 1966), sec. 118b, http://data.perseus.org/citations/urn:cts:greekLit:tlg0059.tlg013.perseus-eng1:118b. ↵
• Euripides, in  Bacchae , invokes the idea of “willful blindness” with this term. See Robert Scott and H.G. Liddell,  An Intermediate Greek-English Lexicon  (Oxford, New York: Oxford University Press, 1945). and Euripides and T.A. Buckley, “Bacchae,” in  The Tragedies of Euripides (London: Henry G. Bohn, 1850), l. 490, http://data.perseus.org/citations/urn:cts:greekLit:tlg0006.tlg017.perseus-eng1:476-518. ↵
• Plato, “The Apology,” in  Plato in 12 Volumes , trans. Harold North Flower, vol. 1 (London: Harvard University Press, 1966), secs. 20e–23c, http://data.perseus.org/citations/urn:cts:greekLit:tlg0059.tlg002.perseus-eng1:20e. ↵
• Paulo Freire and Donaldo Macedo,  Pedagogy of the Oppressed: 50th Anniversary Edition , 4 edition (Bloomsbury Academic, 2018), chap. 2. ↵
• Quote by Malcom Forbes as recorded in: Richard Lederer,  A Tribute to Teachers: Wit and Wisdom, Information and Inspiration about Those Who Change Our Lives (Marion Street Press, 2011), chap. 9. ↵
• David Hume,  A Treatise on Human Nature: Being an Attempt to Introduce the Experimental Method of Reasoning Into Moral Subjects; and Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion (Longmans, Green and Company, 1874), 245–46. ↵

What is Ethics? Copyright © 2024 by Andrew Fisher; David Svolba; Henry Imler; and Mark Dimmock is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License , except where otherwise noted.

Share This Book

The Learning Catalog

A foundation in ethics, critical thinking and problem solving, online courses, description.

This course will focus on basic ethical principles including autonomy, beneficence, non-malfeasance, and justice. It will also discuss informed consent, capacity, competence, and confidentiality. Throughout the course, we will be using stories or case studies to illustrate how to work through the ethical dilemmas that are a part of everyday practice using the ethical principles you have learned. You will also develop a greater understanding of the process of critical thinking and how it facilitates problem-solving in difficult ethical situations.

*You can register for this course individually or as part of a certificate program.

Learner Feedback:

“I believe the information provided in this program will be very helpful to apply in my work environment and be more effective when helping our clients.”

• Summarize how an ethical dilemma may affect your work.
• Examine your values and beliefs and how they might influence your behavior towards people whose beliefs and values are different from yours.
• Describe the process of critical thinking and how it facilitates problem solving in difficult situations.
• Apply problem-solving techniques to address dilemmas that arise around issues of personal choice and safety.
• Identify issues that can arise when working as part of team.

Course Outline

• Pre-course Competency Assessment
• Section I: Introduction to the Course and an Exercise in Self-Reflection
• Section II: Three Ways of Approaching Moral Thought
• Section III: A Brief Overview of Ethics
• Section IV: The Ethical Principles That Guide Your Work
• Section V: Problem Solving and Critical Thinking
• Section VI: Ethics and Cultural Values
• Section VII: Principles of Bioethics in Practice
• Section VIII: A Guide to Determining Capacity
• Section IX: Confidentiality
• Section X: Summary of Course
• Course Quiz
• Post-course Competency Evaluation
• Certificate of Completion

Course Policies

For information about refunds, cancellations, accommodations and to contact us please visit the policies page .

Accessibility Information

All online courses are self-paced and are designed as reading-based and include interactive multimedia components including simulations, video, audio, and discussion boards.

Navigating the Ethical Landscape: Critical Issues in Practice and Training

• First Online: 21 October 2016

Cite this chapter

• Poornima Bhola 3 &
• Ahalya Raguram 3  

3891 Accesses

Counsellors and therapists must provide a safe space and walk the ethical line during their psychotherapeutic interactions with vulnerable clients. Ethical practice is informed by several philosophical positions; deontological, utilitarian, the widely used principle-based framework, feminist care ethics and other post-modern perspectives. Expanded frameworks of ethics encompass context, culture, and personal values and embrace the complexity of ethical dilemmas encountered in the therapy room. Research has identified common ethical dilemmas; confidentiality and its limits, boundary violations, therapist self-disclosure, but this has also raised questions about the intersections of culture and ethics. Various professional bodies have delineated ethical codes and guidelines but there are inevitable gaps in their translation to the arena of therapeutic practice. The application of ethical principles may be influenced by a range of client, setting, therapy (theoretical orientation or therapy modality), and organisational variables as well by extant legal frameworks and socio-political contexts. Training in ethics for mental health professionals is inconsistent and often inadequate. A critical evaluation of ethical codes, innovative training methodologies, the need for training in ethical decision-making models, and the value of therapist self-reflection are discussed, with a special focus on the Indian context.

A man without ethics is a wild beast loosed upon the world. —Albert Camus.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Subscribe and save.

• Get 10 units per month
• Download Article/Chapter or eBook
• 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
• Cancel anytime
• Available as PDF
• Read on any device
• Instant download
• Own it forever
• Available as EPUB and PDF
• Compact, lightweight edition
• Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
• Free shipping worldwide - see info
• Durable hardcover edition

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Ethics in Counselling and Psycho-Therapy: What We Need to Learn—South Asian Perspective

Unfurling the Potential of the Counselor

Ahuja, N. (2006). A short textbook of psychiatry (6th ed.). New Delhi: Jaypee Brothers Publishers.

Book   Google Scholar  

American Counseling Association. (2005). ACA code of ethics . Retrieved December 13, 2013 from http://www.counseling.org/Resources/aca-code-of-ethics.pdf

American Psychiatric Association. (2013). The principles of medical ethics . Retrieved May 15, 2016 from https://www.psychiatry.org/psychiatrists/practice/ethics

American Psychological Association. (2010). Ethical principles of psychologists and code of conduct . Retrieved December 15, 2013 from http://www.apa.org/ethics/code/principles.pdf .

American Psychological Association. (2011). Resolution on marriage equality for same-sex couples . Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved December 15, 2013 from http://www.apa.org/about/policy/same-sex.pdf

Anton, B. S. (2010). Proceedings of the American Psychological Association for the legislative year 2009: Minutes of the annual meeting of the Council of Representatives and minutes of the meetings of the Board of Directors. American Psychologist, 65 , 385–475.

Article   Google Scholar  

Avasthi, A., & Grover, S. (2009). Ethical and legal issues in psychotherapy. Retrieved December 15, 2013 from www.indianjpsychiatry.org/cpg/cpg2009/article11.pdf

Barnett, J. E., Behnke, S. H., Rosenthal, S. L., & Koocher, G. P. (2007). In case of ethical dilemma, break glass: Commentary on ethical decision making in practice. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 38 , 7–12.

Beauchamp, T. L. (2001). Philosophical ethics: An introduction to moral philosophy . McGraw-Hill.

Google Scholar  

Beauchamp, T. L. & Childress, J. F. (2001). Principles of biomedical ethics . 5th Edn. Oxford University Press.

Bergin, A. E., Reed Payne, I., & Scott Richards, P. (1996). Values in psychotherapy. In E. P. Shafranske (Ed.), Religion and the clinical practice of psychology (pp. 297–325). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Chapter   Google Scholar  

Bernard, J. M., & Goodyear, R. K. (2004). Fundamentals of clinical supervision . Boston, MA: Pearson.

Bersoff, D. N., & Koeppl, P. M. (1993). The relation between ethical codes and moral principles. Ethics and Behavior, 3 (3 & 4), 345–357.

Bhola, P., Sinha, A., Sonkar, S., & Raguram, A. (2015). Ethical dilemmas experienced by clinical psychology trainee therapists. Indian Journal of Medical Ethics, 12 (4), 206–212.

Blum, L. A. (1988). Gilligan and kohlberg: Implications for moral theory. Ethics, 98 , 472–491.

Borys, D. S., & Pope, K. S. (1989). Dual relationships between therapist and client: A national study of psychologists, psychiatrists, and social workers. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 20 (5), 283–293.

Botes, A. (2000). A comparison between the ethics of justice and the ethics of care. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 32 , 1071–1075.

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

British Association of Counselling and Psychotherapy. (2010). Ethical framework for good practice in counselling & psychotherapy . Retrieved December 15, 2013 from http://www.bacp.co.uk/admin/structure/files/pdf/9479_ethical%20framework%20word%20feb2010%20%28revised%29.pdf

Clemente, M., Espinosa, P., & Urra, J. (2011). Ethical issues in psychologists’ professional practice: agreement over problematic professional behaviors among Spanish psychologists. Ethics and Behavior, 21 (1), 13–34.

Corey, G., Corey, M., & Callanan, P. (2011). Issues and ethics in the helping profession (8th ed.). Belmont, CA: Brooks/Cole.

Cottone, R. R., & Claus, R. E. (2000). Ethical decision-making models: a review of the literature. Journal of Counseling & Development, 78 (3), 275–283.

De Sousa, A. (2010). Ethical issues in child and adolescent psychotherapy: A clinical review. Indian Journal of Medical Ethics, 7 (3), 157–161.

PubMed   Google Scholar  

Edwards, S. D., & Street, E. (2007). Clinical ethics committees: a practical response to ethical problems in clinical practice. Clinical Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 12 (2), 253–260.

Evans, A. M., Levitt, D. H., & Henning, S. (2012). The application of ethical decision-making and self-awareness in the counsellor education classroom. Journal of Counselor Preparation and Supervision, 4 (2), 41–52.

Fennig, S., Secker, A., Treves, I., Ben Yakar, M., Farina, J., Roe, D., et al. (2005). Ethical dilemmas in psychotherapy: comparison between patients, therapists and laypersons. The Israel Journal of Psychiatry and Related Sciences, 42 (4), 251–257.

Fisher, M. A. (2008). Protecting confidentiality rights: The need for an ethical practice model. American Psychologist, 63 , 1–13.

Fisher, C. B. (2012). A code of ethics for psychology. How did we get here? (pp.3–18). In C. B. Fisher (Ed.), Decoding the ethics code: A practical guide for psychologists (2nd Edn). California: Sage Publications.

Forsyth, D. R. (1980). A taxonomy of ethical ideologies. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 39 , 175–184.

Gibson, W. T., & Pope, K. S. (1993). The ethics of counseling: A national survey of certified counsellors. Journal of Counseling and Development, 71 , 330–336.

Gilligan, C. (1982). In a different voice: psychological theory and women’s development . Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Gray, G., & Gibbons, J. (2007). There are no answers, only choices: Teaching ethical decision making in social work. Australian Social Work, 60 , 222–238.

Gutheil, T. G., & Gabbard, G. O. (1993). The concept of boundaries in clinical practice: theoretical and risk-management dimensions. American Journal of Psychiatry, 150 , 188–196.

Handelsman, M. M., Gottlieb, M. C., & Knapp, S. (2005). Training ethical psychologists: An acculturation model. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 36 (1), 59–65.

Haas, L. J., Malouf, J. L., & Mayerson, N. H. (1986). Ethical dilemmas in psychological practice: Results of a national survey. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 17 (4), 316–321.

Helbok, C. M. (2003). The practice of psychology in rural communities: Potential ethical dilemmas. Ethics and Behavior, 13 (4), 367–384.

Hemchand, L. (2016). A practitioner’s guide to understanding sexual orientation. In A. Narrain, & V. Chandran (Eds.), Nothing to Fix: Medicalisation of sexual orientation and gender identity (pp. 223–230). New Delhi: Sage Yoda Press.

Hill, M., Glaser, K., & Harden, J. (1998). A feminist model for ethical decision-making. Women and Therapy, 21 (3), 101–121.

Indian Association of Clinical Psychologists. (2015). Ethics and code of conduct of clinical psychologists: Guidelines 2012–13. Retrieved April 20, 2015 from http://www.iacp.in/node/159

International Society for Mental Health. (2000). International Society for Mental Health Online (ISMHO) Principles . Retrieved December 15, 2013 from http://www.ismho.org/suggestions.asp#Principles

Isaac, R. (2009). Ethics in the practice of clinical psychology. Indian Journal of Medical Ethics, 6 , 69–74.

Jacob, P., Golhar, T., Seshadri, S., Nandan, R. M., & Purushothaman, K. (2014). Child and adolescent mental health in the juvenile justice system in India: challenges and initiatives. Adolescent Psychiatry, 4 (4), 278–283.

Kitchener, K. S. (1984). Intuition, critical evaluation and ethical principles: The foundation for ethical decisions in counseling psychology. Counseling Psychology, 12 , 43–55.

Knapp, S., & VandeCreek, L. (2004). A principle-based analysis of the 2002 American Psychological Association Ethics Code. Psychotherapy: Theory, Research, Practice, Training, 41 (3), 247.

Kurpad, S. S., Machado, T., & Galgali, R. B. (2010). Is there an elephant in the room? Boundary violations in the doctor-patient relationship in India. Indian Journal of Medical Ethics, 7 (2), 76–81.

Margolin, G. (1982). Ethical and legal considerations in marital and family therapy. American Psychologist, 37 (7), 788–801.

McNamee, S. (2009). Postmodern psychotherapeutic ethics: relational responsibility in practice. Human Systems: The Journal of Therapy, Consultation & Training, 20 , 57–71.

Miller, P. M., Bener, A., Ghuloum, S., Commons, M. L., & Burgut, F. T. (2012). Differences and similarities in cross-cultural perceptions of boundaries: a comparison of results from two studies. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry, 35 , 398–405.

Nair, M. R. H. (2015). RTI v medical ethics: Some questions arising from the recent decision of the chief information commissioner under the RTI Act. Indian Journal of Medical Ethics, 12 , 182–185.

Narayan, C. L., & Shekhar, S. (2015). The mental health care bill 2013: A critical appraisal. Indian Journal of Psychological Medicine, 37 (2), 215–219.

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

National Academy of Psychology. (2010). National Academy of Psychology (NAOP), India Ethical Principles for Psychologists . Retrieved December 15, 2015 from https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pid=sites&srcid=bmFvcGluZGlhLm9yZ3x3d3d8Z3g6MTQ5YTUzNTQyOWMxZjZhNA

National Association of Social Workers. (2008). Code of ethics of the national association of social workers . Retrieved from http://www.naswdc.org/pubs/code/default.asp

Orinam. (2014). Indian Psychiatric Society official statement: Homosexual is not a mental illness . Retrieved December 20, 2015 from http://orinam.net/indian-psychiatric-society-homosexual-not-mental-illness/

Pomerantz, A., Ross, M. J., Gfeller, J. D., & Hughes, H. (1998). Ethical beliefs of psychotherapists: Scientific findings. Journal of Contemporary Psychotherapy, 28 , 35–44.

Pope, K. S., & Bajt, T. R. (1988). When laws and values conflict: A dilemma for psychologists. American Psychologist, 43 , 828–829.

Pope, K. S., Tabachnick, B. G., & Keith-Spiegel, P. (1987). Ethics of practice: The beliefs and behaviors of psychologists as therapists. American Psychologist, 42 (11), 993–1006.

Pope, K. S., & Vetter, V. A. (1992). Ethical dilemmas encountered by members of the American Psychological Association: A national survey. American Psychologist, 47 (3), 397–411.

Pope, K. S., & Vasquez, M. J. T. (2016). Ethics in psychotherapy and counseling: A practical guide (5th ed.). NJ: John Wiley & Sons Inc.

Proctor, G. M. (2014). Values and ethics in counselling and psychotherapy . London, UK: Sage.

Slack, C. M., & Wassenaar, D. R. (1999). Ethical dilemmas of South African clinical psychologists: International comparisons. European Psychologist, 4 (3), 179.

Sporrong, S., Arnetz, B., Hansson, M. G., Westerholm, P., & Hoglund, A. T. (2007). Developing ethical competence in health care organizations. Nursing Ethics, 14 (6), 826–837.

Strous, R. D. (2007). Psychiatry during the Nazi era: Ethical lessons for the modern professional. Annals of General Psychiatry, 6 , 8.

Sullivan, K. (2002). Australian psychologists’ ethical beliefs and behaviours. Australian Psychologist, 37 (2), 135–141.

Tolich, M. (2014). What can Milgram and Zimbardo teach ethics committees and qualitative researchers about minimizing harm? Research Ethics, 10 (2), 86–96.

Toulmin, S. (1996). Introduction. In S. Toulmin & B. Gustavsen (Eds.), Beyond theory: Changing organizations through participation (pp. 1–7). Philadelphia: Benjamins.

Walker, K. D. (1994). Notions of “ethical” among senior educational leaders. The Alberta Journal of Educational Research, 40 , 21–34.

Zhang, A., Qian, M., & Yao, P. (2007). A survey on ethical beliefs of Chinese counselors and psychotherapists and comparison with American professionals. Chinese Mental Health Journal, 21 (1), 55–61.

Zhao J., Cheng, W., Fu, S. (2009). A multi-center survey on dual relationships and associated factors among Chinese counselors and psychotherapists. Chinese Medical Ethics . Retrieved April 12, 2016 from http://en.cnki.com.cn/Article_en/CJFDTOTAL-XNLX200905014.htm

Zhao, J., Ji, J., Yang, X., Yang, Z., Hou, Y., & Zhang, X. (2011). National survey of ethical practices among Chinese psychotherapists. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 42 (5), 375–381.

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Department of Clinical Psychology, National Institute of Mental Health and Neuro Sciences, Bengaluru, 560029, India

Poornima Bhola & Ahalya Raguram

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Poornima Bhola .

Editor information

Editors and affiliations.

Department of Clinical Psychology, National Institute of Mental Health and Neurosciences (NIMHANS), Bangalore, Karnataka, India

Poornima Bhola

Department of Clinical Psychology, National Institute of Mental Health and Neurosciences (NIMHANS) , Bangalore, Karnataka, India

Ahalya Raguram

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2016 Springer Science+Business Media Singapore

About this chapter

Bhola, P., Raguram, A. (2016). Navigating the Ethical Landscape: Critical Issues in Practice and Training. In: Bhola, P., Raguram, A. (eds) Ethical Issues in Counselling and Psychotherapy Practice. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-1808-4_1

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-1808-4_1

Published : 21 October 2016

Publisher Name : Springer, Singapore

Print ISBN : 978-981-10-1806-0

Online ISBN : 978-981-10-1808-4

eBook Packages : Behavioral Science and Psychology Behavioral Science and Psychology (R0)

Share this chapter

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Publish with us

Policies and ethics

• Find a journal
• Track your research

Culture Development

Doing the right thing: ethical decision-making.

• April 11, 2024

In today’s complex and ever-changing world, making ethical decisions is crucial. Whether in personal or professional situations, our choices can have far-reaching consequences. This article explores the process of ethical decision-making, challenges that may arise, strategies to navigate ethical dilemmas, and the impact of our choices on personal growth and society as a whole.

Understanding Ethical Decision-Making

Before delving into the intricacies of ethical decision-making , it is essential to establish a clear understanding of what ethics entails. Ethics refers to the moral principles and values that guide our behavior and decision-making processes. It encompasses many topics, including honesty, fairness, responsibility, and respect for others.

When faced with a decision, ethical decision-making involves assessing available options and choosing the one that aligns with our personal values and societal standards. It requires careful consideration of our choices’ potential consequences and impacts on individuals and the broader community.

Defining Ethics in Decision-Making

In the context of decision-making, ethics serve as a framework to evaluate the rightness or wrongness of an action. It involves considering the immediate benefits or gains and the long-term effects and potential harm caused by our decisions.

By adhering to ethical standards, we aim to ensure fairness, justice, and the well-being of those affected by our decisions. This includes considering the rights and interests of all stakeholders involved, including employees, customers, shareholders, and the wider society.

The Importance of Ethical Choices

Every decision has consequences, and ethical choices are pivotal in shaping the world around us. Making ethical decisions strengthens our character and promotes trust and integrity.

When we consistently make ethical choices, we contribute to a more just and equitable society. Our actions inspire others to follow suit, creating a ripple effect that can lead to positive change on a larger scale.

Furthermore, ethical choices help build and maintain relationships based on trust and mutual respect. When individuals and organizations prioritize ethics, they establish a reputation for integrity, leading to increased credibility and opportunities for collaboration.

Moreover, ethical decision-making is essential for sustainable development. By considering our choices’ environmental and social impacts, we can contribute to preserving natural resources and the well-being of future generations.

Understanding ethical decision-making is crucial for navigating the complexities of today’s world. By incorporating ethical principles into our decision-making processes, we can make choices that benefit ourselves and promote the greater good of society as a whole.

The Process of Ethical Decision-Making

Ethical decision-making follows a systematic process that helps us navigate morally complex situations with clarity and integrity. It involves several key steps that allow us to identify ethical dilemmas , evaluate options and consequences, and ultimately make ethical choices.

Identifying Ethical Dilemmas

The first step in ethical decision-making is to recognize when we are faced with an ethical dilemma. Ethical dilemmas arise when we encounter competing values or conflicting interests. These dilemmas can manifest in various contexts, such as the workplace, personal relationships, or societal issues.

For example, imagine a scenario where a company is considering outsourcing its production to a foreign country with lower labor costs. On one hand, this decision may lead to increased company profitability and potentially lower consumer prices. On the other hand, it raises concerns about exploiting workers in a foreign country and potentially losing jobs in the company’s home country.

By acknowledging and understanding the underlying ethical concerns, we can better assess the situation and identify potential courses of action. This step requires careful reflection and consideration of the values and principles that guide our decision-making.

Evaluating Options and Consequences

Once we have identified the ethical dilemma, the next step is to evaluate the available options and their potential consequences. It is essential to consider both short-term and long-term implications and the potential impact on various stakeholders.

In the example of the company considering outsourcing, the options may include proceeding with the outsourcing plan, exploring alternative ways to reduce costs without outsourcing, or maintaining the current production practices. Each option carries its potential consequences, ranging from financial outcomes to social and environmental impacts.

During the evaluation process, gathering relevant information, consulting with experts or stakeholders, and weighing the potential benefits and harms associated with each option is crucial. This comprehensive assessment enables us to make informed decisions rooted in ethical considerations.

Making the Ethical Choice

After careful analysis and evaluation, it is time to make an ethical choice. This involves selecting the option that best aligns with our values, ethical principles, and societal norms. Making an ethical choice often requires courage, as it may involve standing up against societal pressure or personal biases.

In the case of the company considering outsourcing, making the ethical choice may involve prioritizing fair labor practices and the well-being of workers over short-term financial gains. It may require advocating for better working conditions and exploring alternative cost-saving measures that do not compromise ethical standards.

It is important to note that ethical decision-making is not always straightforward. Different individuals or groups may have differing perspectives on what constitutes an ethical choice. Engaging in open dialogue, considering diverse viewpoints, and seeking guidance from ethical frameworks or codes of conduct can help navigate these complexities.

By following a systematic ethical decision-making process, we can approach morally complex situations with clarity, integrity, and a commitment to upholding ethical principles. This process empowers us to make choices that align with our values and contribute to a more ethical and just society.

Challenges in Ethical Decision-Making

Despite the importance of ethical decision-making, it is not without its challenges. Various factors can cloud our judgment and make it difficult to navigate morally complex situations.

One of the primary challenges in ethical decision-making is the presence of personal bias. Our personal biases and beliefs can significantly influence our decision-making process. 

Preconceived notions and prejudices may lead us to make choices inconsistent with ethical principles. For example, suppose someone holds a deep-seated bias against a certain group of people. In that case, they may be more likely to make decisions that discriminate against them, even if it goes against their ethical values. 

Overcoming personal bias requires self-awareness and a willingness to critically examine our assumptions and perspectives. It involves recognizing that our biases can cloud our judgment and actively working to mitigate their impact on our decision-making.

In addition to personal bias, societal pressure can pose a significant challenge in ethical decision-making. Societal norms and expectations can exert considerable pressure on individuals when making ethical choices. The desire to conform or avoid conflict can sometimes compromise our ability to act ethically. 

For instance, in a work environment where cutting corners and bending the rules is the norm, an individual may feel pressured to engage in unethical behavior to fit in or avoid negative consequences. By recognizing and resisting societal pressure, we can uphold our values and make decisions that align with our ethical principles. This requires courage and a strong sense of personal integrity.

Furthermore, ethical decision-making can be complicated by conflicting interests. In many situations, individuals may be torn between competing values or obligations. For example, a business owner may face a decision that pits their company’s financial success against their employees’ well-being. 

Balancing these conflicting interests requires careful consideration and a deep understanding of each choice’s potential consequences. It may involve seeking stakeholder input, conducting thorough research, and weighing the decision’s long-term impact.

Another challenge in ethical decision-making is the lack of clear guidelines or standards. Sometimes, there may be no established rules or regulations to guide our choices. This can leave individuals feeling uncertain and vulnerable, as they must rely on their judgment to determine the ethical course of action. 

In such cases, relying on ethical frameworks and principles to guide decision-making becomes crucial. These frameworks can provide a structured approach to evaluating the potential ethical implications of different choices and help individuals make informed decisions.

Ultimately, ethical decision-making is a complex process that requires careful consideration of various factors. Personal bias, societal pressure, conflicting interests, and the absence of clear guidelines all contribute to our challenges when making ethical choices. By recognizing and addressing these challenges, we can strive to make decisions that uphold our values and promote ethical behavior.

Strategies for Ethical Decision-Making

To navigate ethical dilemmas effectively, it is helpful to employ strategies that guide our decision-making process and ensure ethical outcomes.

When faced with ethical dilemmas, knowing the right course of action can be challenging. However, we can approach these situations with clarity and integrity by utilizing specific strategies. Let’s explore some methods that can help us make ethical decisions.

Developing a Personal Code of Ethics

Creating a personal code of ethics provides a foundation for ethical decision-making. It involves clarifying our values, principles, and priorities. By establishing a clear ethical framework, we can consistently make choices that align with our core beliefs.

When developing a personal code of ethics, we must reflect on our values and consider how they shape our decision-making process. This reflective exercise allows us to understand what is truly important to us and how we want to conduct ourselves in various situations.

Moreover, a personal code of ethics serves as a compass, guiding us through the complexities of ethical dilemmas. It helps us stay true to our principles and make decisions that align with our moral compass.

Implementing Ethical Guidelines in Decision-Making

Having a set of ethical guidelines can be a valuable tool in decision-making, especially in complex situations. These guidelines are a reference point for assessing potential options and their ethical implications. They act as a compass, helping us navigate morally challenging situations.

When implementing ethical guidelines, it is crucial to consider various factors, such as the potential impact of our decisions on others, the long-term consequences, and the ethical standards of the community or organization we belong.

By referring to ethical guidelines, we can evaluate the different options available to us and choose the one that aligns with our values and principles. These guidelines provide a framework for making informed decisions that prioritize ethical considerations.

Furthermore, ethical guidelines can also help us maintain consistency in our decision-making process. They enable us to approach each ethical dilemma systematically and thoughtfully, ensuring that our choices are grounded in ethical principles.

Employing strategies for ethical decision-making is essential in navigating complex ethical dilemmas. By developing a personal code of ethics and implementing ethical guidelines, we can make informed choices that align with our values and principles. These strategies provide us with a framework to approach ethical decision-making with integrity and ensure ethical outcomes.

The Impact of Ethical Decision-Making

Ethical decision-making goes beyond fulfilling individual responsibilities; it profoundly impacts personal growth and society as a whole.

Ethical Decisions and Personal Growth

Making ethical choices fosters personal growth and development. It enhances our ability to think critically, weigh different perspectives, and act with integrity. By consistently making ethical decisions, we cultivate moral character and become better individuals.

Ethical Choices and Their Influence on Society

The collective impact of ethical decisions shapes the fabric of society. When individuals prioritize ethics in their decision-making, they contribute to a more just and equitable world. Ethical choices ripple through communities and inspire others to follow suit, creating a positive domino effect.

Doing the right thing and engaging in ethical decision-making is not always easy, but it is essential. By understanding the ethical decision-making process, recognizing the challenges that may arise, employing effective strategies, and considering the impact of our choices, we can navigate moral complexities with integrity and contribute to a better world.

For more information on how you and your team can make ethical decisions in your organization, schedule a complimentary consultation with a senior partner at Culture Partners to discuss your goals. Let’s work together to shape your ethical culture and accelerate your journey toward success.

Related Stories

• August 15, 2024

Forge Stronger Bonds with These Team Accountability Exercises

Powerful quotes on accountability at work, what defines a cohesive team and how to cultivate one, what can we help you find.

• SUGGESTED TOPICS
• The Magazine
• Newsletters
• Managing Yourself
• Managing Teams
• Work-life Balance
• The Big Idea
• Data & Visuals
• Reading Lists
• Case Selections
• HBR Learning
• Topic Feeds
• Account Settings
• Email Preferences

Thinking Through the Ethics of New Tech…Before There’s a Problem

• Beena Ammanath

Historically, it’s been a matter of trial and error. There’s a better way.

There’s a familiar pattern when a new technology is introduced: It grows rapidly, comes to permeate our lives, and only then does society begin to see and address the problems it creates. But is it possible to head off possible problems? While companies can’t predict the future, they can adopt a sound framework that will help them prepare for and respond to unexpected impacts. First, when rolling out new tech, it’s vital to pause and brainstorm potential risks, consider negative outcomes, and imagine unintended consequences. Second, it can also be clarifying to ask, early on, who would be accountable if an organization has to answer for the unintended or negative consequences of its new technology, whether that’s testifying to Congress, appearing in court, or answering questions from the media. Third, appoint a chief technology ethics officer.

We all want the technology in our lives to fulfill its promise — to delight us more than it scares us, to help much more than it harms. We also know that every new technology needs to earn our trust. Too often the pattern goes like this: A technology is introduced, grows rapidly, comes to permeate our lives, and only then does society begin to see and address any problems it might create.

• BA Beena Ammanath is the Executive Director of the global Deloitte AI Institute, author of the book “Trustworthy AI,” founder of the non-profit Humans For AI, and also leads Trustworthy and Ethical Tech for Deloitte. She is an award-winning senior executive with extensive global experience in AI and digital transformation, spanning across e-commerce, finance, marketing, telecom, retail, software products, services and industrial domains with companies such as HPE, GE, Thomson Reuters, British Telecom, Bank of America, and e*trade.

Partner Center