JOHN STUART MILL: the principle of utility. Our actions have consequences, and those consequences count. The best decisions have good consequences for the largest number of people – “the greatest good for the greatest number.” In order to understand whether a consequence is ‘good’ or ‘not good’ a person (or persons) must clearly define ‘good.’ This, as anyone who has attempted to do so knows quite well, is more than a daunting challenge. Nazi Germany educated us to how ‘good’ can be defined so that an ethnic population might be eradicated ‘guilt free.’
Given the two definitions and given the three ‘taproots’ [see PART I] we can now turn to the three simple principles that can help us when it comes to ‘Ethical-Moral Decision Making.’ These principles are rooted in the ‘Character-Based Decision Making Model’ developed by the Josephson Institute of Ethics (2000). There are three steps involved, here they are:
- All Ethical-Moral decisions must take into account and reflect a concern for the interests and well-being of all affected individuals (“stakeholders”). The underlying principle here is the ‘Golden Rule’ – help when you can, avoid harm when you can.
- Ethical-Moral values and principles always take precedence over non-ethical-moral ones. Ethical-Moral values are morally superior to non-ethical-moral ones. When faced with a clear choice between such values, the ethical-moral person should always choose to follow ethical-moral principles. Perceiving the difference between ethical-moral and non-ethical-moral values can be difficult. This situation often occurs when people perceive a clash between what they ‘need’ and the ethical-moral principles that might deny these ‘needs.’ If some rationalization begins to occur, this situation is probably present. [NOTE: It is crucial that a person, or persons, discern ‘needs’ (high priority needs) and not simply ‘wants,’ ‘desires,’ or ‘wishes’ or ‘hopes’]. 3. It is ethically and morally proper to violate an ethical-moral principle only when it is clearly necessary to advance another ‘true’ ethical-moral principle, which, according to the decision-maker’s conscience, will produce the greatest balance of good in the long run [knowing what will occur ‘in the long run’ requires ‘foresight’ and is not fully predictable – many times we will only know if the ‘greatest balance of good’ has occurred by ‘looking back in time; this does not mean that I-You-We must not strive for this balance].
Some decisions will require you to prioritize and to choose between competing ethical-moral values and principles when it is clearly necessary to do so because the only viable options require the sacrifice of one ethical-moral value over another ethical-moral value. When this is the case, the decision-maker(s) should act in a way that will create the greatest amount of good and the least amount of harm to the greatest number of people.
I reiterate that it is crucial that certain words and concepts be clearly defined so that all who are involved (think: stakeholders or potential stakeholders) have an opportunity to ‘understand.’ Too many folks do not take the time to define certain words or concepts – and it is time consuming and energy consuming to do so.
I leave us with the following advice provided to us by Warren Buffett: ‘Live in such a way that if someone spoke badly of you, no one would believe it!’