Final Discussion Question from Ethics Leadership and Democracy, Brandman University: Definition of Ethics

Q: Now that you've sat through eight weeks of discussion, explain your definition of "ethics." This should be a more substantial definition than “doing the right thing”. Has it changed at all? What ethical perspective or principles do you most closely align with, e.g. Utilitarianism: Greatest good for the greatest number. Why?

A: In all honesty, I cannot say my definition has changed. I still believe that ethics are applying the standards of right and wrong to our actions. I will say that I see now that I identify most with Utilitarianism when making personal decisions, and when making decisions related to broader social questions like public policy and how I will vote, I tend to follow Rawls Justice as Fairness precepts (Johnson, 2012, p. 20-29). I still look to my values of compassion, integrity, service, and excellence as touchstones for my decisions. Of course the legal and moral frameworks inform and guide.

Defining Moments: When Managers Must Choose Between Right and Right by Joseph L. Badaracco Jr.

The commercial tells us life is messy.  More than that it can be destructive.  For centuries philosophers, statesmen and clergy have sought to give us theories to handle the vagaries of life with certainty.  But they suffer from not being encompassing, and worse they are generally sterile thought experiments that do not work in the real world.

Joseph Badaracco wrote this book to provide managers practical guidance for making decisions when the courses of action are all the right thing to do within competing values.  He argues that these right versus right decisions are not well addressed by what he calls the “standard answers” of “follow the law, serve the shareholders, consult the company credo, do the right thing…” (Badaracco, 1997, p. ix).