Question

Share with your colleagues your personal experiences with one or more of the ethical dilemmas described by Kidder and how they were resolved, or should have been resolved. Provide a detailed explanation for your evaluation that demonstrates clear, insightful critical thinking.

Answer 1

One of the ethical dilemmas described by Kidder is the choice between truth vs loyalty.

Truth is the conformity with facts or reality. Loyalty, on the other hand, involves commitment to a person, corporation or body of people, a government, or set of ideas to which one owes fidelity. It is right to stand for both of them individually in various situations.

Kidder lays out nine checkpoints for Ethical Decision Making:

1. Recognize there is a moral issue

2. Determine the actor (who does the problem belong to?)

3. Gather the relevant facts

4. Test for right vs. wrong issues

5. Test for right vs. right paradigms

6. Apply the resolution principles

7. Investigate the “trilemma” option

8. Make the decision

9. Revisit and reflect on the decision.

As per Kidder, the step 7 is the best way to resolve an ethical dilemma. In case of trilemma, you try accumulating both the rights in one case. You try and give a solution in which it is a win win situation for both truth and loyalty.

The steps that can be taken in case of the ethical dilemma are as follows:

Step 1: Clarifying the challenge

The most signi cant step in a decision-making process is to decide whether an ethical issue exists and clarify the challenge(s) involved in the situation. This is critical as how one de nes a problem determines how one searches for solutions and alternatives.

The following techniques are useful in clarifying an ethical issue:

• Describing the situation/ethical temptation accurately in value-neutral language.

• Separating legal and ethical concerns.

• Framing questions in terms of relationships with others – for example, the individuals and groups which have an important stake in the outcome and the potential bene t/harm to them.

Step 2: Creating alternatives

Once the ethical question has been established, one can generate alternatives for action. Several strategies can help to identify the choices:

• Choosing alternatives that comply with required ethical standards.

• Considering alternatives that a role model would prefer.

• Creating options we would choose for a loved one – for example, acting as we would toward our child/children.

Step 3: Evaluating alternatives

The last step is to evaluate the alternatives and decide upon the option(s) which offer defensible and ethical responses. Four testing steps can be involved in this process:

• Evaluate alternatives against our code (What would our code direct us to do?)

• Evaluate against our ethical role model (What would our role model do?)
• Test for reciprocity (What would the ‘other-shoe’ test suggest we should do?)

• Test for universality (What if everybody does it?)

A case example to handle such a situation is as follows:

Elizabeth Jones was in a hurry — she had a student waiting at her high school counselor’s office, and just enough time to pick up her lunch from the cafeteria. As she hustled across the lawn, she saw a group of her 10th graders talking and laughing. Although she couldn’t hear the conversation perfectly, she thought she heard Johnny mock Tim for being gay.” When she looked at Tim’s reaction, she saw that he was laughing. Jones thought she might have heard Johnny incorrectly, but she could have sworn that she was right.

Jones was disturbed about what she might have heard, but she paused for a second. She remembered hearing a rumor from other students that Tim had come out at his previous school, but he had not done so here. She was reluctant to address this situation immediately for fear of making Tim feel awkward. In addition, there was a chance that she had misheard the students.

Jones glanced at her sandwich and then toward the high school counselor’s office, where her other student was waiting for extra help. She was faced with a dilemma. Should she stop and say something in defense of Tim, or should she leave well enough alone?

Jones has many variables to consider here. On the one hand, it’s right for her to inquire further and immediately, since she would not want to miss an opportunity to address these students’ behavior and the underlying prejudices that such language represents. On the other hand, it’s also right for her to note the incident and bide her time. After all, another student is waiting for her, and she is unclear on the facts.

Surely, there’s a “truth vs. loyalty” dimension to what Jones faces in this case. She feels a tug of urgency to support Tim and to help him defend himself, but she isn’t even sure what just transpired. Also, Jones can analyze her dilemma in terms of a conflict between the individual and the community — it’s very possible that Tim would rather not be singled out and championed by a passing teacher, regardless of his sexual orientation. Yet, what is implied to the rest of Tim’s group if discriminatory language isn’t being addressed? Finally, there’s a short-term vs. long-term consideration here. If Jones acts now, what will be the fallout for Tim or for her in the future? And if she chooses not to act, what long-term lesson are the boys left with?

An ends-based thinker, applying the “greatest good for the greatest number,” would probably take action despite the lack of information and despite being pressed for time. A number of young minds are learning from Jones’ behavior right now — she is either going to influence them by taking action, or condone their behavior by walking by. A rule-based thinker would probably also take a stand in this case. Even if there’s a possibility that discriminatory language isn’t being used by these boys, Jones must get to the bottom of the issue right away, in the name of equal rights for all. But a care-based thinker might pause as Jones has done. What would Tim want, if he could direct her actions right now? Would he really think it worth calling out the behavior and risking embarrassment or calling extra attention to himself?

Perhaps there’s a third way out of this dilemma. Could Jones find a way to address the issue later and also gather the facts and empower Tim by helping him to learn to take a stand?

Resolution:

Jones felt she didn’t have time for thoughtful analysis of this situation. She was quick to react and took what she felt would be a safe, middle of the road approach. “I certainly hope I didn’t hear that correctly,” she said to the boys, “comments that are disrespectful can be hurtful and are not tolerated at this school.” Then she headed for her office.

Upon reflection, she regrets her decision. A flip comment like that doesn’t really advance the learning, and she didn’t follow up with Tim or take further steps to help the group of boys think differently in the future. Partly this was due to her time constraints — this was one passing moment in a busy day — but mostly she just was not clear on the best, most effective way to help.

Next time around, it’s likely Jones would say something to signal that she has a concern, but would then take some time to research — perhaps through a conversation with Tim to get the facts — and to design a plan that would really help the boys learn to think and interact differently.