We come to the end of this course. After studying many applied ethical issues you may think that ethical living is a difficult challenge. You are not alone! Philosophers and spiritual leaders throughout history have thought the same thing. They have come up with a few rules that can help us.

1 The Golden Rule

This most basic and useful ethical theory (sometimes also called the Rule of Reciprocity has a long history:

Confucius (500 B.C.): What you do not want done to yourself do not do to others Aristotle (325 B.C.): We should behave to others as we wish others to behave to us Mahabharata (200 B.C.): Do nothing to thy neighbor which thou wouldst not have him do to thee Jesus (30 A.D.): As ye would that men should do to you, do ye also to them likewise

The golden rule is valid for all decisions, professional or personal. Even in the most difficult situations, application of the do unto others standard reveals which actions are ethical and which are not.

Concern for Others. The Rule establishes an ethical baseline: a good person is concerned with the well-being of others. Simple! Ethical people take into account the interest of all those affected, seek to help others when they can, and refrain from causing harm.

The Golden Rule asks us to put ourselves in the position of those who will be helped or harmed by our action and to treat others as we would want to be treated in a similar situation. If you don't want to be lied to or deceived, don't lie to or deceive others. If you want others to keep their commitments to you, keep your commitments to them. One aspect of the Golden Rule requires restraint, self-discipline and even sacrifice in avoiding acts that harm others. Another is expressed in the maxim "love thy neighbor as thyself" which stresses love, not self-interest, as the basis of a moral life.

Cynics claim that the Rule does not work in the "real world." They suggest that to survive one must "do unto others before they do unto you." This, of course, becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy fueling an anti-ethical, everyone-for-himself ethos. The fact is, of course, that many people do not live by the Golden Rule; they do not treat others fairly, honestly or compassionately. The challenge to an ethically committed person is to overcome this fact of life and do what is right in spite of, maybe even because of, the failure of others to do so.

The Golden Rule alone, however, is not a sufficient guide to ethical decision making in situations that involve a complex network of stakeholders with conflicting interests. Often our choices involve competing beneficiaries, and the Golden Rule provides no guidance on how to choose among them. Sometimes we must prioritize certain interests over others and advance the well-being of some people even at a cost to others.

2 Kant's Absolute Moral Principles

Immanuel Kant (a German philosopher) said that the moral character of an action is determined by the principle upon which it is based not upon the consequences it produces. The foundation of morality is the ability to act rationally. A rational being is free to act out of principle and to refrain from acting out of impulse or the desire for pleasure. Kant thought that ethical obligations are truths which must be obeyed regardless of the consequences and in spite of social conventions and natural inclinations to the contrary. This is called a deontological approach. This approach to ethics is duty-based. Thus, people have an absolute duty to do the right thing under all circumstances, and what is right has nothing directly to do with the consequences of your actions.

Moral obligations, according to Kant, are absolute and invariable. A major virtue of Kant's duty theory is its simplicity; it does not require one to consider or predict consequences of a decision.

Two very useful rules are derived from Kant's thinking:

Rule of Universality: Behave only in those ways you feel appropriate for all people, at all times. Rule of Respect: All individuals are intrinsically important and the well-being of each is a moral end in itself - never treat others as simply the means for your own gain or gratification.

Kant's theory is very useful because it gives us answers to problems in situations that tempt people to lie or deceive, break a promise or injure another.

But a problem remains when a person faces a choice between two ethical values. For example, since truth-telling is always right and deception is always wrong, under Kant's theory, one cannot lie or deceive to achieve a "greater good" not even to save an innocent life from terrorists or sparing the feelings of a friend from candid opinions. As a result, it is useful to moderate Kant's absolutism with a theory that allows the ethical person to weigh and evaluate competing ethical values in terms of consequences.

3 Utilitarian Consequentialism

Most people want to moderate Kant's approach with one that allows them to weigh competing values in terms of consequences. Consequentialism (or utilitarianism) holds that the ethical merit of an act is best determined by the consequences produced. Consequence-based decision-making models allow the ethical person to evaluate competing ethical values in terms of likely and intended results.

Principle of Utility: actions are right and good when they produce benefit, pleasure or happiness or prevent harm, pain or unhappiness. The ethical merit of an act is judged in terms of its immediate and direct consequences (act utilitarianism) or in terms of the consequences if such conduct became the general rule and everyone acted accordingly (rule utilitarianism).

The major weakness of pure consequentialism is that it can be manipulated by self-serving arguments to produce an end-justifies-the-means approach that replaces principle with expediency. People may start treating ethical and nonethical values on the same plane, often concluding that nonethical values can outweigh ethical ones and that self-interest (including the needs and wants of family and friends) can be given greater weight than the interests of others.

What we seem to do

Our decision making seems to involve three-steps: The first principle is the underlying principle of the Golden Rule. Our decisions take into account and reflect a concern for the well being of others. This involves both the positive and negative parts of the Golden Rule: to help when you can and avoid harm when you can. Ethical values and principles take precedence over nonethical ones. When we are faced with a clear choice between ethical and non-ethical values, the ethical person chooses to follow ethical principles. This principle operates only when the decision maker perceives the conflict as one between an ethical value (such as honesty) and a nonethical value (such as money or power). We rarely see choices as being between ethical and nonethical values. Instead, we see ethical dilemmas arising from the clash between what we want (or "need") and ethical principles that might stop us. A rationalization process then kicks in, transforming self-interested, nonethical motives into "right". We only violate an ethical principle when it is clearly necessary to advance another ethical principle which will produce the greatest balance of good in the long run. Many ethical dilemmas involve choices between 2 ethical positions: honesty vs. fidelity; fairness vs. promise-keeping or loyalty (do you remember or study of whistleblowing?). In such cases, it is difficult to evaluate the problem objectively and not allow self-interest and nonethical values to affect the process.

The consequentialist approach acknowledges that sometimes we must prioritize among competing ethical values in particular cases. In such cases, we should act to cause the greatest good and the least harm to the greatest number of people (the utilitarian principle).

This third principle can be easily manipulated when we "know what we want" and are willing to construct a rationale for doing it. It is easy to exaggerate the importance of personal and professional goals. But in many cases, our motivations are no more than the desire to get a job, build our reputations, satisfy our pride and win.

Even when we are pursuing worthy goals we often do not search hard enough for ethical ways of achieving them.

Ethical ways are always available though they may seem more difficult. In the long run, however, ethical ways work out better and are therefore actually much easier!!