IRWIN/McGRAW-HILL SYMPOSIUM ON BUSINESS ETHICS PEDAGOGY.: FINDING THE HIGHEST COMMON GROUND:...

IRWIN/McGRAW-HILL SYMPOSIUM ON BUSINESS ETHICS PEDAGOGY

FINDING THE HIGHEST COMMON GROUND: STRATEGIES FOR TEACHING ETHICAL DECISION MAKING

Catharyn Baird*

INTRODUCTION

To facilitate a conversation about the role of professional ethics in today’s business world, many business and professional schools have instituted a requirement for a class in ethics. However, in designing classes which treat the complexities of ethics with integrity, the professor seemingly must choose between two contradictory ap- proaches, each of which can lead to unsatisfactory outcomes.

The first approach is to present the various ethical theories which have evolved over the course of our community life without particular comment about the respective value or consequences of any of the theories. The danger of teaching multiple systems without opportunity for reflection is that people believe that they can pick and choose among ethical statements and solutions, regardless of the coherence of their resulting systems or the results in the business community. The consequence of teaching “ethics as smorgasbord” is that our students are not given the evaluative tools to form a coherent system of thought. These students leave our classes confused and continue to consider the law as their baseline for ethical decision making.

The second approach is to present one world view as worthy of adoption over other competing systems. Those who teach ethics know that multiple ways of viewing the world exist. Not only are t h e traditional dividing lines of ethics (deontology and te1eology)l important to present, but the nuances from gendered implications for

* Ax. Professor of Business, Regis University. For an excellent example of the traditional dividing lines in ethical teaching see

MANUEL G. VELASQUEZ, BUSINESS ETHICS: CONCEPTS AND CASES (3rd ed. 1982).

134 1 Vol. 14 I The Journal of Legal Studies Education

decision making (Kolberg2 vis-a-vis Gilligana) as well as economic and other social factors in the shaping of one’s world view should explored. However, faculty appropriately believe that presenting one view as “the Truth” is inappropriate?

A middle ground between the mire of moral relativism and the absolute claims of monism can be found in the theory and pedagogy of moral pluralism. The goal is to use the skills of critical thinking to move students from “pre-reflective innocence” where a moral system is accepted without thought t o “reflective innocence” where competing claims can be evaldated and adopted based on the ethical agent’s “conceptions of a good life [which] embody a well-ordered hierarchy of commitments that provides a ready resolution for conflicts even among their basic commitments.’”

A faculty member who adopts the pedagogy advocated by the emerging theory of moral pluralism can assist class members in exploring their own ethical parameters, talking with others about their shared experiences and expectations, and honing their ability to choose among competing and contradictory values. Three strategies help accomplish these goals: (1) explicitly presenting a model for reflective decision making: (2) requiring the students to “try on” the values and constraints of four predominant ethical theories; and (3) teaching the legal portion of the class as an exercise in application of ethical theory and public policy development This paper will focus on the specific components of the first of those strategies.

STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM Philosophers and theologians assert that the defining quality of

being human is being self- conscious. This reflective characteristic is evidenced by beings “who have images of themselves and ideals for themselves, and can judge themselves in terms of these images and

See LAWRENCE KOHLBERG, “Moral Stages and Moralization: The Cognitive-Develop- mental Approach,” in THOMAS LICKONA, ED., MORAL DEVELOPMENT AND BEHAVIOR: THEORY, RESEARCH, AND SOCIAL ISSUES (1976).

See CAROL GILLIGAN. I N A DIFFERENT VOICE: PSYCHOLOGICAL THEORY AND WOMEN’S DEVELOPMENT (1982).

As I have developed my courses over ten years, I have asked many of my colleagues from around the nation how they navigate this Scylla and Charybdis. I have been surprised at how many of them feel constrained to not even discuss with their students t h e i ~ oum process for decision making and preferred articulation of theories. Thus students are denied seeing how someone who has thought about ethics and (hopefully) applied the theories to his or her personal life has made sense out of the competing claims.

JOHN KEKES, THE MORALITY OF PLURALISM 184-191 (1993).

1996 1 Strategies for Teaching Ethical Decision Making I 135

ideals - and who are aware that they have some measure of freedom to shape themselves and direct their own future course.”6

As humans define themselves relative to the world and each other in community, they codify their understandings of the nature of being human and their expectations for community members. The resulting mores are transmitted in three primary forms: morals, ethics, and law. The traditional distinction among the codifications is relatively clear. According to The American Heritage Dictionary, morals “per- tain to personal behavior as measured by prevailing standards of rectitude.’’ Ethics ‘‘stresses more objectively defined, but essentially idealistic, standards of right and wrong.”8 Law is “the body of rules governing the affairs of man within a community.’”

Ideally, a community’s laws will flow from its ethics. As long as a community is homogenous, a common set of ethics and laws is possible. Traditionally, commonality was found in nationality, race, religion, or philosophic orientation. People divided themselves into nations andlor discrete communities of like minds and belief systems and isolated themselves from those of differing views. Further, they expected outsiders who came into the community to adopt the prevailing belief system of the majority without question.’O

Today the United States faces a new challenge: how to maintain a community of the whole when significant numbers of the community do not identify with nor embrace the prevailing white, Anglo-Saxon, Protestant male belief system. As t h e members of our diverse communities celebrate their similarities and differences, the illusion of homogeneity dissolves. Many fear that without a set of common beliefs, we will no longer have the social glue necessary to maintain community. For those who identify with the majority and find the metaphor of the melting pot satisfying, embracing diversity feels like discarding the core of beliefs which knit together the community. Those members of the community who do not identify with the majority paradigm claim the right to define themselves and be accepted on their own terms. In the meantime, many fret that the very fabric of our society is being frayed thread by thread and we

GOFDON D. KAUFMAN, I N FACE OF MYSTERY: A CONSTRUCTIVE THEOLOGY 126 (1993). THE AMERICAN HERITAGE DICTIONARY OF THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE 882 (William

Id. at 466. Id. at 765.

Morris, ed. 1976).

lo For an intriguing example of the politics of difference as demonstrated by the evangelical communities of the colonies and the resulting requirement of homogeneity as a condition of being legitimized in the nascent United States, see SUSAN JUSTIN, DISORDERLY WOMEN: S E X U A L POLITICS & EVANGELICALISM IN REVOLUTIONARY NEW ENGLAND (1994).

136 I Vol. 14 I The Journal of Legal Studies Education

seemingly have few tools to begin the process of reweaving our communities back into a coherent whole. l1

A common response to a loss of shared values is to increase the number of rules and regulations so people will know how t o act. Over the past 50 years, we have substituted legislation for morality as we no longer seemed to share an ethical framework which was based on a common faith or heritage. Business ethics was defined as “following the rules” without challenging the content behind the rules. Ethics was reduced to the lowest common denominator and expediency ruled. l2

That response is now proving inadequate. The ever growing list of rules and regulations can barely be known let alone followed, with the result that the law is seen as a burden rather than a guide for behavior. Further, expediency as a mode of behavior has produced companies which do not provide hospitable environments for professional excellence and demand behavior of professionals which is not personally satisfying.13

The first step in making order from the chaos is to sort through the traditions with which one has been raised, identify the prevailing values of the community and compare both against the expectations of the marketplace. The tool for this task is the process of reflective thinking. Thus, knowing the process by which “belief systems” are formed and identifying strategies for change, one can begin to fashion a mature world view.

THE FORMATION OF BELIEF SYSTEMS

Belief systems have two components: their structure and their specific ethical content, Thus, to make a belief system explicit, students must first discover the underlying mechanism by which a belief system is created, and by implication, modified. Then the student will be ready to explore different ethical contexts and identify the specific world views that inform his or her own ethical belief system.

Although the defining quality of being human is being self-reflective, many students have never thought about the process of being self-reflective. The notion that their life and beliefs are constructed

l1 see ROBERT N. BELLAH ET AL., HABITS OF THE HEART (1985). AMITAI ETZIONI, THE SPIRIT OF COMMUNITY: RIGHTS, RESPONSIBILITIES. AND THE COMMUNITARIAN AGENDA

I* FRANCIS FUKUYAMA, TRUST: THE SOCIAL VIRTUES AND THE CREATION OF PROSPERITY (1993). AND SHELBY STEELE, THE CONTENT OF OUR CHARACTER (1990).

310- 318 (1995). ’’ see JOHN R. @NEIL, THE PARADOX OF SUCCESS: WHEN WINNING AT WORK MEANS

LOSING AT LIFE (1993) AND DAVID WHYTE. THE HEART AROUSED: POETRY AND THE PRESERVATION OF THE SOUL IN CORPORATE AMERICA (1994).

1996 / Strategies fo r Teaching Ethical Decision Making / 137

over time and influenced by their gender, economic status, education and ethnicity never quite becomes explicit in their minds. They assume that they are “rational and reasonable” just like others who share their opinions and world view. Thus, a primary task of an ethics class is to invite students to step back and examine how members of the community construct belief systems: the process by which people interpret their world and choose a course of action based on what they believe and know to be true. The goal of this process is to move ethical decision making from a skill, the ability to make reasoned choice, which competence is developed through living, to knowledge “which is transferable to another person through explicit instruction in words, with diagrams, and in general by showing how complex motion consists of parts that can be analyzed or imitated.””

A useful model was described by Jacques Maritain, a French existentialist who in exploring the nature of knowledge explicated a four step process in the construction of a belief system. First the mind “apprehends” a neutral event: the event is picked up on the radar screen of our mind but has no independent meaning. Then we “name” the event. This naming involves three decisions: (1) does this event exist; (2) what is the value of this event; and (3) what meaning does this event have in my life. Once the event is named, we formulate a series of possible responses to the event. The response includes choosing both the context in which we will hold the event and the action which we will take. The circle is closed by new neutral events which emerge as our choices intersect with the actions of others.15

Students find the notion of life as a series of neutral events without any meaning until we as humans “name” the event troublesome. First, many students do not recognize that many phenomena exist in our universe which are not seen. Many people do not see the events and structures which result in injustice, discrimination, and oppressive systems. Until one is open to the possibility of seeing what he or she does not expect.. .or perhaps want.. .to see, one cannot develop the skills of critical thinking.

The field of ethics was irreversibly changed when the Enlighten- ment philosophers articulated the notion that “since there are no fixed ideas, people could change their environment by understanding everything.’ls As Edward Golub points out, the ability to see what is not expected is critical in medicine (and other disciplines) because

“ YI-F’U T U A N , SPACE AND PLACE 68 (1977). JACQUES MARITAIN, EXISTENCE AND THE EXIR-ENT 22-31 (1948).

’‘ EDWARD s. GOLUB, THE LIMITS OF MEDICINE: HOW SCIENCE SHAPES OUR HOPE FOR THE CURE 59 (1994).


what is done to the sick person depends on how we conceive or define what is wrong with him or her.’?

In addition to not seeing new (or existing) situations, most humans immediately judge events without noticing that their judgment is personal. Thus, the second task of critical thinking is learning to describe events without using value words such as ,good,” “bad,” “right,” “wrong,” “smart” or “stupid.” To thrive in a diverse community, the ethical agent must be able to perceive and articulate events in value neutral ways. The more students practice describing their environment and experiences in concrete, objective terms, the more a culture of respect and openness can be fostered. A class which cultivates attitudes of tolerance can simultaneously acknowledge and affirm the individual world view of each student as a precursor to change.

From the moment of birth, each of us constructs a data bank of judgments about our experiences. We name events and phenomena based on a complex form of the Sesame Street game: one of these things is not like the other. In addition to making a statement of existence (this is this), each person attaches to the event a statement of value. The values attached to events can change based on the context in which the observer places the event. Humans often attach value to an event simultaneously with noticing its existence. Sepa- rating the statement of existence from the statement of value is one of the most challenging tasks of critical thinking. The source of the value information is highly personal and depends on each person’s “hard wiring,” the way he or she came into this world and the “soft wiring,” one’s personal experiences and the context in which these experiences are held. 18

The third decision point is fashioning a statement of meaning: what are the cause and effect relationships that are present in this situation. Each person strives t o make sense out of his or her life and experience. Therefore, people contextualize their experiences to give

Id. at 53. l8 The notion of “hard-wiring’’ and “soft-wiring” was developed in conversations

with Edward Callaway. Ph.D. a neuro-biologist with the Salk Institute in San Diego who studies the development of the human brain. Current research indicates that while the brain . . . and thus the human person’s belief system . . . is very plastic and is shaped by its interaction with its environment, certain inherited characteristics also impact its development. This particular branch of research is seminal for ethics: if the person is shaped only by the environment, then changing the environment can facilitate ethical development. If, however, inherited characteristics play a role in the development of the person and by extension the ethical attributes, the notion of individual responsibility and choice needs to be more highly emphasized in our ethical conversations.

1996 / Strategies for Teaching Ethical Decision Making I 139

meaning to their life, as well as to assure that they are “right,” their established world view is affirmed, and their place in the world is clarified. Unless each person consciously makes the choice to look at the possibility that their world view is wrong.. .or at least not useful. . .conversations about differing ethical belief systems become difficult.

EXPLORING THE CONTENT OF ETHICAL THEORIES

Once students accept the notion that each person constructs a belief system based on the particular circumstances of birth, person- ality and life experiences, the source of the ethical content for that system must be explored. In describing the different ethical theories, two predominant strands emerge. First, in the Aristotelian tradition, we are shaped by our own and our community’s definition of a good life and the articulation of the ultimate goal of life.lg Second, in the Platonic tradition, we are shaped by our personal articulation and appropriation of community and transcendent ideals?O Thus both the community and individual reason provide important content for our belief systems.

The community contributes two useful touchstones for determining ethical content: the authority which is accepted by the community and the traditions which surround the community’s identity. Indivi- duals also supply two touchstones for evaluating ethical content for their lives: the exercise of reason and the evaluation of the experiences. Each of these four touchstones is vital for evaluating competing conceptualizations of the world, determining the ethical actor’s place in it and choosing an action which is most appropriate.

AUTHORITY AND TRADITION IN ETHICAL DECISION MAKING

The primary function of an ethics class is to explore the various sources of authority for ethical decision making and provide a crucible for application. Students often intuitively grasp the notion that different people have different sources of authority, but few have explored the implications of that fact. Often we presume that our view is right, our authorities are definitive, and if someone is really audacious enough to ground their life in a different authority, we must somehow persuade them of the error of their belief or, a t a minimum, encourage them to behave as if the authority were the same.

While standing in line a t an airport, a business man asked me whether or not our problems with business ethics would be solved

ALAISDAIR MACINTYRE, AFTER VIRTUE 195-197 (2nd ed.1984). STUART HAMPSHIRE, MORALITY AND CONFLICT 109 (1983).

140 I Vol. 14 1 The Journal of Legal Studies Education

by teaching children the Ten Commandments as described in Exodus. When I asked him what moral suasion the Ten Commandments had for someone who did not see the JewishEhristian Bible as an authority for determining ethical decision making, he was stumped. The notion that anyone would not adopt that particular prescription for life was not foreseen as a possibility. Thus, as we explore with our students the various sources of authority for ethical decision making, we can assist them (and ourselves) in choosing again which claims will provide the prevailing m y t h s or context for our lives to give it structure and meaning.

Our community has multiple sources of authority, each of which profoundly contributes to our understanding of business ethics. Four primary strands of authority must be at least acknowledged, if not explored, to provide a complete context for ethics: (1) philosophic traditions; (2) religious traditions; (3) economic theory; and (4) psy- chologicallsociological theory. Each member of our community finds voices within these discrete domains which are authoritative in determining a world view and which impact choices for action.

Philosophic Traditions: This content area provides the most common thread for ethics

classes in academe. Every business ethics text explores the differences among Kant, Mill and Rawls. Some are beginning to add discussions of virtue ethics as currently articulated in the writings of Alistair MacIntyre and others.21 With the three prevailing ethical lenses the concepts of rights, utility and procedural justice can be explored. The Communitarian approach facilitates conversations about professional roles and the importance of practicing the virtues of truthfulness, justice and courage.

The philosophic traditions are often taught as competing models. And in fact, each person (when push comes to shove) prefers one paradigm over another based on his or her own best thought about how to weigh the ongoing tension between individual rights and responsibility and community strength and well-being. However, for the vast majority of business decisions, a more useful approach may be to use the principles of the various theories t o develop an ethic of responsibility which involves the ability to judge among competing conflicting claims.22 As each theorist asks a competing set of ques-

p1 See MACINTYRE. AFTER VIRTUE, supra note 19 and ALAISDAIR MACINTYRE, WHOSE JUSTICE? WHICH RATIONALITY? (19881. Another excellent text in the Communitarian tradition is MICHAEL WALZER, SPHERES OF JUSTICE: A DEFENSE OF PLURALISM AND EQUALITY (1983).

CHARLES E. LARMORE, PATTERNS OF MORAL COMPLEXITY 144-150 (1992).

1996 I Strategies for Teaching Ethical Decision Making I 141

tions, each lens becomes useful for a discrete set of decisions and offers valuable perspective.

Kant and the whole body of literature which relates to autonomy of individuals is particularly useful in exploring (1) contract law and (2) determination and preservation of individual rights. In terms of contract law, one can avoid overreaching if the Categorical Impera- tives are used as touchstones for fundamental fairness. As many questions of balance of power occur in the contractual setting, Kantian ethics help one ask whether if the shoe were on the proverbial other foot, the terms of the contract would be considered fundamentally fair and would not inappropriately take advantage of another. Fur- ther, Kant helps the contracting parties understand that contracts are not invitations for further negotiations but rather set the parameters of duties and reciprocal obligations in human relations.23

Robert Nozick in Anarchy, State, a7d Utopia explores the current issues in the determination and allocation of rightsF4 He rearticulates Kant's notion that "individuals are ends and not merely means" which translates into an ethical system which begins from a position of individual rights conceived as primarily the rights to freedom of action and rights against aggression. Thus, Lebacqz asserts that "the key ingredient in Nozick's theory becomes a principle of compensa- t i ~ n . " ~ ~ Kant and other enlightenment thinkers provide a useful foil to explore the tension between negative and positive rights. On one side is the libertarian ideal of protecting the community member's negative rights to free use of privately owned resources with minimal interference from the state. On the other side are the current egal- itarian ideals of positive rights which were nurtured by the principles of welfare-economics where individual members of the community can demand from the community sufficient resources to acquire certain "baseline" rights to housing, education, health care, and wages.z6

Mill and classic utilitarianism is a useful model to facilitate decisions about the allocation of resources. As claims are made against the resources of a community, the efficiency model of utilitarianism

VELASQUEZ. supra at note 1, 76-80. *' ROBERT NOZICK, ANARCHY, STATE, AND UTOPIA (1974). 25 KAREN LEBACQZ, SIX THEORIES OF JUSTICE (1986). This text is very accessible for

business students. Dr. Lebacqz lucidly presents the content as well as critiques of the theories of Mill, Rawls and Nozick. This text is an excellent supplement for traditional business ethics texts which lightly brush these theories. Also, the current positions of Catholics. Protestants and the Liberation Movement are presented for those students who wish to explore current religious positions on these matters.

26 MICHAEL KEELEY, A SOCIAL-CONTRACT THEORY OF ORGANIZATIONS, 172-176 (1988).


which informs current economic theory is helpful. Because Mill pro- motes overall happiness while considering derivative claims of justice (such as the right to private property and the sanctity of contracts), utilitarianism is very useful in strategic planning and prioritizing for use of resources.n

Rawls is useful in policy implementation. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the regulatory schemes which follow present a casebook model of Rawls in action. The driving principle behind that particular law and subsequent legislation is equality of access and consideration of the least advantaged. Again, if business people consider Rawlsian principles in fashioning employee handbooks, processes for hiring and firing, and processes for distribution of resources within their communities, much of the current anxiety about impermanence in the workplace can be alleviated. No one expects guarantees of full and permanent employment; however, employees want to be assured that they will be evaluated on their particular skills and abilities and be treated fairly in the marketplace.%

The above thumbnail sketch of the theorists illustrates the larger point. Many of our everyday micro-decisions are not bottom line choices between totally incompatible competing goods or theories. Most of the time we can balance among individual claims, community good, and procedural fairness in the setting and implementation of policy if we have a set of questions to use as touchstones in our critical thinking process.

However, each of us must determine whether in the final analysis individual claims should take precedence over community well being or vice versa: Do individual rights and duties trump community claims or is the community more important so that the individual desires should be subordinated to the goals of the whole? As these two competing schools have a long history of conversation in Western ethical traditions, our students must be given some opportunity to determine on which side of the line they tend t o place themselves. In fostering a climate for openness, the faculty member should not have any particular attachment to the position of the student as long as the position is well reasoned and consistent.

Madntyre and the Communitarian theorists provide a useful model for focusing the questions posed by the prevailing theorists. While MacIntyre places himself within the Aristotelian tradition, by framing ethical decision making within a practice, students can focus on their particular ethical environment determined by their profession.

z7 ETHEL M. ALBERT, ET AL. GREAT TRADITIONS IN ETHICS, 198-217 (6th ed. 1988). JOHN RAWLS, A THEORY OF JUSTICE, 307-310 (1971).

1996 1 Strategies f o r Teaching Ethical Decision Making I 143

MacIntyre defines a practice as a “complex set of socially established cooperative human activity through which goods internal to that form of activity are realized in the course of trying to achieve those standards of excellence which are appropriate to, and partially definitive of, that form of activity, with the result that human powers to achieve excellence, and human conceptions of the ends and goods involved, are systematically extended.”29 Thus, his model provides a marvelous opportunity to explore the tensions between individual expectations and claims and community expectations and claims.

MATRIX FOR ETHICAL DECISION MAKING

Individually defined practice: Individual definition of role competencies Individual valued external goods Individual valued internal goods

Virtues: Justice -

Community &fined practice: Community definition of competencies Community best0we.d external goods Community supported internal goods

Unity of Lye Context which gives life meaning

Individual ethical agents must first define the competencies or standards of excellence within the practice as well as decide what internal (personal satisfaction) goods are important and which external goods (power, prestige and remuneration) are critical. According to MacIntyre, the parameters of the practice are defined in conversations between the individual and the community as both articulate their expectations of competency and determine the value which is placed on the various practices. Thus, this model for ethical decision making acknowledges individual responsibility for shaping professional expectations as well as the placement of the individual in a community which then informs the practice. Actions taken pursuant to the defined practice must then be measured against three cardinal virtues: truthfulness and trust, justice, and courage. While other competing virtues might make the “short list,” this particular list

29 MACINTYRE, AFTER VIRTUE, supra note 19, at 187.


dovetails nicely with the prevailing ethical theories of Kant, Mill and Rawls whose theories can give some content to these otherwise abstract concepts. This particular method for presenting the theories assists students in moving their own ethical decision making out of sheer expediency by giving a set of considerations with which to evaluate the competing claims.

Religious Traditions:

In many ethics classes, faculty members feel constrained from exploring the impact that religious beliefs have upon ethical decision making. However, unless the authority of the religious m y t h s as well as religious sources for ethical content are explored, students are not given the whole set of tools with which to explore their own ethical foundations. In one of my classes two Muslim students asked to make a presentation on the values of Islam as they affected their business practices. To facilitate the conversation an Imam attended class with them: within the Islamic tradition, individuals are not given the same level of responsibility for translating the authority of the Koran into practice as Christians are given to interpret the moral requirements of the Bible. Thus, in addition to the cowtent of the ethical system being different (as presented, ethical responsibility was primarily to other members of the faith), the responsibility for ethical decision making was different. The differences in the religious authority dramatically highlighted the different content and understanding of what it meant t o be an ethical agent in an international business environment.

Unfortunately, the academic community often takes great pride in separating itself from the religious traditions of its students. Even in institutions which have historically religious roots, faculty feel uneasy in exploring the role of religious traditions in the shaping of individual as well as national ethics. However, the Protestant Ref- ormation and Calvinism deeply inform the norms of rights and responsibility which a re woven into the legal fabric of the United States. The economic theories of Adam Smith only make sense when viewed against Protestant teachings of the 18th century. Currently, Catholic social teaching provides a powerful counterpoint to the prevailing ethic of personal gain.30 And finally, in a nation of many faiths the impact of Judaism, Buddhism, and the Muslim faith on our ethical and economic decisions cannot be ignored. Thoughtful faculty members can foster a classroom climate where the impacts of differing religious traditions can be explored without proselytizing either for a particular faith or for skepticism.

30 See REINHOLD NIEBUHR, AN INTERPRETATION OF CHRISTIAN ETHICS (1963).

1996 1 Strategies for Teaching Ethical Decision Making I 145

Economic Traditions

Business school faculties are often criticized by colleagues in different traditions for presenting capitalism as the “be-all-and-end-all” for economic systems. However, the market system has many nuances. Without changing the name of the prevailing economic system, the United States moved from pure capitalism with minimal regulation into a welfare economic system with pervasive regulation. More foundational, several authors suggest that economic theory has re- placed ethical theory as the prevailing informer of norms, behavior and law. At a popular level, students are quick to claim that they cannot honor Kantian rights nor strive for systems which protect the least advantaged because of the need to maximize the bottom line and the constraints of a market economy.

In Reaching for Heaven on Earth: The Theological Meaning of Economics, Robert H. Nelson asserts “[mlaterial scarcity and the resulting competition for limited resources have been widely seen as the fundamental cause of human misbehavior - the real source of human sinfulness. For holders of this conviction, t o solve the economic problem would be, therefore, to solve in large part t h e problem of

Nelson then traces the parallels in economic theory between the two prevailing schools of philosophy. The first he labels the Protestant (Platonic) tradition which plays out in Kantian ethics and Marxist as well as the libertarian and pluralist economic The second he labels the Roman (Aristotelian) tradition which plays out in utilitarian ethics and capitalist as well as welfare economic theories. Nelson’s approach is rich because students can begin to see the role that our foundational ethical theories play in the organization of economic values. Our notions about human beings, rights, autonomy and economic justice have profound impact on the public policies which are advocated and supported in

While our students are quick to defend the market system, in The Seven Cultures of Capitalism Charles Hampden-Turner and Alfons Trompenaars assert that different nations have appropriated the

3’ ROBERT H. NELSON, REACHING FOR HEAVEN ON EARTH: THE THEOLOGICAL MEANING OF ECONOMICS (1991).

sp Thme current economists whom Nelson puts in the Protestant line include Charles Lindblom Mancur Olson, Donald McCloskey, James Buchanen and Kenneth Boulding. Those current economists in the Roman line include John Maynard Keynes, Paul Samuelson, Milton Friedman, and Charles Schultze, id. at 213-304.

33 A compelling contemporary critique of the policy effects of adopting a belief in welfare economics as a cure for social ills is seen in the current work by ROBERT J. SAMUELSON, THE GOOD LIFE AND ITS DISCONTENTS (1995).


principles of a market economy in different ways.a4 Students may think of the mode of capitalism in the United States as the only applicable model. In fact, Hampden-Turner and Trompenaars trace seven distinct cultures in which capitalism is flourishing. The authors’ assert that the difference in the cultures creates a divergence in values which then informs the various economic systems. By acknowledging and then (perhaps) exploring different models for capitalism, students can realize that the American model is not the only model for the allocation of economic resources and thus be more prepared to function in a global economy. More importantly, students can begin to see that decisions about economic systems are firmly grounded in values and ethical systems.

Ps ychologicaUSocia1 Implications The past thirty years have seen an increase in sensitivity to the

differences in ethical decision making nuanced by gender, race, economic position and other psychological and social impacts. The notion of a preferred monolithic approach to decision making has been shattered by research which shows how profoundly each person’s standpoint, the place he or she is set by birth in time and social strata, informs not just the agent’s world view but also teaches how best to make decisions.

Until very recently (and some would argue still yet), women had very different experiences in the marketplace than men. Historical information gained through such works as Alice Kessler-Harris’ Out to Work: A History of Wage-Earning Women in the United States or her most recent work, A Woman’s Wage: Historical Meanings and Social Consequences gives a context to the experience of discrimination and how it informs ethical decisions. The intersection of economic power and ethical decision making can be seen in such works as Ruth Sidel’s Women & Children Last: The Plight of Poor Women in Afluent America and Sidney Verba and Gary R. Orren’s Equality in America: The View from the Top. And finally, Cynthia Fuchs Epstein’s work Deceptive Distinctions: Sex, Gender, and the Social Order “un- derscores the interaction of culture and social structure in creating and maintaining these [gender distinctions] (and other) distinctions. This orientation emphasizes the investments people and institutions have in the social arrangement of men and women and the conscious and intentional quality of the decisions and behavior that perpetuate it. . .”35

’‘ CHARLES HAMPDEN-TURNER AND ALFONS TROMPENAARS, THE SEVEN CULTURES OF CAPITALISM (1993). ’’ ALICE KESSLER-HARRIS, OUT TO WORK: A HISTORY OF WAGE-EARNING WOMEN IN

1996 I Strategies .for Teaching Ethical Decision Making I 147

The different experiences of racial groups in t h e United States also profoundly shaped the business world. A historical exploration of the role of race through such works as Robert Fogel and Stanley Engerman’s Time on the Cross: The Economics of American Negro Slavery or Robert Fogel’s Without Consent or Contract: the Rise and Fall of American Slavery begins to give perspective to the current racial issues in America. The experiences of others such as Walt Harrington’s Crossings: A White Man’s Journey into Black America or Lawrence Otis Graham’s Member of The Club, where an African- American lawyer describes the inability of an Rfrican- American professional in today’s world to gain access to the inner sanctum’s of power, can add richness to the conversation about diversity in the work place.:’6 Similar works are available to explore the experiences of members of the Hispanic community, Asian-American community, Native-American community and others.

These lists are by no means exhaustive; they are barely representative of the rich literature available on the difference that one’s gender, race and economic status has in structuring a belief system. The point is that many traditional texts on business ethics barely acknowledge the variations in world view created by differences in birth and experiences. For a class to not only have meaning for the students but to equip them with the tools to work in a diverse community, divergences in world view engendered by social differences should be explored. No longer can one set of experiences and one belief system be taught as the norm for all members of the community.

REASON AND EXPERIENCE IN ETHICAL DECISION MAKING

From the time of Kant (if not even before), reason has been the touchstone of ethical decision making and an individual’s experience was considered irrelevant. Kant defined rational knowledge as “either material, and concerns some object, or formula, and is occupied merely with the form of understanding and reason itself with the universal rules of thinking without regard to distinctions between objects.”

THE UNITED STATES 11982) and A WOMAN’S WAGE: HISTORICAL MEANINGS AND SOCIAL CONSEQUENCES (19%)); RUTH SIDEL, WOMEN & CHILDREN LAST: THE PLIGHT OF POOR WOMEN IN AFFLUENT AMERICA (1986); SIDNEY VERBA AND GARY R. ORREN. EQUALITY IN

AMERICA: THE VIEW FROM THE TOP (1985); CYNTHIA FUCHS EPSTEIN, DECEPTIVE DIS- TINCTIONS SEX, GENDER AND THE SOCIAL ORDER (1988). An excellent overview of tools for incorporating feminist thought into the business curriculum is provided by Lucy V. Katz in Teaching Feminism, Law, and Business, 13 J. LEGAL STUD. EDUC. 213 (1995).

CLUB (1995). ’* WALT HARRINGTON, CROSSINGS (1992); LAWRENCE OTIS GRAHAM, MEMBER OF THE

148 I Vol. 14 I Tke Journal of Legal Studies Education

Kant goes on to assert that “[l]ogic can have no empirical part - a part in which universal and necessary laws of thinking would rest upon grounds taken from experiences. For in that case it would not be logic, i.e., a canon for understanding or reason which is valid for all things and which must be demonstrated.’”’

Unfortunately, those who advocated reason also asserted that those who used reason would surely come to adopt the same priority of values. While from time to time lone voices challenged the monistic view of the western world and suggested that different people (gen- erally women) had different results when applying reason to a situation, until 1970 the prevailing view was that ethical decision making was a rational exercise where differences in the ethical agent should not make any difference in the decision reached.%

In his widely used business ethics text, Manuel Velasquez asserts that moral reasoning involves two critical components: (1) an understanding of what moral standards require or prohibit and (2) evidence or information that shows that a particular policy, institution, or behavior has the kinds of features that these moral standards require or pr0hibit.9~ This logical model of ethical decision making is crisp and efficient but doesn’t explain how various ethical agents can advocate different strategies as ethical for the same ethical problem.40

A principal explanation for differences in results of ethical decision making has been that the agents operate with different levels of cognitive skill. The primary model for cognitive stages of moral development is that described by Lawrence Kohlberg who asserts that moral development proceeds through Through improv- ing one’s skill in critical analysis as well as being exposed to more abstract ethical theories, the quality of ethical decision making is enhanced. The six-stage model begins with an orientation to punishment and obedience and moves through discrete developmental stages including law and order, social contract and ends with universal ethical principles orientation. The cognitive model fits well with

s1 IMMANUEL KANT, FOUNDATIONS OF THE METAPHYSICS OF MORALS, (Lewis White Beck. trans., Bobbs-Merrill Company. Inc.. 1976) (1785).

38 EPSTEIN. supra note 19, at 3 asserts that John Stuart Mill noted that “biases prevent the formulation of objective descriptions of women’s behavim and motivations. He questioned the stereotypes of women and pointed out how the same behavior was at times label differently when demonstrated by a man than when enacted by a woman.”

VELASQUEZ, supra note 1. a Vebsquez does touch on the difference between cognitive and relational methods

of decision making. However, the cognitive is the model which he (in the last analysis) advocates.

KOHLBERG, supra at note 2.

1996 I Strategies for Teaching Ethical Decision Making I 149

traditional definitions of reason in ethical decision making and so many faculty members structure their classes to enhance the critical thinking skills of their students using Kohlberg’s model.

However, the cognitive approach sometimes proves to be an uneasy fit for the actual experience of ethical decision making, particularly for women. The seminal work of Carol Gilligan exploring female patterns of ethical decision making determined that a second paradigm for decision making, the relationship among the parties to the ethical dilemma, was as (if not morel important for her subjects in making a decision as the cognitive skills!* Gilligan asserts that women tend to make ethical decisions based not only on cognitive information but also on relational grounds. Her research indicated that for women, preservation of relationships and avoiding hurt to others is of primary importance in determining what action is ethical. This theory has spawned a whole new generation of research investigating the relationship between cognitive skills and relational experiences in ethical decision making.

Norma Haan extended the work of Gilligan by delineating the difference in moral development and action between the cognitive theory, as best exemplified by Kohlberg’s model, and the relational model of Gilligan. Haan asserts that critical differences and similarities between the cognitive theory and interactional theory must be explored to understand the richness of ethical decision making.

DIFFERENCE IN THE VIEW OF ACTION IN THE TWO THEORIES43

Haan’s work moves beyond gender to articulate a complementary set of skills which are needed for both men and women. No longer is “reason” the sole province of men and ”relationship” the province of women. Each member of t h e community needs to be able to articulate the intersection of reason and relationship in making ethical decisions. Ethical agents must be skilled in cognitive decision making and also must be aware of the dynamics of the relationships in making ethical decisions.

42

(1985).

GILLIGAN, supra at note 3. NORMA HAAN, ET AL., O N MORAL GROUNDS: THE SEARCH FOR PRACTICAL MORALITY


Conditions of Action

Context

Process

Critical determinant I

action choice

Effects of nonmori concerns, e.g., emi tions or peculiar

Capacity for enac ment

Deterrents to action

Reason (motives) f c acting

Social stipulations thi ensure citizens’ mor action

Cognitive Theory

Cognitive choices of s e p a ra t e persons drawn from the general rules or principles of their at- tained stages of development

Deduction of proper action from previously ac- quired generalized rules or principles

Determination of which general class of rules or principles apply to specific situation

Irrelevant but often dis- torting of proper moral action and choice of the right

Persons’ achievement of the principled stages or B-substage thinking, or judgment that self is re- sponsible

Development only t o lower stage

Judgment that self is re- sponsible

Promote higher s t age development in individual persons

Interactional Theory

Dialogue between persons that considers the particularities of the situation

Participant’s inductive clarification of ever- yone’s self-interests and claims through full and free participation in dialogues

Determination of t h e particular agreement that restores or main- tains moral balance between participants

Essential conditions that facilitate or deter equal- izing moral action

Persons’ level of moral skill, the public nature of dialogues, participants’ mutual expectan- cies, t h e inductive discovery of solutions t h a t match situations and ought therefore “to work”.

Persons’ experience of stress and t h e si tua- tion’s potential for moral oppressiveness

To maintain a view of self as moral along with maintaining enhancing relations with others

Provide opportunities for full participation

1996 / Strategies for Teuching Ethical Decision Making / 151

Relationships built on punishment and obedience may not be useful to maintain or protect; the ability to draw on universal principles by oneself is not useful for building community consensus for ethical decisions. By using the best of cognitive and relational skills, a policy which flows from resolution of an ethical problem will be neither a proscriptive directive from a superior ethical agent to another nor only expedient by moving to t h e lowest common denominator through avoiding or minimizing the complexity of the affected relationships. Through dialogue and valuing the relationships, members of the community can move to the highest common ground both in quality of reason and sensitivity to relationship in solving their ethical dilemmas.

Faced with the above information, a student who is the regional sales manager for a large, multi-national firm, described a recent visit from the president of the company, who happened to be a woman. In preparation for the president’s visit, the student prepared a stack of charts and graphs showing the “numbers” and output of the office. The first question the president asked was “How are your people? Are they getting along and happy?” The student had never expected to be evaluated on t h e quality of the relationships in his office and thus had not used those tools in his decision making. Haan’s work gave the student a context in which to hold the unex- pected (but welcome) concerns of the new president.

With a feminist perspective on ethical decision making and with the fuller articulation of the role of experience by existentialist philosophers, experience is now seen as the beginning point for all ethical decision making, the context in which reason and reflection is applied. Maritain’s model for constructing belief systems begins by a human being noticing an experience. The importance of experience as part of the process of developing knowledge and then determining how to act was further described by Alfred North Whitehead in his seminal work Process and Reality. Whitehead asserts that through apprehending their discrete experiences and engaging in a reflective process, humans construct their reality.44 This process includes a sense of time. Humans reflect on past experiences, evaluate current experiences and then project into the future their best estimation of the impact their decisions will have on their lives. This ongoing reflective process provides the method by which we each form our sense of who we are and what it means to be an ethical agent in a community.

p4 ALFRED NORTH WHITEHEAD, PROCESS AND REALITY 22-28 (19781


THE MIDDLE GROUND OF THE PLURALISTS Pluralists provide a middle ground between monists who assert that there is one and only on reasonable set of values and the relativists who assert that all values are contextual. By acknowledging the plurality of values in our community, pluralists strive to “think systematically about diverse moral phenomena, considering how moral judgements could be reasonably criticized or justified, and arriving a t some coherent view of the nature of the values that make life good.”45 By using the reflective process, students can identify those values and behaviors which are embraced by all theorists (for example, no ethical theory advocates/permits lying) in finding the highest common ground before working through points of disagreement.

Thus pluralists use a reflective process which includes abstract and sophisticated tools of analysis. Gordon Kaufman, a theologian a t Harvard University, proposes a model for ethical decision making which integrates experience and reason through a set of intersecting and interdependent circles. The first circle contains those actions which are habitual, where one does not have to make decisions about the “fitting” thing to do. The second circle involves reflective decisions and acts that within the moral domain concern act as constit- uents and shapers of an ongoing web of action, which he terms morality. The next circle involves reflection on criteria and norms of decision and action which include theories of rightness, goodness, and justice. The final circle opens one up to metaphysical, theological and religious questions. Each of these interactions is dependent on the ongoing process of action and reflection; each is grounded in the specific experience of the ethical agent as well as the reported experience of others. Through consciously engaging in the process of developing skills of reflection, Kaufman asserts that ethical agents can move “into a position from which we can assess the competing claims in our moral language and begin to find a way to address these tensions deliberately, instead of remaining victim to the cultural pressures and conflicts t o which they give rise.”46

CONCLUSION As students are given the tools to critically examine their own

ethical belief systems as well as skills to refine and change them, we can graduate students who are not only facile in the language of ethics but know how to mediate among differences in belief systems which can impede resolution of ethical dilemmas in an increasingly

15 KEKES. supra at note , at 8-15. I8 KAUFMAN, supra at 191, 176-193.

1996 I Strategies f o r Teachinil Ethical Decision Making I 153

diverse world. Students who know the ethical, economic and legal systems in which we work as well as the elements of evaluation and change will have the tools to be leaders who value excellence not just expedience and who are able to move with ease in a diverse, rich community.

While faculty members cannot be expected to be adroit in presenting all of the implications of the different experiences which shape one’s belief system, they can be expected to honor the stories of the students in their classrooms so the richness of the human experience can be seen and explored. Should the classroom not include minority students or others from different backgrounds, the faculty member can thoughtfully present representative viewpoints so that students do not get the impression that only one set of experiences is valid or normative.

A very effective way for faculty members to facilitate the conversation about differences in ethical heritage is to acknowledge their own particular experience and the role it has played in their ethical development. I begin every section of ethics with acknowledging my own standpoint: a white, Protestant female lawyer who went to law school when women were less than 10% of the class and less than 1% of those practicing law. This complex of experience has profoundly impacted my sense of justice, truth-telling and courage in the market place. As I acknowledge that my ethical decisions are informed by my own personal history in the context of my reflection and critical judgment of the authorities and traditions I have embraced, students have permission to make their experience the beginning point for ethical decision making and to then apply the principles of critical thinking and reason. Then as students place their own ethical processes within the traditions of their community and evaluate their sources of authority for decision making, the cycle is complete.. .only to begin again.

IRWIN/McGRAW-HILL SYMPOSIUM ON BUSINESS ETHICS PEDAGOGY.: FINDING THE HIGHEST COMMON GROUND:...

Documents

Transcript of IRWIN/McGRAW-HILL SYMPOSIUM ON BUSINESS ETHICS PEDAGOGY.: FINDING THE HIGHEST COMMON GROUND:...