My life has been both exciting and immensely challenging. I have had to make difficult decisions, even simple ones that turned out to be hurtful to other people. Most importantly, I have seen how other people’s unethical conduct has been hurtful. The memories of investors that lost their life savings in the Enron and Bernie Madoff scandals will live with me for years to come, and so will my utter disgust at the conduct of the men and women that were responsible for them. I am not entirely proud of all decisions that I have made in my life, but I have come to recognize that life as a journey of continual learning though trial and error, active participation, and reflection. I have developed a general framework that I believe gives me the correct aptitude to understand, evaluate, and improve both my actions and behaviour. At the core of my ethical code is love, empathy, patience, loyalty, and integrity. I believe that these aspects have been influential in shaping my character, and should enable me to be make ethical decisions by helping integrate my actions with my inner values. I believe I developed these virtues/values/principles from my religious beliefs, my own experiences of the world. As a human being, I am concerned both by what I do, as well as what I really am. I therefore think that my character and actions are both important. My reading of older ethical approaches has convinced me of the importance of positive character traits such as humility, courage, and justice, which I realize have assumed the background in deontological and consequentialist ethical theories.
I have developed a specific ethical code that I have committed myself to always abide by in order to lead an ethical life. To this end:
I will always respect the established laws, regulations and rules
I will always strive to avoid participating in any activities or plans that are intentioned to cause harm to other people or animals
I will, at all times, conduct myself with honesty, fidelity and integrity, as well as assume responsibility for my behaviour for this is the only way I can learn from my own weaknesses and strengths
I will, at all times, engage in thoughtful self-control in my dealings with others
I will, at all times, maintain my curiosity, objectivity, and open-mindedness in respect to other people’s views and ideas
I commit to continue observing, learning, connecting with other people, listening, searching for deeper understanding, and reflecting on my experiences so that I build on them
I will, at all times, maintain professionalism, particularly in the face of adversity
I know that some of the virtues that I hold can be culturally and contextually relative, and perhaps even most importantly, virtues may conflict. Justice, as a virtue, for instance, may be in conflict with mercy. As a consequence, people that had even more ambitious personal ethical codes than me have ended up breaking them, both because they lack a disciplined approach in applying such codes and also because of human weaknesses. To avoid failing to abide by my own ethical codes, I have devised a decision-making framework using both the deontological and utilitarian ethical approaches.
My decision-making framework comprises two steps, with the first step relying on the deontological approach, and the second step relying on the utilitarian approach. The deontological approach is more in line with my personal ethical code. The ethical decision is the one that can have a similarly acceptable outcome if it is universalized, and I believe my ethical code fits this description. Further, I will always strive to treat human beings as an end, as against a means to reaching an end. Effectively, my decisions must always be compatible with the ethical code laid out above, and in I must always ensure that I make a distinction between people and things.
The decision-making model that I have devised is such that I will always seek to do what I am expected to do by duty as a human being, employee, official, parent, neighbor, or friend, etc. However, since categorical imperatives only yield absolutes, such that grey areas are impossible, and since there is a possibility of moral dilemmas being created in the event when duties actually come into conflict, I then resort to the utilitarian approach to resolve them. When the duty-based approach to ethics fails, the consequence may be that I resort to a physically or logically incompatible action, and further that the failure to abide by such an action may be considered unethical.
In this respect, I use the utilitarian approach as a safety valve, in case the duty-based approach fails. The utilitarian approach allows for some flexibility in which I can compare a range of alternatives on account of their expected utility. This theory considers any action that brings happiness to the majority, even when it causes harm to some, to be the most ethical. By encouraging the greatest good for the majority, the utilitarian theory allows me to see ethics as a means to enhancing my, and other people’s welfare, and further allows me to think in terms of the objective, tangible good. This approach is in many ways, a helpful way to determine what is ethical, when my ethical code fails or throws up a conflict. It is, however, often difficult to tell with certainty the nature of the outcomes of one’s actions, or even identify the parties that will be affected by any such actions. This makes it impractical, most of the times anyway, to make ethical judgments on account of the nature of the outcomes. Further, Kay (1997) argues that the analysis necessary in the determination of what is right is both time consuming and complicated, and many occasions may not allow me the luxury of time and opportunities to make the assessments necessary to reach an acceptable decision to optimize the utility of all parties. Other shortcomings of this theory include the fact that it is not always easy to weigh pleasures/happiness for the purposes of cost-benefit analysis. The tendency to describe the greatest happiness in aggregate terms even when such benefit may prove to the detriment of some people. The utilitarian theory also fails to acknowledge potential individual rights that may be violated in the attainment of the greatest possible utility.
The ethical decision-making model that I have devised incorporates aspects of virtue ethics, utilitarianism, and deontology. I have developed a set of rules that I believe should help me remain on the straight and narrow, but most importantly, I have developed a process through which I can make decisions. I expect that life would be difficult, and of course I expect that I may make decisions that will be unethical. However, my plan is founded on continuous learning and I believe I can grow even better at decision-making.
Works Cited
Kay, Charles D. Ethical Theory. 1997. 10 July 2016. <http://sites.wofford.edu/kaycd/deontology/>.
Porrini, P., L. Hiris and G. Poncini. Above the Board: How Ethical CEOs Create Honest Corporations. New York: McGraw-Hill, 2009.
