Models of Ethical Decision-Making

NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.

NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.

Table of Contents

Introduction
Utilitarian Ethical Model
Wallace’s Ethical Contextualist Model
Kant’s Formalist Model
Conclusion
References

Introduction

Ford (2006, p. 200) presents a case that requires a psychologist counselor to have a deeper understanding of various models of ethical decision-making. In the case study, an industrial psychologist contracted to inform the management of a manufacturing industry on the ways to improve productivity. She adopted an informal approach where she interviewed a sample of employees to get the feedback on how to increase efficiency. A file of a forklift operator was intriguing given the three accidents that he had suffered in the course of duty. Knowing that he was speaking to a psychologist, the worker become honest and admitted that the accidents were his own making; that is, they occurred when he was drunk. The heavy drinking was due to family stress. He was afraid that when the management got the information he would be sacked and given his age he would not get hired anywhere. He trusted the psychologist to keep the information confidential, and was equally relieved for having shared his troubles with her. He finally assured her that he would “…lick this problem.” This paper uses three models of ethical decision-making that the psychologist can apply in communicating her findings to the management.

Utilitarian Ethical Model

The central theme in utilitarian ethical model is the outcome of an action. Actually, this model derives its name from the term “utility” that considers the morality of an action based on its goodness or badness. Put differently, the utilitarian model of ethical decision-making is a form of consequentialist theory that explains morality according to the repercussions wrought to the receiver of the action. The utilitarian model, therefore, posits that an action is intrinsically neutral in itself but once it causes harm to the receiver, it becomes unethical or immoral. However, when it brings goodness to the receiver it becomes ethical or moral (Scarre, 1996).

The industrial psychologist in the above case using utilitarian approach will consider two things in reference to the forklift operator’s situation. On the one hand, she has been hired to give a realistic assessment and recommendations that would improve the company’s performance; and on the other, she has been confronted by a genuine case of psychological distress that partly contributes to the company’s overall underperformance (Ford, 1996). Weighing the two directly linked situations, she finds that divulging the information may lead to the forklift operator’s summary dismissal that is likely to aggravate his psychological instability other than alleviating it. Failure to give the management objective results would mean that she has haphazardly done the work that would not help improve the organization’s productivity.

Considering the underlying criteria of determining the morality of an action in the utilitarian model, the industrial psychologist will protect the forklift operator by remaining silent on his case. This will not only save his job, but also help him recuperate from the psychological problems he has been experiencing, and hence reduce his drinking as he promised. The repercussion of this decision to the company’s management would not be as devastating as it would be to the forklift operator were it to be contrary. That is, the utility of such decision to the forklift operator is greater than the utility of the contrary decision to the organization.

Wallace’s Ethical Contextualist Model

Ethical contextualist model of Wallace is rather philosophical in determining the morality of an action. The major argument applied by this model is contextualizing issues within their situations. It forms a situational ethics that differs with ethical absolutism in the sense that it considers the issues of morality within the context that it occurs. It can be likened to moral relativism given that a moral issue in one situation/context may be considered ethical in one situation and unethical in another. Wallace argued that what brings about this contextual differential in ethical decisions is the people’s collective wisdom or societal values and norms (Hinman, 2007).

In the above case, the industrial psychologist will decide on what report to give back to the company management based on the context/situation on the ground. Since this model does not look to pleasing anybody but weighs the ethical situation at hand, she will consider the societal collective wisdom on drinking and working and make her decision accordingly. Generally, most societies do not encourage drinking and working for obvious reasons of susceptibility of accidents and inefficiency at work. Two crucial issues must be considered here. They include the life of the forklift operator and the capability of the company to achieve its objectives. Therefore, the psychologist will divulge this information to the management and recommend that the operator be helped from degenerating into chronic drinking. The basis of reasoning is that working while drinking does not resonate with the community’s work ethic.

Kant’s Formalist Model

Immanuel Kant formulated an ethical model from his critique of practical reason with a strong argument that the action in itself is neither ethical nor unethical but the intention of the actor is. For this reason, according to Kant’s formalist model, an action which is purportedly moral is only truly so if the intent of the doer is moral. Not surprisingly, an action can be efficacious in a way but in Kantian terms, it is immoral. He posited that for an action to be ethical it must yield goodness to a greater number of people as if it were a universal law (Allison, 2001).

Kant argued that it is reason that pushes a person to will an ethical act and go ahead to execute it. This concept is intertwined with another concept of categorical imperative that underscores the necessity of treating fellow man as an end in itself but not as a means to an end. Moreover, the concept of categorical imperative echoes the Golden Rule of doing unto others what you expect done to you (Wood, 1999).

When the above case is decided on Kantian ethical formalist model the industrial psychologist will give precedence to reason more than emotions. Conventionally, reason will dictate that she does not inform the company’s management about the forklift operator’s situation. Reason will enlighten her to indirectly report the “possibilities” of such incidents and recommend ways of tackling them. The categorical imperative will require that the forklift operator retains his job, which is what the industrial psychologist would like done to her were she in the same situation. Besides, exposing him to the management will make him lose his trust in psychologists; and given that he would be sacked, he may die of psychiatric-related maladies without seeking help.

Conclusion

The above case has presented a moral problem that requires in-depth knowledge of different models of ethical decision-making. Three such models, Utilitarianism, Contextualism, and Formalism can successfully be applied to yield desirable results based on the moral orientations of the industrial psychologist in this case. Utilitarian model investigates the utility of the decision to the receiver; contextualism considers the collective wisdom of a people and applies then to a moral problem within the situation. Finally, formalist model is based on reason that makes one to will a moral act.

References

Allison, H.E. (2001). Kant’s theory of taste: a reading of the Critique of aesthetic judgment. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

Ford, G. (2006). Ethical reasoning for mental health professionals. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Hinman, L.M. (2007). Ethics: a pluralistic approach to moral theory. New York, NY: Cengage Learning.

Scarre, G. (1996). Utilitarianism. New York, NY: Routledge.

Wood, A.W. (1999). Kant’s ethical thought. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

Click Here To Order Now!