Research Paper on "Morality and the Professional Life Values at Work"

Quoted Instructions for "Morality and the Professional Life Values at Work" Assignment:

IMPORTANT: I give below directions as to how you should apply the Case

Resolution Model (CRM) to a case.

The directions I give sometimes expand on what your textbook says, and

sometimes tells you to do something differently than what the textbook says.

Please make sure that you follow my directions. If I tell you to do something

differently than the book does, please ignore the book and do what I say.

Among other things, this means that objecting to my grading with *****but the book

does it like this on page XYZ***** is not a valid objection.

You will see as you read below that I am using the textbook*****s CRM as a steppingstone

to something I consider to be better and clearer. So to make this even more

evident, let us call this new and hopefully improved model *****˜UCRM*****. From now on I

will be asking you to apply the UCRM, not the CRM, to cases.

Below, you will find directions about what to do at each of the 8 steps of the

UCRM. When you are doing this, please make sure that you name and/or number

the step you are doing. I do not want to guess what you are doing at any point! I

should be able to say, at any point in your assignment, something like *****the

sentence I am reading now is part of step X*****, whatever number that *****X***** might be.

I will not grade assignments that do not follow these instructions.

(1) Present the Problem

Here you will lay out the moral problem that needs to be solved as concisely as possible.

Do not spend a lot of time on the facts of the case since you will do this anyhow while

*****collecting the facts***** in the next section.

(2) Collect the facts

Each moral case has to be evaluated by looking at two things. First, one needs to

determine the facts of the case. And then one has to look at the values or evaluative

principles that can be brought to bear on these facts.

If you compare moral evaluation to a court case, this is the point at which the prosecutor

presents the jury with all the facts and evidence that pertains to the case (for example

*****Mr. X. was wounded, the bullet that did the wounding ballistically matches the gun

found in the bushes, and the gun belongs to Mr. Y*****).

In this imaginary court case, there is as yet no discussion of the legal principles (laws) that

will be applied to these facts.

In similar fashion, in this section, you need to list all and only the facts that seem to be

relevant to the moral evaluation of the case. Do not yet go into the values or the

evaluative principles; these you will investigate in the next section.

(3) List the relevant values

This is where, in a court case, the judge will inform the jury about the laws that apply to

such a case, and the various outcomes prescribed by the law: *****If the facts indicate that

the defendant did commit the crime, and that he did this with pre-meditation, then your

verdict will be that he is guilty of first-degree murder. And if you find the defendant

guilty of first degree murder, then you can give him a prison sentence between 22 to 35

years, etc.*****

Your book is not very clear about the nature of the values you are supposed to bring in at

this stage. Nevertheless, what they seem to have in mind are values such as beneficence

and respect, namely the main values they focus in the text (see p. 75, the section called

*****Articulating Holism through the Values Approach*****). Consequently, what I would like

you to do is to ultimately tie in any value you mention to one of these values. For

example, if you think that the privacy of individuals is a value at stake in a given case,

then I would expect you to tie this value to the value of respecting persons.

To make sure that*****s you do not ignore this, and to make it easier on me to follow your

evaluation, I will require you to boldface the primary value or values you invoke in this

paragraph. For example, if one of the primary values you invoke is respect, then I expect

you to boldface its just like I have done in this sentence.

(4) Explore the options

We are now at the heart of the UCRM. This is where you*****re supposed to apply the

theories you investigated in Chapter 5 to the case at hand, and decide which theory

prescribes which course of action.

I am hereby limiting the number of theories you need to apply to just three:

Consequentialism

Duty theory

Virtue theory

All three of these theories have to be applied; you cannot choose to apply some

other theory in place of one of these. Since some people in the past have said that they

have not understood what this means, I repeat: you have to apply Consequentialism,

Duty Theory, and Virtue Theory*****no exceptions. After you have finished your

assignment, go back to step four and take another look at it. If you have not applied one of

these theories, then you*****re guaranteed to lose points: take remedial action.

If you are interested, you*****re more than welcome to apply additional theories. But no

matter how many additional theories you apply, this will not replace the points you will

lose if you have failed to apply one of the theories mentioned above.

Here is how you should apply each theory:

Consequentialism: as you know from your textbook and the additional material I put

online, consequentialism is a comparative theory. It is a theory that compares more than

one course of action, and chooses the one which is optimal (optimal according to the

criteria of consequentialism, not your or my criteria. This is very important to keep in

mind). So the first thing you need to do is determine at least two alternative courses of

action one can follow, and tell me clearly what these are.

When you have more than one course of action outlined, you then need to consider the

positive and negative consequences of each course of action. When you*****re doing this, you

need to make sure that you consider the consequences to all those affected by the course

of action you are considering. For example, if you*****re a police officer and the course of

action you*****re contemplating is to shoot a criminal, you need to consider how your action

will affect the significant others of the criminal (among other things).

Once you*****re finished with listing the positive and negative consequences of the courses of

action you have focused on, you then need to compare these results and determine which

course of action maximizes utility (take another look at the *****Notes on Consequentialism*****

document I put online if you do not remember what *****maximizing utility***** means). I

emphasize, *****compare*****. If you just say that one course of action maximizes utility

without explaining why it has better utility in comparison with other courses of

action, you are not responding correctly to what I am asking.

So here is what I suggest: I will give the below the framework of how I expect you to

apply consequentialism and if you wish, you can copy and paste this in your assignment.

You can then fill in the details.

Course of Action 1: (here you write the description of the first course of action)

Affected parties: (here you list all those affected by this course of action)

Positive consequences: (here you describe the positive consequences of this course

of action)

Negative consequences: (here you describe the negative consequences of this

course of action)

Course of Action 2: (here you write the description of the second course of action)

Affected parties: (here you list all those affected by this course of action)

Positive consequences: (here you describe the positive consequences of this course

of action)

Negative consequences: (here you describe the negative consequences of this

course of action)

Outcome: The Xth course of action maximizes utility because (here you explain why you

think that the overall utility of the Xth course of action is more than all the others).

Duty Theory: Your textbook*****s discussion of Duty Theory is very sketchy. Its biggest

weakness is that it doesn*****t tell you how one determines what one*****s duties are. The

authors make it sound like one can pull duties off the air.

I cannot remedy this without changing the nature of this course drastically. So, I will let

you pull duties off the air, so to speak. But there are two things I would like you to do:

a. (a) Distinguish legal duties from moral duties, and distinguish both from

company policy. In other words, do not assume that a given company*****s policy

imposes any legal or moral duties on you (in fact it is sometimes possible for a

company policy to be both illegal and immoral). And do not assume that a legal

duty is a moral duty*****it is possible that some laws are immoral. Whether one

has the moral duty to obey immoral laws is a controversial issue.

So ignore the company policy (if there are any), and the legal duties (if there

are any), and focus on the moral duties. Don*****t even mention legal and

policy-based duties (unless you really think that they are relevant to the moral

duties). This is a course on ethics, not the law. Of course, we hope that

company policies are both legal and moral, and we hope that all of our laws are

morally acceptable. This is the ideal we all strive for. But we should keep in

mind that we cannot assume that we or anyone else has reached this ideal. In

any case, since this is a course about morality, we should keep that foremost

in our minds. Morality is primary, and it ought to inform both the legal system

and managerial policy.

a. (b) Even if you are pulling duties off the air, make sure that you are invoking

the widest general duty you can. What I mean is this: if I invoke a duty such as

not using too much salt in my cooking, this is presumably because I have a

wider duty to serve healthy meals. And the duty to serve healthy meals

presumably derives from a wider duty such as not causing unnecessary harm

to others and myself. When invoking a duty, make sure to invoke the widest,

the most inclusive duty--and then explain why that duty prescribes a specific

course of action.

So your explanation should be something like this: the duty not to harm others

unnecessarily means that I should not be cooking meals with too much salt,

because too much salt is unnecessary and harmful to people in the long run.

Finally, do not diminish the complexity of the cases we are dealing with by just

mentioning one duty. When we are dealing with moral problems, in 99% of the cases, we

are dealing with a clash of multiple duties (this, from the perspective of duty theory).

There is more than one duty in the picture and the real difficulty of the case is to

determine which one gains the upper hand. So, mention all the duties that are relevant to

the case and explain which one gets priority and why. Do not ignore the *****why*****!

Also, if and when you invoke a duty, make sure to consider all the responsibilities that

duty places on the person in question. So, say you invoke the duty of loyalty when

discussing what a soldier should do in a morally complex situation in war. Let us say her

commander has just told her to torch an enemy village. Here, loyalty places

responsibilities on her not only vis a vis her immediate commander, but also the larger

military institution of which she is a part. Maybe loyalty to the commander would

suggest that she follow the order, but loyalty to the larger military institution would

suggest that she disobey the order as going against the moral code of that institution.

Remember that life is rarely as simple as movies and TV tend to suggest.

Virtue Theory: I expanded on your book*****s treatment of Virtue Theory in the document

called *****Notes on Virtue Theory***** in the week 4 folder. What I need to remind you here is

this: just like duty theory, virtue theory suffers from the problem of determining where

virtues come from. Once again, I will let you invoke any virtue you wish, as long as you

follow the policy I outlined in (b) above under Duty Theory. That is, always invoke the

widest virtue possible, and show how it prescribes a specific course of action.

One common mistake in *****applying***** Virtue Theory is to forget to invoke any virtues.

People quite often say something like *****Virtue theory says we should do what a virtuous

person (or, a person who wishes to do the right thing) should do and so they should do

X*****. But notice that no virtue has been mentioned*****so we have no idea why X should be

done by a *****virtuous person*****!

Just as above, do not diminish the complexity of the cases we are dealing with by just

mentioning one virtue--mention all the virtues that are relevant to the case and explain

which one gets priority and why. Do not ignore the *****why*****!

Hence make sure you specifically mention the virtues you think are relevant to the case

(such as honesty, courage, etc.), explain which of them gets priority, and also explain what

course of action that virtue prescribes.

Read the last paragraph of the section on Duty Theory, except thinking now in terms of

virtues as opposed to duties. Remember that the same virtue can suggest conflicting

courses of action (just like duties) in the same situation.

(5) Assess the rightness or wrongness of various outcomes

I believe that this step of the CRM confuses people rather than helping them resolve a

moral problem. So I am canceling this step. SKIP STEP 5, but keep the original

numbering of the others steps.

(6) Decide

Keep this short. Just tell me what you have decided to do as concisely as you can.

Try to avoid being too wishy-washy here. For example, the authors***** prescription for

Abdul on page 156 of your textbook is too wishy-washy. They say Abdul should look

for some creative way to educate the clients. What creative way? Can you imagine a

general giving an order that goes *****Find a creative way to flank the enemy!*****? Or a

cookbook that says *****¦and then find a creative way to put all the ingredients together*****?

So please try to be much more precise in your prescriptions. For example, *****Abdul should

mistakenly forward to the client some links to newspaper articles about security problems

of firms that tried to cut too many corners. By doing this, he can further inform the

owners of the risk they are taking without appearing to do so.*****

(7) Defend

This is where you defend your decision. You try to come up with all the morally relevant

reasons for choosing the way you did. You can appeal to the prescriptions of the theories

you applied in step four, you can appeal to other moral reasons or values you hold. If you

happen to be taken by one of the theories discussed in the textbook, including the ones

you applied, feel free to say that you are adopting theory X, and for that reason you

would abide by its prescription. In other words, if while applying the three theories

in step 4, you fall in love with one of them, you can give priority to its support

(while bringing in other support as well). If you have decided on a course of action

prescribed by none of the theories, please make sure that you explain which moral value(s)

influence your decision.

(8) REFLECT

In this step, whatever else you do, do not forget to consider possible objections to your

chosen course of action (the decision you described in step 6). This means (a) stepping

into the shoes of a potential critic and trying to find the biggest problem with your

decision, and (b) stepping back into your own shoes and trying to find a response to that

criticism.

Performing the mental shift described in (b) will be the very difficult for most of you.

It requires you to step out of your own shoes and to step into the shoes of the opposing

viewpoint, so to speak. You are then supposed to attempt to undermine your own

position by finding the wea***** point in it. This is not something most of us are used to

do in the daily course of our lives; but it is a crucial component of critical thinking and

intellectual honesty. Sometimes, it enables us to strengthen our position (by finding a

response to the objection, as requested in (b) )*****sometimes, it shows us that we have

been holding an untenable position and hence enables us to avoid a mistake.

Please make sure you are not presenting objections that are transparently faulty (and

hence easy to answer). If you are capable of easily detecting a problem with what you give

as an objection, this means that you can most probably devise an improved objection that

avoids such transparent mistakes.

Here is a short example to illustrate: (In the example, I am not trying to make the

arguments flawless*****that is not the point. The point is to illustrate the argumentobjection-

response structure I describe above):

I decided in step 6 that Miss Jones should apologize to her subordinate.

{This is your decision. Now we change shoes and start (a)}

One might object to this as follows: if a person of higher rank apologizes to a subordinate, this is

tantamount to losing all credibility and workplace discipline. If Ms. Jones apologizes, she will

lose all her effectiveness.

{In the next paragraph, I step back into my shoes and respond to the objection*****this

is (b)}

This objection is based on a simplistic view of human psychology. If a higher-ranking official has

made a mistake, apologizing for the mistake does not make her lose credibility, it increases her

credibility! As long as such mistakes do not abound, she will be seen as a more credible and just

administrator for recognizing and facing up to her own mistakes. Instead, failing to apologize

multiplies her mistakes!

This example should give you a clear indication of what I am looking for in step 8.

Good luck!

*****