2. 1. Gather the facts.
Is there a moral dilemma?
Not every choice we make needs to be
deliberated upon as a moral dilemma. Choosing what
clothes to wear today, what food to eat for lunch –
while involving some tension, are not what moral
dilemma is all about.
3. 2. Determine the Ethical issues.
Trigger Event: Identifying and setting up the Ethical
Problem
“The issue…”
Every ethical problem has more than one
component and that not every component
involves an ethical decision.
4. 2. Determine the Ethical issues.
For instance, we should be able to separate a
client's right to advertise from a possible ethical
problem involving the way the product is to be
advertised. And the issue should be stated clearly.
The question is not whether the client should
advertise, but whether the client should advertise in a
particular manner that might be ethically
problematic.
5. 3. Choose principles which have
a bearing on the case.
Who are the stakeholders? It is important to identify
the stakeholders who will be affected by the ethical decision
to be made. This is also the first point at which ethical
theories might be applied since the idea of moral stakeholders
can be tied both to consequential and non-consequential
theories.
6. 3. Choose principles which have
a bearing on the case.
For example, from a utilitarian perspective, the
interest of the majority must be taken into consideration –
therefore, the majority stakeholders must be recognized as a
group. Non-consequential theories (duty-based) require us to
be aware of all stakeholders potentially affected by our
decision.
7. 3. Choose principles which have
a bearing on the case.
Recognized duties – like justice, gratitude, self-
improvement, etc. – allow us not only to list stakeholders but
also to decide on who they are. For example, if, as a
reporter, you are obligated by the duty of fidelity to honor
your implied contract with the public to give them the news
you want them to read, that reading public must be listed as
a stakeholder in your decision.
8. 4. List the alternatives.
What are the available options? It is important to list
down at least three. As Aristotle remarks, there are at least
two, and these two often represent the extremes. Nothing is
ever either black or white; sometimes one is forced to think
in terms of a compromise, even if that compromise doesn’t
exactly conform to your personal notion of what is the right
thing to do.
9. 5. Compare alternatives with
principles.
In considering and evaluating the options, it will
help to be guided by the following approaches. This
is the point at which the various sources of Christian
morality, ethical theories and principles come into
play. One will discover here that there is much
conflict among these. There are no easy solutions.
10. 5. Compare alternatives with
principles.
While one person may use utilitarianism to support his
decision (for instance, to run the story in the interest of the
many), another may decide to cite Kant’s proscription
against using a person as a means to an end (for instance,
for not running a story because one must respect the privacy
of a person). What is important here is to use only those
justifications that apply directly to one’s decision.
11. 6. Assess the consequences.
What benefits and what harms will each
option produce, and which alternative will lead to
the best overall consequence?
Double-Checking one’s decision. It is
important to take a second look at the decision to
be made.
12. Double-checking one’s decision to be done…
First, we must see to it that our arguments
are consistent. Ethics is supposed to provide
us with a guide for moral living, and to do so,
it must be rational – that is, free of
contradictions.
13. Double-checking one’s decision to be done…
Second, we must also ask if our arguments are both valid and sound.
A valid argument is one whose premises logically entail its conclusion. An
invalid argument on the other hand is one whose premises do not entail
its conclusion. In an invalid argument, one can accept the premises as
true and reject the conclusion without any contradiction. A sound
argument, on the other hand, has true premises and valid reasoning. An
unsound argument employs invalid reasoning or has at least one false
premise.
14. Double-checking one’s decision to be done…
Third, perhaps we can ask the following questions: What
are the best and worse-case scenarios if I choose this
particular option? Can I honestly live with myself if I make
this decision? Will I be able to defend this decision to that
claimant who has lost the most or been harmed the most?
15. Double-checking one’s decision to be done…
Finally, our decision must be “enabling” rather
than dis-abling. There are decisions that prevent us
from acting any more fruitfully or effectively. These
decisions cannot be moral! After all, a moral decision
or action is one that liberates us – develops our
potentialities as a person. A decision that dis-ables
us prevents our growth as persons.
16. 7. Make a decision.
Ethicists claim that this is the most difficult part of the
process of moral decision- making. It requires courage –
especially when reason suggests one way and what we feel
another way. Some people make their decisions even prior to
the reasoning process. When this happens, it is possible to
end up with a decision that one can then rationalize but not
really justify.
