CRITICAL THINKING

CRITICAL THINKING
6
Critical Thinking
Author’s Name:
Institutional Affiliation
Course Name:
Professor’s Name:
Date:
Critical Thinking
The incident that occurred at Truss Construction Shop two
weeks ago attributed to one of the employees attaining injuries
that might affect the future of the organization’s sales. During
one of the QA load tests at the company, one of the truss
undergoing testing splintered and some portion of the horizontal
truss broke and accidentally fell on one of the crane operators
who played a critical role during the testing process. The
company managed to take the crane operator to the hospital
after sustaining some head injuries. The crane operator is in
critical condition at the local hospital with the hopes to recover
fully in the next few days.
Explanation of the Issue
The issue at hand that is affecting Trust Construction Enterprise
is the fact that the company just acquired and invested in the
new engineering and manufacturing process. The new

machinery and engineering technology assists Truss Company
to use the latest cutting edge in the construction technology.
This cutting-edge technology plays a critical role in the
construction of the low-cost housing which are in a high
demand in overseas markets. Subsequently, while conducting a
QA load test on the truss, an accident occurred during the
process. A fragment from the horizontal axis of the truss broke
and fell injuring one of the crane operator who was assisting in
carrying out the test. The crane operator attained some head
injuries from the accident and was rushed to the hospital.
Although initially in critical condition, the operator is in a
stable condition in one of the local hospitals.
The challenge that Truss construction Enterprise is facing is
that it had initially advertised the truss as having the capability
to meet high commercial load. Yet the truss under the QA load
test ended up hurting one of the crane operator. The Truss
Construction Enterprise public relations department released a
statement to assure the employees and the public on the
accident and the measures in place to curb any such incident
from occurring in the future. Consequently, the management of
the company still have fears that the information leaked to the
public might hinder the oversea sales because of the
circumstances behind the accident. The production line worker
Obinna Faruch might have damaged not only the reputatio n of
the company on handling the accident but also caused awareness
of the inability of the truss epic fail to handle high commercial
load requirement
by speaking to the press.
Analysis of the information
The occurrence of the accident during the QA load test at the
Truss Construction Shop is similar to any accident that might
occur in any manufacturing company. According to the

Occupational Safety and health Administration (OSHA)
requirement, each organization should provide a safe and
healthy environment and working space for the employees
(OSHA, 2012). Truss Construction Shop needs to understand the
fact that one of the crane operators attained injuries during one
of the load tests and is in a hospital undertaking treatment.
Consequently, the management of Truss Construction Shop
ought to acknowledge that the crane operator is in hospital
because of the collapsing of a segment of the horizontal truss on
the operator hence sustaining some injuries.
Despite the Truss Construction Enterprise having measures to
provide a secure working environment to keep employee’s safe,
it is vital to note that the activities that might have caused the
accident to the crane operator originated from the negligence
. Instead of shifting blames and looking for reasons to deny the
occurrence of the incident in the company, the senior
management at the Truss Construction Shop ought to admit and
account for the mistakes that occurred before the accident.
Establishing the events that occurred before the employee was
hurt might assist in eliminating chances of similar incidents
from occurring in the future. The working space in the
manufacturing industry will always consist of accidents that
might happen occasionally. The occurrence of the accident that
injured the crane operator ought not to occur in the future, as
the team need to find the cause and solve the problem.
Consideration of Alternative viewpoints, conclusion, and
solutions
The Truss Construction Shop ought to consider all alternative
viewpoints of the accident that occurred at the warehouse
during the QA load test of the truss. Firstly, the management
ought to appreciate the fact that one of the crane operators
sustained injuries during the load test and is alive undertaking

treatment, recovery and return to work. It is not the fault of the
crane operator that the accident occurred and the fact that he is
still alive and in the hospital is a good sign for both the family
members as well as the company
. Secondly, the management ought to consider the viewpoint
that the accident might be a revelation that the company might
be selling low quality products to the customer. Handling the
case of an employee encountering an accident during work is
much easier than numerous court cases of different customers
demanding back their money because of poor quality products.
The senior management of the Truss Construction Enterprise
ought to reconsider the decisions made after the occurrence of
the accident during the QA load test. The management ought to
immediately stop the production of the truss and investigate the
truss ability to handle high commercial load after the accident.
The fact that the truss might reduce the cost incurred during
construction ought not to come at a price losing lives of
customers. The management ought to refrain from the greed to
make more money in a short period but rather focus on
delivering quality and sustainable products to the customers.
Conclusions and recommendations
The Truss Construction Shop ought to utilize the accident that
happened during the QA load test to make changes to the truss
before selling it to the customer. The injuries sustained by the
crane operator during the load test should not occur to any other
employee in the future or customer using the truss for
construction. The management of Truss Construction Shop have
an obligation to provide a safe and healthy environment for the
current employees. The first recommendation that the Truss
Construction Shop ought to undertake is to investigate the
causes that might have attributed to the truss accident. The
second recommendation is that the management ought to hire a

team of external experts to investigate the quality and ability of
the truss to withstand high commercial load. The third
recommendation is that the sales team ought to communicate to
the customer about the delay that might occur and the need to
be patient, as the company will deliver the goods once the issue
is resolved.
Reference
Occupational Safety & Health Administration [OSHA]. (2012).
Regulations (Standards-29 CFR
1910.1200). Retrieved from https://www.osha.gov
�It did not fail at the advertised load.. but maybe due to extra
load.
�I’m confused here. Instructor said “rethink”
�Yes, but it could also have been due to stress or he might also
have health issues his dealing. Thats why the instructor referred
to ‘human error” in the conclusion. The instructor believes that
the operator might also have a fault in the accident that
occurred.
CRITICAL THINKING
5
Critical Thinking
Emmanuel Alonge
University of Maryland Global Campus

PRO 600: Communication, Problem Solving, and Learning in
Professional Fields.
Pilar Pulido
June 3, 2021
Critical Thinking
The incident that occurred at Truss Construction two weeks ago
attributed to one of the employees attaining injuries that might
affect the future of the organization's sales
. During one of the QA load tests at the company, one of the
truss undergoing testing splintered, and some portion of the
horizontal truss broke and accidentally fell on one of the crane
operators who played a critical role during the testing process.
The company managed to take the crane operator to the hospital
after sustaining some head injuries. The crane operator is in
critical condition at the local hospital with the hopes to recover
fully in the next few days. The accident that involved the truss
fragment hurting the crane operate head injury caused
significant concern to the Truss Construction Enterprise
division
.
We are hopeful as we announce that the injured employee is
now in a more stable condition, and our support and prayers are
with him and his family. We would also like to inform you that
this is the only official communication issued by the company
involved the truss fragment hurting the crane operate head
injury cause major concern to the Truss Construction Enterprise
division.
If you decide to rewrite, instead of fix and edit, then you run
into the possible issue of creating new mistakes …
Explanation of the Issue
The issue at hand that is affecting Trust Construction Enterprise
if
the fact that the company just acquired and invested in the new
engineering and manufacturing process. The new machinery and

engineering technology assists Truss Company to use the latest
cutting edge in the construction technology, which plays a
critical role in the construction of the low-cost housing which
are in a high demand in overseas markets
. Subsequently, while conducting a QA load test on the truss, an
accident occurred during the process. A fragment from the
horizontal axis of the truss broke and fell, injuring one of the
crane operators who was assisting in carrying out the test. The
crane operator attained some head injuries from the accident
and although of the critical condition in the hospital, the
operator is in a stable condition in one of the local hospitals.
The challenge that Truss Construction Enterprise is facing is
that it had initially advertised the truss as having the capability
to meet the high commercial load. Yet, the truss under the QA
load test failed
and ended up hurting one of the crane operators. The Truss
Construction Enterprise public relations department released a
statement to assure the employees and the public of the accident
and the measures in place to curb any such incident from
occurring in the future. Consequently, the management of the
company still have fears that the information leaked to the
public might hinder the oversea sales because of the
circumstances behind the accident. The production line worker
Obinna Faruch might have damaged the company's reputation in
handling the accident and caused awareness of the truss epic's
inability to handle high commercial load
requirement by speaking to the press.
Analysis of the information
The occurrence of the accident during the QA load test at the
Truss Construction shop is similar to any accident that might
occur in any manufacturing company. According to the
Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA)
requirement, each organization should provide a safe and

healthy environment and working space for the employees.
Truss Construction needs to understand the fact that one of the
crane operators attained injuries during one of the load tests and
is in a hospital undertaking treatment. Consequently, the
management of Truss Construction ought to acknowledge that
the crane operator is in a hospital because of the collapsing of a
segment of the horizontal truss on the operator. ok
Despite the Truss Construction Enterprise having measuring to
secure the working environment and keep the employee's safe, it
is vital to note that the activities that might have attributed to
the accident and injuries to the crane operator might originate
from the negligence.
Instead of shifting blames and looking for reasons to deny the
occurrence of the incident in the company, the senior
management at the Truss Construction Enterprise ought to admit
and account for the mistakes that occurred before the truss
collapsed
. Establishing the events that occurred before the employee was
hurt might assist in eliminating chances of similar incidents
from occurring in the future. The working space in the
manufacturing industry will always consist of accidents that
might happen occasionally. The accident that injured the crane
operator ought not to occur in the future, as the team needs to
find the cause and solve the problem.
Consideration of Alternative viewpoints, conclusion, and
solutions
Truss Construction ought to consider all alternative viewpoints
of the accident that occurred at the warehouse during the QA
load test of the truss. Firstly, the management ought to
appreciate the fact that one of the crane operators sustained
injuries during the load test and is not only alive but will
successfully undergo treatment
, recover and return to continue with work. However, there are

questions that need answers. Firstly, before the test, a service
check could ascertain if the crane was in good condition before
the process. If the crane was in good condition, the operators'
health is questionable if all the safety measures were adhered to
by the workers on the site. Anyway, the fact that he is still alive
and in the hospital is a good sign for both the family members
and the company. Secondly, the management should consider
that the accident might be a revelation that the company might
be selling low-quality products to the customer. Handling the
case of an employee encountering an accident during work is
much easier than numerous court cases of different customers
demanding back their money because of poor quality products.
The senior management of the Truss Construction Enterprise
ought to reconsider the decisions made after the occurrence of
the accident during the QA load test. The management ought to
immediately stop the production of the truss and redo the
testing of the truss ability to handle high commercial load
. The fact that the truss might reduce the cost incurred during
construction ought not to come at a price of losing customers'
lives. The management ought to refrain from the greed to make
more money in a short period but instead focus on delivering
quality and sustainable products to the customers.
Conclusions and recommendations
The Truss Construction Enterprise ought to utilize the accident
that happened during the QA load test to make changes to the
truss before selling it to the customer. The injuries sustained by
the crane operator during the load test should not occur to any
other employee in the future or customer using the truss for
construction. The management of Truss Construction have an
obligation to provide a safe and healthy environment for the
current employees. The first recommendation that the Truss
Construction ought to undertake is to stop the mass production

of the current truss, as it appears it has some flaws
. The second recommendation is that the management ought to
hire a team of external experts to investigate the quality and
ability of the truss to withstand high commercial load. The third
recommendation is that the sales team ought to communicate to
the customer about the delay that might occur and the need to
be patient, as the company will deliver the goods once the issue
is resolved.
OSHA reference???
�Run/on. This is new—why did you rewrite content that had no
issues in the previous submission?
�???
�Why did you rewrite this first paragraph? I did not mark it in
the previous submission ..
�This is a run/on. Your previous submission was different and
had no mistake, why change it?
�Wrong word, and it changes the entire sentence …
�Rethink, maybe make into shorter sentences.
�Rethink—did you try proof reading your own work by reading
it out loud to yourself?
�They were testing it beyond that load …

�It did not fait at the advertised load ,,,,
�rethink
�only if they did something wrong … we don’t know that yet
�??
�Again, it did not fail at the advertised load, so that may not be
an issue.
�You are making a huge assumption here—the test failed, yes,
but we still do not know why. But once fact is for sure: the test
pushed the truss beyond the advertised load. This means that it
may be caused by the extra load (if not by human error, which
we do not know either)
Continuation
Step 5: Develop Well-Reasoned Conclusions
Now that you've considered various viewpoints, you're ready to
develop your own personal conclusions and suggest solutions
that your boss can bring to leadership in briefing them about the
situation.
Remember, you may need to consult outside references, but this
is not a research paper. It should be investigative in nature
about the facts of the case. Cite any outside sources carefully.
Now, outline your argument and draft Section 5: Conclusions

and Recommendations, the final section. Your boss is expecting
to receive a concise, focused paper to prepare for further
meetings. Stay focused on the main points, although you may
have many facts that could be used to answer any questions.
You will submit your paper in the final step.
Step 6: Submit Critical Thinking Paper
The final paper should be no more than five double-spaced
pages, excluding the cover page and references page(s).
Organize the paper in accordance with your preparatory steps,
using these subheadings:
Title of Paper (centered and bold) There is no heading named
"Introduction"
Explanation of the Issue (centered and bold)
Analysis of the Information (centered and bold)
Consideration of Alternative Viewpoints, Conclusions, and
Solution
s (centered and bold)
Conclusions and Recommendations (centered and bold)
If you have used any outside sources, you will include a
References page in proper APA 7 format.
Here are some tips for success:
· Consider outside sources if they inform your case. However,
stay on task.
· Use APA style for in-text and reference citations. At this
point, your citations should be error-free.
Consider these best practices for a paper:

· An effective introduction grabs the reader's attention and sets
the tone and direction for the rest of the paper.
· Supporting paragraphs move the reader from the general
introduction to the more specific aspects of your analysis.
· Body paragraphs provide support for your argument.
· A conclusion leads to a natural closing for what you have
presented.
NOTE:
*The instructor talked about: OSHA” you might want to google
that. She also said something about whistle blower protection
*Ethical and legal issues; what particular ethical and legal
issues therein
6/8/21, 9:42 PMEthical Decision-Making and Reasoning:
Ethical Reasoning and Analysis
Page 1 of
23https://leocontent.umgc.edu/content/umuc/tgs/pro/pro600/221
2/learni…ion-making-and-reasoning--ethical-reasoning-and-
ana.html?ou=584686
Ethical Decision-Making and Reasoning: Ethical

Reasoning and Analysis
This resource deals with the following ques!ons about ethical
reasoning:
1. What is meant by ethics?
2. What is not ethics?
3. What does it mean to be ethical?
4. Do ethical and moral mean the same thing?
5. What are values?
6. What are some examples of ethical issues?
7. How can I effec!vely apply cri!cal reasoning to an ethical
issue?
8. When I debate ethical issues, what is my responsibility to
people who are part of the dialogue?

9. What are ethical judgments?
10. How can I dis!nguish ethical judgments from other kinds of
value judgments?
11. What are ethical arguments?
12. What is an ethical dilemma?
13. What is the role of values in ethical dilemmas?
14. What ethical dilemmas are more common in real life?
15. What is an ethical viola!on?
16. How does self-interest affect people's ethical choices?
17. What is the difference between good ethical reasoning and
mere ra!onaliza!on?
18. What kinds of ra!onaliza!ons do people make for their
ac!ons?*
19. What fallacies are most prevalent in debates over ethical
issues?

20. How can I tell what is the "right" thing to do?
21. What is moral rela!vism?
22. What is the main weakness of moral rela!vism?
23. What is universalism?
24. What is consequen!alism?
Learning Resource
Page 2 of
ana.html?ou=584686
25. What is u!litarianism?

26. How does u!litarian reasoning operate?
27. How has u!litarian reasoning been applied?
28. What is the main weakness of u!litarianism?
29. How do I apply u!litarianism in real life?
30. What is deontology?
31. What is duty-based ethics?
32. What is rights-based ethics?
33. What is the appeal of deontology?
34. What is the main weakness of duty and rights-based ethics?
35. How can I apply deontology in real life?
36. What is virtue ethics?
37. What is care ethics?
38. How does virtue ethics operate?

39. What kinds of ques!ons are asked by virtue ethics?
40. How has virtue ethics been applied in the real world?
41. What is the main weakness of virtue ethics?
42. How can I apply virtue ethics in real life?
43. How do these theories fit into my ethics toolbox?
44. How do I use ethical reasoning to make decisions?
45. How do I recognize an ethical situa!on?
46. How do I iden!fy stakeholders?
47. How do I iden!fy the different perspec!ves and posi!ons
held by stakeholders?
48. How can I research stakeholder posi!ons?
49. How do I iden!fy the ethical actor?
50. How can I use cri!cal thinking in this process?

51. What are criteria?
52. How do I iden!fy possible ac!ons?
53. How do I evaluate the possible op!ons?
54. How can mapping or diagramming help me to examine the
consequences of decisions or posi!ons with
ethical consequences?
55. What else should I consider before ac!ng?
56. Am I done a#er ac!ng?
57. Do people really do all this when making ethical decisions?
1. What is meant by ethics?

of
ana.html?ou=584686
Ethics is the study of the standards of right and wrong that
inform us as to how we ought to behave. These
standards relate to unwri$en rules that are necessary for humans
to live amongst each other, such as "don't
hurt others." We func!on be$er as a society when we treat each
other well.
Ethics can also refer to the standards themselves. They o#en
pertain to rights, obliga!ons, fairness,
responsibili!es, and specific virtues like honesty and loyalty.
They are supported by consistent and well-founded reasons; as
such, they have universal appeal. It's never
good to have a society that supports hur!ng others as a general
rule; honesty and loyalty are posi!ve

a$ributes.
Can we think of instances when hur!ng others is condoned (such
as in war) and where honesty or loyalty
may be misplaced? Of course! That's one of the reasons why
ethics are so complicated.
2. What is not ethics?
We need to dis!nguish ethics from what it is not. It's easier if
you can remember that ethics doesn't change:
Ethics is not what's legal. The law o#en puts into wri!ng our
ethical standards (don't hurt others=don't
commit homicide) but it also usually reflects our cultural
beliefs at the !me. For example, hun!ng is
legal in Virginia, but it would be difficult to say that everyone
agrees that it is ethical to hunt. Some
people will argue that hun!ng is ethical because it manages the
wildlife popula!on, while others will

argue that it is never ethical because it creates pain and
suffering.
Ethics is not what you feel. In fact, most !mes our feelings are
very egocentric: what's best for me and
my nearest and dearest? But making judgments based on these
sen!ments could be detrimental to
society as a whole,
Ethics is not religion. Religions may teach ethical standards,
and you may personally use religion to
guide your beliefs, but people can have ethics without
necessarily belonging to a religion. Therefore,
ethics and religion are not interchangeable.
Ethics is not a poli!cal ideology. A poli!cal party may share
your values and offer ethical arguments to
supports its policies, but your decisions aren't automa!cally
ethical, just because you belong to one

poli!cal party or another. In fact, many, if not most, poli!cal
debates are built from arguments that
claim one aspect of an ethical dilemma is more significant than
another.
3. What does it mean to be ethical?
When we explore what it means to be ethical, we are looking at
what is ra!onally "right" and "wrong." We
need to have such conversa!ons so that we can live with other
people in society. Philosophers would also
argue that the best way to achieve our fullest poten!al is by
being ethical.
In this course, we are not teaching you what to believe. We are
building on the skills you have learned to
iden!fy, evaluate, create and analyze ethical arguments.
4. Do ethical and moral mean the same thing?
For the purposes of this handbook, the answer is yes. The terms

ethical and moral are o#en used as
synonyms, and we will adopt this conven!on and use these terms
interchangeably. For most purposes this
works fine, but some authors and teachers do see a dis!nc!on
between these ideas. Usually when the
terms are dis!nguished it is because morals can connote very
culture-specificnormsor expecta!ons. Hence
"the mores of the Azande" describes the moral norms of that
par!cular tribe or culture, but without
expecta!on that these norms are universally valid. When ethics
is contrasted with morals, the writer is
Page 4 of

ana.html?ou=584686
usually discussing certain norma!ve ethical theories that
maintain that certain principles, rules, or virtues
have universal ethical validity. A slightly more comprehensive
answer would describe the difference; say
from an ethical rela!vist posi!ons defini!on, as hinging on
ethical standards being subjected to the scru!ny
of reason or ra!onality as its fundamental method.
5. What are values?
Frequently when used in discussions of ethics the termvaluesis
used to refer to the fundamental ideals that
an individual relies on to describe praise-worthy behavior. A
person's values are the bedrock concepts used
to determine their ethical decisions. Most generally speaking
values represent aspira!onal goals common
within your culture or society. Values such as honesty,

benevolence, wisdom, duty, or compassion are
universally recognized laudable and desirable features of a
well-developed character. But which values are
most important may differ from individual to individual, or
across cultures. We could refer to the values of
the feudal Japanese samurai culture placing the highest
emphasis on the concept of personal honor. We
could compare and contrast that with the European knightly
virtues as a similar yet dis!nc!vely different set
of cultural values. We could draw on poli!cal beliefs to describe
the concepts of equality and freedom at the
heart of democra!c ideals, contras!ng them with a cons!tu!onal
monarchy that perhaps places the highest
importance on duty and tradi!on as its central poli!cal ideals
6. What are some examples of ethical issues?
Ethical issues abound in contemporary society. Ethical issues

involve ques!ons of the ethical rightness or
wrongness of public policy or personal behavior. Ac!ons or
policies that affect other people always have an
ethical dimension, but while some people restrict ethical issues
to ac!ons that can help or harm others
(social ethics) others include personal and self-regarding
conduct (personal ethics).
Many of today's most pressing issues of social ethics are
complex and mul!faceted and require clear and
careful thought. Some of these issues include the following:
Should states allow physician-assisted suicide?
Is the death penalty an ethically acceptable type of punishment?
Should animals have rights?
Is society ever jus!fied in regula!ng so-called vic!mless crimes
like drug use, not wearing a helmet or a

seatbelt, etc.?
What are our responsibili!es to future genera!ons?
Are affluent individuals and countries obligated to try to
prevent starva!on, malnutri!on, and poverty
wherever we find them in the world?
Is there such a thing as a just war?
How does business ethics relate to corporate responsibility?
To reach careful conclusions, these public policy issues require
people to engage in complicated ethical
reasoning, but the ethical reasoning involving personal issues
can be just as complex and mul!faceted:
What principles do I apply to the way I treat other people?
What guides my own choices and my own goals in life?
Should I have the same expecta!ons of others in terms of their
behavior and choices as I have of

myself?
Page 5 of
ana.html?ou=584686
Is living ethically compa!ble or incompa!ble with what I call
living well or happily?
7. How can I effec!vely apply cri!cal reasoning to an ethical
issue?
People care quite a bit about ethical issues and o#en voice
varied and even sharply opposed perspec!ves.
So when looking at how we debate ethical issues publicly, it is
not surprising to find debate ranging from

formal to informal argumenta!on, and from very carefully
constructed arguments with well-qualified
conclusions, to very biased posi!ons and quite fallacious forms
of persuasion. It's easy to be dismayed by
the discord we find over vola!le issues like gun control,
immigra!on policy, equality in marriage or in the
workplace, gender and racial equality, abor!on and birth
control, freedom versus security, free speech and
censorship, and so on. But it is also easy to go the other
direc!on and be drawn into the o#en fallacious
reasoning we hear all around us.
Cri!cal thinkers want to conduct civil, respec'ul discourse, and
to build bridges in ways that allow progress
to be made on difficult issues of common concern. Progress and
mutual understanding is not possible when
name-calling, inflammatory language, and fallacies are the
norm. Some mutual respect, together with the

skill of being able to offer a clearly-structured argument for
one's posi!on, undercuts the need to resort to
such tac!cs. So cri!cal thinkers resist trading fallacy for fallacy,
and try to introduce common ground that
can help resolve disputes by remaining respec'ul of differences,
even about issues personally quite
important to them. When we support a thesis (such as a posi!on
on one of the above ethical issues) with a
clear and well-structured argument, we allow and invite others
to engage with us in more construc!ve
fashion. We say essen!ally, "Here is my thesis and here are my
reasons for holding it. If you don't agree with
my claim, then show me what is wrong with my argument, and I
will reconsider my view, as any ra!onal
person should."
8. When I debate ethical issues, what is my responsibility to

people who are part of the dialogue?
When we evaluate (analyze) somebody else's posi!on on an
ethical issue, we are not free to simply reject
out-of-hand a conclusion we don't ini!ally agree with. To be
reasonable, we must accept the burden of
showing where the other person errs in facts or reasoning. If we
cannot show that there are errors in the
person's facts or reasoning, to be reasonable we must reconsider
whether we should reject the other
person's conclusion.
By applying the common standards of cri!cal thinking to our
reasoning about ethical issues, our arguments
will become less emo!onally driven and more ra!onal. Our
reasoning will become less dependent upon
unques!oned beliefs or assump!ons that the other people in the
conversa!on may not accept. We become

be$er able to contribute to progressive public debate and
conflict resolu!on through a well-developed
ability to ar!culate a well-reasoned posi!on on an ethical issue.
9. What are ethical judgments?
Ethical judgments are a subclass of value judgments. A value
judgment involves an argument as to what is
correct, superior, or preferable. In the case of ethics, the value
judgment involves making a judgment, claim,
or statement about whether an ac!on is morally right or wrong
or whether a person's mo!ves are morally
good or bad. Ethical judgments o#en prescribe as well as
evaluate ac!ons, so that to state that someone (or
perhaps everyone) ethically "should" or "ought to" do
something is also to make an ethical judgment.
10. How can I dis!nguish ethical judgments from other kinds of
value judgments?

Page 6 of
ana.html?ou=584686
If ethical judgments are a subclass of value judgments, how do
we dis!nguish them? Ethical judgments
typically state that some ac!on is good or bad, or right or
wrong,in a specifically ethical sense. It is usually
not difficult to dis!nguish nonethical judgments of goodness and
badness from ethical ones. When
someone says "That was a good ac!on because it was caring," or
"That was bad ac!on because it was cruel,"
they are clearly intending goodness or badness in a dis!nctly
ethical sense.

By contrast, nonmoral value judgments typically say that
something is good (or bad) simply for the kind of
thing it is, or we say that some ac!on is right or wrong given the
prac!cal goal or purpose that one has in
mind. "That's a good car" or "That's a bad bike" would not be
considered to moral judgments about those
objects. Goodness and badness here are s!ll value judgments,
but value judgments that likely track features
like comfort, styling, reliability, safety and mileage ra!ngs, etc.
The use of "should" or" ought to" for nonmoral value judgments
is also easy to recognize. "You ought to
enroll early" or "You made the right decision to go to Radford"
are value judgments, but no one would say
they are ethical judgments. They reflect a concern with wholly
prac!cal aims rather than ethical ones and
with the best way to a$ain those prac!cal aims.

11. What are ethical arguments?
Ethical arguments are arguments whose conclusion makes an
ethical judgment. Ethical arguments are most
typically arguments that try to show a certain policy or behavior
to be either ethical or unethical. Suppose
you want to argue that "The death penalty is unjust (or just)
punishment" for a certain range of violent
crimes. Here we have an ethical judgment, and one that with a
bit more detail could serve as the thesis of a
posi!on paper on the death penalty debate.
An ethical judgment rises above mere opinion and becomes the
conclusion of an ethical argument when you
support it with ethical reasoning. You must say why you hold
the death penalty to be ethically right or
wrong, just or unjust. For instance, you might argue that it is
unjust because of one or more of the following

reasons:
It is cruel, and cruel ac!ons are wrong.
Two wrongs don't make a right.
It disrespects human life.
In some states the penalty falls unevenly on members of a racial
group.
The penalty some!mes results in the execu!on of innocent
people.
Of course, you could also give reasons to support the view that
the death penalty is a just punishment for
certain crimes. The point is that whichever side of the debate
you take, your ethical argument should
develop ethical reasons and principles rather than economic or
other prac!cal but nonmoral concerns. To
argue merely that the death penalty be abolished because that
would save us all money is a possible policy

posi!on, but it is essen!ally an economic argument rather than
an ethical argument.
12. What is an ethical dilemma?
An ethical dilemma is a term for a situa!on in which a person
faces an ethically problema!c situa!on and is
not sure of what she ought to do. Those who experience ethical
dilemmas feel themselves being pulled
by compe!ng ethical demands or values and perhaps feel that
they will be blameworthy or experience guilt
no ma$er what course of ac!on they take. The philosopher Jean-
Paul Sartre gives the example of a young
Page 7 of

ana.html?ou=584686
Frenchman of military age during the war!me Nazi occupa!on
who finds himself faced, through no fault of
his own, with the choice of staying home and caring for his
ailing mother or going off to join the resistance
to fight for his country's future:
He fully realized that this woman lived only for him and that his
disappearance—or perhaps his death—
would plunge her into despair... Consequently, he found himself
confronted by two very different
modes of ac!on; the one concrete, immediate, but directed
towards only one individual; and the other
an ac!on addressed to an end infinitely greater, a na!onal
collec!vity, but for that very reason
ambiguous—and it might be frustrated on the way (Sartre,
1946).

13. What is the role of values in ethical dilemmas?
Frequently, ethical dilemmas are fundamentally a clash of
values. We may experience a sense of frustra!on
trying to figure out what the "right" thing to do is because any
available course of ac!on violates some value
that we are dedicated to. For example, let's say you are taking a
class with a good friend and si(ng next to
him one day during a quiz you discover him copying answers
from a third student. Now you are forced into
an ethical decision embodied by two important values common
to your society. Those values are honesty
and loyalty. Do you act dishonestly and preserve your friend's
secret or do you act disloyal and turn them in
for academic fraud?
Awareness of the underlying values at play in an ethical conflict
can act as a powerful method to clarify the

issues involved. We should also be aware of the use of value as
a verb in the ethical sense. Certainly what
we choose to value more or less will play a very significant role
in the process of differen!a!ng between
outcomes and ac!ons thereby determining what exactly we
should do.
Literature and film are full of ethical dilemmas, as they allow
us to reflect on the human struggle as well as
presen!ng tests of individual character. For example in World
War Z, Gerry Lane (played by Brad Pi$ in the
movie version) has to make a similar choice as Sartre's
Frenchman: between serving the world-community of
humans in their just war against zombies, and serving his own
immediate family. It adds depth and
substance to the character to see him struggling with this choice
over the right thing to do.

14. What ethical dilemmas are more common in real life?
Rarely are we called on to fight zombies or Nazis, but that
doesn't mean we live in an ethically easy world. If
you've ever felt yourself pulled between two moral choices,
you've faced an ethical dilemma. O#en we
make our choice based on which value we prize more highly.
Here are some examples:
You are offered a scholarship to a$end a far-away college, but
that would mean leaving your family, to
whom you are very close. Values: success/future
achievements/excitement vs. family/love/safety
You are friends with Jane, who is da!ng Bill. Jane confides in
you that she'd been seeing Joe on the side
but begs you not to tell Bill. Bill then asks you if Jane has ever
cheated on him. Values:
Friendship/loyalty vs. Truth

You are the official supervisor for Tywin. You find out that
Tywin has been leaving work early and asking
his coworkers to clock him out on !me. You intend to fire
Tywin, but then you find out that he's been
leaving early because he needs to pick up his child from
daycare. Values: Jus!ce vs. Mercy
You could probably make a compelling argument for either side
for each of the above. That's what makes
ethical dilemmas so difficult (or interes!ng, if you're not
directly involved!).
15. What is an ethical viola!on?
Page 8 of

ana.html?ou=584686
Some!mes we are confronted with situa!ons in which we are
torn between a right and a wrong; we know
what the right thing to do would be, but the wrong is personally
beneficial, temp!ng, or much easier to do.
In 2010, Ohio State University football coach Jim Tressel
discovered that some of his players were viola!ng
NCAA rules. He did not report it to anyone, as it would lead to
suspensions, hur!ng the football team's
chances of winning. He was not torn between two moral
choices; he knew what he should do, but didn't
want to jeopardize his career. In 2011, Tressel's unethical
behavior became public, OSU had to void its wins
for the year, and he resigned as coach (Livingston, 2011).
Ethics experts tend to think that ethical considera!ons should
always trump personal or self-interested ones

and that to resist following one's personal desires is a ma$er of
having the right mo!va!on and the strength
of will to repel tempta!on. One way to strengthen your "ethics
muscles" is to become familiar with the ways
we try to excuse or dismiss unethical ac!ons.
16. How does self-interest affect people's ethical choices?
In a perfect world, morality and happiness would always align:
living ethically and living well wouldn't collide
because living virtuously—being honest, trustworthy, caring,
etc.—would provide the deepest human
happiness and would best allow humans to flourish. Some would
say, however, that we do not live in a
perfect world, and that our society en!ces us to think of
happiness in terms of status and material
possessions at the cost of principles. Some even claim that all
persons act exclusively out of self-interest—

that is, out of psychological egoism—and that genuine concern
for the well-being of others—altruism—is
impossible. As you explore an ethical issue, consider whether
people making choices within the context of
the issue are ac!ng altruis!cally or out of self-interest.
17. What is the difference between good ethical reasoning and
mere ra!onaliza!on?
When pressed to jus!fy their choices, people may try to evade
responsibility and to jus!fy decisions that
may be unethical but that serve their self-interest. People are
amazingly good at passing the buck in this
fashion, yet pre$y poor at recognizing and admi(ng that they are
doing so. When a person is said to be
ra!onalizing his ac!ons and choices, this doesn't mean he is
applying cri!cal thinking, or what we have
described as ethical analysis. Quite the opposite: it means that
he is trying to convince others—or o#en just

himself—using reasons that he should be able to recognize as
faulty or poor reasons. Perhaps the most
common ra!onaliza!on of unethical ac!on has come to be called
the Nuremberg Defense: "I was just doing
what I was told to do—following orders or the example of my
superior. So blame them and exonerate me."
This defense was used by Nazi officials during the Nuremberg
trials a#er World War II in order to ra!onalize
behavior such as par!cipa!on in the administra!on of
concentra!on camps. This ra!onaliza!on didn't work
then, and it doesn't work now.
18. What kinds of ra!onaliza!ons do people make for their
ac!ons?
Ra!onaliza!on is a common human coping strategy. An
intriguing finding in research on corrup!on is that
people who behave unethically usually do not see themselves as

unethical. Instead, they recast their ac!ons
using ra!onaliza!on techniques to jus!fy what they've done.
Common ra!onaliza!on strategies:
Denial of responsibility
The people engaged in bad behavior "had no choice" but to
par!cipate in such ac!vi!es OR people
turn a blind eye to ethical misbehavior.
Examples:
"What can I do? My boss ordered me not to tell the police."
Page 9 of
ana.html?ou=584686

"My neighbors' children always seem to have bruises, but it's
none of my business."
Denial of injury
No one is harmed by the ac!on, or that the harm could have been
worse.
Examples:
"All's well that ends well."
"Nobody died."
Blaming the vic!m
Counter any blame for the ac!ons by arguing that the violated
party deserved what happened.
Examples:
"She chose to go that fraternity party; what did she think was
going to happen?"

"If the professors don't want students to say mean things in
student evalua!ons, they should
be more entertaining."
Social weigh!ng
Compared to what other people have done, this is nothing, OR
everybody does it, so it's okay.
Examples:
"I some!mes come into work late, but compared to everybody
who leaves early every Friday,
it's nothing to get worked up over."
"Everyone around me was tex!ng; it's not fair that I should be
the one in trouble."
Appeal to higher values
It was done for a good, higher cause.
Examples:

"You should let me copy your homework; if I fail this class, I'll
lose my scholarship."
"I couldn't tell anyone because I'm loyal to my boss."
Saint's excuse
If someone has done good things in the past, they should get a
"pass" for misbehavior.
Examples:
"He's done so many good things for the community, it would be
a shame to punish him."
"She's so talented, why focus on the bad things she's done?"
(Anand, Ashforth, & Joshi, 2004).
19. What fallacies are most prevalent in debates over ethical
issues?
In addi!on to self-decep!on and ra!onaliza!ons, we o#en find
overtly fallacious reasoning that undermines

open, construc!ve debate of ethical issues. Of the common
fallacies, those most common in ethics debate
include ad hominem (personal) a$acks, appeals to false
authority, appeals to fear, the slippery
slope fallacy, false dilemmas, the two-wrongs-make-a-right
fallacy, and the strawman fallacy (Core
Curriculum, "Core 201—The Logical Structure of Arguments,"
2016). Fallacious reasoning, especially the
a$empt to sway sen!ment through language manipula!on, is
ever-present in popular sources of informa!on
Page 10 of
2/learn…on-making-and-reasoning--ethical-reasoning-and-
ana.html?ou=584686

and opinion pieces, like blogs and special-interest-group sites.
It may take prac!ce to spot fallacious
reasoning, but being able to give names to these strategies of
trickery and manipula!on provides the
aspiring cri!cal thinker with a solid start.
20. How can I tell what is the "right" thing to do?
That's the million-dollar ques!on here. Ethical theories describe
the rules or principles that guide people
when the rightness or wrongness of an ac!on becomes an issue.
In this sec!on, you will read about some of
the most common and important ways of approaching ethics.
They all ask the ques!on "How can I tell what
the right thing to do is?" but differ as to where to start and
what to consider:
1. Situa!on. Rela!vists say that rightness changes depending on
the individuals and culture involved.

2. Results. Consequen!alists believe that you should judge
rightness based on the predicted outcome.
U!litarianism is a type of consequen!alist perspec!ve.
3. Ac!ons. Deontologists judge the rightness purely on the ac!on
itself. Duty-based and rights-based
perspec!ves fall into this category.
4. Actors. In actor-oriented perspec!ves, the person or en!ty
making the decision—the ethical actor—
must decide what a virtuous person or en!ty would do, and
follow that path. The ethical actor may also
be called the agent.
Next, we'll learn more about each perspec!ve and its challenges
and benefits.
21. What is moral rela!vism?
Moral rela!vism rejects the view that there are universal and
never-changing ethical standards that can

always be used to judge whether ac!ons are right and wrong.
Instead, a moral rela!vist might argue that
ethical judgments are made within the context of a culture and
!me period. People in one culture or !me
period may judge an ac!on to be ethical; people in another
culture or !me period may judge the same
ac!on to be unethical.
Some moral rela!vists even reject the no!on that cultures
determine what is right and wrong. Instead, these
moral rela!vists argue that each individual must develop his or
her own standards for determining what is
ethical. These standards might be based on reason or on
intui!on, something like a gut feeling that an ac!on
is ethical.
People may be drawn to moral rela!vism because it appears to
be a tolerant view. They may feel that

adop!ng moral rela!vism will eliminate the conflicts that may
arise between people and cultures that reach
different conclusions about what is right or wrong.
22. What is the main weakness of moral rela!vism?
Moral rela!vism may be embraced by people who value
tolerance. However, you could argue that a moral
rela!vist who treats tolerance as something that is
unques!onably good has actually abandoned moral
rela!vism. Cri!cs of moral rela!vism some!mes ask this ques!on:
Is it logically possible to be a moral
rela!vist and to simultaneously behave as if tolerance is a
universal value?
Another apparent contradic!on may arise when an individual's
(or culture's) right to decide what is ethical
runs up against another individual's (or culture's) right to do the
same. This paradox can be illustrated by

looking at The Universal Declara!on of Human Rights (United
Na!ons, 1948). This document was approved
by the United Na!ons a#er World War II. Near its beginning, it
states that "All human beings are born free
Page 11 of
2/learn…ion-making-and-reasoning--ethical-reasoning-and-
ana.html?ou=584686
and equal in dignity and rights" (United Na!ons, 1948). With
this statement as a star!ng point, a number of
principles follow: a universal right to be safe from enslavement,
for example, or a universal right to
educa!on regardless of gender.

Taken as a whole, the Declara!on argues that people have
autonomy: the freedom to act in their own
interests.
However, if what is right is whatever a culture determines to be
right, then slavery is ethical in a slave-
owning society or household. If what is right is whatever an
individual determines to be right, then denying
a girl access to educa!on is ethical in a household whose head
believes it is inappropriate for girls to be
educated.
On the one hand, then, moral rela!vism does not impose value
systems on people. On the other hand, it
seems to grant humans autonomy—the freedom to act in one's
own interest—to people who would deny
that autonomy to other people.
23. What is universalism?

Imagine that there is one never-changing and universal set of
standard for deciding whether an ac!on is
ethical. That approach to judging behavior is
calleduniversalism. A person who follows this approach
believes that guidelines for judging behavior are not affected by
!me and culture. What is right is always
right, and what is wrong is always wrong—without excep!on
and everywhere in the world.
Consequen!alism and deontology are universalist ethical
theories.
24. What is consequen!alism?
Consequen!alists believe that an ac!on is right or wrong
depending on the results of the ac!on. The act
itself ma$ers less than whether the effects are posi!ve or
nega!ve. So for a consequen!alist, no type of act
is inherently wrong. The ethically right choice is the one that

has the best overall consequences.
In addi!on, the more good consequences that occur from an act,
the be$er or more ethical that act should
be judged.
25. What is u!litarianism?
U!litarianism is a specific type of consequen!alism that focuses
on the greatest good for the greatest
number. A#er you iden!fy your op!ons for ac!on, you ask who
will benefit and who will be harmed by
each. The ethical ac!on would be the one that caused the
greatest good for the most people, or the least
harm to the least number.
26. How does u!litarian reasoning operate?
Early u!litarian thinkers sought to "scien!ze" ethical decision-
making. They developed a "calculus"

comparable to a modern cost/benefit analysis. This calculus
weighed the consequences of an ac!on in
terms of its impact on all the sen!ent beings that might be
affected. Sen!ent beings feel pain or pleasure, so
the calculus could consider the effect an ac!on might have on
animals as well as humans.
The calculus took into account several factors, such as
the number of humans and animals that would benefit,
the number of humans and animals that would be harmed,
how intense any resul!ng pleasure would be,
Page 12 of

ana.html?ou=584686
how long any resul!ng pleasure might last,
how intense any resul!ng pain would be, and
how long any resul!ng pain might last.
While such a calculus for resolving ethical problems may seem
idealized, u!litarian thinking coincided with a
genuine desire to eliminate unnecessary suffering through
seeking to answer the ques!on," Which op!on
will serve the greater good?"
U!litarianism stressed equality and fights against self-interest
on the part of the ethical actor. As an
illustra!on, let's say you've volunteered to buy the paint for the
fence that you and your three bordering
neighbors share. The fence has to be painted one color: brown
or white. You prefer white but your

neighbors want brown. If you used a u!litarian approach, you
would buy brown paint because three
outnumbers one. Just because you are buying the paint does not
give you any more weight in the decision.
27. How has u!litarian reasoning been applied?
U!litarian thinking led to many reforms. It helped bring an end
to the mistreatment of animals, orphans, and
child laborers, as well as to the harsh treatment of adult
laborers, prisoners, the poor, and the mentally ill. It
provided arguments for abolishing slavery and for elimina!ng
inequali!es between the sexes. For John
Stuart Mill, one of the founders of the theory, both logic and
morality dictated that one person's happiness
should count as much as another person's happiness. This
principle was applied to people whether they
were wealthy or poor, powerful or weak.

Today few people think an ethical calculus can tell us exactly
how compe!ng interests should be weighed.
But the more general u!litarian approach to ethical reasoning is
s!ll immensely influen!al. The principle that
each person's happiness should be as important as any other
person's happiness requires a society to make
decisions in which the interests of all its members are
considered in a balanced, ra!onal fashion.
We can see u!litarianism in ac!on in many public health efforts.
For example, children in public schools are
required to receive certain vaccina!ons. This is mandatory
because of the results: keeping people healthy
and the greater good: individuals may object to the vaccina!ons,
but the law focuses on the greater good
for the greatest number.
28. What is the main weakness of u!litarianism?

The u!litarian principle says that people should act to promote
overall happiness, but this principle appears
to jus!fy using people in ways that do not respect the idea that
individual rights may not be violated. That
is, the u!litarian approach seems to imply that it would be
ethical to inflict pain on one person if that ac!on
results in a net increase in happiness.
Here is a classic ques!on that is posed to expose this poten!al
weakness in the u!litarian approach to
ethical reasoning: Why not kill and harvest the organs of one
healthy person in order to save five pa!ents
who will go on to live happy lives?
The philosopher William James argued that it would be a
"hideous… thing" if "millions [were] kept
permanently happy on the one simple condi!on that a certain
lost soul on the far-off edge of things should

lead a life of lonely torture," but that situa!on would seem
consistent with u!litarianism (James, 2000, pp.
244–245).
Page 13 of
ana.html?ou=584686
James's scenario inspired a short story by Ursula Le Guin,
"Those Who Walk Away from Omelas," in which
the happiness of a society depends upon the suffering of one
child. Some members of this society are
unable to live with this fact and "walk away from Omelas" (Le
Guin, 1973).
U!litarian's emphasis on consequences can also be a weakness.

That emphasis can lead to "all's well that
ends well" thinking, allowing people to jus!fy immoral acts if
the outcome is beneficial. One must also ask,
can we ever be sure of the consequences of our ac!ons? If we
take an ac!on that we expected would have
good consequences, but it ends up harming people, have we
behaved unethically regardless of our
inten!ons?
29. How do I apply u!litarianism in real life?
When faced with an ethical dilemma, ask yourself:
1. Which op!on would have be$er results?
2. Which op!on would further the greater good?
3. How can I maximize benefits for all involved?
4. How can I minimize suffering for all involved?

30. What is deontology?
Deontology is a universal ethical theory that considers whether
an ac!on itself is right or wrong.
Deontologists argue that you can never know what the results
will be so it doesn't make sense to decide
whether something is ethical based on outcomes. You can
consider it the opposite of consequen!alism and
u!litarianism in many ways.
Deontologists live in world of moral rules: It is wrong to steal.
It is right to keep promises.
Deontology is also concerned with inten!ons. If you intended
good through your ac!on, then the ac!on is
good, no ma$er what actually happened as a result.
Deontology encompasses two kinds of approaches: duty-based
and rights-based.
31. What is duty-based ethics?

Duty-based ethics says that there are universal moral norms or
rules, and it is essen!al that everyone
follows them. If you've ever said, "I did it because it was the
right thing to do," then you've employed duty-
based ethics.
Duty-based ethics maintains that you should follow an ethical
code without considering the consequences
of your ac!ons. If an act is by its nature right, you should
perform that act even if someone is harmed as a
result. If an act is by its nature wrong, you should not perform
that act even if someone might be helped. For
example, if by defini!on stealing is wrong, you do not steal. If
by defini!on lying is wrong, you do not lie.
When you think about du!es, think about obliga!ons that
individuals must accept in order for society to
work and be well. Your du!es and obliga!ons come from both

your personal and professional lives. If you
are a parent, you are obligated to take care of your children. If
you see someone in distress, you have a duty
as a human to try and help.
Page 14 of
ana.html?ou=584686
The du!es themselves may be !ed to professional roles, too.
Teachers have a duty to grade students fairly;
police officers have a duty to enforce the law; psychologists
have a duty to respect the confiden!ality of
their pa!ents. When you encounter codes of professional
conduct—either wri$en or unwri$en—likely you

are dealing with duty-based ethics.
32. What is rights-based ethics?
An outgrowth of duty-based ethics, rights-based ethics insists
that you need to respect individual's human
rights and never treat people as a means to an end.
A right is something you are en!tled to. In terms of ethics, it is
the treatment you should be able to expect
from other people. For example, under most ethical codes, as a
human you are en!tled—have a right—to
exist in safety.
Another way of sta!ng this idea is that you have a right not be
harmed by anyone. When the idea is put that
way, it is apparent that du!es and rights are closely related
concepts. You have a right to exist in safety,
which means that other people have a duty not to harm you.

Since du!es and rights are so closely related, a version of a
duty-based ethics can be created by iden!fying
the rights that someone has a duty to respect.
Rights-based ethics are built upon four claims. Rights are
"natural insofar as they are not invented or created by
governments;"
"universal insofar as they do not change from country to
country;"
"equal in the sense that rights are the same for all people,
irrespec!ve of gender, race, or handicap;"
and
"inalienable which means that I cannot hand over my rights to
another person, such as by selling myself
into slavery." (Fieser, n.d.)
A noteworthy example of an argument grounded in rights-based

ethics is found in the Declara!on of
Independence, where Thomas Jefferson states that humans are
"endowed by their Creator with certain
unalienable rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the
pursuit of Happiness" (Jefferson, 1776). By
drawing a$en!on to these rights, Jefferson provides the context
for a lengthy list of the ways in which
George III had not fulfilled his duty to uphold these rights.
Remember that deontology is a universal system, so that means
any rights that you claim you also have to
grant to all others. If you believe your family has a right to
drinking water, then this means everyone in the
world has that same right. If you believe that you have a right to
marry the person you choose, then so does
everyone else.
33. What is the appeal of deontology?

As we discussed in u!litarianism, a flaw with consequen!alist
thinking is that we can never really know what
the results of an ac!on will be. History is full of examples of
"unintended consequences." For example, in an
a$empt to raise standards and accountability in public schools,
high-stakes tes!ng became common. To
ensure that the tests were taken seriously, school districts held
teachers responsible for their students'
scores; teachers whose students did well would get raises, while
those who did poorly could be fired. The
proponents of this policy predicted that children's learning
would improve. It seemed to be working: in
Atlanta; students were showing extraordinary gains in the
yearly competency tests. Then an inves!ga!on by
the Atlanta Journal-Cons!tu!on revealed that teachers and
principals were correc!ng the answers provided

Page 15 of
ana.html?ou=584686
by students. This scandal rocked the Atlanta school system and
as of 2015, 11 teachers were convicted on
racketeering charges. This certainly is not what the high-stakes
tes!ng supporters had thought would
happen!
Because of such examples, deontologists disdain the uncertainty
of consequen!alist ethics. The future is
unpredictable; we should only make judgments on things we are
certain about. We know whether an ac!on
is inherently right or wrong as we're doing it.

Another good point about deontology is its emphasis on the
value of every human. While u!litarians
consider everyone equal, it's more of a numbers game. But a
deontologist insists that you treat everyone
with respect and give everyone the rights you expect to have
yourself. It works against our tendency to be
self-centered.
Finally, deontology gives credit for inten!ons and mo!va!ons.
You may do something for the very best
reasons and it could turn out nega!vely. Does that condemn your
ac!on as unethical? A deontologist would
say no. Accidents happen, results are uncertain, and you can't
be held responsible for the future.
34. What is the main weakness of duty and rights-based ethics?
Both duty and rights-based ethics are forms of universalism
because they rely on principles that must be

applied at all !mes to all people. Some people object that the
universalism of duty and rights-based ethics
make these theories too inflexible.
Both also rely on absolute principles regarding du!es and rights.
But there's no defini!ve list recorded
anywhere. One person might say parents have a right to spank
their children, but others will disagree. In the
case of duty-based ethics, people may object to the principle
that people deciding on a course of ac!on
should ignore the circumstances in which they and other
individuals find themselves. Duty ethics allows
li$le room for context. In Les Misérables, was Jean Valjean
wrong to steal bread to feed his starving sister's
children (Hugo, 1887)? Would it have been wrong to lie to a
Gestapo officer asking where Jews were hidden
or to slave-catchers in pursuit of runaways in the pre-war

South? Some would say that the answers depend
upon the circumstances and op!ons available to us, rather than
on it being the case that certain types of
ac!ons are always and necessarily wrong.
Duty-based ethics accepts as a principle that one should never
use another person merely as a means to
someone else's ends. So it would never be jus!fied to cause the
death of one to save several. But is that
ac!on always wrong, as a duty ethicist would argue? Socie!es
regularly sacrifice individuals. For example,
people are dra#ed into armies and regularly sent into ba$le,
even though it is certain that some of them will
die. Is it ethical for a government to dra# people and send them
into harm's way? Is this a case of trea!ng a
person as a means to an end?
We have seen that duty and rights-based ethics are "flip sides"

of the same coin. One theory emphasizes
how people should behave toward each another; the other
emphasizes that an individual should be
confident that her human rights will be acknowledged and
respected. So the above example could be
rewri$en from the perspec!ve of the rights-based approach. A
person has a right to be respected on her
own account rather than treated as a means to an end, yet we see
that socie!es regularly sacrifice their
members. The universalism of rights-based ethics does not
appear to allow for this societal choice.
35. How can I apply deontology in real life?
When confronted with an ethical dilemma, consider:
Which op!on is simply the right thing to do?

Page 16 of
ana.html?ou=584686
What du!es or obliga!ons do you need to consider?
Which op!on best respects the rights of all stakeholders?
Which op!on treats people fairly and equally?
Which op!on has the best mo!va!on or inten!on?
If applicable: Which op!on is supported by a professional code
of conduct?
36. What is virtue ethics?
Thinkers who embrace virtue ethics emphasize that the sort of
person we choose to be cons!tutes the
heart of our ethical being. If you want to behave virtuously,

become a virtuous person.
Certain traits—for instance, honesty, compassion, generosity,
courage—seem to be universally admired.
These strengths of character are virtues. To acquire these
virtues, follow the example of persons who
possess them. Once acquired, these virtues may be trusted to
guide our decisions about how to act, even in
difficult situa!ons. A person might think of a religious figure,
virtuous rela!ve, or even a favorite comic book
superhero, and use that person as a role model for how to
behave.
37. What is care ethics?
Care ethics, or "ethics of care" places significance on
rela!onships and humans' interdependency on each
other. It could be seen as related to virtue ethics because cari ng
is a type of virtue, and is universal because

the impulse to care is present in all human socie!es.
In care ethics, the ethical actor considers what op!on would be,
not just fair, but compassionate. Ethical
decisions may be made because of emo!onal connec!ons or
a$achments to others. Given a dilemma, you
may choose one op!on because your loved one is involved,
while another op!on may be more reasonable
to you when the people involved are strangers.
Care ethicists argue that all of us have been or w ill be in a
posi!on of needing care, of being vulnerable, at
various points in our lives. As such, society works best when we
take care of each other. Virtuous people
should want to help those who need help- not just to protect
human rights, but because we care.
In The Hunger Games, the main character Katniss uses care
ethics. When her younger sister, Prim, is

selected for the games and faces certain death, Katniss
volunteers to take Prim's place, not because she
thinks the games are wrong (deontology) , nor because she
thinks she'll win (u!litarianism) but because she
loves Prim and will do anything to protect her. During the
games, her feelings of care for Prim lead her to
also act to protect Rue, a fellow contestant who reminds her of
Prim (Collins, 2008).
38. How does virtue ethics operate?
Virtue ethicists think that the main ques!on in ethical reasoning
should be not" How should I now act?" but
"What kind of person do I want to be?" Developing virtues that
we admire in others and avoiding ac!ons
that we recognize as vicious develops our moral sensi!vity: our
awareness of how our ac!ons affect others.
Virtuous persons are able to empathize, to imagine themselves
in another person's shoes, and to look at an

issue from other people's perspec!ves.
Virtuous individuals are also thought to be able to draw upon
willpower not possessed by those who
compromise their moral principles in favor of fame, money, sex,
or power.
39. What kinds of ques!ons are asked by virtue ethics?
Page 17 of
ana.html?ou=584686
Virtue ethics focuses more on a person's approach to living than
on par!cular choices and ac!ons and so
has less to say about specific courses of ac!on or public

policies. Instead, this ethical approach posed
broader ques!ons such as these:
How should I live?
What is the good life?
Are ethical virtue and genuine happiness compa!ble?
What are proper family, civic, and cosmopolitan virtues?
Because of the broad nature of the ques!ons posed by virtue
ethics, ethicists some!mes disagree as to
whether this theory actually offers an alterna!ve to the u!litarian
and deontological approaches to ethical
reasoning. How does someone who follows virtue ethics
determine what the virtues are without applying
some yards!ck such as those provided by u!litarian and
deontological ethics?
U!litarianism and deontology are hard-universalist theories,

each claiming that one ethical principle is
binding on all people regardless of !me or place. Virtue ethics
does not make this claim. Those who favor
this theory may hold that certain virtues like compassion,
honesty, and integrity transcend !me and culture.
But they do not aim to iden!fy universal principles that can be
applied in all moral situa!ons. Instead they
accept that many things described as virtues and vices are
cultural and that some of our primary ethical
obliga!ons are based on our emo!onal rela!onships and what we
owe to people we care about. In the end,
though, virtue ethicists will always ask themselves, "What
would a good person do?"
40. How has virtue ethics been applied in the real world?
Someone employing virtue ethics will consider what ac!on will
most help her become a be$er person.

Virtue ethics arguments will discuss ideals as the mo!va!on for
ac!ng. In December 2014, Senator John
McCain delivered a floor statement to the US Senate,
condemning CIA interroga!on methods. He deplored
the use of torture by our country:
Torture's failure to serve its intended purpose isn't the main
reason to oppose its use. I have o#en said, and
will always maintain, that this ques!on isn't about our enemies;
it's about us. It's about who we were, who
we are and who we aspire to be. It's about how we represent
ourselves to the world. (McCain, 2014)
41. What is the main weakness of virtue ethics?
Virtue ethics may seem to avoid some of the apparent flaws of
duty-based ethics and of u!litarianism. A
person guided by virtue ethics would not be bound by strict
rules or the duty to abide by a state's legal

code. Presumably, then, an individual who has cul!vated a
compassionate personality consistent with virtue
ethics would not easily surrender a friend's hiding place in order
to avoid having to tell a lie, as would seem
to be required by duty ethics. Nor would a person guided by
virtue ethics be bound by the "tyranny of the
(happy) majority" that appears to be an aspect of u!litarianism.
On the other hand, some thinkers argue that virtue ethics
provides vague and ambiguous advice. Because of
its emphasis on the imprecise and highly contextual nature of
ethics, virtue ethics is o#en cri!cized as
insufficient as a guide to taking specific ac!on.
42. How can I apply virtue ethics in real life?
When confronted with an ethical dilemma, consider:
Which op!on would a good person choose?

Page 18 of
ana.html?ou=584686
Would I feel comfortable if everyone knew I'd made that
choice?
Which op!on shows care for those that are vulnerable?
What virtues and vices apply in this context?
What is the proper applica!on/ measure of virtues appropriate to
this choice?
43. How do these theories fit into my ethics toolbox?
The ethical theories described in this sec!on are powerful tools
that should be included in a cri!cal thinker's

"ethics toolbox." Perspec!ves rooted in ethical theories o#en
play very direct roles in ethical analysis. In
addi!on, such perspec!ves can help you develop you own ethics -
based arguments. Equip your ethics
toolbox with all of these tools: your ethical intui!ons and sense
your conscience; your awareness of cultural
tradi!ons; and the insights you can gain from psychological
studies and philosophical theories. These tools
allow people with even opposing perspec!ves on today's ethical
issues to debate each other courteously
and skillfully.
44. How do I use ethical reasoning to make decisions?
Making good ethical decisions takes prac!ce. Our ins!nct or
"gut" can draw us to selfish choices, so we
need to step back and think cri!cally about ethical dilemmas
rather than just jumping to our first solu!on.

We need to consider all the elements involved:
Who is affected?
Who is making the decision?
What are the known facts and circumstances?
How ethical are the possible ac!ons?
The framework below can help guide you through this process.
It is not a checklist of steps; rather, decision
making is an itera!ve process in which learning a new fact may
cause you to revise earlier thoughts on the
situa!on.
45. How do I recognize an ethical situa!on?
Iden!fying an ethical situa!onwill require you to research the
facts of a situa!on and to ask whether
stakeholders must consider ques!ons about the moral rightness
or wrongness of public policy or personal

behavior. To help you iden!fy and describe the nature of the
ethical issue, ask the following:
Does the situa!on require individuals to engage inethical
judgments? Do you find yourself thinking
about whether an ac!on is morally right or wrong or whether a
person's mo!ves are morally good or
bad? Could you debate what, morally, someone "should" or
"ought to" do in the situa!on?
Does the situa!on seem to pose an ethical conflic'or one or more
stakeholder? That is, does there
seem be a clash between what stakeholders "ought to do" and
what they "want to do"?
Does the situa!on pose anethical dilemmafor one or more
stakeholders? That is, does it seem as if
someone is pulled between compe!ng ethical demands, each
calling for behavior that would be ethical

but with one ac!on making it impossible to perform the other,
equally jus!fiable ac!on? Are there
values that are in conflict?
Page 19 of
ana.html?ou=584686
You also should consider whether anyprofessional codesare
relevant to the situa!on. O#en professional
codes spell out the ethical or moral obliga!ons of members of a
profession. Compare any relevant
professional code with the behavior of par!cipants in that
situa!on who may be bound by that code. Was
their behavior consistent with that code? Were there any

compe!ngnormsor codes of behavior that put
par!cipants in the midst of an ethical dilemma?
In an ethical situa!on, a difficult decision or mul!ple difficult
decisions will need to be made.
46. How do I iden!fy stakeholders?
Usually, any complex topic features mul!ple stakeholders:
people who have an interest in or are affected by
the outcome of decisions revolving around the situa!on. These
different par!es are not all affected in the
same way, and therefore, their perspec!ves on the topic will
differ. Review how to iden!fy stakeholders in
Core 101—Academic Argument Essay (Core Curriculum, 2016).
47. How do I iden!fy the different perspec!ves and posi!ons
held by stakeholders?
A stakeholder'sperspec!ve or posi!onis based upon the
stakeholder's rela!onship to the situa!on. That

rela!onship can be captured by asking ques!ons about power,
support, influence, and need in the context
of the situa!on that the stakeholder has an interest in.
Power—How much decision-making authority does the
stakeholder have over the situa!on?
Support—How strongly is the stakeholder for or against the
idea?
Influence—How much ability does the stakeholder have to
affect the decisions made by other people?
Need—For the stakeholder to benefit, what does she need to
have happen (or not happen) in the
situa!on?
Be sure to look for interests and perspec!ves that may be shared
by different stakeholders, and be certain
that you do not automa!cally side with the stakeholders who
have the most power and influence. If you

gravitate toward the par!es with the most power and influence,
you may end up ignoring the individuals or
groups with the most need, the ones who may be badly hurt by
an unethical decision.
48. How can I research stakeholder posi!ons?
When you research an issue, look beyond yes/no, pro/con
arguments in order to see the people involved in
the situa!on. Remember that o#en there are more than the
oversimplified "two sides," so be open to
iden!fying more than two stakeholders.
Make a list of the individuals and groups who affect or are
affected by the issue. Add to the list as your
research uncovers addi!onal aspects of the situa!on that bring in
addi!onal stakeholders.
Analyze the posi!ons held by each stakeholder, looking in-depth
at their involvement.Go to the Appendix

for a list of possible ques!ons to research (Core Curriculum,
"Appendix D—Core 202, 2016).
49. How do I iden!fy the ethical actor?
Within that set of stakeholders, iden!fy which is the one (or
ones) in a posi!on to take ac!on. It could be an
individual, a group, or an ins!tu!on. Those are the ethical
actors, who will exercise the decision related to
the ethical situa!on.
Page 20 of
ana.html?ou=584686
The ethical actor may be you, but it's also probable in this class

that you will research case studies of ethical
situa!ons in the wider world. In such assignments, focus your
a$en!on on the people and en!!es that can
and need to take ac!on in order for this situa!on to be resolved.
Avoid vic!m blaming—looking at
stakeholders and condemning them for ge(ng themselves into
the current situa!on, or trying to rewrite
history so that the situa!on wouldn't exist. Concentrate on the
facts of the case as they relate to the
decision making process.
50. How can I use cri!cal thinking in this process?
How can a person decide whether a certain act is ethical without
being influenced by his biases? The
though'ul development of criteriais one method to keep biases
from having an excessive influence on the
group's decision-making process. Criteria are carefully

considered, objec!ve principles that can be applied to
a situa!on in order to reach measured conclusions.
51. What are criteria?
Criteriaare the standards you apply to develop and evalua!on
whether a solu!on to a problem is "good" or
"right." People apply criteria to solve both ethical and
nonethical problems.
Criteria need to be specific and measurable in some fashion to
allow them to be used to judge whether a
solu!on is likely to successfully address a problem. See the
Appendix for more informa!on on criteria (Core
Curriculum, "Appendix D—Core 202, 2016).
52. How do I iden!fy possible ac!ons?
When you have iden!fied who can act and what criteria is
essen!al, you can now brainstorm op!ons for

ac!ons. You can use the major ethical perspec!ves to help you:
What ac!on would result in the best results?
What ac!on would respect stakeholders' rights?
What ac!on would respect the ethical actor's obliga!ons?
What ac!on would lead the ethical actor to being a virtuous
person or organiza!on?
What ac!on gives extra considera!on to those who are
vulnerable?
If this is a professional situa!on, you should also check to see if
there are any codes of conduct to consult.
If you think of other ac!ons, apply the different ethical
perspec!ves to them to see if they are ethical.
53. How do I evaluate the possible op!ons?
Some!mes all the theories point to the same ac!on, but usually
there are differences. At this point, you

need to consider the specific situa!on and the context of the
ethical actor. Which perspec!ve is most
appropriate given these circumstances?
For example, there is a limited amount of medica!on available
for a very infec!ous disease. How do you
decide who receives the medica!on?
If the ethical actor is a government official deciding on a
policy, one would probably turn to u!litarianism:
what would be the best result for the most number of people?
Page 21 of
ana.html?ou=584686

If the ethical actor is a physician, she may turn to deontology:
what are her professional obliga!ons?
If the ethical actor is the mother of a sick child, she may give
up her dose to save the baby.
54. How can mapping or diagrammi ng help me to examine the
consequences of decisions or posi!ons with
ethical consequences?
Like many ethical issues, the one you are examining may be
very complex, with factors that include
mul!ple stakeholders
mul!ple ethical actors
mul!ple ethical perspec!ves, and
mul!ple ac!ons
Because of the number of stakeholders, actors, perspec!ves, and
agents, you may be considering a large

number of op!ons. You will have to
formulate a full list of possible ac!ons, taking into account both
all the stake holders and all the ethical
perspec!ves;
examine each op!on to determine the benefits to various
stakeholders;
examine each op!on to determine the burdens and risks to
various stakeholders; and
evaluate the prac!cality, legality, and appropriateness of each
ac!on.
With so many factors and op!ons to consider, you may benefit
from mapping or diagramming the various
op!ons to keep track of the rela!onships between stakeholders,
agents, and perspec!ves, and each ac!on
and its impact.
55. What else should I consider before ac!ng?

You should do a cri!cal thinking check to make sure you are not
falling into any fallacious thinking or
ra!onaliza!ons to jus!fy an op!on that is selfish or otherwise
unethical. Would you be okay with your
decision being widely known and associated with you?
56. Am I done a#er ac!ng?
No. It's essen!al to examine how the decision turned out and
consider what lessons you may have learned
from it.
57. Do people really do all this when making ethical decisions?
In an ideal world, yes! You may recall from previous experience
that cri!cal thinking is a learned skill. Ethical
decision making builds on that pla'orm. At first, it probably
seems clunky and ar!ficial, but with prac!ce
you begin to internalize the analysis. Over !me, you move away

from ins!nctual, gut-level thinking to a
using a more cri!cal lens. We can, unfortunately, find plenty
examples of ethical decision making gone bad
(aka ethical viola!ons). In 2001, GM discovered there was a
defect in its Saturn Ion's igni!on switch, but
released the new car model without fixing it. Over the next 12
years, GM engineers alerted the company
that many of the models had the same defect, but GM execu!ves
decided it would be too expensive to fix
the problem. It wasn't un!l 2014 that GM admi$ed that the
faulty switch was the cause of 31 crashes and
at least 13 deaths, and recalled over 1 million vehicles. An
inves!ga!on revealed that GM "made a business
decision not to fix this problem" (Basu, 2014).

Page 22 of
ana.html?ou=584686
For a posi!ve example of ethical decision making, listen to or
read the transcript of the On The
Media interview with a newspaper editor who published the
names of high schoolers who were using
Twi$er to bully classmates. See if you can iden!fy the different
aspects of ethical decision making from the
editor (Garfield & DeRienzo, 2013).
References
Anand, V., Ashforth, B. E., & Joshi, M. (2004). Business as
usual: The acceptance and perpetua!on of
corrup!on in organiza!ons. Academy of Management Execu!ve,
18(2).

h$p://actoolkit.unprme.org/wp-
content/resourcepdf/anand_et_al._ame_2004.pdf
Basu, T. (2014, March 31). Timeline: A history of GM's igni!on
switch defect. In NPR, Business. WAMU.
h$p://www.npr.org/2014/03/31/297158876/!meline-a-history-of-
gms-igni!on-switch-defect
Collins, S. (2008). The hunger games. Scholas!c.
h$ps://books.google.com/books?isbn=0439023521
Core Curriculum. (2016). Appendix D—Core 202. Radford
University core handbook.
h$ps://lcubbison.pressbooks.com/back-ma$er/appendix-d-core-
202/
Core Curriculum. (2016). Core 101—Academic Argument
Essay. Radford University core handbook.
h$ps://lcubbison.pressbooks.com/chapter/core-101-academic-
argument-essay/#101_AA_obj_3_3

Core Curriculum. (2016). Core 201—The Logical Structure of
Arguments. Radford University core handbook.
h$ps://lcubbison.pressbooks.com/chapter/core-201-logical-
structure-arguments/#201aaf
Fieser, J. (n.d.). Ethics. Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
h$p://www.iep.utm.edu/ethics/
Garfield, B., and DeRienzo, M. (2013, March 22). The iden!ty
of minors. In WNYC Studios, On The Media.
WNYC. h$p://www.wnyc.org/story/277595-iden!ty-minors/
Hugo, V. (1887). Les misérables. (I. F. Hapgood, Trans.).
Thomas Y. Crowell & Co. (Original work published
1862) h$p://www.gutenberg.org/files/135/135-h/135-h.htm
James, W. (2000). In G. B. Gunn (Ed.), Pragma!sm and other
wri!ngs (pp. 244–245). Penguin.
h$ps://books.google.com/books?isbn=0140437355
Jefferson, T. (1776). Declara!on of independence.

h$p://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/declara!on_transcript.
html
Le Guin, U. (1973). The ones who walk away from Omelas.
h$p://engl210-
deykute.wikispaces.umb.edu/file/view/omelas.pdf
Livingston, B. (2011, May 30). Jim Tressel resigns at Ohio
State having paid the price for his sins of
omission. Cleveland.com.
h$p://www.cleveland.com/livingston/index.ssf/2011/05/jim_tres
sel_leaves_ohio_state.html
McCain, J. (2014, December 9). Floor statement by Senator
John McCain on Senate Intelligence Commi$ee
report on CIA interroga!on methods. John McCain, U.S.
Senator–Arizona website.
h$p://www.mccain.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/2014/12/floor -
statement-by-sen-mccain-on-

senate-intelligence-commi$ee-report-on-cia-interroga!on-
methods
Sartre, J. (1946). Existen!alism is a humanism. [Lecture].
h$ps://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/sartre/works/exist/sa
rtre.htm
Page 23 of
ana.html?ou=584686
United Na!ons. (1948). The universal declara!on of human
rights. h$p://www.un.org/en/universal-
declara!on-human-rights/index.html
Licenses and A$ribu!ons

Core 202 - Ethical Reasoning and Analysis
(h$ps://lcubbison.pressbooks.com/chapter/core-202-ethical-
reasoning/) from Radford University Core Handbook comprises
public domain material in the United
States. UMGC has modified this work.
© 2021 University of Maryland Global Campus
All links to external sites were verified at the !me of
publica!on. UMGC is not responsible for the validity or
integrity of informa!on located at
external sites.
https://lcubbison.pressbooks.com/chapter/core-202-ethical-
reasoning/
6/8/21, 9:41 PMProblem Analysis
Page 1 of

1https://leocontent.umgc.edu/conte nt/umuc/tgs/pro/pro600/2212
/learning-topic-list/problem-analysis.html?ou=584686
Problem Analysis
Problem analysis involves framing the issue by defining its
boundaries, establishing criteria with which to
select from alterna!ves, and developing conclusions based on
available informa!on. Analyzing a problem
may not result in a decision, although the results are an
important ingredient in all decision making.
Another way to consider problem analysis is a process that
includes iden!fying and defining the problem,
gathering informa!on about the problem, and deciding if one or
a group will begin work to solve the
problem. A decision to solve the problem leads to analysis of
the problem, in this model, asking the what,
why, how, and other basic ques!ons. From this point, the group
can re-visit the decision to solve and refine

any issues (risk, cost, feasibility, for example.)
References
Defining decision making. (n.d.). Boundless Management.
Retrieved from
h"ps://www.boundless.com/management/textbooks/boundless-
management-textbook/decision-
making-10/decision-making-in-management-75/defining-
decision-making-366-3930/
Nagy, J. (n.d.). Defining and analyzing the problem. Community
Toolbox. Retrieved from
h"p://ctb.ku.edu/en/table-of-contents/analyze/analyze-
community-problems-and-solu!ons/define-
analyze-problem/main
Problem Analysis: Defining Decision Making
(/content/umuc/tgs/pro/pro600/2212/learning-resource-

list/problem-analysis--
defining-decision-making.html?ou=584686)
Problem Analysis: System Analysis (/content/dam/course-
content/tgs/dcl/dcl-
600/document/SystemsAnalysis_checked.pdf?ou=584686)
external sites.
Learning Topic
Resources
https://leocontent.umgc.edu/content/umuc/tgs/pro/pro600/2212/l
earning-resource-list/problem-analysis--defining-decision-
making.html?ou=584686
https://leocontent.umgc.edu/content/dam/course-

content/tgs/dcl/dcl-
600/document/SystemsAnalysis_checked.pdf?ou=584686
6/8/21, 9:20 PMTrouble in the Truss Construction Shop
Page 1 of
/course-resource-list/trouble-in-the-truss-shop.html?ou=584686
Trouble in the Truss Construc!on Shop
Two weeks ago, during a quality assurance load test, the truss
being tested fragmented along its horizontal
axis and splintered, causing a large piece of the truss to break
apart and fall on a crane operator who was
helping to conduct the test. The crane operator sustained head
injuries and is in cri!cal but stable condi!on
at a local hospital. This accident sent shock waves through the
Truss Construc!on Enterprise division

because the company has heavily invested in a new engineering
and manufacturing process to produce a
cost-effec!ve truss for new homes. This process and its trusses
have been touted to be on the cu#ng edge
of construc!on technology, especially for low-cost housing in
overseas markets.
The company safety officer, QA manager, and engineer have
signed statements that the test being
conducted pushed the load tes!ng slightly beyond the high
threshold of acceptable load bearing, though the
extra load was not expected to cause the truss to fail. In fact,
the trusses were adver!sed to meet "high
commercial load" requirements.
Employees in the engineering shop have been asking if the
manufacturing or engineering process is flawed
and if the trusses that they are building could fail at even lower
loads. Company memos have focused on

produc!on and on con!nuing the tes!ng at lower thresholds.
Produc!on managers are direc!ng employees
to con!nue the current produc!on schedule to meet orders for the
trusses.
The sales department is keeping an eye on the situa!on. They
are concerned that if there is any delay in
shipping, customers will pull their orders, which would be
disastrous for revenues.
Obinna Faruch, a produc!on line worker, leaked the details of
the accident and test thresholds to the press.
Two weeks later, she was terminated for documented poor
performance, according to managers.
The company public rela!ons department has issued a general
statement that the company has taken all
ac!on to ensure that this type of workplace accident would not
happen again. They are planning a campaign

to communicate the facts of the accident and what the company
is doing to ensure a safe working
environment.
Sales is asking PR to monitor social media for nega!ve
comments and to prepare a similar statement about
the quality and safety of the truss product line in case it is
needed.
external sites.
Course Resource
6/10/21, 6:47 AMCritical Thinking and Analysis

of
/learning-topic-list/critical-thinking-and-
analysis.html?ou=584686
Cri!cal Thinking and Analysis
First, let’s consider what it means to engage in cri!cal thinking.
While the applica!on of cri!cal thinking may
vary across disciplines, the steps are universal. Adapted from
the wri!ngs of Bassham, Irwin, Nardone, and
Wallace (2011), Lau (2011), and Lau and Chan (2015), cri!cal
thinking involves thinking clearly and
systema!cally, and includes:
formula!ng ideas succinctly and precisely
iden!fying the relevance and importance of ideas
understanding the logical connec!ons between ideas

iden!fying, construc!ng, and evalua!ng arguments, claims, and
evidence
recognizing explicit and implicit assump!ons, arguments, and
biases
detec!ng inconsistencies and common mistakes in reasoning
formula!ng clear defensible ideas and conclusions
evalua!ng the pros and cons of decisions
reflec!ng on one’s own beliefs and values
applying ethical decision making
References
Bassham, G., Irwin, W., Nardone, H., & Wallace, J. (2011).
Cri!cal thinking: A student's introduc!on. (4th ed.)
New York, NY: The McGraw Hill Companies.
Lau, J. (2011). An introduc!on to cri!cal thinking and crea!vity:
Think more, think be"er. Hoboken, NJ:

John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Lau, J., & Chan, J. (2015). What is cri!cal thinking? Retrieved
from h"p://philosophy.hku.hk/think/cri!cal/ct.ph
Resources
Cri!cal Thinking: What It Is and Why It Counts
(/content/dam/course-content/tgs/pro/pro-
600/document/Cri!calThinking_WhatItIsandWhyItCounts_check
ed.pdf?ou=584686)
Moving Beyond Biases and Stereotypes: The Cri!cal Stance
(/content/dam/course-
content/tgs/pro/pro-
600/document/movingBeyondOLR_checked.pdf?ou=584686)
Learning Topic
https://leocontent.umgc.edu/content/dam/course-
content/tgs/pro/pro-

CRITICAL THINKING

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to CRITICAL THINKING

Similar to CRITICAL THINKING (20)

More from MargenePurnell14

More from MargenePurnell14 (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

CRITICAL THINKING