What is involved in making a responsible moral decision, and what have philosophers recommended to improve the quality of our decisions? Comparing themselves to scientists seeking universal laws of nature or mathematics, philosophers have tried to argue that one decision-making program or another can guide us to a responsible decision in all situations in the way that a theorem of geometry guides us to the truth about all examples of a triangle. Utilitarians claim that every responsible decision must involve considering and choosing the greatest benefit to the greatest number of persons affected by the action. Deontologists believe that every decision must abide by universal truths about behavior. They also believe that the nature of human beings obligates us to certain actions. The Egoist school believes that a moral person must seek satisfaction of his own interests. Our careers in business and the military place us in contact with persons who advocate one of these three perspectives exclusively.
But none of these decision models is complete in itself. Responsible moral decision requires that we mix these three types of decision processes together in a subjective and objective effort. It requires that each one of these tools be used in varying degrees to achieve a responsible moral decision. This is the first rule of engagement for moral decision. Used in consort, the three decision models align our thoughts to the logic of language which instinctively binds our consciences. These decision making tools also improve timeliness of decision by focusing attention on relevant facts and circumstances surrounding a moral decision. Time required and means available to gather the critical facts becomes a defensible standard of promptness for decision making, helping us to resist mere prodding for expediency. This leads us to the second rule of engagement: resist the influence of arbitrary pressure to decide and act. Be guided by the complexity of facts revealed as important to a decision.
The famous business ethics case, "Why Should my Conscience Bother Me?" tells of circumstances surrounding the B.F. Goodrich Company's design and testing of a brake for a military aircraft. Managers and designers assigned to the project suffer progressive loss of integrity as the project proceeds and pressures increase. Under the pressure of "success at all costs" their moral judgment becomes compartmentalized, incomplete, expedient and inaccurate. They evaluate circumstances using one decision model singly. They ignore obvious facts of which they have complete command. Their moral decisions become so corrupted that they ultimately deliver for testing a brake system which they already know cannot stop the test aircraft, causing a near crash. Ironically, their decisions defeat the very aims of success they hoped to achieve by means of moral shortcuts! A third rule of engagement is to recover the integrity of decision making as early as possible.
Moral reasoning is and will always be a complex and imperfect process. Our
moral decisions necessarily suffer from unforeseen circumstances, incomplete
information, and situations beyond our experience. And even responsible moral
decisions can yield tragic outcomes. However, unforeseen outcomes and lack of
experience are almost always more forgivable than bowing to pressure by willfully
or ignorantly applying incomplete reasoning which corrupts the very structure
of moral decision at its origin.
[Home] [Latvia Main Menu] [Paper Titles, Abstracts & Texts] [Program] [Administration]