ETHICS 101

A COMMON ETHICS LANGUAGE

FOR DIALOGUE

Compiled by the Ethics

Across the Curricula Committee

DePaul University
Institute for Business & Professional Ethics
1 E. Jackson Blvd, Ste 7000
Chicago, IL  60604
http://commerce.depaul.edu/ethics

bf 208592
 ETHICS 101
A COMMON ETHICS LANGUAGE
FOR DIALOGUE

Compiled by the Ethics

Across the Curricula Committee

Chaired by Patricia Werhane, Director, Institute for Business & Professional

Ethics, DePaul University. A subcommittee of the Ethics Across the Curricula
Committee created this document. The members include: Andrew Gold,
Professor, College of Law; Laura Hartman, AVP & Professor of Business
Ethics, Department of Management; Karyn Holm, Professor, Department
of Nursing; Scott Paeth, Asst. Professor, Religious Studies Department;
Charles Strain, Associate Vice President of Academic Affairs; Marco Tavanti,
Asst. Professor, Public Services Graduate Program; David Wellman, Asst.
Professor, Religious Studies Department. This guide draws from various
resources prepared by others including copyrighted materials reprinted
with the permission of the Markkula Center for a Applied Ethics at Santa
Clara University (www.scu.edu/ethics), from Larry Hinman, Ethics: A
Pluralistic Approach to Moral Theory, 3rd edition (Belmont CA: Thomson
Learning, 2003), from Marco Tavanti, “Thinking Ethically” (unpublished),
David Ozar, “A Model for Ethical Decision-Making.” (unpublished).
©2007 IBPE. All Rights Reserved
Ethics Across
The Curricula At Depaul
A Common Ethics Language For Dialogue

As part of DePaul’s VISION twenty12, in particular Objective

1e: “Provide opportunities for all students to learn ethical
systems and demonstrate ethical practice,” and in response
to the ever-increasing demand for more ethical behavior on
the part of business, the professions, in politics, and in public
life, the Institute for Business and Professional Ethics
has been given the opportunity to coordinate, encourage,
and enable the teaching of ethics across the curricula
at DePaul, in every discipline and every school. This is not
a mandate to require ethics modules in every course,
and how ethics is presented in each discipline will, of course,
be quite different, depending on the area of study and focus.
Thus we have titled this initiative, Ethics Across the Curricula.

Part of this initiative is to develop a common glossary or

language for talking about ethics at DePaul, and to share
some commonly used tools in thinking about and teaching
ethics in various disciplines. This is a a living document.
We encourage all faculty to discuss, critique, and amend
this initial formulation.
 Table of Contents

Introduction
DePaul/Vincentian values as the
core unity in a diverse university 1

Part I
Can Ethics be Taught to Adults? 3

Part II
What Ethics is Not 4

Part III
Basic Distinctions 5

Part IV
Traditions of Ethical Reasoning 8

Part IV
Suggested Models for Critical
Ethcal Reasoning
and Decision-Making 13

Glossary of
Commonly Used Terms 18

Appendix I
What do we expect from
our courses and our students? 23

Appendix II
The complete
Hermeneutical Circle 25
 Introduction

DePaul University is a diverse institu- By reason of its Catholic character, DePaul Motivated by the example of St. Vincent, Because of these shared commitments,
tion. Its student body, administration, strives to bring the light of Catholic faith who instilled a love of God by leading his the University Committee on Ethics
and faculty come from all parts of the and the treasures of knowledge into a mutu- contemporaries in serving urgent human Across the Curricula, mandated by Vision
ally challenging and supportive relationship. needs, the DePaul community is above
world and from a number of religious Twenty12, is trying to bring together
It accepts as its corporate responsibility all characterized by ennobling the God-given
and ethnic communities. What unifies to remain faithful to the Catholic message dignity of each person. This religious person-
the diverse communities at DePaul, not
DePaul is its commitment to Vincentian drawn from authentic religious sources both alism is manifested by the members of the through an edict but rather with an
values. These values derive from the traditional and contemporary. In particular, DePaul community in a sensitivity to and aim to develop a common vocabulary with
teachings and practices of St. Vincent it encourages theological learning and care for the needs of each other and of those which we can all talk about ethics in
de Paul. These are core values, that scholarship; in all academic disciplines it ser ved, with a special concern for the our classes and student dialogues. We
is, global, shared commitments of all endorses critical moral thinking and scholar- deprived members of society. DePaul Univer- recognize that each school or depart-
ship founded on moral principles which sity emphasizes the development of a full
communities at DePaul. ment at DePaul may have its own shared
embody religious values and the highest range of human capabilities and appreciation
mission and common vision for its
The distinguishing marks of DePaul’s ideals of our society. of higher education as a means to engage
endeavors. Thus, we are not seeking
mission are clearly stated on its web site: On the personal level, DePaul respects the
cultural, social, religious, and ethical values
in service to others. absolute agreement, but rather consensus
religiously pluralistic composition of its mem-
on a common dialogue that we can
bers and endorses the interplay of diverse As an urban university, DePaul is deeply
value systems beneficial to intellectual inquiry. involved in the life of a community which is share in teaching ethics. This is the first
Academic freedom is guaranteed both as rapidly becoming global, and is intercon- effort at this enterprise. As such, this is a
an integral part of the university’s scholarly nected with it. DePaul both draws from the working and living document upon which
and religious heritage, and as an essential cultural and professional riches of this we can build a common vocabulary, to
condition of effective inquiry and instruction. community and responds to its needs through which we invite faculty input and critique.
educational and public service programs,
The university derives its title and fundamental
by providing leadership in various professions,
mission from St. Vincent de Paul, the
the performing arts, and civic endeavors
founder of the Congregation of the Mission,
and in assisting the community in finding
a religious community whose members,
solutions to its problems.
Vincentians, established and continue to
(www.depaul.edu/about/mission/,
sponsor DePaul.
accessed March 5, 2007)

 
 Part I: Can Ethics Be Taught to Adults Part II: What Ethics Is Not

The issue is an old one. Almost 2500 years development. One of the most crucial • Ethics is not the same as feelings. • Ethics is not merely following cultur-
ago, the philosopher Socrates debated factors, [Lawrence] Kohlberg found, Feelings provide important information ally accepted norms. Some cultures
the question with his fellow Athenians. is education. Kohlberg discovered that for our ethical choices. Some people are quite ethical, but others become
Socrates’ position was clear: Ethics consists when his subjects took courses in ethics have highly developed habits that make corrupt-or blind-to certain ethical
of knowing what we ought and these courses chal- them feel bad when concerns (as the United
to do, and such knowl- lenged them to look at they do something States was to slavery
edge can be taught. Most … a common issues from a universal wrong, but many Ethics consists of before the Civil War).
psychologists today would vocabulary with point of view, they people feel good even knowing what we “When in Rome, do as
agree with Socrates. In an which we can all tended to move upward though they are doing ought to do… the Romans do” is not
overview of contempo- through the levels. This something wrong. a satisfactory ethical
rary research in the field
talk about ethics… finding, as [James] Rest And often our feel- standard. On the other
of moral development, points out, has been ings will tell us it is hand, it is advisable
psychologist James Rest repeatedly supported uncomfortable to do the right thing if to also be aware of and sensitive to
summarized the major findings as follows: by other researchers. (Velasquez, Andre, it is hard. cultural norms when entering another’s
Shanks, S.J., and Meyer, 1987 from the environment. Some theorists would
• Dramatic changes occur in young adults • Ethics is not merely religion, although
Markkula Center) contend that, as long as those norms
in their 20s and 30s, in terms of the most if not all religions present a set
do not violate one’s own fundamental
basic problem-solving strategies they James Rest’s model outline for teaching of ethical standards. Many people are
principles, imposing one’s own stan-
use to deal with ethical issues. ethics to adults is the following: not religious, but ethics applies to
dards on other’s cultures may cross
everyone. Most religions do advocate
• These changes are linked to fundamen- • Raise ethical issues through case underlying principles of autonomy
high ethical standards but sometimes
tal changes in how a person perceives studies [Adults relate and remember and dignity.
do not address all the types of problems
society and his or her role in society. particulars and generalize from
we face. • Ethics is not identified with science.
them rather than the reverse.]
• The extent to which change occurs Social and natural science can provide
• Ethics is not merely following the law.
is associated with the number of • Develop and teach a process of important data to help us make better
A good system of law does incorporate
years of formal education (college or reasoning—a decision model that ethical choices. But science alone
many ethical standards, but law can
professional school). can be used with the examples. does not tell us what we ought to do.
deviate from what is ethical. Law
• Deliberate educational attempts • Develop moral imagination. Science may provide an explanation
can become ethically corrupt, as some
(formal curriculum) to influence for what humans are like. But ethics
• Engage in iterative practices of totalitarian regimes have made it.
awareness of moral problems and to provides reasons for how humans
applying the reasoning process to Law can be a function of power alone
influence the reasoning or judgment ought to act. And just because some-
particular situations. and designed to serve the interests of
process have been demonstrated thing is scientifically or technologically
narrow groups. Law may have a difficult
to be effective. • As a teacher, also be a role model for possible, it may not be ethical to do it.
time designing or enforcing standards
what you teach. (Markkula Center, 2007)
• Studies indicate that a person's behavior in some important areas, and may be
is influenced by his or her moral • If possible, provide internships so that slow to address new problems.
perception and moral judgments. students can “practice” before getting
real jobs.
Many factors can stimulate a person's
growth through the three levels of moral James Rest’s [optimistic] conclusion:
Behavior can be changed! (Rest, 1998)
 
 Part III: Basic Distinctions

Values Value System Morality Moral Codes

“Value System” refers to how an Moral codes are often complex definitions
The term “value” implies the (conscious) “Morality” refers to the beliefs and prac-
individual or a group of individuals of right and wrong that are based upon
prioritizing of different behavioral tices about good and evil by means of
organize their ethical or ideological well-defined value systems. They dictate
alternatives or standards which we guide our behavior. Ethics,
values. These may proper personal conduct. Although some
that are perceived to be in contrast, is the reflective consideration
simply be values that people might think of moral codes as
possible, worthwhile, and evaluation of our moral beliefs
Ethics is the reflec- emerge from, or are simple and “universal”, they are often
or esteemed for the indi- and practices.
vidual, an institution or tive consideration built into, a culture or controversial due to one’s religious and
a nation. Thus values can of our moral beliefs religious system. Or Common Morality or cultural values. Sometimes, moral
values may be standards Common Sense Morality codes give way to legal codes, which
be espoused and apply to and practices. or principles developed couple penalties or corrective actions
groups (such as ‘American “The moral system that thoughtful
or created by individuals people use, usually implicitly, when with particular practices. Examples of
values’) or to individuals.
or organizations. A well- they make moral decisions and judg- moral codes include the Golden Rule;
For example, religious values are both
defined value system is a moral code. ments.” (Gert, 2004, 2) One form the Noble Eightfold Path of Buddhism;
group-related and individually espoused.
One or more people can hold a value of these may be thought of as negative the ten commandments of Judaism,
Values can function both as processes
system. A communal value system is held moral minimums: Christianity, and Islam (please refer to the
and goals. For example, democracy is
by and applied to a community/group/ Moral Codes document available on
both a process, and a goal. Values can • Do not kill
society. Some communal value systems Blackboard for additional information).
be instrumental, that is, what is thought
may take the form of legal codes or • Do not cause pain
to be worthwhile in achieving other
law. A value system may consist of three • Do not disable
Ethics
things. But ordinarily values are thought
value cate-gories: 1) Core Values, which The explicit reflection on and evaluation
to be intrinsic, that is, those behaviors, • Do not deprive of freedom
prescribe the attitude and character of of moral beliefs and practices. The differ-
standards, and principles that we find
an individual, a religion, an organization • Do not deprive of pleasure ence between ethics and morality is
worthwhile, worth defending, and
or a system, 2) Protected Values, those similar to the difference between musi-
worthy of our esteem for their own sakes. • Do not deceive
protected through rules, accreditations, cology and music. Ethics is a conscious
For example, often we hold liberty to
standards and certifications, and/or • Keep your promises stepping back and reflecting on morality,
be a value worth defending for its own
3) Created Values, the values that we • Do not cheat just as musicology is a conscious reflection
sake, whether or not defending liberty
develop and expect from each other, on music.
produces positive consequences in every
from groups, or the organizations or
instance. Values also function teleologically
political systems to which we belong. Ethical Codes
as ends or purposes of human activities,
usually some form of human well-being Ethical codes also referred as “codes of
or flourishing. (Hollar, 1997, 592) conduct,” are usually codes adopted by
Each individual has certain underlying a profession, an organization or by a
values that contribute to their value governmental or quasi-governmental
system. Integrity in the application of a organ to regulate the behavior of those
“value” ensures its continuity and this working in the organization or those who
continuity separates a value from beliefs, are members of that profession. Some
opinion and ideas. codes of ethics are promulgated by the
(quasi-)governmental agency responsible
 
 Part IV: Traditions of Ethical Reasoning

for licensing a profession. Violations of • Descriptive ethics: factual descriptions Vincentian Ethics Principle of Solidarity
these codes may be subject to administra- and explanations of moral behavior Vincent’s preferential and evangelical
tive (e.g., loss of license), civil or penal and beliefs. The “Four - S” Vincentian option for the poor is both a human-
remedies, or simply the loss of member- Ethics Principles istic and faith based perspective. For
• Professional ethics: an inquiry
ship in the organization. Other codes Vincent, the poor are
into professional conduct. It is part St. Vincent de Paul
are merely advisory and there are no “our lords and masters”
of applied ethics but considers
prescribed remedies for violations (1581–1660) is well There are various and they are “the place
professional codes and obligations. known for his contribu-
or even procedures for determining Professional ethics deal with issues approaches and where we meet Christ
whether a violation even occurred. tion to charitable and
of ethical conduct within the profes- traditions to and find salvation.” In
social causes. He did not other words, the first
The subject matter of ethics is often sion and how these codes of conduct specifically write about ethical thinking
further articulated in terms of: relate to the greater goals of society. Vincentian ethical
his ethics and leadership principle suggests that
• Meta-ethics: the study of ethics, practices. However, by active local/international
values, and belief systems; examining his writings, life examples solidarity for poverty reduction is a must
and commitment to the poor, it is for Vincentian leaders. This principle is
• Normative ethics: the formulation of
possible to frame a Vincentian ethics closely related to the Vincentian leadership
prescriptions and proscriptions about
for personal and organizational service- orientation identified as “SERVICE.”
what we ought and ought not to do,
oriented leadership. The competencies,
all things considered;
values and leadership models that Principle of Synchronicity
• Practical or applied ethics: the emerged from the research of the Vincent knew that organized charity
normative practice of ethics in William and Mary Pat Gannon Hay– would not be effective unless diverse
particular disciplines, professions, Vincent de Paul Leadership Project people, organizations and institutions
or organizations; (DLP) provide a basis for the formulation work in partnerships and collaborations.
• Social ethics: “assumes that human of a Vincentian ethical paradigm The effectiveness, quality and sustain-
activity has both individual and social embedded in Catholic social teaching ability of the services delivered depend on
dimensions and that both are part of that includes a preferential option for the leader’s vision and faith in the divine
ethics…. In Judeo-Christian ethics the the poor, a particular attention to the providence and on his/her innovative
term implies a critical reflection on person, and the creation and manage- strategies to engage people to collaborate
social and political aspects of morality ment of sustainable and effective toward the same mission. This principle is
as opposed to strictly personal or organizations oriented toward service closely related to the Vincentian leadership
interpersonal aspects.” and social change. Building on previous orientation identified as “MISSION.”
(Hollar, 1997, 590-1) studies in this field, (Bowes, 1998,
Mousin, 2005, Rybolt, 2005, Tavanti,
2006,) we can summarize the ethical
paradigm inspired by St. Vincent
de Paul into the 4S Principles for
Vincentian Ethics:

 
 Principle of Subsidiarity Principle of Sustainability Virtue Approach • Kant’s second principle states, in
Vincent’s emphasis on the dignity of the Vincent committed his life not only to • Focuses on attitudes, dispositions, or addition to the first: “Act in such a
human individual transpires from many serving the poor directly, but also character traits that enable us to be way that you treat every human
examples of his personal dedication to to creating and managing capable and and to act in ways that develop our being as an end, not as a means.”
the poor and his managerial style. Central sustained institutions at the service human potential.
Rights Approach
leadership authority in organizations of the poor. The institutionalization and • Examples: honesty, courage, faithfulness, • Identifies certain interests or activities
should have a subsidiary function, sustainability of a project are therefore trustworthiness, integrity, etc. that our behavior must respect, espe-
performing only those tasks which cannot essential and integral elements in Vincen-
• The principle states: “What is ethical cially those areas of our lives that are of
be performed effectively at a more imme- tian leadership ethics. Vincent’s phrase,
is that which develops moral virtues such value to us that they merit
diate or local level. In terms of “positive “It is not enough to do good, it must be
in ourselves and in our communities.” protection from others.
subsidiarity,” institutions are ethically done well” translates here as “It is not
called to create the social conditions enough to develop servant leaders unless • The principle states: Each person has a
Utilitarian Approach
necessary to the full development of the we also engage in the development of fundamental right to be respected and
• Focuses on the consequences that
individual, such as the right to work, servant structures.” Sustainability refers treated as a free and equal rational
actions or policies have on the well-
decent housing, health care, etc. This to personal and organizational commit- person capable of making his or her
being (“utility”) of all persons who are
principle, summarizes Vincent’s firm ment to provide the best outcomes for own decisions.
directly or indirectly affected by the
conviction that organizations, including the human and natural environments
action or policy. • This implies other rights (e.g., privacy
the Catholic Church, should be at the both for immediate and future needs. free consent, freedom of conscience,
service of the human person. In Catholic This principle is closely related to the • The principle states: “Of any two
etc.) that must be protected if a person
Social Teaching, ‘subsidiarity’ sometimes Vincentian leadership orientation actions, the most ethical one will
is to have the freedom to direct his
refers to decentralizing decision-making identified as “TASKS.” produce the greatest balance of benefits
or her own life.
authority and responsibility to subsidiary over harms for the greatest number.”
groups whenever this serves the common Classical Ethics Traditions • This also implies that each of has
Deontological Approach duties to respect, equally, the rights of
good. In a more secular modern context, There are various classical approaches to
it is connected with concepts of participa- ethical thinking in leadership practices • Often identified with Immanuel Kant, everyone else.
tory democracy and limited government. and decision making. These have both the focus is on one’s duties and uncon-
• Tom Donaldson frames common
At DePaul University, the concept often secular and religious roots. Each is to ditional obligations. For Kant, there
morality internationally in terms of
referred to as ‘personalism,’ is a reflection help us determine what standards of is a single moral obligation, which he
basic minimum universal rights:
of the subsidiary principle. This principle behavior can be considered ethical. called the “Categorical Imperative.”
It applies to all and only rational agents. • Right not to be tortured
is closely related to the Vincentian leader- Although limited, each approach gives
ship orientation identified as “PEOPLE.” us important information with which to • Kant’s first principle states, “Act in such • Right to a fair trial
determine what is ethical in a particular a way that your actions could be • Right to equal opportunity
circumstance. Much more often than not, formulated as a law applying univer-
the different approaches do lead to similar sally to everyone.” • Right to security
answers. Some of the most common • Right to free speech and association
approaches include the following:
• Right to minimal education
• Right to political participation

 10
 • Right to subsistence Communitarian Approach Ethics and Law Other Approaches
• Right to freedom of • Espoused by Amatai Etzioni, • There is the set of ethical challenges There are many other ways to think
physical movement this approach focuses on communal which face lawyers and other partici- about ethics and moral reasoning
responsibilities rather than individual pants in the legal system — these including: An Ecological Approach,
• Right to own property rights. The communitarians defend concern the morality/ethics of the law Feminism, Social ethics, Professional
(Donaldson, 1990) the primacy of the common good, as it is applied, especially in cases of Ethics Approach, Applied or Practical
Fairness (or Justice) Approach stressing the importance of commit- discretion where lawyers/judges have Ethics, Research Ethics Approach,
ment and collaboration as the several choices legally available. This Race Theory, Queer Theory, and others.
• Fairness requires consistency in the
touchstones of any society’s moral would include issues raised by profes-
way people are treated. For example:
values. Conscience is not an individual sional codes of ethics, but also ethics in
• Distributive justice focuses on how compass, but all the ways that a a broader sense. Ecological Approach
fairly or unfairly our actions distribute community makes public its principles Claims that the well-being of Earth is
• There is also a more general concern,
benefits and burdens among the and standards. Etzioni attempts to primary, and human well-being is deriva-
which is with the indirect ethical
members of a group. achieve balance with his contention tive. Ecological ethics is becoming a
effects of a particular set of legal rules
• The principle states: “Treat people that the primary values are moral central source of ethical discourse and
as a guide to individual behavior.
as equals unless there are morally order and autonomy. analysis, and provides a strong correc-
The legal rules selected may affect the
relevant differences between them.” choices people make in their daily lives. tive to anthropocentric approaches to
Ethics of Care Approach
ethics. The principle states: “What is
Common Good Approach • Assumes that ethics is formed in and • In addition, there is the concern if ethical is what preserves the integrity of
• Presents a vision of society as a commu- through our relationships with others. one considers following a legal rule in the ecosphere.”
nity whose members are joined in a Reflection on principles is secondary a particular context to be unethical.
to the attentiveness and care with which We invite definitions and discussion of
shared pursuit of values and goals they • Finally, one could consider if and when
we nurture relationships. these and other approaches.
hold in common. ethical considerations should be incor-
• The community is comprised of indi- • An ethics of care approach is emphasized porated into substantive legal rules
viduals whose own good is inextricably in those traditions which see compassion where the two diverge.
bound to the good of the whole. as central to interpersonal flourishing.

• The principle states: “What is ethical • The principle states: “What is ethical
is that which advances the common is that which fosters the flourishing of
good.” (Tavanti, 2007; Markkula relationships and of each living being
Center, 2007) within a given relationship.

11 12
 Part V: Suggested Models For Critical
Ethical Reasoning And Decision-Making
Any model of decision-making is neces- Step 2 • Which option is fair to all those who had it to do over again, what would
sarily an oversimplification, because it Get the Facts affect and are affected by the action? you do differently? (www.scu.edu/
separates out reflective activities that we • What are the relevant facts of the case? ethics/, accessed January 22, 2007)
Fairness or Justice Approach
actually perform all mixed together, and What facts are unknown?
identifies as separate The ethical action is the one that treats David Ozar’s Model Of Ethical
• What individuals people equally, or if unequally, that
“steps” of the decision- Decision-making (Ozar, 2007)
What models for and groups have an treats people proportionately and fairly.
making process activities
important stake in the Step 1
that are highly interde- ethical decision- outcome? Do some • Which option would help all partici-
Identifying the Alternatives
pendent in actual ethical making are pate more fully in the life we share as
have a greater stake • The first step consists of determining
reflection. In addition, a family, community, and society?
available to us? because they have a what courses of action are available
in our ordinary ethical
special need or because Common Good Approach for choice, and identifying their most
reflection, we do not
we have special obli- important features. Special circum-
completely finish one The ethical action is the one that
gations to them? stances about the situation or our own
step before beginning on another. contributes most to the achievement of
Instead we move back and forth • What are the options for acting? a quality common life together. habitual ways of perceiving and acting
between the first four steps, learn- Have all the relevant persons and can cloud our vision of our options.
• Would you want to become the sort
ing from one of them that we haven’t groups been consulted? If you showed Our questions for this step include
of person who acts this way (e.g., a
adequately answered another, and gather- your list of options to someone you these: What courses of action are avail-
person of courage or compassion)?
ing data from one of them that proves respect, what would that person say? able to us? What would be their likely
informative for another, and so on. (Ozar Virtue Approach outcomes? To what other choices
Step 3 for ourselves and for others are they
2007) With that precaution in mind, The ethical action is the one that
Evaluate Alternative Actions From likely to lead? Just how likely are such
we present several models for ethical embodies the habits and values of
Various Ethical Perspectives outcomes and such future choices?
decision-making. humans at their best.
• Which option will produce the most
good and do the least harm? Step 4 Step 2
Markkula Center’s Framework Determining What is Morally/Ethically
Make a Decision and Test It
for Ethical Decision-Making1 Utilitarian Approach at Stake By Reason of Our Social Roles
• Considering all these perspectives,
Step 1 The ethical action is the one that will • Once we know our alternatives, if
which of the options is the right or
Recognize an Ethical Issue produce the greatest balance of benefits we are in relevant social roles or
best thing to do?
over harms. relationships, we must examine the
• Is there something wrong personally,
• If you told someone you respect why alternatives specifically from that
interpersonally, or socially? Could • Even if not everyone gets all they
you chose this option, what would point of view, i.e. what those roles or
the conflict, the situation, or the deci- want, will everyone’s rights and
that person say? If you had to explain relationships indicate ought or ought
sion be damaging to people or to dignity still be respected?
your decision on television, would not to be done. It will involve iden-
the community?
Rights Approach you be comfortable doing so? tification and careful consideration of
• Does the issue go beyond legal or insti- The ethical action is the one that most the specific obligations relevant to
tutional concerns? What does it do to Step 5
dutifully respects the rights of all affected. Act, Then Reflect on the Decision Later that role or relationship. Each of the
people, who have dignity, rights, and identified alternatives must be
hopes for a better life together? • Implement your decision. How did it
examined from this point of view.
turn out for all concerned? If you

13 14
 Step 3 Step 4 Some Tests For Hermeneutical Circle
Determining What Else is Morally/ Determining What Ought to be
Ethically at Stake Done, All Things Considered Evaluating Decisions Six Critical Questions to Ask Before
• Each alternative must be examined • The process of determining what • Am I or my company making at least Engaging in Ethical Reflection or Analysis.
specifically from the point of view of is morally/ethically at stake will some individuals or institutions better The following questions provide a
the broader criteria of what ethically, sometimes yield, without further off? At what expense to others? useful basis for understanding some key
ought or ought not to be done, over effort, the conclusion that one of • What rights are at stake? beliefs or assumptions an individual or
and above the norms of the person’s our alternatives is morally/ethically group brings to the task of “doing” ethics.
specific social roles and relationships. better than all the rest. At other • What basic principles underlie These questions are taken from the
If specific role-based obligations norms times, matters will be more complex the decision? Hermeneutical Circle designed by the
conflict, or if they fail to adequately because the various values, rules, • What character traits does this feminist Christian social ethicist Beverly
determine action in the situation virtues, role-based norms, etc., that alternative exemplify in those Harrison. The full circle consists of seven-
at hand, or if other commitments are involved favor different courses implementing this? teen questions and can be found in the
conflict with the commitments most of action. Then one’s choice of action Appendix of this text.
• How does decision this link to my
obvious in the situation, then the becomes also a choice between the
personal values? • What is the community of account-
more fundamental moral categories alternative values, rules, norms, etc.
ability for the person or group
need even more careful consideration • Publicity test: Could we defend this
• In addition, judgments about actions being questioned?
because they are the key to resolving decision in a public forum?
can sometimes leave a person with a
such conflicts. • Community of accountability =
choice between several equally superior • Precedent? Do we want others to
who the person/group feel they
• The details of this process will depend alter¬natives; or a choice between the practice this? In the profession? In the
most have to please, abide by, not
upon the particular approach that a least worst alternative. In such cases, organization? Nationally? Could this
alienate. Whose opinions do they
person takes to ethical reflection in its one may morally choose either of the action be formulated as a rule for
most value?
“largest” or “deepest” sense. Ordinarily, equal alternatives, provided that all individual, professional, organiza-
at the most general level, people do they are all superior to every other tional, or global activities? • What praxis does this person’s or
their moral reflection chiefly either alternative considered. group’s work serve or hope to serve?
• Reversibility? Does this pass the
in terms of maximizing certain values Golden Rule test? Would we want • Praxis = work, project,
Step 5
for certain persons, or in terms of this “done unto me?” physical undertaking
After judging, it is still necessary
conformity to certain fundamental
to choose a course of action in order • Conscience test: Can I defend • What attitude toward social change
moral rules or rights, or in terms of actu-
to act? this action to myself in terms of my is being exemplified by the individ-
alizing certain human virtues or ideal
conceptions of the human person. own values? ual/group being examined?
• Can I brag about this to my friends • Attitude toward social change =
and relatives? Does the person/group believe that
it is possible, or even desirable to
• Is this the way I want to live my life?
change society/public conduct in
Is this how I want to be remembered?
some way?
Is this the way I want my profession,
organization, or society to be remem-
bered? (Werhane, 2007)

15 16
 Glossary Of Commonly Used Terms

• What is the individual’s or group’s One Form Of Catholic Altruism with the general welfare. The common
conception of power? The selfless motivation or concern for good is often regarded as a utilitarian
Ethical Reasoning: Vincentian the welfare or good of others. This ideal, thus representing “the greatest
• Conception of power = what
does the person/group believe is
Ethical Reasoning perspective draws attention to the values possible good for the greatest possible
The 4-S Principles of Vincentian Ethics of charitable work on behalf of those number of individuals.”
the greatest source of power?
Is it found in money? Weapons? suggest the formulation of a simple set less fortunate and the heroism of those
Conscience
God? Philosophy? of questions for Vincentian ethical reason- who risk their life for others, and the
A faculty or sense that leads to feelings of
ing. The decision making process that ethic of “love of neighbor” is at its core.
• How does the person/group think remorse when we do things that go against
inspired St. Vincent de Paul was probably As a tradition, altruism is a powerful
such power operates? our moral precepts, or which informs
quite similar to those very same Catholic inspiration to advance the common good.
our moral judgment before performing
• What are the individual’s or group’s social thinking principles and values
Autonomy such an action. Such feelings are not
truth claims (or what in their opin- expressed in these questions.
The ability to freely determine one’s own intellectually reached, though they may
ion, is “known” and what is “up
• Does my decision positively affect the course in life. Etymologically, it goes cause us to “examine our conscience”
for debate?”)
poor or most vulnerable people? back to the Greek words for “self ” and and review those moral precepts, or
• Truth claims = Where does truth Solidarity Principle “law.” This term is most strongly associ- perhaps resolve to avoid repeating the
come from in the opinion of the ated with Immanuel Kant, for whom behavior. Although there is no gener-
• Is my decision true to my deepest values
writer? What is that truth? What it meant the ability to give the moral law ally accepted definition of what conscience
and uncompromising principles?
truth cannot be debated in the eyes to oneself. is or what its role in ethical decision-
Synchronicity Principle
of the person? group? What truth making is, conscience is generally emerge
is open to examination and possible • Does my decision empower others Categorical Imperative from secular, religious or philosophical
revision, according to the writer? and promote leadership development? An unconditional command. For views. Commonly used metaphors refer to
Subsidiarity Principle Immanuel Kant, all of morality depended the “voice of conscience” or “voice within.”
• Where does the person/group claim
knowledge comes from? Experience? • Does my decision make a positive on a single categorical imperative. One
version of that imperative was, “Always Consequentialism
Scripture? History? Science? A combi- change for the community and
future generations? act in such a way that the maxim of your Any position in ethics which claims
nation of these and other sources?
Sustainability Principle action can be willed as a universal law.” that the rightness or wrongness of
actions depends on their consequences.
Common Good
This may describe a specific “good“ that Deductive
is shared and beneficial for all (or most) A deductive argument is an argument
members of a given community. Another whose conclusion follows necessarily
definition of the common good is the sum from its premises. This contrasts to various
total of the conditions of social or political kinds of inductive arguments, which
life which enable people to live decently offer only a degree of probability to
or well. Thus, in essence, helping the com- support their conclusion.
mon good equates with helping all people,
Deontology
or at least the vast majority of them. In
Any position in ethics which claims that
that sense, the term could be synonymous
the rightness or wrongness of actions

17 18
 depends on whether they correspond to Heteronomy different rights: two children have have a secular or revelatory grounding.
our duty or not. The word derives from For Kant, heteronomy is the opposite different rights from a certain adult if Some, but not all, understandings of
the Greek word for duty, deon. of autonomy. Whereas an autonomous that adult is the parent of one of them law link the concept to considerations
person is one whose will is self-deter- and not of the other. of morality. In addition, positive law
Egoism
mined, a heteronomous person is one may expressly incorporate moral standards
It is a focus on the self. Psychological Distributive Justice: concerns what is
whose will is determined by something into its legal requirements.
egoism is the view that individuals are fair with respect to the allocation of social
outside of the person, such as over- benefits, goods, and burdens in a society.
always motivated by self-interest or Libertarianism
whelming emotions. Etymologically, Thus, a community whose individual
interests of and in the self. Ethical egoism refers to a political philosophy main-
heteronomy goes back to the Greek members are rendered their due would
is the view that claims that individuals taining that all persons are the absolute
words for “other” and “law.” be considered a society guided by the
ought to do what is in their self-interests, owners of their own lives, and should
a moral requirement. Rational egoism Hypothetical Imperative principles of distributive justice. be free to do whatever they wish with
is the view that identifies rationality A conditional command, such as, Procedural Justice: concerned with just their persons or property, as long as they
with individual utility maximization, “If you want to lose weight, stop eating processes such as in the administration allow others the same liberty. Libertar-
which in many cases may refer to one’s cookies.” Some philosophers have claimed of law or the respect for human rights. ians favor an ethic of self-responsibility
own self-interest. that morality is only a system of hypo- and strongly oppose the welfare state,
Social Justice: an ideal of society, based
thetical imperatives, while others—such because they believe forcing someone to
Emotivism on the idea of a society which gives
as Kant—have maintained that morality provide aid to others is ethically wrong,
A philosophical theory which holds that individuals and groups fair treatment
is a matter of categorical imperatives. ultimately counter-productive, or both.
moral judgments are simply expressions and a just share of the economic and
Also see: categorical imperative. other benefits of society, although what
of positive or negative feelings. Narcissism
Justice is “fair treatment” and a “just share” An excessive preoccupation with oneself.
Good (and Evil) is subject to interpretation.
In the first instance justice may be defined In mythology, Narcissus was a beautiful
Refer to the evaluation of the ends of young man who fell in love with his own
as the “consciousness of ill-desert.” (Smith, Law
morality and thus the evaluation of human image reflected in a pool of water.
1769; 1976, II.ii.3;4) So in this minimal The meaning of “law” is subject to a
behavior across a dualistic spectrum— sense, justice refers to fairness, or the number of different interpretations.
wherein in one direction are those aspects Natural Law
treatment of every individual as an equal, The word “law” may refer to positive law,
which are morally positive, and the other In ethics, believers in natural law hold
in all circumstances. It is also defined which can include acts of legislation,
are morally negative. The good is some- (a) that there is a natural order to the
as giving to each and all what is due to judicial opinions, and regulations set forth
times viewed as whatever entails reverence human world, (b) that this natural order
them, which are their moral and legal by government agencies. Positive law
towards either life, continuity, happiness, is good, and (c) that people therefore
rights to do, possess, or exact something. may also stem from other sources, as
or human flourishing, while evil is given ought not to violate that order.
This is equal insofar as each one receives occurs with international law. Positive law
to be the support for their opposites. what he is entitled to, but may be unequal is frequently rule-like and prospective, Nihilism
insofar as different people may have and may have a threat of sanction when The belief that there is no value or truth.
it is not followed. The concept of “law” Literally, a belief in nothing (nihil).
may also include natural law. Natural Most philosophical discussions of nihilism
law often refers to a set of rules or stan- arise out of a consideration of Friedrich
dards of just conduct deducible by Nietzsche’s remarks on nihilism, especially
reason. Theories of natural law may in The Will to Power.

19 20
 Particularity Rights Subjectivism Utilitarianism
In recent discussions, ethicists have are entitlements to do something without An extreme version of relativism, which A moral theory that says that what
contrasted particularity with universal- interference from other people (negative maintains that each person’s beliefs morally right is whatever produces the
ity and impartiality and asked how, rights) or entitlements that obligate others are relative to that person alone and greatest overall amount of pleasure
if morality is necessarily universal and to do something positive to assist you cannot be judged from the outside by (hedonistic utilitarianism) or happiness
impartial, it can give adequate recogni- (positive rights). Some rights (natural rights, any other person. (eudemonistic utilitarianism). Some
tion to particularity. Particularity refers human rights) belong to everyone by utilitarians (act utilitarians) claim that we
Teleology
to specific attachments (friendships, nature or simply by virtue of being human; should weigh the consequences of each
loyalties, etc.) and desires (fundamental some rights (legal rights) belong to people The term “teleological” comes from the individual action, while others (rule utili-
projects, personal hopes in life) that are by virtue of their membership in a partic- Greed word telos for “goal” or “aim.” An tarians) maintain that we should look at
usually seen as morally irrelevant to the ular political state; other rights (moral ethical conception counts as teleological the consequences of adopting particular
rational moral self. rights) are based in acceptance of a if its ethical recommendations are directed rules of conduct.
particular moral theory. entirely toward some idea of the good.
Pluralism Teleological ethics focuses on the conse- Virtue: A character trait valued as being
The belief that there are multiple perspec- Satisficing quences or results, and moral judgments good. The conceptual opposite of virtue
tives on an issue, each of which contains A term utilitarians borrowed from are based entirely on judgments of good is vice.
part of the truth but none of which economics to indicate how much utility or bad consequences. (Becker, 1992, Virtue
contain the whole truth. In ethics, moral we should try to create . Whereas maxi- 1235-8) A character trait valued as being good.
pluralism is the belief that different mizing utilitarians claim that we should
Transcendental Argument The conceptual opposite of virtue is vice.
moral theories each capture part of truth strive to maximize utility, satisficing utili-
of the moral life, but none of those tarians claim that we need only try to A type of argument, deriving from Kant, Virtue Ethics: An approach to ethics
theories has the entire answer. produce enough utility to satisfy everyone. which seeks to establish the necessary that studies the character traits or habits
It’s analogous to the difference between conditions of the possibility of something’s that constitute a good human life, a
Relativism being the case. For example, we have to life worth living. The virtues provide
taking a course with the goal of getting
In ethics, there are two main types of an “A” and taking it pass-fail. believe that we are free when we perform answers to the basic ethical question:
relativism. Descriptive ethical relativism an action; thus belief in freedom is a neces- “What kind of person should I be?”
simply claims as a matter of fact that Skepticism sary condition of the possibility of action.
different people have different moral There are two senses of this term.
Universalizability
beliefs, but it takes no stand on whether In ancient Greece, the skeptics were
those beliefs are valid or not. Normative inquirers who were dedicated to the Immanuel Kant used this term when
ethical relativism claims that each culture’s investigation of concrete experience and discussing the maxims, or subjective
(or group’s) beliefs are right within that wary of theories that might cloud or rules, that guide our actions. A maxim
culture, and that it is impossible to confuse that experience. In modern is universalizable if it can consistently
validly judge another culture’s values times, skeptics have been wary of the be willed as a law that everyone ought
from the outside. trustworthiness of sense experience. to obey. The only maxims which are
Thus, classical skepticism was skeptical morally good are those which can be
primarily about theories, while modern universalized. The test of universal-
skepticism is skeptical primarily izability ensures that everyone has the
about experience. same moral obligations in morally
similar situations.
21 22
 Appendix I

What Do We Expect Student Outcomes of that we gain ethical concepts from Social Responsibility
The Ethics Across our society. We are always accountable Students will demonstrate an under-
From Our Courses and for our individual judgments, yet it standing of their own relationship with
From Our Students? The Curricula Initiative
is wise to consult the moral reasoning the larger society and of the ethical
Ethical Traditions of others in that formulation of implications of the multitude of social
Course Goals Students will demonstrate knowledge of personal judgments. forces that structure the world in which
• To develop and enhance awareness some ethical traditions, that is, ways of they live. Students will be able to articulate,
Professional Ethics
of ethical issues in their discipline, conceiving, grounding, structuring and from a moral point of view, their own
Students will demonstrate knowledge
subject or profession. thinking about issues of moral import. responsibility within the relationships that
of and the ability to develop an analysis of sustain their lives and for shaping the
• To challenge students to understand Ethical Reasoning and response to ethical issues pertinent social forces that structure their world.
basic principles of ethics, to think Students will be able to think critically to their specific field of study and/or
and write critically, and to confront about ethical issues applying tools intended career. • Students should acquire a sense of
inconsistencies in their own ethics drawn from various ethical traditions moral obligation that extends beyond
• Students should be able to recognize
and values systems. to concrete cases pertinent to a variety personal values to social and profes-
ethical issues in their area of study.
of subject matters. sional interactions and relationships.
• To help students develop a decision
• Students should have developed critical
model for reasoning through • Students will be cognizant of and able thinking skills.
ethical issues. to recognize ethical issues. It is impor-
tant that students cultivate the capability • Students will aim to become better
• To enable students to apply ethics tradi-
to detect moral problems, as well managers, politicians, and professionals
tions and their decision model to new
as understand hidden value biases. in response to increasing demands
ethical issues they will encounter.
Students will face moral and ethical for more ethical behavior in business,
dilemmas and must discern and professions and politics.
examine these conflicts. • For those in formal professions such
• Students will develop critical think- as law, health care, engineering, etc.
ing skills. They should understand students should be familiar with those
that they are responsible for their own professional codes and how they
actions and decisions. In actions of apply to practice.
moral concern, students should • Students should have developed a sense
understand the importance of carefully of moral understanding. Primary to
reasoned options and alternatives to this goal is asking the imperative moral
their dilemmas. question, “Why ought I to be moral?”
• Students should understand there
will be disagreement and ambiguities
when dealing with ethical problems.
It is important to encourage tolerance
for opposing viewpoints with the
students. Students should recognize
23 24
 Appendix II

The Hermeneutical Circle • What attitude toward social change is • What status does the person or group • What type of relationships is the
being exemplified by the individual/ give to historical claims? person/group primarily interested in?
(in its entirety) group being examined? • Status of historical claims = How • Is it interpersonal relationships?
A creation of the feminist Christian social • Attitude toward social change = important is the person’s or group’s
ethicist Beverly Harrison, the herme- • Inter-group or inter-community
Does the person/group believe that view of history in terms of explaining
neutical circle is a systematic method for relations?
it is possible, or even desirable to or justifying their position?
interrogating a person or a movement change society/public conduct in • Political and Economic Relations?
in an effort to determine the basis from • What sources does the person or group
some way? • The relations between nation-states?
which they approach the task of ethical use to justify their claims? Are they
reasoning. As such, the following set of • What is the individual’s or group’s scriptural? Are they economic? Are • Some combination of these?
questions can be used as the basis of a conception of power? they ?
• Where does the person/group claim
self-examination prior to engaging an • Conception of power = what does • Does the person/group leave room for knowledge comes from? Experience?
ethical dilemma, or as a means of invit- the person/group believe is the great- his or her claims to be contested? Scripture? History? Science? A combi-
ing others to more concretely name the est source of power? Is it found in nation of these and other sources?
• Does the person/group allow people
foundational claims and motivations money? Weapons? God? Philosophy? to question his or her statements/ • Does the person/group seek to apply
they are drawing on as ethical thinkers. How does the person/group think opinions, or are the listeners expected his or her religious or philosophical
• What is the community of account- such power operates? to accept them carte blanche? norms across religious boundaries?
ability for the person or group • What are the individual’s or group’s (i.e. Is this a Christian trying to make
• What does the person/group see as the
being questioned? truth claims (or what in their opinion, pronouncements regarding how Jews,
scope of their claims? Are their claims
• Community of accountability = is “known” and what is “up for debate?”) Muslims and secular folks should
only valid for a particular place and
who the person/group feel they • Truth claims = Where does truth time, or are they held to be universal? conduct themselves?)
most have to please, abide by, not come from in the opinion of the • What is the theological anthropology
• What is the person’s or group’s attitude
alienate. Whose opinions do they writer? What is that truth? What being claimed or implied by the
toward institutions?
most value? truth cannot be debated in the eyes person or group?
of the person? group? What truth • What does the person/group hold to
• What are some of their other loyalties • Theological anthropology = where
is open to examination and possible be the moral norms operating in the
stated or implied? does the person or group places
revision, according to the writer? social context they are examining?
• Other loyalties = to whom or what do human beings in relation to God
• What status does the person/group • Moral Norms = Agreed upon goods
they feel aligned with/obligated to? and the rest of creation? Is the
give to theological or religious claims? which have been identified by a human the most important thing
• What praxis does this person’s or particular group.
• The status of theological/religious on earth after God, or are humans
group’s work serve or hope to serve?
claims = How important are such terrible creatures at the bottom of
• Praxis = work, project, claims to the person’s or group’s posi- the food chain?
physical undertaking tion? Are such claims primary or
secondary to their position?

25 26
 References Endnotes

Becker, Lawrence. 1992. Encyclopedia of Rybolt, J., C.M. (2005). “Saint Vincent 1
 is framework for thinking ethically
Th
Ethics. New York: Garland Publishers. de Paul and Money,” Vincentian Heritage, is the product of dialogue and debate
23-25, 26(2, 1), 81-103. at the Markkula Center for Applied
Bowes, J. C. (1998). “St. Vincent de
Ethics at Santa Clara University.
Paul and Business Ethics.” Journal of Smith, Adam. 1769; 1976. Theory of
Primary contributors include Manuel
Business Ethics, 17, 1663-1667. Moral Sentiments. Oxford: Oxford
Velasquez, Dennis Oberg, Michael J.
University Press.
Donaldson, Thomas. 1990. The Ethics Meyer, Thomas Shanks, Margaret R.
of International Business, New York: Tavanti, M. 2006. “Engaged Vincentian McLean, David Depose, Claire André,
Oxford University Press. Leadership: The Values and Compe- and Kirk O. Hanson. This article
tencies That Inspire Leaders to Serve appeared originally in Issues in Ethics.
Gert, Bernard. 2004. Common Morality,
in the Footstep of St. Vincent de Paul.” (www.scu.edu/ethics/, accessed
NY: Oxford University Press.
Journal of College and Character, January 22, 2007)
Hinman, Lawrence M. 2003. Ethics: VIII(1), 1-10.
A Pluralistic Approach to Ethical
2
 is section, “Glossary” was taken
Th
Tavanati, Marco. 2007. “Thinking from work by Marco Tavanti, 2007,
Theory. 3rd Edition. Belmont CA:
Ethically.’ Unpublished paper. Hinman, 2003, and Wikipedia.
Thomson Learning.
Velasquez, Manuel, Andre, Claire,
Hollar, Barry. 1997. “Social Ethics.”
Shanks, Thomas, S.J., and. Meyer,
The Blackwell Encyclopedic Dictionary
Michael J. 1987. Issues in Ethics
of Business Ethics. Ed. Werhane, P.
V1 N1 (Fall 1987)
and Freeman, R.E. Oxford:
Blackwell’s. 590-93. Werhane, Patricia. 2007 forthcom-
ing. “Moral Imagination and Systems
Markkula Center, Santa Clara University,
Thinking in the Age of Globalization,”
www. scu/edu/ethics/ accessed
Journal of Business Ethics.
January 22, 2007
Mousin, C. (2005). “Vincentian Leader-
ship - Advocating for Justice.” Vincentian
Heritage, 23-25, 26(2, 1), 243-278.
Ozar, David. 2007. “A Model for Ethical
Decision-Making. Unpublished paper.
Rest, James, 1998. “Can Ethics be
Taught to Adults?” rpt. In Newton and
Ford, eds., Taking Sides. Gilford CT:
Dushkin Publishing Group, 22-26.)

27 28
 ETHICS 101
A COMMON ETHICS LANGUAGE
FOR DIALOGUE

Compiled by the Ethics

Across the Curricula Committee

DePaul University
Institute for Business & Professional Ethics
1 E. Jackson Blvd, Ste 7000
Chicago, IL  60604
http://commerce.depaul.edu/ethics

bf 208592