Ethical Decisions - Some Thoughts From Occupational Training Videos I Viewed the Past Couple of Weeks

One thing about starting a new job - in particular with a Federal contractor - is that there are a lot of training exercises you have to undertake.  I had some of those in a series of videos I was required to watch (and did of course), and surprisingly there was some solid information on them.  Occupational training videos often tend to either be so bland you fall asleep watching them, or they are so common-sense that you don't pay attention to them anyway and you still understand them.  In this case however, there were some good things that I feel can be applicable to life in general, which is why I wanted to discuss them.

The video I watched focused on three steps to ethical decisions, and they are as follows:

1. Investigate
2. Evaluate
3. Activate

Let's now take these one-by-one and explore them further, as there are some good insights regarding them.

First, what does it mean to investigate in regard to an ethical decision?  Essentially, it emphasizes the importance of gathering all the facts about a given situation before drawing any conclusion.  This is a valuable lesson for people who mess around on social media a lot, as dumb arguments and dogfights happen simply because the facts are either ignored or the parties involved create their own false set of "facts" that then spark controversy.  Essentially, the step here is to know what the hell you are talking about before going off on something.

So, now what does it mean to evaluate?  Once the facts are gathered, it is up to the person to determine if those facts document actions that are right or wrong.  It is also important to differentiate in this process that just because something is legal does not mean that it is moral - legality and morality are different things, and in today's society for instance, there are a lot of immoral things that are completely legal ("same-sex marriage" comes to mind).  Often, in a workplace situation, some actions may be legal and compliant with company policy, but they may conflict with one's moral compass.  I had a situation like that last year that cost me a job honestly.  The company I was working for was processing mail for non-profit client organizations, and what those who were opening and processing the mail items were instructed to do was to save checks or other monetary donations while throwing out notes and other things from the donors. I personally saw this as wrong, and contacted one of the client companies about it, which was against our company policy.  That action on my part got me fired, but it was the right thing to do.  I had the moral conviction that if a donor takes the time to write the organization they are giving money to, and if that organization accepts the money, they should also respect the donor enough to read and respond to correspondence, not throw it out.   That was what bugged me in that particular situation.  While the company allowed one thing, the thing they allowed was not morally good, in other words.  So, upon evaluating that this was wrong, I acted, and that leads to the next step.

Once you know what the facts are, and you have evaluated the facts based on your moral convictions, you then need to do something about that.  Appropriate action must be decided, and then it is up to the person making that decision to act upon what is decided.  Factoring into this is weighing the risks - what are the consequences of how I choose to act.  If you are willing to take that risk and act upon it, then some consequence will naturally follow. 

Also factoring into the three steps are what are known as core values.  Although each person may have a different set of core values, some of them are universal to everyone, and they include the following:

1. Integrity
2. Honesty
3. Respect for dignity of fellow human beings.

When talking about integrity first of all, it is important to know what it is.  Integrity is defined as two things:

1. A state of moral uprightness and consistency
2. A state of being whole and undivided.

In other words, one acts according to his or her convictions without conflict.  One cannot be double-minded, or be something they are not, in other words.  We as human beings often have a weakness here at times in that we set a bar higher than we can reach, and it ends up blowing up in our faces.  You see that in some religious communities, in particular some Fundamentalist Protestant denominations who stress personal holiness without understanding limitations.  Integrity is knowing your boundaries and doing your best to stay in them without over-extending your reach to do something you are not capable of.  If one can do that, one has integrity.  Now, on occasion, we all fall short of this (I know I have many times!) and we cannot allow ourselves to be beat up about it.  That is where the next core value comes in.

Honesty is an important albeit sometimes complicated value that we should all strive for.  Honesty basically entails being honest first of all with yourself, and then with others, but also within proper context.  If you do screw up with something, part of honesty about that is owning up to it, and then admitting that you need work in that particular area.  This is true to some degree of all of us, as we have all come up short.  Rather than making excuses for that however, we need to honestly acknowledge our limitations and move on - strengthening those areas where we may lack is also important in other words. 

As for respect, this too can be complicated, in that it involves a proper understanding of personhood.  As Dr. John Crosby, one of my former professors at Franciscan University of Steubenville, taught us in a Philosophy of the Human Person course, there are essentially four things we need to understand about personhood:

1. Persona est sui iuris - A person is his/her own and not the property of another.
2. A person is an end unto themselves and not a mere means.
3. A person is a whole in themselves and not a mere part
4. Every person is subject to fundamental rights.

In order to properly understand all this, there are two things we need to do.  First, we need to discourage and even prevent stereotypes based on race, gender, ethnic origin, religion, age, disability, or other factors.  Second, it is important for each of us to cultivate a proper code of conduct that centers around good manners irrespective of social position or other externals.  However, there are some things that respecting the personhood of others does not mean, and there are three of those.   First, respecting the dignity of the personhood of others does not translate as altruism - the respect and proper treatment of one's fellow human beings should never come at the expense of diminishing self to a point where one self-denies personhood.  Second, The common good is another factor that needs to be respected as well, and that means that many societal norms being peddled nowadays - a big one that comes to mind is the mythology of "political correctness" - may do more harm than good.  Third, the core values of honesty and integrity are proper for both parties involved, which means it is perfectly fine and even natural on occasion to disagree if such disagreement is honest yet respectful.  That leads now to a metaphysical dimension of the discussion.

We have discussed on many occasions something called central narrative convictions, which entail some important questions we need to ask based on our worldview.  Using the Catholic "Four-Fold Hermeneutic" that is often employed in Bible reading, we can ask those questions using the acronym LAMA:

1. Literal - corresponds to the question "Who am I?"
2. Allegorical - corresponds to the question "What do I believe about (fill in the blank here)?"
3. Moral - corresponds to the question "What is wrong, and what do I do about it?"
4. Anagogical - corresponds to the question "What will be the consequence of my choice/action?" or "Where will this choice lead me?"

The answers to these questions are the CNC's which also entail our personal core values.  Core values on an individual scale are important for each person to define, and these questions allow for that. In order to do so, one must do some major reflection, and there are some actions necessary resulting from those reflections.  One such action would be for the person to take a personal inventory of their own core values.  One can do so keeping a journal (something I would highly recommend) and listing them as they are able to do so.  If a list of these is undertaken, it leads to another step - one must elaborate the personal importance of these things.  In the case of the workplace, how do one's personal core values intersect with those of one's employer?  This is why, in addition to knowing your own core values, it is also vital to know those of an employer as well, and they are often readily available in a corporate mission statement.   Once all of that is accomplished, it is then important to employ classification of one's core values, and this entails a few things.  First, if a value is unique to the individual, it is called an incommunicable value.  If a value listed intersects with others' values or with the corporate mission statement, it is called an incommunicable or universal value.  If intersectionality does occur, it should lead to a willful and subjective acceptance of said value by both parties.  However, if one party is coerced or pressured to accept the value of the other unwillingly, and if the aggressive party keeps trying to impose this value upon the other party on those unwilling to accept them, then this is a form of coercion, and does not reflect the respect of the dignity of personhood of the party whom is subjected to that.   Coercion, first of all, violates dignity of personhood and is distinguished from willful subjectivism in that it is a form of subjugation.  Likewise, coercion is a form of bullying and should not be encouraged or tolerated.  This then leads to a discussion of what to do if there occurs a conflict of interest with the involved parties.

If there is a conflict in core values involved between two parties, there are measures that need to be taken.  First, should it happen, a person is within legal rights to take the proper steps to rectify the situation, preferably in a peaceful and conciliatory manner.  This may even entail calling in an indifferent third party or authority.  Second, a person does have the right to respectfully disagree with some things that go against their own convictions, provided they do so in a civil and professional manner.  This entails first of all getting the disagreement documented in some form, as it will more than likely articulate the issue better than trying to verbally express it.  It also is important to always observe proper protocol in such situations, meaning that one cannot go over the head of a superior if the superior is the other party in such a disagreement - in that case, there is a chain of command to be followed.  Third, documentation should be retained for one's own records, as well as for the public record if necessary.  This is simply the old CYA rule.   If these steps are followed and taken, often it leads to successful and meaningful conflict resolution.

You may have guessed by now that I have augmented somewhat the original material from the training videos, as I had my own insights while I was watching them.  I wanted to tailor the material to meet my own personal application of them, as they may apply to a given situation I myself may have faced or may yet face.  In time, I plan on codifying this into my own personal mission statement, something I really need to do.   There is always room though for modification and adaptation to different issues or events, and in time those experiences will be the basis for my own personal code of ethics.  If you are reading this, hopefully it will inspire you to do the same.  Thank you for allowing me to share with you today.