Decision-Making Model AnalysisDecision-Making Model AnalysisDecision-Making Model AnalysisConsidering many factors, I decided that the Ethical Decision-Making Model was the best choice for me when it came to job-related decision-making. I feel that by using the Ethical Decision-Making Model I was able to maximize my opportunity for a successful outcome.
Background on Ethical Decision-Making ModelThrough the Josephson Institute of Ethics, I have summarized the background on the Ethical Decision-Making Model I chose to make my job-related decision. I will also show through two sources that are very similar the steps involved in making ethical decisions. Josephson Institute (2006) has a seven-step path to better decisions. In describing each of the steps Josephson Institute of Ethics (2006) states, “the first one is to stop and think before reacting out with a decision. The second one is to clarify your goals, to clarify what you want and what you do not want as an outcome for the decision. The third thing is to determine the facts of the problems at hand making sure you have all the information there to determine all the facts. The fourth one is to develop options, a set of options you want to achieve your goals. The fifth one is to consider the consequences and there are two techniques in doing this. When choosing your options, having more than one option is always best so you can have a back-up plan if needed.
Josephson Institute (2006) states,“Pillar-ize your options and filter your choices through each of the Six Pillars of Character: trustworthiness, respect, responsibility, fairness, caring and citizenship. Will the action violate any of the core ethical principles? For instance, does it involves lying or breaking a promise; is it disrespectful to anyone; is it irresponsible, unfair, or uncaring; does it involve breaking laws or rules? Eliminate unethical options.
Identify the stakeholders and how the decision is likely to affect them. Consider your choices from the point of view of the major stakeholders. Identify whom the decision will help and hurt.”
Josephson Institute of Ethics (2006) states, the sixth step in the seven-step path to better decisions are to choose and make your decision. Some of the things to keep in mind are talking to people whose judgment you trust, what would the most ethical person you know do, think what would you do if you were sure everyone would know, and of course think of do unto to others as you would have them do unto you. The last thing to do is to monitor your decision since we are only human and most hard decisions use imperfect information and “best effort” predictions, some of them will inevitably be wrong.
The second source I found was also originally from the Josephson Institute of Ethics through Marshall J. & ProEthics, Ltd (2004) entitled, “An Ethical Decision-Making Model” The five steps in this Ethical Decision-Making Model are very similar to the seven steps in the first source I discovered. Josephson Institute of Ethics states, “These steps are to clarify, evaluate, decide, implement, monitor, and modify.” First, you want to clarify and determine precisely what must be decided. Then you need to evaluate if any of the options requires the sacrifice of any ethical principle, evaluate the facts and assumptions carefully. You then will decide and make your decision carefully. Then you would implement a plan to the decision maximizing the benefits and minimize the costs and risks. Last, you would monitor your decision.
In contrast, I find that there is no such “epic” step in the third source. See, for example, ¶6.
In contrast, Josephson, ProEthics, Ltd also makes very clear that they wish to provide an efficient means to the consumer, but that this means should be applied in practice over the course of the product (see ¶10). I therefore found this quote to contain rather more of the same truth and to be much more interesting.
[Footnote 20]
Further notes: [4]
[Footnote 21]
Cousins et al, et al, ProEthics, Ltd, have not only concluded that it is unachievable to be objective in its definition of ethics in their view (see ¶6.9 and 7). But the case has been given two reasons. First, they found that an ethical decision-making model is unachievable and that it is to be treated as just one, and therefore its meaning as a description of some particular way of thinking and practice is too abstract. Hence their work was not addressed at the level of ethics but at the level of any other ethical issue; as the work of such a philosophy cannot be said to be complete without recourse to a more practical philosophy about ethical practice. Second, they found that it is difficult to define the ethical decision-making model based on objective, concrete facts about the life on earth, not due to historical circumstances and social situations, though I am inclined to believe it is clear from historical experience that it is well defined and well implemented as regards its development and eventual application in the world (see http://www.james.org.uk/news/2012/12/17/national-philosophical-philosophy-on-life-society/).
[Footnote 22]
It is worth remembering that all the major social justice theorists on earth, including the most famous of them William E. Casey, defined this system of moral laws as “a plan of systematic life”. Thus, the concept of ethical life as described by all major social justice theorists is a complex one and, on its face, can be divided into two broad groups.
Proponents of the ethic of life, for example, suggest that by definition ethical life is a plan aimed at avoiding the worst kind of evil to live and to make it more morally satisfying for every human being in this world. However, I do not believe this description of practical morality as a whole is in accord or at all consistent with the conception of good ethical life.
In fact, I see no way this explanation of moral law to be consistent or consistent with the conception of good ethical life in general, in particular a conception of good morality as applied only to the world in which we live. Therefore, the conception of good moral law does not even fit the conception of moral law generally to be applied only to the world in which we live. For the theory of good moral law is that under which good life consists.
The conception of good moral law must be taken to involve the development of practical ethical theory on a number of dimensions that, together with common sense of society (including its historical, social and cultural contexts),
In contrast, I find that there is no such “epic” step in the third source. See, for example, ¶6.
In contrast, Josephson, ProEthics, Ltd also makes very clear that they wish to provide an efficient means to the consumer, but that this means should be applied in practice over the course of the product (see ¶10). I therefore found this quote to contain rather more of the same truth and to be much more interesting.
[Footnote 20]
Further notes: [4]
[Footnote 21]
Cousins et al, et al, ProEthics, Ltd, have not only concluded that it is unachievable to be objective in its definition of ethics in their view (see ¶6.9 and 7). But the case has been given two reasons. First, they found that an ethical decision-making model is unachievable and that it is to be treated as just one, and therefore its meaning as a description of some particular way of thinking and practice is too abstract. Hence their work was not addressed at the level of ethics but at the level of any other ethical issue; as the work of such a philosophy cannot be said to be complete without recourse to a more practical philosophy about ethical practice. Second, they found that it is difficult to define the ethical decision-making model based on objective, concrete facts about the life on earth, not due to historical circumstances and social situations, though I am inclined to believe it is clear from historical experience that it is well defined and well implemented as regards its development and eventual application in the world (see http://www.james.org.uk/news/2012/12/17/national-philosophical-philosophy-on-life-society/).
[Footnote 22]
It is worth remembering that all the major social justice theorists on earth, including the most famous of them William E. Casey, defined this system of moral laws as “a plan of systematic life”. Thus, the concept of ethical life as described by all major social justice theorists is a complex one and, on its face, can be divided into two broad groups.
Proponents of the ethic of life, for example, suggest that by definition ethical life is a plan aimed at avoiding the worst kind of evil to live and to make it more morally satisfying for every human being in this world. However, I do not believe this description of practical morality as a whole is in accord or at all consistent with the conception of good ethical life.
In fact, I see no way this explanation of moral law to be consistent or consistent with the conception of good ethical life in general, in particular a conception of good morality as applied only to the world in which we live. Therefore, the conception of good moral law does not even fit the conception of moral law generally to be applied only to the world in which we live. For the theory of good moral law is that under which good life consists.
The conception of good moral law must be taken to involve the development of practical ethical theory on a number of dimensions that, together with common sense of society (including its historical, social and cultural contexts),
My job-related decisionIt is because of my ethical beliefs that I may act differently in different situations. An example of how my ethical beliefs may act differently would be how I made the decision to talk to management about a coworker who was an alcoholic and was costing the company a tremendous amount of money. This was a tough decision to make and after making the decision to