THE BASIS FOR ETHICAL CONDUCT

An Introduction to The Ethical Conduct Paradigm

ETHICS FOR DECISION-MAKING CASE STUDIES

Douglas W. Warner

Table of Contents

THE BASIS FOR ETHICAL CONDUCT Introduction …………………………………………………………………1 The Ethical Conduct Paradigm ………………………………………3 Values and Beliefs ………………………………………………………..5 The Structure of Values and Beliefs …………………………..7 Primary and Secondary Values and Beliefs ………………..8 Wants and Needs ……………………………………………………….. 11 Relationships ……………………………………………………………..13 Group Relationships ……………………………………………………15 Intelligence ………………………………………………………………..17 Discipline ………………………………………………………………….19 Concluding Remarks …………………………………………………..21 Primary Definitions …………………………………………………….23

ETHICS FOR DECISION-MAKING CASE STUDIES ……………………………………………………….25 The Calf-Path …………………………………………………………….27 Case #1: Sinko Corp., A Nepotism Problem …………………..29 Case #2: The Stanford Prison Study ……………………………..32 Case #3: To My Family, My Physician, My Lawyer and All Others Whom It May Concern …………………….34 Case #4: Justice ………………………………………………………….35 Case #5: The Prosecuting Attorney ……………………………….36 Case #6: Electro Industries ………………………………………….37 Case #7: Campbell Soup Company ………………………………41 Case #8: Diamond Find, Inc. ……………………………………….44 Case #9: Melinda’s Dilemma ……………………………………….45 Case #10: Ace Brick Company …………………………………….46 Case #11: Who Shall Live? ………………………………………….48 Case #12: Illegal Behavior …………………………………………..49 Case #13: Clones ………………………………………………………..50 Case #14: The Old Bait and Switch Game …………………….52 Case #15: The Island of “Kora” ……………………………………53

The Basis For Ethical Conduct

An Introduction to The Ethical Conduct Paradigm

Fifth Edition

Dr. Douglas W. Warner Amberton University

Copyright ©, 1984 by Douglas W. Warner Printed in the United States of America

All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmit- ted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including pho- tocopying, recording, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing.

First Edition – 1984

Second Edition – 1988

Third Edition – 1992

Fourth Edition – 1996

Fifth Edition – 2002

THE BASIS FOR ETHICAL CONDUCT

AN INTRODUCTION TO THE ETHICAL CONDUCT PARADIGM

Introduction: In recent years many words have been spoken and penned to explain, clarify, and exhort the concept of “ethics.” Business ethics, biomedical ethics, financial ethics, personal ethics, political ethics, group ethics, family ethics, etc. have all been discussed by philosophers, theologians, educators, and politicians. It seems that everyone and every group are wrestling with the topic or the concept of ethics in an effort to clarify what is right or wrong, good or bad. While most of the current ethical studies have resulted in little more than cosmetic platitudes, such efforts should not be considered without merit. After all, striving toward greater understanding of ethical perceptions is one of the noblest acts of humanity, and it may very well separate man from the ani- mals. Indeed, a search for ethical understanding is tantamount to a striving for a betterment of oneself. Most writings of recent vintage address the topic of ethics from a comparative or definitive approach. An indi- vidual is given a case example of an ethical situation and then asked to render a judgment. Usually, the judgment is to be based upon an ethical rule that has been pre-defined. The technique, it is presumed, will assist the individual in becom- ing more ethical by allowing the person to become aware of the theoretical applications that apply. Thus, most ethical studies stress the issue of ethics by exhorting one to weigh the merits of each act, or to weigh the consequences of the act, to determine the proper action to be taken. In theory, the process of studying ethical cases in an effort to make a person more ethical has merit. However, the concept fails the acid test, practicality. In truth, most ethical decisions are made while the individual is under the influence of emotion. Perhaps the purely logical person could be prag- matic and ponder his ethical decisions carefully prior to taking

1

action, but, for most of us, the ethical decisions that we make are often tainted with the emotions of the moment. Too often, when making ethical decisions, man’s logical nature is influ- enced by a philosophy that is best summarized by the lines of a song that states, “I don’t care what’s right or wrong, just help me make it through the night…” No one approaches the topic of ethics as a blank slate ready to be filled with values and beliefs derived from logical discourse. Indeed, each approaches the discussion of ethics with an extensive, preconceived view of what is good or bad, right or wrong, and one is often more inclined to protect his position than to critically analyze his conviction. Before one can attempt to modify or change his ethi- cal decision-making method, he must understand his present ethical model―how he presently makes ethical decisions. In essence, what is needed is an ethical review, a revealing of one’s present ethical views and what factors influence ethical decision making. To better understand the basis of one’s ethics and how ethical decisions are made, the Ethical Conduct Paradigm is presented. As author of the Ethical Conduct Paradigm, I acknowledge at the outset of the presentation that the par- adigm is neither complete nor final. It, like most theories, should be used only as a point of departure, a view for discus- sion.

2

THE ETHICAL CONDUCT PARADIGM

The Ethical Conduct Paradigm (ECP) is not confined to a simple discussion of ethics. The ECP is a matrix of five mind filters that are brought to bear in differing proportions or influences each time an individual is confronted with an ethical decision. Let me repeat, the Ethical Conduct Para- digm is not just an explanation of ethics, it is a framework that discusses the process of how ethical decisions are actually derived. To begin the discussion of the paradigm, three terms or concepts should be defined: (1) ethics, (2) one’s ethics, and (3) one’s ethical conduct. Ethics is the study of the general nature of goodness or badness as it relates to specific choices made by an individual in his relationship to self and/or others. One’s ethics is a body of moral standards that influ- ences behavior or choices made, or to be made, by an indi- vidual in dealing with self or others. One’s ethical conduct is derived from a complex mind system that influences behavior or choices made, or to be made, by an individual in dealing with self or others. Note that the definitions are closely related, but there is a significant difference between the last two. Ethical conduct is derived from a complex mind system. The complex mind system includes one’s moral standards, but it also includes much more. It is the “much more” that is the basis for the Ethical Conduct Paradigm. An expanded discussion of the variables―I will call them filters―that comprise the complex mind system relative to the Ethical Conduct Paradigm will enable the individual to better understand his/her own ethical decision-making modus operandi and predict the ethical con- duct of others. The complex mind system that comprises one’s basis for ethical decision making is composed of five filters: (1) values and beliefs, (2) wants and needs, (3) relationships, (4) intelligence, and (5) discipline.

3

4

VALUES AND BELIEFS

The first filter that comprises the paradigm is identified as “values and beliefs.” Prior to discussing this filter, it must be conceded that many scholars will disagree with combin- ing these two terms―values and beliefs. They, and rightfully so, will argue that these two words differ in connotation, if not denotation, relative to their sociological meanings. I con- cede that the meanings of these two words can be debated, and I will, therefore, give a specialized definition that will hold exclusively for the paradigm. Thus, relative to the paradigm, values and beliefs means “a group of principles, standards, tenets, or dogma considered inherently worthwhile, accept- able or desirable.” Everyone, regardless of his environment or socioeco- nomic circumstances, has a set of values and beliefs. What- ever one’s values and beliefs, they have basically been derived through one of five sources: (1) folkway, (2) custom and tradi- tion, (3) social norms, (4) law, or (5) religion. (1) FOLKWAY: Many of one’s values and beliefs come to him through folkway; another way to express this is to say “the way of the folks.” Many of the things one believes and the values one reports have not been given per- sonal scrutiny and/or study. One simply holds to these values and beliefs because he was told to do so by the folks. Obvi- ously, the merits of such values and beliefs are questionable. Although it might be conceded that many beliefs and values derived through folkway are quite proper and appro- priate, the basis of their origin places them outside of one’s own mental selection and makes them more a matter of the socialization process. Folkway is deeply ingrained within the individual and invokes a power of persuasion seldom fully recognized by the individual. (2) CUSTOM AND TRADITION: Another source of one’s values and beliefs is derived through custom and tra- dition. As one grows up, those beliefs and values that were the custom of the time, whether it was the length of hair, a bearded face, or style of clothing, became his values and

5

beliefs, and many of them are still with him today. Values and beliefs imparted to one by both folkway and custom/tradition are a part of one’s heritage gained at a very young and impressionable age. Often, when an individ- ual refers to his roots, he is referring not only to a physical setting but also to a mental setting where problem solving and decision making were a matter for adults and imparted to the children. It was an impressionable time when the concepts of right and wrong, good and bad were dictated outside of the individual’s own capabilities of choice. Another term for some of these values and beliefs might very well be “preju- dices.” (3) SOCIAL NORMS: The third source from which one’s values and beliefs are acquired is by way of what is to be referred to as “social norms.” Social norms are those behavioral expectations held by present society and viewed as acceptable, proper, mannerly, or non-acceptable, improper, or unmannerly. Every time one encounters a friend, listens to the radio, watches television, reads the newspaper, or browses through a magazine he is being confronted by views that are saying, in essence, “In today’s society we believe…” Through the influences of social norms, an individual learns how one is to smell, what books one is to read, which movies are to be attended, what type of clothing is to be worn, what car is to be driven, what type of house is to be built, the best place to live, the television program to be watched, the events to be attended, or which causes are to be supported. (4) LAW: The fourth source in the filter of values and beliefs is identified as “law.” The reference to law is more inclusive than just the law of the land or legal law; it includes corporate rules and regulations and/or regulations invoked by groups or organizations of which one is a member. The conformity required by such entities might seem insignificant at first but, over a period of time, regulations instilled by outside agencies and organizations have a way of becoming values and beliefs within the individual. It is not unusual for an individual to dress and act in private life to a conformity that was regimented by the work environment.

6

(5) RELIGION: The last source in the values and beliefs filter is referred to as “religion.” Although this factor is listed last, by no means should it be construed as least important. Perhaps it is done so because of the biblical refer- ence, “The first shall be last and the last shall be first.” In many cases, it is the paramount factor. For many individuals, religion is an inherited set of values and beliefs derived through folkway or through a social organization to which the individual is a member. For a few, religion is a philosophy derived through a deliberate mental process resulting in the selection of a deity. When one defines his way of looking on the world, he is setting up the environment for his religious thinking. In other words, religion without metaphysics is impossible except as a theological abstraction. If one cannot find God in the order of the skies or in the breaking of an atom, one is not likely to find God at prayer meetings or in any church. While one might accept the authority of an expert in the field of science, in the field of religion even an authority cannot make beliefs live. The final authority for religion is life itself, and no one can do this by proxy. The decision can be postponed, but not indefinitely. Sometimes the begin- ning of recognizing the need to make the choice comes in the normal process of growth but, frequently, it takes a crisis to open the door to the choice that must be made.

THE STRUCTURE OF VALUES AND BELIEFS

Having identified the five sources relative to the basis of values and beliefs, it must be reported that, while each of these sources contribute to one’s convictions, they are not always in unison or of equal weight. One’s folkway values and beliefs are not always in agreement with those absorbed through social norms and/or law. One’s parents may have taught that marriage should be forever; one’s religion may support the same view. However, social norms and law may not concur with the view. Thus, an individual often finds that within his own concept of values and beliefs, he

7

encounters a dichotomy―conflicts within his own values and beliefs system. To help prevent such conflicts, man subcon- sciously organizes his convictions into a hierarchy of values and beliefs. To further understand this hierarchy phenome- non, it is appropriate that one considers the structure of values and beliefs.

PRIMARY AND SECONDARY VALUES AND BELIEFS

Values and beliefs can be divided into two major cat- egories: primary and secondary. An example of a primary belief for some might be: “there is a God,” “the Earth orbits the sun,” “love exists.” One acquires primary beliefs early in life and continues to strengthen these beliefs by continuously validating them through experiences or events. Primary beliefs may again be divided into three cate- gories: primaries of a “super,” “general,” or “selective” nature. A super primary is either a belief that has an abundant amount of scientific evidence supporting it or, it is a value concept entrenched so deeply in the mind that it will be next to impos- sible to change by external forces. With a general primary, there is usually a great amount of agreement that the belief is correct─“With gravity, weighted objects fall when dropped” is an example of a primary belief that nearly everyone accepts. The last type of primary belief, selective primary, can be illus- trated by such expressions as “the Democratic Party is best,” or “Texas is the greatest state in the Union.” Selective prima- ries are beliefs that are held very strongly by an individual but not always a consensus of the society. The difference between a super primary, a general primary, or a selective primary is in the intensity of the individual’s conviction toward the belief. In addition to primary values and beliefs, there are secondary values and beliefs. Secondary values and beliefs are so called because they are derived from a primary. The belief that “the Baptist church is the best church” is based on a greater primary─“there is a God.” Likewise, the individual who holds that abortion is wrong may have arrived at that

8

belief based upon a primary belief that human life is sacred. On the other hand, the belief that human life is sacred could be a secondary value based, again, on the belief that “life is sacred because God said so…” Obviously, what is a pri- mary belief to one person could well be a secondary belief to another. The assumption that an individual’s values and beliefs structure is organized along a primary/secondary dimension allows the following conjectures: I. The More Primary The Belief, The More The Individ-

ual Will Resist A Change In The Belief. If one attempts to change an individual’s primary

beliefs, success will be unlikely. This is particularly true if the belief is a super primary or a general pri- mary that has complete consensus within the society. Imagine, if you will, trying to get an American to change his belief that a baseball is round. One might have slightly more success in changing a selective-pri- mary belief that does not have consensus within soci- ety but, even then, the task would be formidable. Few individuals change their belief in the existence of God as a result of any external persuasive message. One’s primary beliefs are so deeply ingrained that little can be done to change them.

Secondary beliefs are more susceptible to change. An individual can change his belief about hairstyle, about the importance or lack of importance of envi- ronmental pollution, about increased taxes, and about the quality of universities. These beliefs are constantly undergoing shifts and changes as a result of new infor- mation being received.

II. Secondary Beliefs That Are Derived From Super Pri- mary Beliefs Are More Resistant To Change Than Secondary Beliefs That Are Not Rooted In A Super Primary Belief.

This principle holds a strong implication: When a belief held by an individual rests on a more primary belief, it may be necessary to change the primary belief

9

before it could be possible to change the secondary belief.

A belief about abortion is an example. In order to change an individual’s stand opposed to legalized abortion, it may be necessary to change the individ- ual’s attitude toward the value he places on human life. Thus, any attempt to change a secondary belief may not succeed unless it is accompanied by support directed toward the more primary belief that is its foundation.

III. The More Primary The Belief That Is Changed, The More Widespread Will Be The Change In The Remain- der Of The Individual’s Secondary Belief Structure.

One’s primary beliefs are the keys to secondary beliefs. If one believes in God, he may also believe in the Bible as an authority, in prayer, in tax exemp- tions for churches, and in the legality of prayer in the public schools. Each of these beliefs may have been derived from the primary belief in God. If the indi- vidual should change his belief about the existence of God, one might expect the individual to also change his beliefs about secondary issues that were derived from his primary ones. In essence, one might find that the change of a single primary belief could have major repercussions in many secondary beliefs held by the individual.

10

WANTS AND NEEDS

The second filter to be discussed in the paradigm is “wants and needs.” In his landmark book, Motivation and Personality, Abraham Maslow identified five basic types of needs that each individual must satisfy in order to feel safe and enjoy a fulfilled life. Maslow believed that these needs are hierarchical, that is, individuals strive to satisfy the more basic ones before moving on to meet others. He states that the most fundamental category of needs is physiological. An individual must have sufficient air, water, food, and rest in order to live. The other four categories include safety, social, self-esteem, and self-actualization. Maslow, like many psychologists and sociologists, spent considerable time researching the basic biological and psychological needs of man. Most of the research supports a concept of a hierarchy of needs relative to man. Based upon this hierarchy, most researchers conclude that a starv- ing man will most likely compromise his belief that stealing is wrong and will take food if it cannot be obtained in any other way. However, to understand this compromise of beliefs, it is important to discriminate between the concepts of a “need” and a “want.” For clarity, needs will be defined as those things that an individual believes he must have for his own well being. By definition, we will assume that an individual will sacrifice values and/or beliefs for a need. Wants, on the other hand, will be defined as those things that an individual would like to have but would not sacrifice values or beliefs in order to obtain. Wants comprise those things that we would like to have in our life. Wants might include wealth, possessions, or recognition. While wants are less demanding than needs, once an individual has reclassified a want to a need, he will sacrifice values and beliefs to satisfy this newly identified need. Obviously, what is a want to one person might very well be a need to another. More importantly, a want can become a need through the process of self-rationalization or

11

justification. However, a need can temporarily be forgotten when satisfied. Thus, we will conclude that there are “passive needs” and “active needs.” Passive needs are those needs that an individual believes he must have for his own well being but are being satisfied at the moment. A need being satisfied is no longer creating a demand. Thus, it is passive. On the other hand, active needs are needs that are not presently being satisfied; for these needs, one is exerting effort and energy to obtain sat- isfaction.

12

RELATIONSHIPS

The next filter to be discussed relative to the paradigm is “relationships.” The working definition of ethics states that “ethics is the study of the general nature of goodness or bad- ness as it relates to specific choices made by an individual in his relationships to self and/or others.” Obviously, the term relationships is one of the keys to an individual’s ethics. Relationships deal with the emotional links one has with other people. In the extreme, these relationships are often referred to as love or hate. However, it should be noted that relationships are not static; they are always in transition. Although Shakespeare declared that “Love is not love which alters when it alteration finds, or bends with the remover to remove,” one must recognize that no relationship is fixed in terms of its intensity or meaning; in fact, all relationships must be defined relative to a point in time. Thus, one can say that a relationship is a relevant or pertinent connection or link between two or more people; and, when there ceases to exist a relevant or pertinent connection, there is no relationship. To understand the concept of relationships, two points must be discussed. First, one needs to look at the basis for relationships; secondly, one should look at a phenomenon known as “group relationships.” What constitutes a relationship? Everyone knows of individuals who are referred to as acquaintances; other indi- viduals are called friends. What is the difference? More importantly, what is the basis for the differences that exist between individuals that one would call friends, acquain- tances, or strangers? Is the answer familiarity? Or, does an acquaintance become a friend over a period of time? If so, do all acquaintances become friends over a period of time? If not, why not? I suggest that relationships develop on the basis of physiological, psychological, and philosophical compatibili- ties. The beginning of relationships might very well be from a physiological basis. One inherits a relationship with his family, if for no other reason, because of the physiological

13

arrangements. Later in life, he learns of the importance of what is referred to as “first appearances.” Again, he is making reference to the physiological importance of a first time encounter. Yet, as the old cliché goes, “Beauty is only skin deep.” A physiological relationship soon moves to physiological con- siderations. Need, security, nationality or ethnic origins all are part of the psychological relationships that one has with other individuals. If the relationship weathers the psychologi- cal consideration, one may begin to see a deepening of the relationship through philosophical compatibility. Philosophical compatibility has to do with shared values and intellectual acceptability. The more one gets to know an individual, the more one finds that they are drawn together through shared values; or, the relationship may slowly wither as one finds that they do not have so much in common after all.

14

GROUP RELATIONSHIPS

While man longs for rugged individualism, he is basi- cally a social being. Although he speaks of being different, his house is usually like his neighbors. As man speaks of prin- ciples, he usually compromises his views in order to be rec- ognized; the need to socialize and the need to be recognized drive man to seek membership in groups. Most people will readily identify with their neighbor- hood group, their city group, their state group, their nation group. In addition, man belongs to insurance groups, to sav- ings groups, to veterans groups, to social groups, to political groups, to religious groups, and on and on. Man joins busi- ness clubs, social clubs, civic clubs, country clubs, book clubs, record clubs…; even people with blond hair constitute a group that has “more fun.” Whatever the reason one has for joining a group, it should be recognized that the price extracted from the indi- vidual for joining is a certain amount of conformity. Obvi- ously, some groups are less rule oriented than others, but all groups have values that are translated into rules and regula- tions that must be observed. In extreme cases, one can join a group only to find that the group demands an absolute consis- tency to its values. An example would be cults that demand total conformity of their members. Failure to comply with the rules and regulations of a group can sometimes result in something more than expulsion. Since refusal to comply with group norms might indicate that the rules of the group are improper, the group itself might attack a rule-breaker and demand conformity. In essence, for a person to leave such a group is tantamount to bringing the group’s survival into jeopardy. Under such conditions, great pressure to conform will be exerted by the group on a way- ward member. If being a member of a group requires a certain con- formity to group standards, then one can logically conclude that as an individual joins more and more groups, he runs the risk of encountering personal conflict with his own values and

15

beliefs. If, in joining the group, an individual is expected to forfeit some of his own values, and if he joins so many groups that the groups themselves conflict in terms of values and beliefs, one can predict the outcome―confusion and ethi- cal instability. While modern society often weighs the success of an individual upon the number of organizations to which he is a member, one might carefully consider the conflict this phe- nomenon creates in one’s values and beliefs. Indeed, if each and every group to which an individual becomes a member has the right to extract a certain amount of conformity, the end result is that an individual must forfeit a certain amount of his own ethical identity.

16

INTELLIGENCE </p