Flowchart

Bivins, "Worksheet for Ethical Decision Making"

award Notable for requiring empathy with stakeholders, for pursuing both best- and worst-case analyses, and for a concluding adversarial defense

SOURCE FOR THE PROCEDURE

indentBivins, Tom. "Worksheet for Ethical Decision Making." 1996. http://jcomm.uoregon.edu/~tbivins/j495/Worksheet.html (9 Jun. 1999).
indentBivins, Tom. "Ethical Worksheet." 2000. http://jcomm.uoregon.edu/~tbivins/J397/Links/Worksheet.html (2 Mar. 2001)updated.

THE PROCEDURE ITSELF

Disclaimer
  1. What is the ethical issue/problem?
  2. What immediate facts have the most bearing on the ethical decision you must render in this case?
  3. Who are the claimants in this issue and in what way are you obligated to each of them?
  4. What do you think each of these claimants would prefer that you do regarding this issue?
  5. List at least 3 alternative courses of action.
    1. What are the best- and worse-case scenarios if you choose this alternative?
    2. Will anyone be harmed if this alternative is chosen, and how will they be harmed?
    3. Would honoring any ideal/value (personal, professional, religious, or other) invalidate the chosen alternative or call it into question?
    4. Are there any rules or principles (legal, professional, organizational, or other) that automatically invalidate this alternative?
  6. Are any of your alternatives supported or rejected by ethical guidelines?
    1. Consider guidelines based on consequences.
      • Is the "good" brought about by your action outweighed by the potential harm that might be done to anyone? (Mills' Harm Principle)
      • To what degree is your choice of alternatives based on your own or your organization's best interests? (Ethical Egoism)
      • Which of the alternatives will generate the greatest benefit (or the least amount of harm) for the greatest number of people? (Utilitarianism)
      • Are you choosing the alternative that gives priority to that which boosts the human spirit? If not, why not? (Ethics of Care)
    2. Consider guidelines based on the action itself.
      • Do you "owe" any of your claimants based on a promise/contract you made (implied or express)? (Fidelity)
      • Do you "owe" any of your claimants based on a wrong you committed that you now have to make up? (Reparation)
      • Do you "owe" any of your claimants based on gratitude for something one of the claimants did for you? (Gratitude)
      • Do you "owe" any of your claimants based on the merit of the claimants when compared with each other? (Justice)
      • Do you "owe" any of your claimants based on your ability to help someone out who needs and deserves help? (Beneficence)
      • Do you "owe" any of your claimants based on your ability to avoid harming anyone unnecessarily? (Non-injury)
      • Are you willing to make your decision a rule or policy that you and others in your situation can follow in similar situations in the future? (Kant)
      • Have you or will you be using any person as a means to an end without consideration for his/her basic integrity? (Kant)
  7. Determine a course of action based on your analysis.
  8. Defend your decision in the form of a letter addressed to your most adamant detractor.

WALT'S CHECKLIST

The same checklist was applied to all procedures.
Index Page
Index