More on Ethical Choice Approaches

Philosophers' Duality

In philosophy-speak, an ethics is called:

teleological if it specifies or implies intentionality and the requirement to determine and follow what is good; &
deontological if it specifies or implies duty and the requirement to determine and follow what is right.

Inquiry reveals that these two terms are a typical oscillating duality: i.e. they correspond to distinctive characteristics of odd and even Levels in the THEE hierarchy. The situation is shown in this Matrix Table.

L'	Approach	Core Obligations	Philosophical Classification
I'	Rationalist	Meeting practical objectives which are self-evidently sensible and worthwhile to the chooser.	Teleological
II'	Conventionalist	Conforming with widely held views on what is valued and proper within the chooser's relevant social group.	Deontological
III'	Pluralist (syn.Pragmatist)	Pursuing values that are preferred by the chooser's group, bring some general benefit and are easily applied.	Teleological
IV'	Individualist	Ensuring the chooser's security and interests in the light of the existing power relations.	Deontological
V'	Communalist	Balancing all anticipated consequences in relation to the needs and interests of all concerned, including the chooser.	Teleological
VI'	Legitimist	Setting a rule which is accepted as right by the chooser and all others in the social group.	Deontological
VII'	Transcendentalist	Responding to the chooser's deep inner (and essentially divine) sense of what is right and good.	Teleological

THEE Note: The 1992 formulation for pragmatist did not specifically refer to «the chooser's group» as the source of values that «the chooser prefers». Although perhaps not too serious an error in regard to ethical choice, it becomes rather serious once the political implications of the ethical choice approaches are recognized. The error has been corrected in the above matrix-table extracted from the book. When the e-book of «Working with Values» is eventually created, the relevant section will be revised.

The Unfolding Duality

The Ethical Aspiration & Ethical Constraint form the unfolding duality.This operates as a thesis-antithesis leading to a synthesis which is the thesis generating a new antithesis at the next higher level. The system is cyclic: i.e after L7, the next higher level is L1.

To see it, click here ►

Using the Approaches

The differences between the approaches show up markedly when we observe them in use. This will be explored when Ethics Tree frameworks are posted.

To get a better feel for each approach now, click to study the matrix ►

Better viewing: Use browser zoom if needed.

L'	Type of Approach Unfolding Duality	Instigation when:	Topics for Inquiry and Debate	Extreme Situation	Quandary	Features of Implementation	Principal Criticism
I'	Rationalist Solving the problem while recognizing realities.	A serious problem must be tackled dispassionately.	Will worthwhile goals be met? Are the goals really worthwhile? What side-effects will occur?	Intense emotional or political pressure.	How to achieve goals in the face of intense emotional resistance.	Set up re-orientation and educational programs.	Too insensitive.
II'	Conventionalist Maintaining continuity given the pressure for change.	Social change becomes overt and unavoidable.	What are the existing values? How inevitable is change? What will be the effects on current values?	Rapid widespread uncontrollable change.	How to enable change while supporting core established values.	Consult and allow dissent; phase change; indoctrinate and re-socialize; compensate; allow some to opt out.	Too reactionary.
III'	Pragmatist - Pluralist Pursuing group ideals within the bounds of present potential.	A complicated situation demands prompt action.	What groups and what ideals are relevant? What is desired and believed? What can be done easily to ensure some benefit?	Collapse of ideals or the group.	How to persuade everyone that the choice is really beneficial.	Communicate well; move ahead rapidly; foster pluralism; create groups who will benefit.	Too expedient.
IV'	Individualist Developing strengths without neglecting vulnerabilities.	Competition for resources and a dominance hierarchy exists.	Where does advantage lie? What is the actual balance of power? Can losses be minimized?	Loss of an essential resource.	How to overcome or adapt to others, especially if the power relations are unclear.	Be professional; husband resources; balance returns against effort/costs; be tough.	Too self-centred.
V'	Communalist Choosing altruism by virtue of egoism.	Everyone requires attention and due consideration.	What will the effects be? Who will be affected? Who can tolerate hardship? What else might help?	Need for sacrifice(s).	How and where to draw the boundary of concern.	Use participative system modelling; develop a system of choices; build on relationships.	Too complicated
VI'	Legitimist Serving the common good and individual autonomy.	Individuals must each govern their own behaviour in a group setting.	What is the best rule for all? Will it suit in the future? How will it be monitored and enforced?	The group is chaotic and riven with conflict.	How to handle the unavoidable diminution of human freedom.	Ensure that rule-setting is participative and authoritative.	Too indeterminate
VII'	Transcendentalist Realizing spirituality in the midst of temporality.	Personal integrity must be asserted.	(Use of meditative and related techniques to enable openness to an inspired intuition of what is personally right.)	Extremity of any sort, especially an assault on integrity.	How to communicate the nature of the choice to others.	Draw on inner strengths; tolerate social rejection if necessary.	Too open to self-delusion.
Note that many or even all of the instigating factors may be present in ethical choice situations, so leaving open the issue of which approach to use.

There is much more to ethics: ethical rules, natural moral institutions and ethical authorities. These all impact on choices that are made or lead to judgements about whether the choices are right. See more in various Chapters in Working with Values.
Continue to linking politics with ethics.

Originally posted: July 2009; Last updated: 27 Jan 2010