Making Informed Moral Decisions

Making Informed Moral Decisions
The Seven Step Method for Analyzing

Ethical Situations
One of the tools for analyzing ethical situations is to follow the Seven Step Method for
deciding what action to take in a situation. The method involves answering seven “what”
questions:
1. The Facts
2. The Ethical Issues
3. The Alternatives
4. The Stakeholders
5. The Ethics of the Alternatives
6. The Practical Constraints
7. Actions to Take
One reason for using the seven step method is to provide a mental checklist to insure
completeness in making the ethical analysis.
The method also provides a framework for locating difficulties and disagreements.
By separating facts from ethical issues, for example, the framework allows us to
determine whether a disagreement is over the facts or over the ethical issues
Ethical decision making is a dialectical process. The fact that the seven steps are
listed in numerical order does not indicate a strict logical or chronological order. The
presence of certain facts will alert us to the need to consider certain ethical issues, but
without some prior acquaintance of the ethical issues, these facts would not have any
ethical significance. Determining what the alternatives are, who the stakeholders are, or
what the practical constraints are may send us in search of additional facts.
Considering who the stakeholders are may generate new alternatives. The insight
generating capacity of the ethical principles used to determine the ethics of the
alternatives may raise new ethical issues or point us toward additional stakeholders.
Thus each step should be taken in progressive numerical order but each step remains
open to revision by subsequent steps. The steps are related in a dialectical way in that
the completion of one leads us to see inadequacies in previous steps that need revision.
The requirement to decide on a real time response to the situation sets a limit on how
much of this dialectical thinking we can engage in.
A Description of the Seven Steps
1. The Facts
What facts make this an ethical situation?
What are the significant features of the particular situation which make it an ethical
situation? Is there some actual or potential harm involved for an individual or group?
Does the situation relate to some basic human goods which are being created,
distributed, denied or threatened? Does the situation affect human welfare in some
significant way? Does it involve considerations of justice or rights?
What facts are relevant to making an ethical decision?
What facts should we know in order to decide how to act in this situation? Steps 1 and 2
are closely related. What facts are relevant will depend on what the ethical issues are
and the ethical issues will be determined by the presence of certain facts. Thus the
initial assessment of facts will have to be augmented once the ethical issues have been
determined.
2. The Ethical Issues

What level of ethical issues are we dealing with?
Systemic, corporate, or individual? Knowing the level of the problem will help us to
decide who will be affected by the decision and will therefore qualify as stakeholders
and who will be required to make the decision--the society as a whole, decision makers
within the corporation, or myself as an individual.
What specific ethical issues does this situation raise?
Is it a question of how to maximize benefits and minimize harms? Is it a question of
whether an action can be universalized? Of whether individuals are being treated as
ends and not merely as means? Of whether all rational persons would agree that a
particular action is right or good? Is it a question of a possible violation of rights or a
conflict between rights? Is it a question of the fair distribution of benefits and burdens?
Is it a question of how or whether to apply some specific ethical principle?
What level of generality is required?
The ethical issues need to be stated at a level of generality which will allow the issue to
be discussed in as broad a terms as possible, so as to see all the possible ramifications,
while yet being specific enough to lead to alternative actions in the case at hand.
3. The Alternatives
Given the facts and the ethical issues, what alternative actions are possible in this
situation? Initially we should state as many alternatives as possible without making
judgments as to their plausibility. Having generated as many as possible, the most
plausible should be chosen for further examination.
4. The Stakeholders
Who will be affected by the alternatives and to what degree?
We must determine who will be affected to a degree significant enough to include them
among the primary stakeholders worthy of consideration. For systemic issues, which
individuals, groups, institutions, and aspects of the physical, economic and social
environment will be affected? For corporate issues, who and what inside and outside
the corporation will be affected: stockholders, government, society, the environment,
suppliers, customers, local community, employees, managers and so on. For individual
issues, who will be affected by the decision, both inside the company such as peers,
superiors, other departments, and outside the company such as customers and
suppliers?
How to rank stakeholder claims?
Part of the decision making process will be to establish how much weight each
stakeholder's claim deserves. This weighing of claims is often done intuitively. For
purposes of justifying why the decision is the right one, however, the process for
weighing the competing claims should be spelled out as much as possible.
5. The Ethics of the Alternatives

Use ethical principles to decide on the best alternative.
The ethics of each of the most plausible alternatives is assessed using ethical principles
or rules. For each alternative, for example, we could ask the questions associated with
the utilitarian, rights and justice principles to determine how the alternative is rated by
each theory. When the alternatives have all been rated as right or wrong, good or bad,
the object is to select the best alternative. In the ideal situation, all the ethical principles
will point to the same alternative as the best one.
How to decide when the theories point to different alternatives.
There are situations in which different ethical principles will recommend different
alternatives. In a case where the principles provide a mixed recommendation, we must
choose which recommendation to follow and be prepared to justify that choice as best
we can. Justification can be provided by showing why the theory (ies) indicates that
alternative as the best and how this fits better into our conception of what the good life
is than the alternatives suggested by the other theories. It may come down to the simple
fact that, after inspecting all the alternatives with rationality and respect, I just do value
one alternative, or one theoretical approach, or one point of view as highlighted by one
theoretical approach, or one state of affairs provided by that alternative, or one value
embodied by one alternative more than the others. I may not be able to say why I prefer
that alternative except in terms of the way I choose to live my life and what my
experience has shown me. Does the fact that I do not have another definite standard to
appeal to, if two ethical theories should disagree mean that my decision is irrational or
unjustified? The decision is rational in that I have made it on the basis of the careful
consideration required by the seven step method and it is justified by showing why it is
the best alternative according to at least one ethical theory. To say that I am willing to
live by the decision is the only remaining justification.
6. The Practical Constraints

Can the best alternative be put into effect?
Having decided on one alternative, we need to see whether there are any practical
constraints which might prevent that alternative from being acted upon. When practical
constraints rule out an alternative, we must return to Step 5 to select the next best
alternative and subject it to the practical constraints test.
Distinguish ethical from practical constraints.
Ethical decision making involves ruling out alternatives on ethical grounds in Step 5 and
on practical grounds in Step 6. In actual practice we often do not bother to distinguish
the two different kinds of reasons for rejecting an alternative. It is be helpful to keep
them distinct as far as possible in order to be clear as to what kind of reason we are
giving. The difference between practical constraints and ethical considerations can best
be illustrated by example.
7. Actions to Take
Implementing the best alternative.
Having selected the best alternative which is not ruled out by practical constraints, we
need to decide on the steps necessary to carry it out.

A summary of the justification. We should also be prepared, at the close of this
decision process, to provide a justification of why this course of action is the right or
good one in this situation. Going through the seven steps justifies the decision in the
fullest sense. We should be prepared, however, to respond in some briefer form to the
legitimate requests of others--our superiors, our peers, the agents of society--for an
explanation of why this alternative is the best approach to this situation. This summary
based on the seven steps will also provide us with a briefer account to apply to similar
situations in the future. The worst punishment would be to face the full seven step
process for each and every ethical decision we make in our lives. We would have no
time for living.

Making Informed Moral Decisions

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Making Informed Moral Decisions

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Making Informed Moral Decisions

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Making Informed Moral Decisions

The Seven Step Method for Analyzing

2. The Ethical Issues

5. The Ethics of the Alternatives

6. The Practical Constraints

You might also like