Concept Mapping: A Tool for Learning PDF

CONCEPT MAPPING A Tool for Learning Ateneo School of Government What is a concept map A device for representing the conceptual structure of a theme or topic analogous to a road map A special form of a web diagram for exploring knowledge and gathering and sharing information A diagram...

CONCEPT MAPPING A Tool for Learning Ateneo School of Government What is a concept map A device for representing the conceptual structure of a theme or topic analogous to a road map A special form of a web diagram for exploring knowledge and gathering and sharing information A diagrammatic representation which shows meaningful relationships between concepts in the form of propositions Purpose To harness the power of our vision to understand complex information "at-a- glance" To provide a method to handle complex information Advantages Provides a visual image of the concepts under study in a tangible form which can be focused very easily Can be readily revised any time when necessary Consolidates a concrete and precise understanding of the meanings and inter- relations of concepts Makes learning an active process, not a passive one Tools for the brain… Old New knowledge/concepts knowledge/concepts Linked to creates Meaningful learning (in contrast to rote learning) Tools for the brain… The primary function It is easier for the brain of the brain is to interpret to make meaning when incoming information information is presented to make meaning in visual formats A picture is worth a thousand words… Please deduce the message or idea of the next slide… Descriptive With what are the maps constructed? Nodes or cells that contain a concept, item or question and links Links are labeled and denote direction with an arrow symbol Labeled links explain the relationship between the nodes Arrow describes the direction of the relationship and reads like a sentence Lets try another map that describes concept maps…  Let’s practice! Kindly do a concept map of the three cases presented in Chapter 1: What is Morality of Rachel’s ‘Elements of Philosophy’ Let’s practice! Let’s practice! Let’s practice!  Duty-based or Deontological Ethics http://www.bbc.co.uk/ethics/introduction/duty_1.shtml Good Points 1) Value of every Greek Deon = Duty not virtue human being 2) Some acts are From ethics or always wrong character 3) Provides certainty guidance 4) Deals with intentions and motives DEONTOLOGY universe of moral rules DUTY ETHICS is not about is about consequences do the right thing Kant Bad Points WD Ross Ethical Theory 1) Absolutist Prima Facie Duties Duty 2) Allows acts Fidelity Universalizability that make the Reparations Respect world a less Gratitude Reason as source of good place 3) Hard to Justice moral code resonate Beneficence Good will conflicting Self-improvement Categorical Imperative duties Non-maleficence Pros and Cons Deontological (duty-based) ethics are concerned with what people do, not with the consequences of their actions. Do the right thing. Do it because it's the right thing to do. Don't do wrong things. Avoid them because they are wrong. Under this form of ethics you can't justify an action by showing that it produced good consequences, which is why it's sometimes called 'non-Consequentialist'. http://www.bbc.co.uk/ethics/introduction/duty_1.shtml The word 'deontological' comes from the Greek word deon, which means 'duty'. Duty-based ethics are usually what people are talking about when they refer to 'the principle of the thing'. Duty-based ethics teaches that some acts are right or wrong because of the sorts of things they are, and people have a duty to act accordingly, regardless of the good or bad consequences that may be produced. http://www.bbc.co.uk/ethics/introduction/duty_1.shtml Deontologists live in a universe of moral rules, such as:  It is wrong to kill innocent people  It is wrong to steal  It is wrong to tell lies  It is right to keep promises http://www.bbc.co.uk/ethics/introduction/duty_1.shtml Someone who follows Duty-based ethics should do the right thing, even if that produces more harm (or less good) than doing the wrong thing: People have a duty to do the right thing, even if it produces a bad result. So, for example, the philosopher Kant thought that it would be wrong to tell a lie in order to save a friend from a murderer. http://www.bbc.co.uk/ethics/introduction/duty_1.shtml Examples of Deontological Theories:  Divine command theory  “The Golden Rule”  Natural Law and natural rights theories  The non-aggression principle  Kantian Ethics (categorical imperative) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZfFs3nXI3mE  Good and Bad points Good points of duty-based ethics  emphasises the value of every human being ◦ Duty-based ethical systems tend to focus on giving equal respect to all human beings. ◦ This provides a basis for human rights - it forces due regard to be given to the interests of a single person even when those are at odds with the interests of a larger group. http://www.bbc.co.uk/ethics/introduction/duty_1.shtml  says some acts are always wrong ◦ Kantian duty-based ethics says that some things should never be done, no matter what good consequences they produce. This seems to reflect the way some human beings think. ◦ Rossian duty-based ethics modified this to allow various duties to be balanced, which, it could be argued, is an even better fit to the way we think. http://www.bbc.co.uk/ethics/introduction/duty_1.shtml  provides 'certainty' ◦ Consequentialist ethical theories bring a degree of uncertainty to ethical decision-making, in that no-one can be certain about what consequences will result from a particular action, because the future is unpredictable. ◦ Duty-based ethics don't suffer from this problem because they are concerned with the action itself - if an action is a right action, then a person should do it, if it's a wrong action they shouldn't do it - and providing there is a clear set of moral rules to follow then a person faced with a moral choice should be able to take decisions with reasonable certainty. http://www.bbc.co.uk/ethics/introduction/duty_1.shtml ◦ Of course things aren't that clear cut. Sometimes consequentialist theories can provide a fair degree of certainty, if the consequences are easily predictable. ◦ Furthermore, rule-based consequentialism provides people with a set of rules that enable them to take moral decisions based on the sort of act they are contemplating. http://www.bbc.co.uk/ethics/introduction/duty_1.shtml  deals with intentions and motives ◦ Consequentialist theories don't pay direct attention to whether an act is carried out with good or bad intentions; most people think these are highly relevant to moral judgements. ◦ Duty-based ethics can include intention in at least 2 ways... http://www.bbc.co.uk/ethics/introduction/duty_1.shtml ◦ If a person didn't intend to do a particular wrong act - it was an accident perhaps - then from a deontological point of view we might think that they hadn't done anything deserving of criticism. This seems to fit with ordinary thinking about ethical issues. ◦ Ethical rules can be framed narrowly so as to include intention. http://www.bbc.co.uk/ethics/introduction/duty_1.shtml Bad points of duty-based ethics  absolutist ◦ Duty-based ethics sets absolute rules. The only way of dealing with cases that don't seem to fit is to build a list of exceptions to the rule. http://www.bbc.co.uk/ethics/introduction/duty_1.shtml  allows acts that make the world a less good place ◦ Because duty-based ethics is not interested in the results it can lead to courses of action that produce a reduction in the overall happiness of the world.  hard to reconcile conflicting duties ◦ Duty-based ethics doesn't deal well with the cases where duties are in conflict. http://www.bbc.co.uk/ethics/introduction/duty_1.shtml How does deontology differ from virtue ethics?  Act guidance vs. character guidance  Deontology and consequentialism provide act guidance, that is, they tell us what sorts of actions we should take rather than what sort of people we ought to become (character guidance). http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZfFs3nXI3mE If we compare Deontologists with Consequentialists we can see that Consequentialists begin by considering what things are good, and identify 'right' actions as the ones that produce the maximum of those good things. Deontologists appear to do it the other way around; they first consider what actions are 'right' and proceed from there. (Actually this is what they do in practice, but it isn't really the starting point of deontological thinking.) So a person is doing something good if they are doing a morally right action. http://www.bbc.co.uk/ethics/introduction/duty_1.shtml Immanuel Kant 1724 – 1804) “Nothing in the world – indeed nothing even beyond the world – can possibly be conceived which could be called good without qualification except a good will.” http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CBl5qzIxLt8  Kant’s Ethics of Duty 3 insights form the basis for Kant’s Ethical Theory  An action has moral worth if it is done for the sake of duty. (DUTY)  An action is morally correct if its maxim can be willed as a universal law. (UNIVERSALIZABILITY)  We should always treat humanity, whether in ourselves or other people, as an end in itself and never merely as means to an end. (RESPECT) http://ncc.fisherfowler.net/ETHICS/ppt/KANT-09a.pptx  The Ethics of Duty Acting for the sake of duty is:  Acting without self-interest  Acting without concern for consequences  Acting without inclination [downplays the role of compassion] http://ncc.fisherfowler.net/ETHICS/ppt/KANT-09a.pptx Reason as the source of the moral law (reason "commands") Kant's premise: "nothing in nature is in vain", therefore reason must have some function.  The functions of the preservation of life or the gaining of happiness are better performed by instinct. [examples?]  Thus he concludes that Reason has nothing to do with our actions, yet is a practical power -- it influences our will. Kant concludes that the true function of reason is to produce a will that is good. http://ncc.fisherfowler.net/ETHICS/ppt/KANT-09a.pptx  The "Good Will" and Duty What does it mean to act from duty?  It is not enough that an act of a certain kind be done: ◦ For example:You might, while lying, accidentally tell the truth.  It is not enough that the act is INTENDED: ◦ For example: If you are moved by a sudden feeling of pity, your act is still without moral value. http://ncc.fisherfowler.net/ETHICS/ppt/KANT-09a.pptx  The "Categorical Imperative" The Categorical Imperative is the means by which we determine what the moral law is. It states: "I ought never to act except in such a way that I can also will that my maxim should become a universal law.” It means: ◦ that we have to be willing for others to use the same moral law that we are using. http://ncc.fisherfowler.net/ETHICS/ppt/KANT-09a.pptx  A Brief Summary of Kantian Ethics  The moral law is commanded by reason.  What makes an action morally right is that you have a moral maxim that you can universalize.  It is also wrong to treat people as “mere means” ◦ Kant focuses on universality and impartiality ◦ And these are conditions that are necessary for people to be treated “freely & equally” -- i.e. with RESPECT http://ncc.fisherfowler.net/ETHICS/ppt/KANT-09a.pptx  Kant: Pro & Con Pro:  It is admirable to act from duty  Morality should be evenhanded  The importance of respect for other persons Con:  Maintains the split between duty and inclination  Ignores the role of the emotions in morality  Ignores the place for consequences in morality http://ncc.fisherfowler.net/ETHICS/ppt/KANT-09a.pptx Power, Accountability, & Ethical Practices Edgar Valenzuela Power, Accountability, & Ethical Practices Various Sources: DuBrin, UNDP, WB, TI  Types or Sources of Power Person’s position in organization : legitimate power, reward power, coercive power, information power  Types or Sources of Power Personal power : expert power (knowledge/experience), referent power (traits/characteristics), prestige power (status/reputation)  Types or Sources of Power Power from Ownership (also for founders) Power from providing resources (regardless: staff, money, clients, technical, operating materials) Power from capitalizing on Opportunity (right place, right time, and appropriate action). N.B.: risk taker, caretaker, undertaker, and “surgeon”  Types or Sources of Power Power from managing critical problems (unit best able to cope with organization’s critical problems and uncertainties acquire influence ‘centrality’ (extent to which unit’s activities linked to the system of organizational activities Ex. COMELEC: IT and Legal Power from being close to Power: you report to ? Ethical tactics at gaining power Display results (quick, dramatic) Develop contacts with the powerful Monitor vital information Keep informed Ensure lines of communication Bring in outside experts  Ethical networking relationships Display Loyalty (not blind, criticism is ok) Manage your impression – ideas, speech, “in” Feedback from satisfied clients Be Positive, pleasant and courteous – an edge Ask advice – to build trust and relationship Give thanks – say thank you when warranted Un-Ethical Practices Back-Stabbing: (Cesar and Brutus) Demolish or Embrace (dismiss or banish) Set-Up a person for failure ( fail or be ineffective) Divide and Rule (competition for info and resources) Some Un-Ethical behaviors: A Continuum bullying and intimidation Cruelty Use of sarcasm/jokes Silence for manipulation Half truths Deception Bluffing Sexual harassment Bribery coercion  Accountability is power ! A is accountable to B If A is obliged to explain/justify his/her action to B Or if A may suffer sanctions if his/her conduct or explaination is incomplete/unacceptable  Accountability is power ! Object of accountability Agent of Accountability Answerability (weaker approach) Enforceability (stronger approach) Both are needed; neither one is sufficient  Practical issues - De jure vs. de facto (e.g. to donors) - Vertical (direct) vs. Horizontal (indirect) Ex. Elections CoA or DoJ or PCGG, etc - Ex post (action/assess/sanction) Vs. Ex Ante ( for ex. Budget hearing, bottom-up budgetting) - Accountability vs. responsiveness/responsibility(de facto) or voluntary self-regulation  Corruption: It’s more fun in… Corruption is the mis-use or abuse of public office for private gain through: Bribery, extortion, fraud, nepotism, graft, grease/speed money, pilferage, theft, embezzlement, false records, kickbacks, influence peddling, electoral campaign contributions  Corruption: It’s more fun in… Is it due to poor implementation ? Or bad regulation? Or both ? Is it more prevalent in government spending offices like infrastructure, purchase of equipment/vehicles, textbooks, etc ? Or in govt. revenue-raising offices like tax collection, customs, or business reg ? Or in LGUs ?  Corruption: It’s more fun in… Transparency International in its Corruption Perception Index (CPI) 2019: Philippines ranked 113 (out of 180 countries) Timor Est (93), Indonesia (85), Vietnam (96), Nepal (113), Bangladesh (146) Thailand (101), Laos/Myanmar (130) In 2020, Philippines ranked 115 with a score of 34 In 2021, Philippines ranked 117/180 countries  Anti-Corruption Strategies: 1. Policy reform /deregulation 2. Reform political campaign spending 3. Increase public oversight (ex. G-Watch) 4. Reform budgetary processes 5. Improve Meritocracy in the civil service 6. Target key offices for ex.: BIR, Customs, Immigration, DPWH, DENR, DECS, NIA, DOH, DILG, NPC 7. Enhance Sanctions (fast track high profile cases) 8. Develop Public/Private Partnerships 9. Support Judicial reforms  Anti-Corruption Bodies: Ombudsman CoA Civil Service Commission Sandiganbayan DoJ, DBM PCGG BSP SEC The Judiciary; Senate Blue-Ribbon Committee  PACC Anti-Corruption Priorities (PACC abolished on 30 June 2022 : All agencies under the President should set the stage for bureaucratic reforms for head of government to be accountable, take command responsibility of all their actions and eliminate undue human intervention of agents and middlemen in transactions PACC Anti-Corruption Priorities: Professionalize civil service based on meritocracy and continuously increase the number of quality public workers proportional to the demands of good governance PACC Anti-Corruption Priorities: Prompt and stern punitive actions for persistent corrupt practices of incompetence, inefficiency, “kalakaran,” nepotism, “balimbing,” and patronage as well as syndicated crimes like plunder and violations of procurement of public goods, without fear or fervor PACC Anti-Corruption Priorities: Publish immediately all plans, projects and programs at all levels and from all stakeholders, especially in the selection and procurement of goods and services in all agencies PACC Anti-Corruption Priorities: Modernize and innovate monitoring and data base systems of transactions with reliable technology and independent public audit at all phases of implementation, from pre-inspection to the point of origin and/or destination, ensuring that accepted technology should, at all times be working, secured, safe and accurate Leadership is getting things done by injecting enthusiasm and energy… TRANSFORMATIONAL THEORY 1 Transformational Theory 1. Developing the vision 2. Selling the vision  in order to have followers, creating trust and personal integrity are critical  in effect, leaders are selling themselves as well as the vision Transformational Theory 3. Finding the way forward  focus on team and task 4. Leading the charge  remain visible and central during the action  leader seeks to infect and re-infect their followers with a high level of commitment to the vision Transformational Theory  Two key charismatic effects that transformational leaders achieve is to evoke strong emotions and to cause identification of the followers with the leader.  Use of ceremonies, rituals, slogans and other cultural symbolism to evoke strong sentiments Transformational Theory  Transformational Leadership – LIGHTS AND SHADOWS  As inextricably linked with higher order values – in the realm of morality and ethics  As amoral, and attributed transformational skills to people such as Adolf Hitler and Jim Jones. Transformational Leadership: Concept Map Heroic Transfor- mational Leadership Adaptive Servant Ateneo School of Government –– Leadership in the Public Sector 3/20/2023 6 Heroic Leadership Based on Ignatian/Jesuit spirituality, “heroic” leadership is anchored on 4 core leadership pillars… Understanding your strengths, Self-awareness weaknesses, values, and worldview Confidently innovate and adapt to a Ingenuity changing world Engage others with a positive attitude Love that unlocks their potential Energize yourself and others with Heroism heroic ambitions and a passion for excellence Servant Leadership Great leaders serve the group they lead, by creating and maintaining an environment which encourages and supports everyone in maximizing their potential, especially vis-à-vis group goals. Servant Leadership 10 CHARACTERISTICS OF A SERVANT LEADER: Listening Foresight Empathy Stewardship Healing Commitment to the growth Awareness of people Persuasion Building community Conceptualization Adaptive Leadership (Heifetz)  Leadership is an activity, not a set of personality characteristics.  The activity of leadership is defined as the mobilization of the resources of a people or of an organization to make progress on the difficult problems it faces. Resonant Leadership (Goleman) Resonant Leadership Emotionally intelligent leadership…  Emotionally intelligent leaders create positive feelings in followers and in organizations  Harmony makes for more motivated, productive, efficient, and satisfied people  Resonant Leadership (Goleman) RELATIONSHIP MANAGEMENT: 13. Inspirational leadership 14. Influence SOCIAL AWARENESS: 15. Developing Competencies 10. Empathy 16. Change catalyst 11. Organizational 17. Conflict mgt awareness 18. Teamwork & collaboration SELF-MANAGEMENT: 12. Service 4. Emotional Self Control 5. Transparency 6. Adaptability SELF-AWARENESS: 7. Achievement 1. Emotional self- 8. Initiative awareness 9. Optimism 2. Accurate self- assessment 3. Self-confidence  What is POWER? potential INFLUENCE enacted over People’s attitudes Events & behaviors EXERCISED through INFLUENCE TACTICS  Directions of Relations SUPERIORS PEERS BIDIRE CTIONAL PEERS subordinates  Adverse effects of power… ABUSE AND MISUSE OF POWER Poor (defective or deficient) leadership LACK OF TRUST AND GROUP BELONGING Breakdown in group relations and effectiveness (corrosive for group members’ pride and morale)  Legitimate Reward Information BASES OF Coercive POWER Referent Expert PERSONAL POSITION LEGITIMATE POWER Refers to the capacity to impose a sense of obligation or responsibility on another. POSITION REWARD POWER Refers to the capacity to provide others with things they desire or value. POSITION POSITION COERCIVE POWER Refers to the ability to take away rewards and privileges or administer sanctions. POSITION POSITION INFORMATION POWER Refers to the ability to access and distribute (or withhold) important information. PERSONAL PERSONAL REFERENT POWER Refers to the ability to provide others with feelings of personal acceptance, approval, efficacy, or worth. PERSONAL PERSONAL EXPERT POWER Refers to the ability to provide another with needed information, knowledge, or expert advice. Another view (McClelland) SOCIAL POWER Facilitating group cooperation and effort for the achievement of the general good. EGOISTIC (PERSONALIZED) POWER Using others for personal gain.  Dark Side of Leadership The very behaviors that distinguish authentic (effective) leadership also have the potential to produce problematic or even disastrous outcomes for organizations. When leaders’ behaviors become exaggerated, lose touch with reality, or become vehicles for purely personal gains.  Almost anyone can use power, but it takes skill to use leadership. Leadership power is much more than the use of force… It is influencing others to truly want to achieve a goal. Plain power forces others to achieve a goal. 26 Question:  Given my being a Leader with Power, how can I practice ethical leadership?  How can I influence my ‘office’ to be an ethical organization? How to create an ethical organization  The challenge for this government and many organizations in the country: Can we really change an "endemic" culture of corruption? If yes, HOW? How do we change a culture? Working on transforming individuals? Introducing structural changes? administrative reforms? Which comes first?  But isn't formation of individuals the work of a community?  and does it not take a lifetime? It takes one village to raise a child  Can an organization really hope to create an ethical culture by working on individuals? Without doubt, an ethical individual is partly because of an ethical culture Culture  Colere: to cultivate  Shared aspirations, world view, attitudes, values, usually manifested and cultivated through practices and activities in the workaday world.  Distinct way by which a community lives  Cultivated  Layers of Culture Outer: explicit products Middle layer: rules and values Why do you bow? --Others do norm --Show respect value Core: “world view”; assumed not examined by natives; metaphysical The values and world view are formed through time, through structures and that define individual's behavior Caution GENERALIZATIONS about groups are unavoidable; usually from experts who have done extensive research on culture and cultural differences. BUT CULTURE IS JUST ONE OF MANY INFLUENCES on individual behavior. Personality, age, generation and gender also make a difference. CATEGORIES of BEHAVIOR UNIVERSAL - ways in which all people in all groups are the same, e.g. value for survival CULTURAL - what a particular group of people have in common with each other and how they are different from every other group PERSONAL - the ways in which each one of us is different from everyone else, including those in your group Because of UNIVERSAL behavior, not everything about people in a new culture are different; some of what you already know about human behavior applies whatever country you go to, or group you join Because of PERSONAL behavior, not everything a culture is about applies in equal measure, or at all, to every individual in that culture.  THE PROCESS OF CULTURAL CONDITIONING In childhood conditioning, infants learn basic activities of life. Children learn patterns of thinking, feeling and acting. Behavioural conditioning is learning and internalizing the values and beliefs behind these behaviours Aristotle: we are what we repeatedly do. The circularity of acts that create the habit and the acts that emanate or come from the habit. That is the difference? Action-Habit-Action character Indiv acts Indiv acts character  In adult conditioning, people learn new ways to perform overriding already conditioned behaviour.  Unlearning is more difficult than learning for the first time  Adult conditioning adaptive; selective; a product of reflection  But subsequent adaptations are partially pre- determined by patterns s/he has learned  “fusion of horizons” Conscientious Moral Agent ►Someone who is rational, impartial, acts on the basis of principles (and not self-interests). ►Develops from a will compelled by external motivations to a will that decides for itself ►Is not born but formed or developed by mentors, cultural context/s Conscientious Moral Agent  How do we bring the agent to higher levels of moral development?  Can an organization make a difference in the ethical life of an individual who is already formed? If yes, then how do we build that ethically enabling culture? Leadership and Culture-Building 1. Leaders should not be merely influenced and shaped by this culture 2. Its cultivation is the responsibility of leaders  Create a culture according to an organization's vision of what it wants to be;  Vision: we are not yet there. How do we get there? 3. Making available "actualizing forces" Leaders Build a Culture 1. By the kind of person they are they model a behavior e.g. Your own bosses they make certain kinds of decisions for the organizations e.g. courageous leaders make hard, unpopular decisions "political" leaders make popular decisions Leaders Build a Culture 2. By putting structures in place that will create a way of doing things modeling is never enough; policies, administrative structures change behavior systematically and in the long term e.g. "environmental consciousness" through waste segregation and collection, less plastic policy, "pocket gardens" and how people smoke less divorce law and its relation to incidents of divorce Leaders Build a Culture If I were a teacher… building a culture is about Modeling: coming to class on time, checking and returning papers, etc. Structural interventions: Policies: no mobiles? Yes to mobiles? No computers? Yes to late papers? Kinds of tests Way of Teaching: Lecture? Discussion? Institutional Ethics Culture Building 1. Starts from a vision 2. Must also do an assessment of where the organization is: ethics audit Vision where people are 3. Vision is translated into concrete structures and interventions Why should an organization be ethical  In the US recent studies show that an overwhelming majority of people want to work for an ethical company, going as far as suggesting they would be willing to accept lower salaries as long as the company is ethical.  In the Philippines, we elected a government not based on track-record as an executive but based on perceived ethical character  Why should companies be ethical According to a DePaul University study, “Companies explicitly committed to an ethics code return shareholder value at twice the rate of other companies.” A 2002 International Survey Research whitepaper titled “Ethics and organizational culture: How corporate culture impacts stakeholder security” reported that according to investment reports, 17 organizations known to be facing ethics crises had lost share price at “four times the rate of the Dow Jones Industrial Average.”  Checklist for Creating an Ethical Culture  What is the company's vision? Is ethics expressly an ideal?  Have you done an ethics audit?  Is your Mancom sold to the idea? Is there deliberate leadership modeling?  Do you currently have an enforceable and widely known code of conduct?  Do you offer an ongoing and calibrated training program?  Do you enforce your guidelines? Do you have enforceable and fair punitive measures for infractions?  Do you currently have an external reporting mechanism for whistle-blowing and does it include case management tools?  Are you’re employees aware of the items noted above? Elements in Building an Ethics Cultures 1. Leadership 2. Commitment 3. Cultural Sensitivity** 4. Collaboration 5. Implementation 6. Reflection and Renewal High and Low Context Cultures Why Rules cannot be transported from one country to another from one organization to another. High Context cultures are usually homogenous, collectivist. Group harmony and acceptance are very important, thus the dynamics of rule- based ethics cultures may not always be applicable DILEMMAS HAPPEN AT THESE LEVELS 1. Individual 1. Corporate/Organizational 1. Systemic  Individual DILEMMAS  The focus is on the role of the individual in the organization.  Individual determines the ethics surrounding any decision in the organization.  Individual analyzes congruence between personal, moral standards and corporate policies.  e.g. underage, overage, the Standard Chartered story  Organizational DILEMMAS  The focus is on the ethical dimensions of organization’s decisions, policies, and structures.  Consequences of decisions directly or indirectly impact individuals and groups that may have no input in the decision (e.g., plant closings).  Businesses adopt new strategic directions that may cause ethical dilemmas for employees.  Corporate cultures can be assessed on moral grounds (e.g., codes of ethics and incentives for moral behavior) Systemic DILEMMAS ►The problem involves not just a company but a network of players. e.g. the health sector and high cost of medicines ►Business is part of several social systems including various economic, legal and political institutions. ►Focuses on ethical rightness or wrongness of these systems (e.g., capitalism), and their parts (laws, public policies, regulations, and common practices). Systems Thinking ►“Systems” thinking guides us to look at the overall picture: purpose, interactions, resources needed and effectiveness (is system surviving while achieving its goals), relationship to bigger community ►Leadership and “reading the environment” A. Describe Describe the ethics culture of the organizations you have to be a part of. 1. What are your workplace's usual ethical problems? 2. How are they handled? 3. What organizational structures, policies, etc does your workplace have that reflect its seriousness (or lack of it) in building an ethics culture. B. Diagnose 1. What are the most pressing problems 2. Where are the problems coming from (individual, organizational and cultural sources). 3. What your organization's strengths and weaknesses that contribute to the problems and its existing (or non-existing) ethics program B. Diagnose 4. Given that an organization is part of systemic relations (and in the Philippines, these are complex), what should be the key components of an organizational ethics program in this country? Notes of Edgardo T. Valenzuela Power, Ethics and Accountability  Morality = Standard of good and bad Minimum morality = reason and impartiality Moral reasoning – reasonable thinking based on contemplation and discernment VIRTUE – action, habit, character Moral = DUTY Ex.: honesty, courage, integrity Ethics is the application of moral standards  Morality =must be backed by good reasons and impartial consideration of each individuals’ interests. Impartiality = each individual is equally important To discover the truth, morality is consulting reason CRITICAL THINKING  Moral Truths Moral are truths of judgement is true if backed by reason better reasons than the alternatives.  Conscious moral agent Concerned impartially with everyone’s interest Affected by the behavior or action carefully sifts facts and examines implications Accepts only sound principles of conduct after review Willing to listen to reason even if earlier view has to be changed Who is willing to take action on this deliberation  Theory and Practice= Praxis Morality to Ethics (applied) behavioral guideposts Sabi ni lolo/lola; sabi ng nanay/tatay Sabi ng barkada…. … conscience – figment of imagination or voice of truth ? Morality is reason and conscience; independent of religion  Ethics and Society Layers of Moral Standards: Tradition and customs Religion Culture Laws/ other standards Education  Ethical Rules Different standards govern our lives: Etiquette—standards by which we judge manners to be good or bad; normally dictated by a socio-economic elite Legal—standards by which we judge legal right and wrong; in a democratic context, formulated by representatives of the people Language—standards by which we judge what is grammatically right or wrong; evolve through use Aesthetics—standards by which judge good and bad art; usually dictated by a a small circle of art connoisseurs Athletic—standards by which we judge how good or bad a game is played; usually formulated by governing bodies  Ethics and Society Cultures -→VALUES E.g. Care of the young TRUTH ( vs. lying) LIFE (vs. killing or murder) CULTURAL PRACTICES : does it promote or hinder the welfare of ALL ? Ethical Subjectivism is moral opinions from FEELINGS (nothing more). And we all have negative feelings….. BEWARE of ourselves)  T. Aquinas “ First Cause/ Prime Mover” based on Aristotle’s Unmoved Mover If so then God exists…. Goal of human life = perfect happiness after redemption (salvation) Ethics = Will (goal) ordered towards (charity,peace, holiness) to achieve happiness Necessarily love what God loves (moral choice)  What does religion tell us ? In the home, it is kindness (love) In business, it is honesty (integrity) In society, it is courtesy (respect) In work, it is fairness  What else does it tell us ? Pity the unfortunate Help the weak Resist the wicked Trust the strong Congratulate the fortunate Forgive the penitent Revere and love GOD  Dilemma Do you agree or disagree with the following: “An action is morally right if in carrying out the action the agent exercises, exhibits, or develops a morally virtuous character, and it is morally wrong to the extent that by carrying out the action the agent exercises, exhibits, or develops a morally vicious character” (Velasquez)  Dilemma: Some Questions Can one use fear and/or monetary incentives to gain or to consolidate support for one’s exercise of leadership in an organization? When do monetary incentives in the exercise of transactional leadership become a dilemma? How does one resolve a dilemma? What should be taken into account in resolving a dilemma?  Ethical Balance Virtue Ethics as one model of ‘Rationality’ Virtue Ethics: primary concern: character more than conduct—with how we should be more than what we should do; Focuses on the agent more than the action. What kind of person does one become through this or that action? Guidance on controversial ethical questions gained primarily by looking to the virtues or the virtuous person as a model  Ethical Balance Aristotle: Virtue: a disposition to choose what is fine or noble for its own sake; a habit that enables a person to live according to reason. It is its own reward. “A mean between two vices, one of excess & one of deficiency” Classical virtues: honesty, courage, integrity Ethical Balance Manuel Velasquez: “A moral virtue is an acquired disposition that is valued as part of the character of a morally good human being & that is exhibited in the person’s habitual behavior.” Summary of 4 Ethical Frameworks Presented by Edgardo T. Valenzuela Virtue: (Virtue Ethics/ Character Guidance Aritotle Doctrine of salvation Kinds: Happiness and Good Life (good for one, good for all) Focuses on character, rather than conduct Delves on the agent/ person, rather than the action or single acts Moral Virtue – acquired by Final goal in itself habit, not by nature Conscientious moral agent – impartial, fastidious, principle- based, openness, will take action Intellectual Virtue – acquired by Aim to achieve Golden Mean – between excess and teaching and understanding deficiency Trait that contributes to functioning well as a human being Virtue ethics – discernment; Learned or acquired disposition to reason exhibited in critical thinking and action habitual behavior (not feeling; not on action in a given situation) Habits, practice, actions, consistency and character Habit that enables a person to live according to reason Critical thinking Virtue Examples: Good points (strength): Focuses on person In public service – accountability, Whole of person’s life stewardship and responsibility Integration - love, honesty, respect, Limitations: humility, equality, fairness, golden rule, courage, integrity No clear guidelines on resolving dilemmas No consensus on what virtues are (relativism) Duty: Deontology; Duty Ethics; Non-consequentialist; Action Guidance Immanuel Kant; WD Ross Examples: Doctrine of salvation Golden Rule; Divine command; non-aggression Doing the right thing; based on universe of moral rules; not Basis for human rights about virtue ethics or character guidance, and consequences; acting in accord with law Fidelity; Reparations; Gratitude; Justice; Beneficence; Self- improvement; Non-maleficence Do the right thing because it is the right thing to do, regardless of the results and consequences (even if outcome Wrong to kill, steal, lie, break promises bad) Judged based on action (not character; not what people ought to become) Doing good based on the morally right thing to do Based on duty (acting without self-interest, concern for consequences and inclination/ compassion), universalizability or categorical imperative (becoming a universal law) and respect (end it itself, not just means; ends does not justify means; human beings innate dignity and equal worth) Anchored on good will (which is true function of reason) duty Good points (strengths): Limitations: Places value on every human Absolutist being Allows acts which make the Some acts are always wrong world a less good place since not Provides certainty results-based Deals with intentions and Hard to resonate conflicting motives duties Blind obedience Justice: Fairness; John Rawls Not a doctrine of salvation, Fairness anchored on: 2 Moral Powers – (1) capacity for sense of justice (fair sense of temporal, contemporary, cooperation), (2) conception of the good (valuable in human life, final ends) not relate to conscience/ Basic Liberties – (1) freedom of thought, (2) liberty of conscience, (3) political liberties, (4) freedom of association, (5) freedoms specified by perfection the liberty and integrity of the person, (6) rights and liberties covered by the rule of law. Premised on: (1) Comprehensive Doctrine – (1) all recognized values and virtues within an articulated system, (2) political, social and economic institutions, (3) exercise of practical reason, (4) evolves over time Associational conception Reasonable Citizens – (1) reciprocity, (2) recognize burdens of (within a group); (2) judgment Social Contract Theory – (1) Original Position – 3 items (a) pre-political Comparative treatment position of humanity, (b) political order just out of (a), and (c) current actual order; (2) Veil of Ignorance – not know demographics (scarce resources/ benefits 2 Principles of Justice – (1) Equal Liberty Principle - Each person has an equal right to a fully adequate scheme of equal basic liberties which is and many burdens); (3) compatible with a similar scheme of liberties for all; (2) Social and economic inequalities are to satisfy 2 conditions – (a) Equal Administration of Rules Opportunity Principle - First, they must be attached to offices and positions open to all under conditions of fair equality of opportunity; and Difference Principle - second, they must be to the greatest benefit (resolving competing claims) of the least advantaged members of society. Justice Kinds: Distributive Justice – based Retributive Justice – just on 6 Parameters: (1) imposition of punishment Equitability (treats equals, on wrongdoer equally; unequals, Compensatory Justice – unequally); (2) Equality or restitution by wrongdoer of Egalitarianism; (3) what was lost by a person Contribution or Capitalist Justice; (4) Needs and Abilities (well-being and ability); (5) Freedom (free choice); and (6) Fairness justice Good Points (Strengths) Limitations: Comprehensiveness Equitability ignores efficiency; Principles and premises clear Equality ignores differences; Contribution ignores needs; Needs and Abilities ignore individual freedom; Freedom ignores other freedoms; Fairness ignores benefits Utility: Consequentialism; Utilitarianism; Greatest Happiness; Jeremy Bentham; John Stuart Mill Not a doctrine of salvation, temporal, contemporary, not relate to conscience/ perfection Kinds: Consequentialism – rightness or wrongness of action based on results produced; no action is right or wrong it itself Act Utilitarianism – per action; Choose best overall consequences for those concerned act to maximize pleasure/ Not concerned with pleasing God; not a matter of happiness faithfulness to abstract rules Bring as much happiness into the world Rule Utilitarianism – code of Pleasure and pain define what is good and bad (what ought conduct; not per action; people to be) follow rule Considerations – intensity, duration, certainty, propinquity/ remoteness, fecundity (similar sensation), purity (different sensation), and extent (people affected) Preference Utilitarianism – Greatest Happiness (Mill) preferences of individuals; each Not consider intentions and motives preference is unique utility Examples Limitations: Majoritarian rule Unclear parameters; uncertainty Common good Conflicts with justice and fairness Good points: Allows suffering minority Focuses on what is good Does not account for obligations Premised on happiness of people Subjectivity – whose happiness prevails?  Case: Heinz’s dilemna A woman was near death from a special kind of cancer. There was one drug that the doctors thought might save her. It was a form of radium that a druggist in the same town had recently discovered. The drug was expensive to make, but the druggist was charging ten times what the drug cost him to produce. He paid $200 for the radium and charged $2,000 for a small dose of the drug. The sick woman's husband, Heinz, went to everyone he knew to borrow the money, but he could only get together about $1,000 which is half of what it cost. He told the druggist that his wife was dying and asked him to sell it cheaper or let him pay later. But the druggist said: "No, I discovered the drug and I'm going to make money from it." So Heinz got desperate and broke into the man's store to steal the drug for his wife. Should Heinz have broken into the store to steal the drug for his wife? Why or why not? Discuss taking into consideration at least one of the six stages of moral development of Kohlberg.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heinz_dilemma Please read above text to appreciate your initial response to the dilemma. Compare your answer to the list. Reflect and see how you can improve yourself by gaining new insights, if any, with this new found awareness. Names/Types of Dilemmas  Chicken or egg: which is first of two things, each of which presupposes the other Double bind: conflicting requirements ensure that the victim will automatically be wrong. Ethical dilemma: a choice between moral imperatives. Extortion: the choice between paying the extortionist and suffering an unpleasant action. Fairness dilemmas: when groups are faced with making decisions about how to share their resources, rewards, or payoffs.  Hobson's choice: a choice between something and nothing; "take it or leave it". Morton's fork: choices yield equivalent, often undesirable, results. Prisoner's dilemma: An inability to coordinate makes cooperation difficult and defection tempting. Samaritan's dilemma: the choice between providing charity and improving another's condition, and withholding it to prevent them from becoming dependent. Sophie's choice: a choice between two persons or things that will result in the death or destruction of the person or thing not chosen. Zugzwang: One must move and incur harm when one would prefer to make no move (esp. in chess). Names that have been given to certain types of dilemmas. Chicken or egg: which is first of two things, each of which presupposes the other Double bind: conflicting requirements ensure that the victim will automatically be wrong. Ethical dilemma: a choice between moral imperatives. Extortion: the choice between paying the extortionist and suffering an unpleasant action. Fairness dilemmas: when groups are faced with making decisions about how to share their resources, rewards, or payoffs. Hobson's choice: a choice between something and nothing; "take it or leave it". Morton's fork: choices yield equivalent, often undesirable, results. Prisoner's dilemma: An inability to coordinate makes cooperation difficult and defection tempting. Samaritan's dilemma: the choice between providing charity and improving another's condition, and withholding it to prevent them from becoming dependent. Sophie's choice: a choice between two persons or things that will result in the death or destruction of the person or thing not chosen. Zugzwang: One must move and incur harm when one would prefer to make no move (esp. in chess). ETHICS AND ACCOUNTABILITY Ethics and Leadership in Governance Ateneo School of Government Quezon City, Philippines We all too quickly make quick ethical judgements based on our own conditioned ideas of what is good and bad. Quick judgements and subjective criteria rarely give reliable assessment of actual goodness and potential. Be open-minded and not dogmatic. Against arrogance. Feelings are not perceptions of truth  ETHICS: Content and Process CONTENT PROCESS (what?) (how?) Ateneo School of Government – Leadership 3 in Public Service  Content and Process of the Ethics of Leadership PROCESS Leadership is an influence relationship among leaders and followers who intend real changes that reflect their mutual purposes. CONTENT Ateneo School of Government – Leadership 4 in Public Service  PROCESS (influence relationship) CONTENT Persuading farmers to adopt new (real changes) technologies Demonstrating how science can help Enhanced production boost production Sustainable agriculture practices Formulating policies to force farmers to Food on every table follow the dictates of the State Poverty alleviation Ateneo School of Government – Leadership in Public Service 5  The TWO dimensions of Ethics PROCESS concerned with the ways leaders and followers interact as they attempt to influence one another How should one act ethically in one’s relations with other human beings while attempting to influence them? Ateneo School of Government – Leadership 6 in Public Service  The TWO dimensions of Ethics CONTENT the proposed changes that leaders and followers intend for an organization or society Are the changes (decisions, policies, positions) that one supports morally acceptable? Ateneo School of Government – Leadership 7 in Public Service  Ethical Content Ethical Ethical content, content, unethical ethical process process Unethical Ethical Process Process Unethical Unethical content, content, unethical ethical process process Unethical Content Ateneo School of Government – Leadership 8 in Public Service CRITERIA OR PRINCIPLES IN ETHICAL DECISION-MAKING In our heavily organized if not bureaucratized societies, it is often the case that moral and ethical standards enter rather as constraints to be taken into consideration rather than legitimate objectives. For this reason, they tend to be overlooked or even ignored in the actual decision-making process. As a result, administration and management become divorced from ethics and morals. Anthony Makrydemetres, 2002 Ateneo School of Government – Leadership 9 in Public Service  The ALIR criteria ACCOUNTABILITY INTEGRITY LEGALITY RESPONSIVENESS Ateneo School of Government – Leadership 10 in Public Service  Summary of 4 Principlesof “ALIR” Democratic legitimacy and Accountability of public bureaucracy and administration Rule of law and principle of Legality, where law and only law should govern the administration Meritocracy, professional Integrity, autonomy and capacity of the administrative state apparatus Responsiveness and responsibility of administration/bureaucracy to society  ACCOUNTABILITY The obligation of a subordinate to answer to his superior for the SUPERIOR exercise of authority in line with his delegated responsibility, for the performance of duties assigned to him. SUBORDINATE TASKS & DUTIES Ateneo School of Government – Leadership 12 in Public Service  ACCOUNTABILITY In a democracy, those who work in the public sector are guided by PEOPLE and subordinated to political authority (those elected by the people to govern). Ultimately, all public servants are accountable to the people. PUBLIC SERVANTS GOODS & SERVICES Ateneo School of Government – Leadership 13 13 13 in Public Service  LEGALITY Since the source of all power is the people, then all power must be exercised in the name of and for the general interest of the people Unethical conduct – bribery, theft, favoritism, abuse of power – consists in the violation of law, that is, putting someone above or beyond the law Consistent, predictable and fair enforcement of the law should be the first priority of an ethics reform strategy Ateneo School of Government – Leadership 14 in Public Service  INTEGRITY Ateneo School of Government – Leadership 15 in Public Service  INTEGRITY Civil servants are supposed to be fully competent based on knowledge, experience and expertise (civil service eligibility) These competencies are usually accompanied by a set of shared standards and values defined by professional ethics/code of conduct – NO to corruption in the procurement of goods and services Ateneo School of Government – Leadership 16 in Public Service RESPONSIVENESS Public institutions should be responsive to society and pay attention to the needs and demands of the people This calls for an awareness and a readiness to adapt to changing values and conditions in society Ateneo School of Government – Leadership 17 in Public Service A final ethical question…  Ethics and Institutional Core Values in institutional environment Social glue that holds people together Guide for decisions and actions Strengthen character: Individual Organizational Societal  Definition of Leadership (From an Ethical Perspective – Rost) Leadership is an influence relationship among leaders and followers who intend real changes that morally elevate organizations and the people in them. Essential element: The moral dimension of the nature of leadership  A final ethical question… How do you enable and foster ETHICAL Groups in your respective spheres of influence? (Municipality, department, unit, organization, family, neighborhood, etc.) A Model for Moral Decision-Making You bless those who hold You in awe, O God, those who walk in Your paths. The labor of their hands will bear fruit: all shall be well, they shall rest content. You bless those who keep your counsels. You dwell in the secret places of our hearts. You come to life between us in love. You share food & drink round our tables. You will bless us indeed: we shall recognize our community as a sign of peace on earth. 7-Step Model for Making Ethical Decisions (Rae & Wong): 1. Gather the Facts 2. Determine the Issue(s) of Competing Goods/Duties/ Interests/include stakeholders 3. Determine the Ethical Principles that Have a Bearing on the Case 4. List the Alternatives 5. Compare the Alternatives with the Principles 6. Weigh the Consequences 7. Make a Decision 1. Gather the Facts: What do we know? What do we need to know in order to make a well-grounded ethical decision? 2. Determine the Issue(s): What are the competing goods, duties, or interests? Company Profit vs Community Health Economic Stability of One’s Family vs Community Health 3. Relevant Principles or Values Efficiency, Loyalty, Truth, Right (for ex. to clean water, etc), Care 4. List the Alternatives Keep quiet. Make the information public (directly or anonymously). Run more tests. Consider creative alternatives. 5. Compare the Alternatives with the Principles Sometimes, the case will be resolved here, if the principles eliminate all alternatives except one. 6. Weigh the Consequences Consider the positive & negative consequences of the remaining alternatives. Keep quiet: job security, rise in illnesses in the community. Go public: job loss, negative publicity, community safety.  7. Make a Decision  Remember: discernment  reflection  gratitude  Monitor: the outcome, consequence, impact  Additional learnings post-factum ? 7-Step Model for Making Ethical Decisions (Rae & Wong): 1. Gather the Facts 2. Determine the Issue(s) of Competing Goods/Duties/ Interests 3. Determine the Ethical Principles that Have a Bearing on the Case 4. List the Alternatives 5. Compare the Alternatives with the Principles 6. Weigh the Consequences 7. Make a Decision  THE CHALLENGE OF CULTURAL RELATIVISM James Rachels 1 nd (The Elements of Moral Philosophy, 2 Edition, Mc Graw Hill, Inc., New York, 1993/ Chapter 2 Pp. 15-29) Morality differs in every society, and is a convenient term for socially approved habits. Ruth Benedict, Patterns of Culture (1934) 2.1 How Different Cultures Have Different Moral Codes Darius, a king of ancient Persia, was intrigued by the variety of cultures he encountered in his travels. He had found, for example, that the Callatians (a tribe of Indians) customarily ate the bodies of their dead fathers. The Greeks, of course, did not do that - the Greeks practiced cremation and regarded the funeral pyre as the natural and fitting way to dispose of the dead. Darius thought that a sophisticated understanding of the world must include an appreciation of such differences between cultures. One day, to teach this lesson, he summoned some Greeks who happened to be present at his court and asked them what they would take to eat the bodies of their dead fathers. They were shocked, as Darius knew they would be, and replied that no amount of money could persuade them to do such a thing. Then Darius called in some Callatians, and while the Greeks listened asked them what they would take to burn their dead fathers' bodies. The Callatians were horrified and told Darius not even to mention such a dreadful thing. This story, recounted by Herodotus in his History, illustrates a recurring theme in the literature of social science: different cultures have different moral codes. Thought right within one group may be utterly abhorrent to the members of another group, and vice versa. Should we eat the bodies of the dead or burn them? If you were a Greek, one answer would seem obviously correct; but if you were a Callatian, the opposite would seem equally certain. It is easy to give additional examples of the same kind. Consider the Eskimos. They are a remote and inaccessible people. Numbering only about 25,000, they live in small, isolated settlements scattered mostly along the northern fringes of North America and Greenland. Until the beginning of this century, the outside world knew little about them. Then explorers began to bring back strange tales. Eskimo customs turned out to be very different from our own. The men often had more than one wife, and they would share their wives with guests, lending them for the night as a sign of hospitality. Moreover, within a community, a dominant male might demand - and get - regular sexual access to other men's wives. The women, however, were free to break these arrangements simply by leaving their husbands and taking up with new partners - free, that is, so long as their former husbands chose not to make trouble. All in all, the Eskimo practice was a volatile scheme that bore little resemblance to what we call marriage. 1 Chapter 2, The Elements of Moral Philosophy The Challenge of Cultural Relativism - 1-  But it was not only their marriage and sexual practices that were different. The Eskimos also seemed to have less regard for human life. Infanticide, for example, was common. Knud Rasmussen, one of the most famous early explorers, reported that he met one woman who had borne twenty children but had killed ten of them at birth. Female babies, he found, were especially liable to be destroyed, and this was permitted simply at the parents' discretion, with no social stigma attached to it. Old people also, when they became too feeble to contribute to the family, were left out in the snow to die. So there seemed to be, in this society, remarkably little respect for life. To the general public, these were disturbing revelations. Our own way of living seems so natural and right that for many of us it is hard to conceive of others living so differently. And when we do hear of such things, we tend immediately to categorize those other peoples as "backward" or "primitive." But to anthropologists and sociologists, there was nothing particularly surprising about the Eskimos. Since the time of Herodotus, enlightened observers have been accustomed to the idea that conceptions of right and wrong differ from culture to culture. If we assume that our ideas of right and wrong will be shared by all peoples at all times, we are merely naive. 2.2 Cultural Relativism To many thinkers, this observation - "Different cultures have different moral codes" - has seemed to be the key to understanding morality. The idea of universal truth in ethics, they say, is a myth. The customs of different societies are all that exist. These customs cannot be said to be "correct" or "incorrect", for that implies we have an independent standard of right and wrong by which they may be judged. But there is no such independent standard; every standard is culture-bound. The great pioneering sociologist William Graham Summer, writing in 1906, put the point like this: The "right" way is the way which the ancestors used and which has been handed down. The tradition is its own warrant. It is not held subject to verification by experience. The notion of right is in the folkways. It is not outside of them, of independent origin, and brought to test them. In the folkways, whatever is is right. This is because they are traditional, and therefore contain in themselves the authority of the ancestral ghosts. When we come to the folkways we are at the end of our analysis. This line of thought has probably persuaded more people to be skeptical about ethics than any other single thing. Cultural Relativism, as it has been called, challenges our ordinary belief in the objectivity and universality of moral truth. It says, in effect, that there is no such thing as universal truth in ethics; there are only the various cultural codes, and nothing more. Moreover, our own code has no special status; it is merely one among many. The Challenge of Cultural Relativism - 2-  As we shall see, this basic idea is really a compound of several different thoughts. It is important to separate the various elements of the theory because, on analysis, some parts of the theory turn out to be correct, whereas others seem to be mistaken. As a beginning, we may distinguish the following claims, all of which have been made by cultural relativists: 1. Different societies have different moral codes. 2. There is no objective standard that can be used to judge one societal code better than another. 3. The moral code of our own society has no special status; it is merely one among many. 4. There is no "universal truth" in ethics - that is, there are no moral truths that hold for all peoples at all times. 5. The moral code of a society determines what is right within that society; that is, if the moral code of a society says that a certain action is right, then that action is right, at least within that society. 6. It is mere arrogance for us to try to judge the conduct of other peoples. We should adopt an attitude of tolerance toward the practices of other cultures. Although it may seem that these six propositions go naturally together, they are independent of one another, in the sense that some of them might be true even if others are false. In what follows, we will try to identify what is correct in Cultural Relativism, but we will also be concerned to expose what is mistaken about it. 2.3 The Cultural Differences Argument Cultural Relativism is a theory about the nature of morality. At first blush it seems quite plausible. However, like all such theories, it may be evaluated by subjecting it to rational analysis; and when we analyze Cultural Relativism we find that it is not so plausible as it first appears to be. The first thing we need to notice is that at the heart of Cultural Relativism there is a certain form of argument. The strategy used by cultural relativists is to argue from facts about the differences between cultural outlooks to a conclusion about the status of morality. Thus we are invited to accept this reasoning. (1) The Greeks believed it was wrong to eat the dead, whereas the Callatians believed it was right to eat the dead. (2) Therefore, eating the dead is neither objectively right nor objectively wrong. It is merely a matter of opinion, which varies from culture to culture. Or, alternatively: The Challenge of Cultural Relativism - 3-  (1) The Eskimos see nothing wrong with infanticide, whereas Americans believe infanticide is immoral. (2) Therefore, infanticide is neither objectively right nor objectively wrong. It is merely a matter of opinion, which varies from culture to culture. Clearly, these arguments are variations of one fundamental idea. They are both special cases of a more general argument, which says: (1) Different cultures have different moral codes. (2) Therefore, there is no objective "truth" in morality. Right and wrong are only matters of opinion, and opinions vary from culture to culture. We may call this the Cultural Differences Argument. To many people, it is very persuasive. But from a logical point of view, is it a sound argument? It is not sound. The trouble is that the conclusion does not really follow from the premise - that is, even if the premise is true, the conclusion still might be false. The premise concerns what people believe: in some societies, people believe one thing; in other societies, people believe differently. The conclusion, however, concerns what really is the case. The trouble is that this sort of conclusion does not follow logically from this sort of premise. Consider again the example of the Greeks and Callatians. The Greeks believed it was wrong to eat the dead; the Callatians believed it was right. Does it follow, from the mere fact that they disagreed, that there is no objective truth in the matter? No, it does not follow; for it could be that the practice was objectively right (or wrong) and that one or the other of them was simply mistaken. To make the point clearer, consider a very different matter. In some societies, people believe the earth is flat. In other societies, such as our own, people believe the earth is (roughly) spherical. Does it follow, from the mere fact that they disagree, that there is no "objective truth" in geography? Of course not, we would ever draw such a conclusion because we realize that, in their beliefs about the world, the members of some societies might simply be wrong. There is no reason to think that if the world is round everyone must know it. Similarly, there is no reason to think that if there is moral truth everyone must know it. The fundamental mistake in the Cultural Differences Argument is that it attempts to derive a substantive conclusion about a subject (morality) from the mere fact that people disagree about it. It is important to understand the nature of the point that is being made here. We are not saying (not yet, anyway) that the conclusion of the argument is false. Insofar as anything being said here is concerned, it is still an open question whether the conclusion The Challenge of Cultural Relativism - 4- is true. We are making a purely logical point and saying that the conclusion does not follow from the premise. This is important, because in order to determine whether the conclusion is true, we need arguments in its support. Cultural Relativism proposes this argument, but unfortunately the argument turns out to be fallacious. So it proves nothing. 2.4 The Consequences of Taking Cultural Relativism Seriously Even if the Cultural Differences Argument is invalid, Cultural Relativism might still be true. What would it be like if it were true? In the passage quoted above, William Graham Sumner summarizes the essence of Cultural Relativism. He says that there is no measure of right and wrong other than the standards of one's society: "The notion of right is in the folkways. It is not outside of them, of independent origin, and brought to test them. In the folkways, whatever is is right." Suppose we took this seriously. What would be some of the consequences? 1. We could no longer say that the customs of other societies are morally inferior to our own. This, of course, is one of the main points stressed by Cultural Relativism. We would have to stop condemning other societies merely because they are "different." So long as we concentrate on certain examples, such as the funerary practices of the Greeks and Callatians, this may seem to be a sophisticated, enlightened attitude. However, we would also be stopped from criticizing other, less benign practices. Suppose, a society waged war on its neighbors for the purpose of taking slaves. Or suppose a society was violently anti-Semitic and its leaders set out to destroy the Jews. Cultural Relativism would preclude us from saying that either of these practices was wrong. We would not even be able to say that a society tolerant of Jews is better than the anti-Semitic society, for that would imply some sort of transcultural standard of comparison. The failure to condemn these practices does not seem "enlightened"; on the contrary, slavery and anti-Semitism seem wrong wherever they occur. Nevertheless, if we took Cultural Relativism seriously, we would have to admit that these social practices also are immune from criticism. 2. We could decide whether actions are right or wrong just by consulting the standards of our society. Cultural Relativism suggests a simple test for determining what is right and what is wrong: all one has to do is asked whether the action is in accordance with the code of one's society. Suppose a resident of South Africa is wondering whether his country's policy of apartheid - rigid racial segregation - is morally correct. All he has to do is ask whether this policy conforms to his society's moral code. If it does, there is nothing to worry about, at least from a moral point of view. This implication of Cultural Relativism is disturbing because few of us think that our society's code is perfect - we can think of ways it might be improved. Yet Cultural The Challenge of Cultural Relativism - 5- Relativism would not only forbid us from criticizing the codes of other societies; it would stop us from criticizing our own. After all, if right and wrong are relative to culture, this must be true for our own culture just as much as for others. 3. The idea of moral progress is called into doubt. Usually, we think that at least some changes in our society have been for the better. (Some, of course, may have been changes for the worse.) Consider this example: Throughout most of Western history the place of women in society was very narrowly circumscribed. They could not own property; they could not vote or hold political office; with a few exceptions, they were not permitted to have paying jobs; and generally they were under the almost absolute control of their husbands. Recently much of this has changed, and most people think of it as progress. If Cultural Relativism is correct, can we legitimately think of this as progress? Progress means replacing a way of doing things with a better way. But by what standard do we judge the new ways as better? If the old ways were in accordance with the social standards of their time, then Cultural Relativism would say it is a mistake to judge them by the standards of a different time. Eighteenth-century society was, in effect, a different society from the one we have now. To say that we have made progress implies a judgement that present-day society is better, and that is just the sort of transcultural judgement that, according to Cultural Relativism, is impermissible. Our idea of social reform will also have to be reconsidered. A reformer such as Martin Luther King, Jr., seeks to change his society for the better. Within the constraints imposed by Cultural Relativism, there is one way this might be done. If a society is not living up to its own ideals, the reformer may be regarded as acting for the best: the ideals of the society are the standard by which we judge his or her proposals as worthwhile. But the "reformer" may not challenge the ideals themselves, for those ideals are by definition correct. According to Cultural Relativism, then, the idea of social reform makes sense only in this very limited way. These three consequences of Cultural Relativism have led many thinkers to reject it as implausible on its face. It does make sense, they say, to condemn some practices, such as slavery and anti-Semitism, wherever they occur. It makes sense to think that our own society has made some moral progress, while admitting that it is still imperfect and in need have reform. Because Cultural Relativism says that these judgements make no sense, the argument goes, it cannot be right. 2.5 Why There Is Less Disagreement than It Seems The original impetus for Cultural Relativism came from the observation that cultures differ dramatically in their views of right and wrong. But just how much do they differ? It is true that there are differences. Often, when we examine what seems to be a dramatic difference, we find that the cultures do not differ nearly as much as it appears. The Challenge of Cultural Relativism - 6-  Consider a culture in which people believe it is wrong to eat cows. This may even be a poor culture, in which there is not enough food; still, the cows are not to be touched. Such a society would appear to have values very different from our own. But does it? We have not yet asked why these people will not eat cows. Suppose it is because they believe that after death the souls of humans inhabit the bodies of animals, especially cows, so that a cow may be someone's grandmother. Now do we want to say that their values are different from ours? No; the difference lies elsewhere. The difference is in our belief systems, not in our values. We agree that we shouldn't eat Grandma; we simply disagree about whether the cow is (or could be) Grandma. The general point is this. Many factors work together to produce the customs of a society. The society's values are only one of them. Other matters, such as the religious and factual beliefs held by its members and the physical circumstances in which they must live, are also important. We cannot conclude, then, merely because customs differ, that there is a disagreement about values. The difference in customs may be attributable to some other aspect of social life. Thus there may be less disagreement about values that there appears to be. Consider the Eskimos again. They often kill perfectly normal infants, especially girls. We do not approve of this at all; a parent who did this in our society would be locked up. Thus there appears to be a great difference in the values of our two cultures. But suppose we ask why the Eskimos do this. The explanation is not that they have less affection for their children or less perfect for human life. An Eskimo family will always protect its babies if conditions permit. But they live in a harsh environment, where food is often in short supply. A fundamental postulate of Eskimo thought is: "Life is hard, and the margin of safety small." A family may want to nourish its babies but be unable to do so. As in many "primitive" societies, Eskimo mothers will nurse their infants over a much longer period of time than mothers in our culture. The child will take nourishment from its mother's breast for four years, perhaps even longer. So even in the best of times there are limits to the number of infants that one mother can sustain. Moreover, the Eskimos are a nomadic people - unable to farm, they must move about in search of food. Infants must be carried, and a mother can carry only one baby in her parka as she travels and goes about her outdoor work. Other family members can help, but this is not always possible. Infant girls are more readily disposed of because, first, in this society the males are the primary food providers - they are the hunters, according to the traditional division of labor - and it is obviously important to maintain a sufficient number of food gatherers. But there is an important second reason as well. Because the hunters suffer a high casualty rate, the adult men who die prematurely far outnumber the women who die early. Thus if male and female infants survived in equal numbers, the female adult population would greatly outnumber the male adult population. Examining the available statistics, one writer concluded that "were it not for female infanticide... there would The Challenge of Cultural Relativism - 7- be approximately one-and-a-half times as many females in the average Eskimo local group as there are food-producing males." So among the Eskimos, infanticide does not signal a fundamentally different attitude toward children. Instead, it is recognition that drastic measures are sometimes needed to ensure the family's survival. Even then, however, killing the baby is not the first option considered. Adoption is common; childless couples are especially happy to take a more fertile couple's "surplus". Killing is only the last resort. I emphasize this in order to show that the raw data of the anthropologists can be misleading; it can make the differences in values between cultures appear greater than they are. The Eskimos' values are not all that different from our values. It is only those life forces upon them choices that we do not have to make. 2.6 How All Cultures Have Some Values in Common It should not be surprising that, despite appearances, the Eskimos are protective of their children. How could it be otherwise? How could a group survive that did not value its young? This suggests a certain argument, one which shows that all cultural groups must be protective of their infants: (1) Human infants are helpless and cannot survive if they are not given extensive care for a period of years. (2) Therefore, if a group did not care for its young, the young would not survive, and the older members of the group would not be replaced. After a while the group would die out. (3) Therefore, any cultural group that continues to exist must care for its young. Infants that are not cared for must be the exception rather than the rule. Similar reasoning shows that other values must be more or less universal. Imagine what it would be like for a society to place no value at all on truth telling. When one person spoke to another, there would be no presumption at all that he was telling the truth - for he could just as easily be speaking falsely. Within that society, there would be no reason to pay attention to what anyone says. (I ask you what time it is, and you say "Four o'clock." But there is no presumption that you are speaking truly; you could just as easily have said the first thing that came into your head. So I have no reason to pay attention to your answer - in fact, there was no point in my asking you in the first place!) Communication would then be extremely difficult, if not impossible. And because complex societies cannot exist without regular communication among their members, society would become impossible. It follows that in any complex society there must be a presumption in favor of truthfulness. There may of course be exceptions to this rule: there may be situations in which it is thought to be permissible to lie. Nevertheless, these will be exceptions to a rule that is in force in the society. The Challenge of Cultural Relativism - 8-  Let me give one further example of the same type. Could a society exist in which there was no prohibition on murder? What would this be like? Suppose people were free to kill other people at will, and no one thought there was anything wrong with it. In such a "society," no one could feel secure. Everyone would have to be constantly on guard. People who wanted to survive would have to avoid other people as much as possible. This would inevitably result in individuals trying to become as self-sufficient as possible - after all, associating with others would be dangerous. Society on any large scale would collapse. Of course, people might band together in smaller groups with others that they could trust not to harm them. But notice what this means: they would be forming smaller societies that did acknowledge a rule against murder. The prohibition of murder, then, is a necessary feature of all societies. There is a general theoretical point here, namely, that there are some moral rules that all societies will have in common, because those rules are necessary for society to exist. The rules against lying and murder are two examples. And in fact, we do find these rules in force in all viable cultures. Cultures may differ in what they regard as legitimate exceptions to the rules, but this disagreement exists against a background of agreement on the larger issues. Therefore, it is a mistake to overestimate the amount of difference between cultures. Not every moral rule can vary from society to society. 2.7 What Can Be Learned from Cultural Relativism At the outset, I said that we were going to identify both what is right and what is wrong in Cultural Relativism. Thus far I have mentioned only its mistakes: I have said that it rests on an invalid argument, that it has consequences that make it implausible on its face, and that the extent of cultural disagreement is far less than it implies. This all adds up to a pretty thorough repudiation of the theory. Nevertheless, it is still a very appealing idea, and the reader may have the feeling that all this is a little unfair. The theory must have something going for it, or else why has it been so influential? In fact, I think there is something right about Cultural Relativism, and now I want to say what that is. There are two lessons we should learn from the theory, even if we ultimately reject it. 1. Cultural Relativism warns us, quite rightly, about the danger of assuming that all our preferences are based on some absolute rational standard. They are not. Many (but not all) of our practices are merely peculiar to our society, and it is easy to lose sight of that fact. In reminding us of it, the theory does and service. Funerary practices are one example. The Callatians, according to Herodotus, were "men who eat their fathers" - a shocking idea, to us at least. But eating the flesh of the dead could be understood as a sign of respect. It could be taken as a symbolic act that says: We wish this person's spirit to dwell within us. Perhaps this was the understanding of the Callatians. On such a way of thinking, burying the dead could be seen as an act of rejection, and burning the corpse as positively scornful. If this is hard to imagine, then we may need to have our imaginations stretched. Of course we may feel a visceral The Challenge of Cultural Relativism - 9- repugnance at the idea of eating human flesh in any circumstances. So what about it? This repugnance may be, as the relativists say, only a matter of what is customary in our particular society. There are many other matters that we tend to think of in terms of objective right and wrong, but that are really nothing more than social conventions. Should women cover their breasts? A publicly exposed breast is scandalous in our society, whereas in other cultures it is unremarkable. Objectively speaking, it is neither right nor wrong - there is no objective reason why either custom is better. Cultural Relativism begins with the valuable insight that many of our practices are like this - they are only cultural products. Then it goes wrong by concluding that, because some practices are like this, all must be. 2. The second lesson has to do with keeping an open mind. In the course of growing up, each of us has acquired some strong feelings: we have learned to think of some types of conduct as acceptable, and others we have learned to regard as simply unacceptable. Occasionally, we may find those feelings challenged. We may encounter someone who claims that our feelings are mistaken. For example, we may have been taught that homosexuality is immoral, and we may feel quite uncomfortable around gay people and see them as alien and "different." Now someone suggests that this may be a mere prejudice; that there is nothing evil about homosexuality; that gay people are just people, like anyone else, who happen, through no choice of their own, to be attracted to others of the same sex. But because we feel so strongly about the matter, we may find it hard to take this seriously. Even after we listen to the arguments, we may still have the unshakable feeling that homosexuals must, somehow, be an unsavory lot. Cultural Relativism, by stressing that our moral views can reflect the prejudices of our society, provides an antidote for this kind of dogmatism. When he tells the story of the Greeks and Callatians, Herodotus adds: For if anyone, no matter who, were given the opportunity of choosing from amongst all the nations of the world the set of beliefs which he thought best, he would inevitably, after careful consideration of their relative merits, choose that of his own country. Everyone without exception believes his own native customs, and the religion he was brought up in, to be the best. Realizing this can result in our having more open minds. We can come to understand that our feelings are not necessarily perceptions of the truth - they may be nothing more than the result of cultural conditioning. Thus when we hear it suggested that some element of our social code is not really the best and we find ourselves instinctively resisting the suggestion, we might stop and remember this. Then we may be more open to discovering the truth, whatever that might be. We can understand the appeal of Cultural Relativism, then, even though the theory has serious shortcomings. It is an attractive theory because it is based on a genuine The Challenge of Cultural Relativism - 10- insight - that many of the practices and attitudes we think so natural are really only cultural products. Moreover, keeping this insight firmly in view is important if we want to avoid arrogance and have open minds. These are important points, not to be taken lightly. But we can accept these points without going on to accept the whole theory. 2 2 James Rachel, “The Challenge of Cultural Relativism”, Chapter 2- The Elements of Moral Philosophy Temple University Press, 1986 The Challenge of Cultural Relativism - 11- Rawls’ Mature Theory of Social Justice - Dr. Jan Garrett John Bordley Rawls (1921-2002) American moral and political philosopher in the liberal tradition Often been described as the most important political philosopher of the 20th century Frequently cited by the courts of law in the U.S. and Canada and referred to by practicing politicians in the U.S. and the United Kingdom https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Rawls Justice as Fairness: Political not Metaphysical (1985) Justice as Fairness = Liberty + Equality Recommends equal basic rights, equality of opportunity, and promoting the interests of the least advantaged members of society “Original position” - people select what kind of society they would choose to live under if they did not know which social position they would personally occupy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Rawls  Social Basic Theoretical reason Economic Structure Practical reason Political Free-Standing Good and sufficient Implicit reason fundamental ideas Pre-political condition Establishment of political order Actual order Sense of Justice Rational Conception Veil of of the good