Ethical Reasoning:
Rational or Intuitive?
Unit 3- Ethics and Public Administration
Kaplan University
Dr. David Thomason
Ethics and Rational Choice

Is it possible to improve the quality of ethical
problem solving by using some kind of
systematic approach?

The textbook argues that it is possible.

This is the model it suggests:

We will discuss and critique this model tonight.
Four Components to Ethical
Decision-Making
First Element
 Moral sensitivity includes awareness of the
existence of an ethical problem or
dilemma as well as being attentive to the
consequences that different courses of
action could have on persons involved in
the situation.
Second Element

Moral judgment includes weighing the
standards that guide behavior (“judging
which action would be most justifiable in a
moral sense”).
Third Element

Moral motivation reflects the inclination to
choose the ethically appropriate
alternative.
Fourth Element

Moral character, which is needed to
convert judgment into action and persist
in the face of pressure and opposition
Summary of the Elements
Thus, to act ethically, one must:
1. be aware of an ethical problem;
2. judge which course of action is most
appropriate;
3. be inclined to accept this alternative;
4. and be able to act on the choice and
stick with it.
Three-Part Model
I. Description
 Clarify the facts of the situation.
 Assess the interests of all parties who
have stakes in the outcome of the
situation and how they are potentially
affected; stakeholder analysis.
 Figure 7–1 Ethical Problem-Solving
Model
Analysis
II. Analysis

Determine your duty in this situation considering the obligations and
responsibilities;

of your position and your professional role;

Consider one’s position and place in the organizational structure and what
one is expected to do by the organization;

Consider any professional obligations that are distinct from what the
organization expects; specific standards for one’s profession and general
obligations, including advancing the public interest and promoting the
democratic process.
Analyze the situation according to each ethical approach.

Virtue based: What would a good person do in this situation?

Principle based: What principles apply to the situation?

Results oriented: How does one promote the best consequences?

List options.
Decision
III. Decision
 Choose the best alternative.
 Provide a reasoned justification for the
decision.
 Monitor and evaluate results. Make
adjustments if necessary.
Applying the Model: Case Study 1
Case 7.1 The Troubling Reference50
You are a city manager in North Carolina. You check your voice mail messages
and find that one of your colleagues in Georgia has just called you to
inquire about a job applicant for a mid-level management position who
once worked for your town. You can feel your blood pressure begin to rise
and beads of sweat break out on your forehead. This job applicant was
charming and produced good results in units he directed,but he had to be
fired after numerous allegations of sexual harassment. You reviewed the
case and were convinced that the firing was fully justified. He promptly
hired a lawyer and sued the town. To save embarrassment for their
families, the victims of the alleged harassment did not want the case to go
to trial. Without their testimony, the city’s position was untenable. So,
reluctantly, the city settled the case out of court for several thousand
dollars, a carefully worded letter of reference, and an agreement not to talk
about the agreement. Your colleague, who attended graduate school with
you, is now asking you some detailed questions. Many of these questions
cannot be answered with the letter of reference. Do you answer the
questions or not?
Case Study #2

You are working for the state legislature,
recommending a budget for the Clean Air Fund.
The fund is designed to provide incentives for
alternative fuel vehicles (electric, natural gas).
You notice the fund is dropping considerably
from its initial amount, despite the fact that the
fund has not issued a single incentive payment.
You approach your director on the fund, and he
informs you that you are to report the fund as it
initially started. You know that the fund is
dropping, but you know that if you defy your
director that you will lose your job. What do you
do?
Case Study #3

You are a legislative director for an interest group and
working on legislation for your group. A legislator
contacts your office to find out information on the bill.
You provide information on the bill and the legislator lets
you know of his intent to use this information in a
committee hearing. During the hearing, the legislator
distorts your information, taking pieces that would
mislead the rest of the committee. You do not have the
opportunity to defend your position, because the
legislator says this is your groups position. You need the
legislator to support the bill, but he is creating a
situation that threatens the legislation from passing.
The committee chair that heard the bill wants to meet
with you to discuss the bill? What do you do?
Can we apply a model to ethics, as
we do rational choices?

I’m considering purchasing a new truck.






I apply a set of rational principles to my choice.
Cost of maintaining old vehicle vs. new vehicle.
Insurance.
Amount I want to spend.
Where I want to purchase.
Each of these has an outcome that I can identify and
ultimately I make a choice and use the model to
assist me in that outcome.
Public Policy Decision-Making
Example of Texas State Agency Budget
Cuts:
http://governor.state.tx.us/files/pressoffice/budget_letter.pdf
Summary: Agencies must find 5% of
current budgets to cut.
Rational choice model applies here for
agencies.
Budget Cuts and Ethical Decisions

Can public policy decisions blend into ethical
decisions, or are they separated?

Can you think of any examples where the two
are entangled?


If an agency makes cuts to budgets, are they
making ethical decisions at the same time? Why
or why not?
Are ethical decisions rational decisions?
Critiquing the Model


Moral sensitivity, judgment, motivation,
character
Assumptions of the model:
1. non-competing influences
2. a static environment.
3. assumes actors in that environment behave
in a similar manner.
4. assumes you can control the moral dilemma
by a decision of your own choosing.
5. assumes the capacity to reflect on the
decision with time to complete the stages.
Critique of the Rationalist Model
from Moral Intuitionists




The Emotional Dog and Its Rational Tail: A Social Intuitionist
Approach to Moral Judgment”, Jonathan Haidt (Psychological Review
2001, 108, 814-834.)
Haidt thinks that especially philosophers and moral psychologists
working within the rationalist (Kantian) tradition overestimate the
causal role of formal reasoning;
He argues that moral judgements, in addition to being largely
intuitive, typically amount to post hoc reasoning with a defensive
character after a judgement has been made (818 f.).
Moral reasoning is similar to the reasoning of lawyers who construct
justifications for antecedent intuitive judgements (820 f.).
Social Intuitionist Model as Critique

Jonathan Haidt- SIM Model
Moral intuition is therefore the psychological
process that the Scottish philosophers
talked about, a process akin to aesthetic
judgment. One sees or hears about an
event and one instantly feels approval or
disapproval
SIM- 6 Parts

1st- intuitive judgment link

2nd- the post hoc reasoning link. Moral
reasoning is an effortful process, in which
a person searches for an argument that
will support an already-made judgement;
Third Part of SIM Model

3rd- the reasoned persuasion link. Moral
reasoning is produced and sent forth
verbally to justify one’s already-made
judgements to others. Such reasoning,
Haidt says, can sometimes influence other
people, although moral discussions and
arguments are notorious for the rarity with
which persuasion takes place.
4th SIM Model


4th- The social persuasion link is the fourth link.
The mere fact that friends, allies and
acquaintances have made a moral judgement
exerts, according to Haidt, a direct influence on
others, even if no reasoned persuasion takes
place.
These four links constitute the core of SIM. The
core of this model gives moral reasoning a
causal role in moral judgement but only when
reasoning runs through other people. SIM posits
that moral reasoning is usually done
interpersonally rather than privately.
5th Part of SIM Model

5th- the reasoned judgement link. Moral
reasoning occurs when intuitions conflict
or when the social situation calls for
thorough examination of all the facets of a
scenario. People may at times reason their
way to a judgement by sheer force of
logic, overriding their initial intuition.
However, such reasoning is, according to
Haidt, rare.
6th Part of SIM Model

6th- the private reflection link. Thinking
about a situation a person may, e.g. by
role taking, spontaneously activate a new
intuition that contradicts the initial
intuitive judgement. Private reflection is
also rare.
Intuition vs Reason
Nature vs. Nurture:
Social Psychology, Philosophy,
Sociology, Biology



Each of these fields can contribute to the
discussion of developing ethical decisions and
analyzing the process of making ethical
decisions.
Recall Lawrence Kohlberg and the 6 stages of
moral development as well as the Moral DNA
IQ test you took last week.
All of these fields tell us something about
human motivation (nature vs. nurture)
Summing it Up

Is ethical reasoning like playing a scale on the guitar? It
fits in some songs, but not in others?

Or is ethical reasoning a one size fits all approach?

Consider these models when we work through the
discussion and assignment this week.

Think about how the two models overlap and how they
are divergent from one another.

Think about cases where the models work, and don’t
work.