Each of the tests provide an evaluator an in-depth view of the concept of deciding right and wrong, based on the approach they wish to use. What is your end goal? What type of resolution are you trying to obtain? Which test is best? For my blog this week, I will discuss each of the tests, what defines them, the strengths and weaknesses of each, and other thoughts as they come up!
The utilitarian approach, aka “best outcomes test”, addresses ethical decision making where the consequences or outcomes ultimately determines right and wrong; the correct choice is the one that creates
the most good for the most people… or, creates the least harm for the most people. Every person’s choice receives equal consideration, regardless of their position, power, or need. What I would see as a weakness of the utilitarian approach is that it is built on compromise. An outcome may not always lead to the best decision possible, but it does result in what I would consider to be the “best average” decision for all. A best outcomes approach would yield decisions that consider both sides on a basis of equality.
The rights approach is comprised of three different tests: rights, exceptions, and choices. Each test takes a different viewpoint in its application, which I find confusing. The rights test views right and wrong as it is based on what a person considers themselves entitled to, or what is termed a “human right”. It provides a way of recognizing people for their intrinsic value (how they feel about themselves), as well as their extrinsic value (how others perceive them). A right is considered to be something that is necessary for one’s self worth, dignity, freedom, or well-being. The exceptions test, aka the “extra slack” test, takes the rights test a bit further by asking us to look into ourselves “are we making an exception for ourselves that we would not for others”? Basically, if we make an ethical decision, would it be ethical if everyone made the same decision? How would the world be if everyone did what we did? The choices test works on the pretense that everyone should have the choice to decide what the best decision is for them. People would be free to make choices based on what their priority is, and their priorities have no more or less value than any other person’s. The strength of the rights test is that it is a very common and accepted topic, and there is a good chance that people support individual rights. The weakness of the rights test is that the thought of human rights is completely subjective and is influenced by culture, location, and time. Your view of human rights is probably different than mine!The fairness and justice test looks at right and wrong differently, based on who you are and what you have accomplished. It considers that what is right is dependent on the criteria of efforts, accomplishments, contributions, needs, contracts, seniority, relationship or in‐group status. If you worked harder on a task or project, then you should be entitled to a larger reward then one who did not contribute as much. The strengths of the fairness and justice test is that it awards high achievers and punishes poor performers. The weakness with the fairness test is that what is considered higher efforts, contributions, and needs vary greatly from person to person. This test leaves a lot of room for discussion and debate.
The common good test places the focus of right and wrong on the idea of whether the results of a decision causes more good and less harm to a specific situation. While the common good test shares aspects of the utilitarian test, it possesses a narrower focus and is not concerned with making a decision that results in the greatest good or the least amount of harm as a whole, but on a small part of that particular situation. The strengths of the common good test is that it forces groups to realize that success can be dependent on externalities and cannot be controlled, and that decisions must be made with a consideration to the effects placed on those externalities. The weakness of the common good test is that, like the other tests… is subject as to what is considered the best answer, or in this case, the one that is best for the common good.
The virtue test is based on making the choice that represents the type of person, or organization, you want to be. When you make a decision for your organization based on the virtue test, you select the choice that presents the organization exactly as intended. The strength of the virtue test is that it focuses on the organization and the how they want portray themselves, encouraging ethical behavior among its members. The weakness of the virtue test is that humans do not act in a consistent manner, and this lack of consistency will reflect in inconsistent ethical decisions.
Which of these tests are the best for you and your organization? My belief is that it is completely dependent on the situation. When you are confronted with an ethical dilemma, determine which test model best fits the situation.
Have a great week!
