ethics problem solving essay

Table of Contents
Random Entry
Chronological
Editorial Information
About the SEP
Editorial Board
How to Cite the SEP
Special Characters
Advanced Tools
Support the SEP
PDFs for SEP Friends
Make a Donation
SEPIA for Libraries
Entry Contents

Bibliography

Academic tools.

Friends PDF Preview
Author and Citation Info
Back to Top

Moral Dilemmas

Moral dilemmas, at the very least, involve conflicts between moral requirements. Consider the cases given below.

1. Examples

2. the concept of moral dilemmas, 3. problems, 4. dilemmas and consistency, 5. responses to the arguments, 6. moral residue and dilemmas, 7. types of moral dilemmas, 8. multiple moralities, 9. conclusion, cited works, other worthwhile readings, other internet resources, related entries.

In Book I of Plato’s Republic , Cephalus defines ‘justice’ as speaking the truth and paying one’s debts. Socrates quickly refutes this account by suggesting that it would be wrong to repay certain debts—for example, to return a borrowed weapon to a friend who is not in his right mind. Socrates’ point is not that repaying debts is without moral import; rather, he wants to show that it is not always right to repay one’s debts, at least not exactly when the one to whom the debt is owed demands repayment. What we have here is a conflict between two moral norms: repaying one’s debts and protecting others from harm. And in this case, Socrates maintains that protecting others from harm is the norm that takes priority.

Nearly twenty-four centuries later, Jean-Paul Sartre described a moral conflict the resolution of which was, to many, less obvious than the resolution to the Platonic conflict. Sartre (1957) tells of a student whose brother had been killed in the German offensive of 1940. The student wanted to avenge his brother and to fight forces that he regarded as evil. But the student’s mother was living with him, and he was her one consolation in life. The student believed that he had conflicting obligations. Sartre describes him as being torn between two kinds of morality: one of limited scope but certain efficacy, personal devotion to his mother; the other of much wider scope but uncertain efficacy, attempting to contribute to the defeat of an unjust aggressor.

While the examples from Plato and Sartre are the ones most commonly cited, there are many others. Literature abounds with such cases. In Aeschylus’s Agamemnon , the protagonist ought to save his daughter and ought to lead the Greek troops to Troy; he ought to do each but he cannot do both. And Antigone, in Sophocles’s play of the same name, ought to arrange for the burial of her brother, Polyneices, and ought to obey the pronouncements of the city’s ruler, Creon; she can do each of these things, but not both. Areas of applied ethics, such as biomedical ethics, business ethics, and legal ethics, are also replete with such cases.

What is common to the two well-known cases is conflict. In each case, an agent regards herself as having moral reasons to do each of two actions, but doing both actions is not possible. Ethicists have called situations like these moral dilemmas . The crucial features of a moral dilemma are these: the agent is required to do each of two (or more) actions; the agent can do each of the actions; but the agent cannot do both (or all) of the actions. The agent thus seems condemned to moral failure; no matter what she does, she will do something wrong (or fail to do something that she ought to do).

The Platonic case strikes many as too easy to be characterized as a genuine moral dilemma. For the agent’s solution in that case is clear; it is more important to protect people from harm than to return a borrowed weapon. And in any case, the borrowed item can be returned later, when the owner no longer poses a threat to others. Thus in this case we can say that the requirement to protect others from serious harm overrides the requirement to repay one’s debts by returning a borrowed item when its owner so demands. When one of the conflicting requirements overrides the other, we have a conflict but not a genuine moral dilemma. So in addition to the features mentioned above, in order to have a genuine moral dilemma it must also be true that neither of the conflicting requirements is overridden (Sinnott-Armstrong 1988, Chapter 1).

It is less obvious in Sartre’s case that one of the requirements overrides the other. Why this is so, however, may not be so obvious. Some will say that our uncertainty about what to do in this case is simply the result of uncertainty about the consequences. If we were certain that the student could make a difference in defeating the Germans, the obligation to join the military would prevail. But if the student made little difference whatsoever in that cause, then his obligation to tend to his mother’s needs would take precedence, since there he is virtually certain to be helpful. Others, though, will say that these obligations are equally weighty, and that uncertainty about the consequences is not at issue here.

Ethicists as diverse as Kant (1971/1797), Mill (1979/1861), and Ross (1930, 1939) have assumed that an adequate moral theory should not allow for the possibility of genuine moral dilemmas. Only recently—in the last sixty years or so—have philosophers begun to challenge that assumption. And the challenge can take at least two different forms. Some will argue that it is not possible to preclude genuine moral dilemmas. Others will argue that even if it were possible, it is not desirable to do so.

To illustrate some of the debate that occurs regarding whether it is possible for any theory to eliminate genuine moral dilemmas, consider the following. The conflicts in Plato’s case and in Sartre’s case arose because there is more than one moral precept (using ‘precept’ to designate rules and principles), more than one precept sometimes applies to the same situation, and in some of these cases the precepts demand conflicting actions. One obvious solution here would be to arrange the precepts, however many there might be, hierarchically. By this scheme, the highest ordered precept always prevails, the second prevails unless it conflicts with the first, and so on. There are at least two glaring problems with this obvious solution, however. First, it just does not seem credible to hold that moral rules and principles should be hierarchically ordered. While the requirements to keep one’s promises and to prevent harm to others clearly can conflict, it is far from clear that one of these requirements should always prevail over the other. In the Platonic case, the obligation to prevent harm is clearly stronger. But there can easily be cases where the harm that can be prevented is relatively mild and the promise that is to be kept is very important. And most other pairs of precepts are like this. This was a point made by Ross in The Right and the Good (1930, Chapter 2).

The second problem with this easy solution is deeper. Even if it were plausible to arrange moral precepts hierarchically, situations can arise in which the same precept gives rise to conflicting obligations. Perhaps the most widely discussed case of this sort is taken from William Styron’s Sophie’s Choice (1980, 528–529; see Greenspan 1983 and Tessman 2015, 160–163). Sophie and her two children are at a Nazi concentration camp. A guard confronts Sophie and tells her that one of her children will be allowed to live and one will be killed. But it is Sophie who must decide which child will be killed. Sophie can prevent the death of either of her children, but only by condemning the other to be killed. The guard makes the situation even more excruciating by informing Sophie that if she chooses neither, then both will be killed. With this added factor, Sophie has a morally compelling reason to choose one of her children. But for each child, Sophie has an apparently equally strong reason to save him or her. Thus the same moral precept gives rise to conflicting obligations. Some have called such cases symmetrical (Sinnott-Armstrong 1988, Chapter 2).

We shall return to the issue of whether it is possible to preclude genuine moral dilemmas. But what about the desirability of doing so? Why have ethicists thought that their theories should preclude the possibility of dilemmas? At the intuitive level, the existence of moral dilemmas suggests some sort of inconsistency. An agent caught in a genuine dilemma is required to do each of two acts but cannot do both. And since he cannot do both, not doing one is a condition of doing the other. Thus, it seems that the same act is both required and forbidden. But exposing a logical inconsistency takes some work; for initial inspection reveals that the inconsistency intuitively felt is not present. Allowing \(OA\) to designate that the agent in question ought to do \(A\) (or is morally obligated to do \(A\), or is morally required to do \(A)\), that \(OA\) and \(OB\) are both true is not itself inconsistent, even if one adds that it is not possible for the agent to do both \(A\) and \(B\). And even if the situation is appropriately described as \(OA\) and \(O\neg A\), that is not a contradiction; the contradictory of \(OA\) is \(\neg OA\). (See Marcus 1980 and McConnell 1978, 273.)

Similarly rules that generate moral dilemmas are not inconsistent, at least on the usual understanding of that term. Ruth Marcus suggests plausibly that we “define a set of rules as consistent if there is some possible world in which they are all obeyable in all circumstances in that world.” Thus, “rules are consistent if there are possible circumstances in which no conflict will emerge,” and “a set of rules is inconsistent if there are no circumstances, no possible world, in which all the rules are satisfiable” (Marcus 1980, 128 and 129). Kant, Mill, and Ross were likely aware that a dilemma-generating theory need not be inconsistent. Even so, they would be disturbed if their own theories allowed for such predicaments. If this speculation is correct, it suggests that Kant, Mill, Ross, and others thought that there is an important theoretical feature that dilemma-generating theories lack. And this is understandable. It is certainly no comfort to an agent facing a reputed moral dilemma to be told that at least the rules which generate this predicament are consistent because there is a possible world in which they do not conflict. For a good practical example, consider the situation of the criminal defense attorney. She is said to have an obligation to hold in confidence the disclosures made by a client and to be required to conduct herself with candor before the court (where the latter requires that the attorney inform the court when her client commits perjury) (Freedman 1975, Chapter 3). It is clear that in this world these two obligations often conflict. It is equally clear that in some possible world—for example, one in which clients do not commit perjury—that both obligations can be satisfied. Knowing this is of no assistance to defense attorneys who face a conflict between these two requirements in this world.

Ethicists who are concerned that their theories not allow for moral dilemmas have more than consistency in mind. What is troubling is that theories that allow for dilemmas fail to be uniquely action-guiding . A theory is appropriately action-guiding if it assesses an agent’s options as either forbidden, (merely) permissible, or obligatory (or, possibly, supererogatory). If more than one action is right, then the agent’s obligation is to do any one of the right acts. A theory can fail to be uniquely action-guiding in either of two ways: by recommending incompatible actions in a situation or by not recommending any action at all. Theories that generate genuine moral dilemmas fail to be uniquely action-guiding in the former way. Theories that have no way, even in principle, of determining what an agent should do in a particular situation have what Thomas E. Hill, Jr. calls “gaps” (Hill 1996, 179–183); they fail to be action-guiding in the latter way. Since one of the main points of moral theories is to provide agents with guidance, that suggests that it is desirable for theories to eliminate dilemmas and gaps, at least if doing so is possible.

But failing to be uniquely action-guiding is not the only reason that the existence of moral dilemmas is thought to be troublesome. Just as important, the existence of dilemmas does lead to inconsistencies if certain other widely held theses are true. Here we shall consider two different arguments, each of which shows that one cannot consistently acknowledge the reality of moral dilemmas while holding selected (and seemingly plausible) principles.

The first argument shows that two standard principles of deontic logic are, when conjoined, incompatible with the existence of moral dilemmas. The first of these is the principle of deontic consistency

Intuitively this principle just says that the same action cannot be both obligatory and forbidden. Note that as initially described, the existence of dilemmas does not conflict with PC. For as described, dilemmas involve a situation in which an agent ought to do \(A\), ought to do \(B\), but cannot do both \(A\) and \(B\). But if we add a principle of deontic logic , then we obtain a conflict with PC:

Intuitively, PD just says that if doing \(A\) brings about \(B\), and if \(A\) is obligatory (morally required), then \(B\) is obligatory (morally required). The first argument that generates inconsistency can now be stated. Premises (1), (2), and (3) represent the claim that moral dilemmas exist.

1.	\(OA\)
2.	\(OB\)
3.	\(\neg C (A \amp B)\)	[where ‘\(\neg C\)’ means ‘cannot’]
4.	\(\Box(A \rightarrow B) \rightarrow(OA \rightarrow OB)\)	[where ‘\(\Box\)’ means physical necessity]
5.	\(\Box \neg(B \amp A)\)	(from 3)
6.	\(\Box(B \rightarrow \neg A)\)	(from 5)
7.	\(\Box(B \rightarrow \neg A) \rightarrow(OB \rightarrow O\neg A)\)	(an instantiation of 4)
8.	\(OB \rightarrow O\neg A\)	(from 6 and 7)
9.	\(O\neg A\)	(from 2 and 8)
10.	\(OA \text{ and } O\neg A\)	(from 1 and 9)

Line (10) directly conflicts with PC. And from PC and (1), we can conclude:

11.	\(\neg O\neg A\)

And, of course, (9) and (11) are contradictory. So if we assume PC and PD, then the existence of dilemmas generates an inconsistency of the old-fashioned logical sort. (Note: In standard deontic logic, the ‘\(\Box\)’ in PD typically designates logical necessity. Here I take it to indicate physical necessity so that the appropriate connection with premise (3) can be made. And I take it that logical necessity is stronger than physical necessity.)

Two other principles accepted in most systems of deontic logic entail PC. So if PD holds, then one of these additional two principles must be jettisoned too. The first says that if an action is obligatory, it is also permissible. The second says that an action is permissible if and only if it is not forbidden. These principles may be stated as:

Principles OP and D are basic; they seem to be conceptual truths (Brink 1994, section IV). From these two principles, one can deduce PC, which gives it additional support.

The second argument that generates inconsistency, like the first, has as its first three premises a symbolic representation of a moral dilemma.

1.	\(OA\)
2.	\(OB\)
3.	\(\neg C (A \amp B)\)

And like the first, this second argument shows that the existence of dilemmas leads to a contradiction if we assume two other commonly accepted principles. The first of these principles is that ‘ought’ implies ‘can’. Intuitively this says that if an agent is morally required to do an action, it must be within the agent’s power to do it. This principle seems necessary if moral judgments are to be uniquely action-guiding. We may represent this as

\(OA \rightarrow CA\)

(for all \(A\))

The other principle, endorsed by most systems of deontic logic, says that if an agent is required to do each of two actions, she is required to do both. We may represent this as

\((OA \amp OB) \rightarrow O(A\amp B)\)

(for all \(A\) and all \(B\))

The argument then proceeds:

6.	\(O(A \amp B) \rightarrow C(A \amp B)\)	(an instance of 4)
7.	\(OA \amp OB\)	(from 1 and 2)
8.	\(O(A \amp B)\)	(from 5 and 7)
9.	\(\neg O(A \amp B)\)	(from 3 and 6)

So if one assumes that ‘ought’ implies ‘can’ and if one assumes the principle represented in (5)—dubbed by some the agglomeration principle (Williams 1965)—then again a contradiction can be derived.

Now obviously the inconsistency in the first argument can be avoided if one denies either PC or PD. And the inconsistency in the second argument can be averted if one gives up either the principle that ‘ought’ implies ‘can’ or the agglomeration principle. There is, of course, another way to avoid these inconsistencies: deny the possibility of genuine moral dilemmas. It is fair to say that much of the debate concerning moral dilemmas in the last sixty years has been about how to avoid the inconsistencies generated by the two arguments above.

Opponents of moral dilemmas have generally held that the crucial principles in the two arguments above are conceptually true, and therefore we must deny the possibility of genuine dilemmas. (See, for example, Conee 1982 and Zimmerman 1996.) Most of the debate, from all sides, has focused on the second argument. There is an oddity about this, however. When one examines the pertinent principles in each argument which, in combination with dilemmas, generates an inconsistency, there is little doubt that those in the first argument have a greater claim to being conceptually true than those in the second. (One who recognizes the salience of the first argument is Brink 1994, section V.) Perhaps the focus on the second argument is due to the impact of Bernard Williams’s influential essay (Williams 1965). But notice that the first argument shows that if there are genuine dilemmas, then either PC or PD must be relinquished. Even most supporters of dilemmas acknowledge that PC is quite basic. E.J. Lemmon, for example, notes that if PC does not hold in a system of deontic logic, then all that remains are truisms and paradoxes (Lemmon 1965, p. 51). And giving up PC also requires denying either OP or D, each of which also seems basic. There has been much debate about PD—in particular, questions generated by the Good Samaritan paradox—but still it seems basic. So those who want to argue against dilemmas purely on conceptual grounds are better off focusing on the first of the two arguments above.

Some opponents of dilemmas also hold that the pertinent principles in the second argument—the principle that ‘ought’ implies ‘can’ and the agglomeration principle—are conceptually true. But foes of dilemmas need not say this. Even if they believe that a conceptual argument against dilemmas can be made by appealing to PC and PD, they have several options regarding the second argument. They may defend ‘ought’ implies ‘can’, but hold that it is a substantive normative principle, not a conceptual truth. Or they may even deny the truth of ‘ought’ implies ‘can’ or the agglomeration principle, though not because of moral dilemmas, of course.

Defenders of dilemmas need not deny all of the pertinent principles. If one thinks that each of the principles at least has some initial plausibility, then one will be inclined to retain as many as possible. Among the earlier contributors to this debate, some took the existence of dilemmas as a counterexample to ‘ought’ implies ‘can’ (for example, Lemmon 1962 and Trigg 1971); others, as a refutation of the agglomeration principle (for example, Williams 1965 and van Fraassen 1973). A common response to the first argument is to deny PD. A more complicated response is to grant that the crucial deontic principles hold, but only in ideal worlds. In the real world, they have heuristic value, bidding agents in conflict cases to look for permissible options, though none may exist (Holbo 2002, especially sections 15–17).

Friends and foes of dilemmas have a burden to bear in responding to the two arguments above. For there is at least a prima facie plausibility to the claim that there are moral dilemmas and to the claim that the relevant principles in the two arguments are true. Thus each side must at least give reasons for denying the pertinent claims in question. Opponents of dilemmas must say something in response to the positive arguments that are given for the reality of such conflicts. One reason in support of dilemmas, as noted above, is simply pointing to examples. The case of Sartre’s student and that from Sophie’s Choice are good ones; and clearly these can be multiplied indefinitely. It will tempting for supporters of dilemmas to say to opponents, “If this is not a real dilemma, then tell me what the agent ought to do and why ?” It is obvious, however, that attempting to answer such questions is fruitless, and for at least two reasons. First, any answer given to the question is likely to be controversial, certainly not always convincing. And second, this is a game that will never end; example after example can be produced. The more appropriate response on the part of foes of dilemmas is to deny that they need to answer the question. Examples as such cannot establish the reality of dilemmas. Surely most will acknowledge that there are situations in which an agent does not know what he ought to do. This may be because of factual uncertainty, uncertainty about the consequences, uncertainty about what principles apply, or a host of other things. So for any given case, the mere fact that one does not know which of two (or more) conflicting obligations prevails does not show that none does.

Another reason in support of dilemmas to which opponents must respond is the point about symmetry. As the cases from Plato and Sartre show, moral rules can conflict. But opponents of dilemmas can argue that in such cases one rule overrides the other. Most will grant this in the Platonic case, and opponents of dilemmas will try to extend this point to all cases. But the hardest case for opponents is the symmetrical one, where the same precept generates the conflicting requirements. The case from Sophie’s Choice is of this sort. It makes no sense to say that a rule or principle overrides itself. So what do opponents of dilemmas say here? They are apt to argue that the pertinent, all-things-considered requirement in such a case is disjunctive: Sophie should act to save one or the other of her children, since that is the best that she can do (for example, Zimmerman 1996, Chapter 7). Such a move need not be ad hoc , since in many cases it is quite natural. If an agent can afford to make a meaningful contribution to only one charity, the fact that there are several worthwhile candidates does not prompt many to say that the agent will fail morally no matter what he does. Nearly all of us think that he should give to one or the other of the worthy candidates. Similarly, if two people are drowning and an agent is situated so that she can save either of the two but only one, few say that she is doing wrong no matter which person she saves. Positing a disjunctive requirement in these cases seems perfectly natural, and so such a move is available to opponents of dilemmas as a response to symmetrical cases.

Supporters of dilemmas have a burden to bear too. They need to cast doubt on the adequacy of the pertinent principles in the two arguments that generate inconsistencies. And most importantly, they need to provide independent reasons for doubting whichever of the principles they reject. If they have no reason other than cases of putative dilemmas for denying the principles in question, then we have a mere standoff. Of the principles in question, the most commonly questioned on independent grounds are the principle that ‘ought’ implies ‘can’ and PD. Among supporters of dilemmas, Walter Sinnott-Armstrong (Sinnott-Armstrong 1988, Chapters 4 and 5) has gone to the greatest lengths to provide independent reasons for questioning some of the relevant principles.

One well-known argument for the reality of moral dilemmas has not been discussed yet. This argument might be called “phenomenological.” It appeals to the emotions that agents facing conflicts experience and our assessment of those emotions.

Return to the case of Sartre’s student. Suppose that he joins the Free French forces. It is likely that he will experience remorse or guilt for having abandoned his mother. And not only will he experience these emotions, this moral residue, but it is appropriate that he does. Yet, had he stayed with his mother and not joined the Free French forces, he also would have appropriately experienced remorse or guilt. But either remorse or guilt is appropriate only if the agent properly believes that he has done something wrong (or failed to do something that he was all-things-considered required to do). Since no matter what the agent does he will appropriately experience remorse or guilt, then no matter what he does he will have done something wrong. Thus, the agent faces a genuine moral dilemma. (The best known proponents of arguments for dilemmas that appeal to moral residue are Williams 1965 and Marcus 1980; for a more recent contribution, see Tessman 2015, especially Chapter 2.)

Many cases of moral conflict are similar to Sartre’s example with regard to the agent’s reaction after acting. Certainly the case from Sophie’s Choice fits here. No matter which of her children Sophie saves, she will experience enormous guilt for the consequences of that choice. Indeed, if Sophie did not experience such guilt, we would think that there was something morally wrong with her. In these cases, proponents of the argument (for dilemmas) from moral residue must claim that four things are true: (1) when the agents acts, she experiences remorse or guilt; (2) that she experiences these emotions is appropriate and called for; (3) had the agent acted on the other of the conflicting requirements, she would also have experienced remorse or guilt; and (4) in the latter case these emotions would have been equally appropriate and called for (McConnell 1996, pp. 37–38). In these situations, then, remorse or guilt will be appropriate no matter what the agent does and these emotions are appropriate only when the agent has done something wrong. Therefore, these situations are genuinely dilemmatic and moral failure is inevitable for agents who face them.

There is much to say about the moral emotions and situations of moral conflict; the positions are varied and intricate. Without pretending to resolve all of the issues here, it will be pointed out that opponents of dilemmas have raised two different objections to the argument from moral residue. The first objection, in effect, suggests that the argument is question-begging (McConnell 1978 and Conee 1982); the second objection challenges the assumption that remorse and guilt are appropriate only when the agent has done wrong.

To explain the first objection, note that it is uncontroversial that some bad feeling or other is called for when an agent is in a situation like that of Sartre’s student or Sophie. But the negative moral emotions are not limited to remorse and guilt. Among these other emotions, consider regret. An agent can appropriately experience regret even when she does not believe that she has done something wrong. Consider a compelling example provided by Edmund Santurri (1987, 46). Under battlefield conditions, an army medic must perform a life-saving amputation of a soldier’s leg with insufficient anesthetic. She will surely feel intense regret because of the pain she has inflicted, but justifiably she will not feel that she has done wrong. Regret can even be appropriate when a person has no causal connection at all with the bad state of affairs. It is appropriate for me to regret the damage that a recent fire has caused to my neighbor’s house, the pain that severe birth defects cause in infants, and the suffering that a starving animal experiences in the wilderness. Not only is it appropriate that I experience regret in these cases, but I would probably be regarded as morally lacking if I did not. (For accounts of moral remainders as they relate specifically to Kantianism and virtue ethics, see, respectively, Hill 1996, 183–187 and Hursthouse 1999, 44–48 and 68–77.)

With remorse or guilt, at least two components are present: the experiential component, namely, the negative feeling that the agent has; and the cognitive component, namely, the belief that the agent has done something wrong and takes responsibility for it. Although this same cognitive component is not part of regret, the negative feeling is. And the experiential component alone cannot serve as a gauge to distinguish regret from remorse, for regret can range from mild to intense, and so can remorse. In part, what distinguishes the two is the cognitive component. But now when we examine the case of an alleged dilemma, such as that of Sartre’s student, it is question-begging to assert that it is appropriate for him to experience remorse no matter what he does. No doubt, it is appropriate for him to experience some negative feeling. To say, however, that it is remorse that is called for is to assume that the agent appropriately believes that he has done something wrong. Since regret is warranted even in the absence of such a belief, to assume that remorse is appropriate is to assume , not argue, that the agent’s situation is genuinely dilemmatic. Opponents of dilemmas can say that one of the requirements overrides the other, or that the agent faces a disjunctive requirement, and that regret is appropriate because even when he does what he ought to do, some bad will ensue. Either side, then, can account for the appropriateness of some negative moral emotion. To get more specific, however, requires more than is warranted by the present argument. This appeal to moral residue, then, does not by itself establish the reality of moral dilemmas.

Matters are even more complicated, though, as the second objection to the argument from moral residue shows. The residues contemplated by proponents of the argument are diverse, ranging from guilt or remorse to a belief that the agent ought to apologize or compensate persons who were negatively impacted by the fact that he did not satisfy one of the conflicting obligations. The argument assumes that experiencing remorse or guilt or believing that one ought to apologize or compensate another are appropriate responses only if the agent believes that he has done something wrong. But this assumption is debatable, for multiple reasons.

First, even when one obligation clearly overrides another in a conflict case, it is often appropriate to apologize to or to explain oneself to any disadvantaged parties. Ross provides such a case (1930, 28): one who breaks a relatively trivial promise in order to assist someone in need should in some way make it up to the promisee. Even though the agent did no wrong, the additional actions promote important moral values (McConnell 1996, 42–44).

Second, as Simon Blackburn argues, compensation or its like may be called for even when there was no moral conflict at all (Blackburn 1996, 135–136). If a coach rightly selected Agnes for the team rather than Belinda, she still is likely to talk to Belinda, encourage her efforts, and offer tips for improving. This kind of “making up” is just basic decency.

Third, the consequences of what one has done may be so horrible as to make guilt inevitable. Consider the case of a middle-aged man, Bill, and a seven-year-old boy, Johnny. It is set in a midwestern village on a snowy December day. Johnny and several of his friends are riding their sleds down a narrow, seldom used street, one that intersects with a busier, although still not heavily traveled, street. Johnny, in his enthusiasm for sledding, is not being very careful. During his final ride he skidded under an automobile passing through the intersection and was killed instantly. The car was driven by Bill. Bill was driving safely, had the right of way, and was not exceeding the speed limit. Moreover, given the physical arrangement, it would have been impossible for Bill to have seen Johnny coming. Bill was not at fault, legally or morally, for Johnny’s death. Yet Bill experienced what can best be described as remorse or guilt about his role in this horrible event (McConnell 1996, 39).

At one level, Bill’s feelings of remorse or guilt are not warranted. Bill did nothing wrong. Certainly Bill does not deserve to feel guilt (Dahl 1996, 95–96). A friend might even recommend that Bill seek therapy. But this is not all there is to say. Most of us understand Bill’s response. From Bill’s point of view, the response is not inappropriate, not irrational, not uncalled-for. To see this, imagine that Bill had had a very different response. Suppose that Bill had said, “I regret Johnny’s death. It is a terrible thing. But it certainly was not my fault. I have nothing to feel guilty about and I don’t owe his parents any apologies.” Even if Bill is correct intellectually, it is hard to imagine someone being able to achieve this sort of objectivity about his own behavior. When human beings have caused great harm, it is natural for them to wonder if they are at fault, even if to outsiders it is obvious that they bear no moral responsibility for the damage. Human beings are not so finely tuned emotionally that when they have been causally responsible for harm, they can easily turn guilt on or off depending on their degree of moral responsibility. (See Zimmerman 1988, 134–135.)

Work in moral psychology can help to explain why self-directed moral emotions like guilt or remorse are natural when an agent has acted contrary to a moral norm, whether justifiably or not. Many moral psychologists describe dual processes in humans for arriving at moral judgments (see, for example, Greene 2013, especially Chapters 4–5, and Haidt 2012, especially Chapter 2). Moral emotions are automatic, the brain’s immediate response to a situation. Reason is more like the brain’s manual mode, employed when automatic settings are insufficient, such as when norms conflict. Moral emotions are likely the product of evolution, reinforcing conduct that promotes social harmony and disapproving actions that thwart that end. If this is correct, then negative moral emotions are apt to be experienced, to some extent, any time an agent’s actions are contrary to what is normally a moral requirement.

So both supporters and opponents of moral dilemmas can give an account of why agents who face moral conflicts appropriately experience negative moral emotions. But there is a complex array of issues concerning the relationship between ethical conflicts and moral emotions, and only book-length discussions can do them justice. (See Greenspan 1995 and Tessman 2015.)

In the literature on moral dilemmas, it is common to draw distinctions among various types of dilemmas. Only some of these distinctions will be mentioned here. It is worth noting that both supporters and opponents of dilemmas tend to draw some, if not all, of these distinctions. And in most cases the motivation for doing so is clear. Supporters of dilemmas may draw a distinction between dilemmas of type \(V\) and \(W\). The upshot is typically a message to opponents of dilemmas: “You think that all moral conflicts are resolvable. And that is understandable, because conflicts of type \(V\) are resolvable. But conflicts of type \(W\) are not resolvable. Thus, contrary to your view, there are some genuine moral dilemmas.” By the same token, opponents of dilemmas may draw a distinction between dilemmas of type \(X\) and \(Y\). And their message to supporters of dilemmas is this: “You think that there are genuine moral dilemmas, and given certain facts, it is understandable why this appears to be the case. But if you draw a distinction between conflicts of types \(X\) and \(Y\), you can see that appearances can be explained by the existence of type \(X\) alone, and type \(X\) conflicts are not genuine dilemmas.” With this in mind, let us note a few of the distinctions.

One distinction is between epistemic conflicts and ontological conflicts. (For different terminology, see Blackburn 1996, 127–128.) The former involve conflicts between two (or more) moral requirements and the agent does not know which of the conflicting requirements takes precedence in her situation. Everyone concedes that there can be situations where one requirement does take priority over the other with which it conflicts, though at the time action is called for it is difficult for the agent to tell which requirement prevails. The latter are conflicts between two (or more) moral requirements, and neither is overridden. This is not simply because the agent does not know which requirement is stronger; neither is. Genuine moral dilemmas, if there are any, are ontological. Both opponents and supporters of dilemmas acknowledge that there are epistemic conflicts.

There can be genuine moral dilemmas only if neither of the conflicting requirements is overridden. Ross (1930, Chapter 2) held that all moral precepts can be overridden in particular circumstances. This provides an inviting framework for opponents of dilemmas to adopt. But if some moral requirements cannot be overridden—if they hold absolutely—then it will be easier for supporters of dilemmas to make their case. Lisa Tessman has distinguished between negotiable and non-negotiable moral requirements (Tessman 2015, especially Chapters 1 and 3). The former, if not satisfied, can be adequately compensated or counterbalanced by some other good. Non-negotiable moral requirements, however, if violated produce a cost that no one should have to bear; such a violation cannot be counterbalanced by any benefits. If non-negotiable moral requirements can conflict—and Tessman argues that they can—then those situations will be genuine dilemmas and agents facing them will inevitably fail morally. It might seem that if there is more than one moral precept that holds absolutely, then moral dilemmas must be possible. Alan Donagan, however, argues against this. He maintains that moral rules hold absolutely, and apparent exceptions are accounted for because tacit conditions are built in to each moral rule (Donagan 1977, Chapters 3 and 6, especially 92–93). So even if some moral requirements cannot be overridden, the existence of dilemmas may still be an open question.

Another distinction is between self-imposed moral dilemmas and dilemmas imposed on an agent by the world , as it were. Conflicts of the former sort arise because of the agent’s own wrongdoing (Aquinas; Donagan 1977, 1984; and McConnell 1978). If an agent made two promises that he knew conflicted, then through his own actions he created a situation in which it is not possible for him to discharge both of his requirements. Dilemmas imposed on the agent by the world (or other agents), by contrast, do not arise because of the agent’s wrongdoing. The case of Sartre’s student is an example, as is the case from Sophie’s Choice . For supporters of dilemmas, this distinction is not all that important. But among opponents of dilemmas, there is a disagreement about whether the distinction is important. Some of these opponents hold that self-imposed dilemmas are possible, but that their existence does not point to any deep flaws in moral theory (Donagan 1977, Chapter 5). Moral theory tells agents how they ought to behave; but if agents violate moral norms, of course things can go askew. Other opponents deny that even self-imposed dilemmas are possible. They argue that an adequate moral theory should tell agents what they ought to do in their current circumstances, regardless of how those circumstances arose. As Hill puts it, “[M]orality acknowledges that human beings are imperfect and often guilty, but it calls upon each at every new moment of moral deliberation to decide conscientiously and to act rightly from that point on” (Hill 1996, 176). Given the prevalence of wrongdoing, if a moral theory did not issue uniquely action-guiding “contrary-to-duty imperatives,” its practical import would be limited.

Yet another distinction is between obligation dilemmas and prohibition dilemmas . The former are situations in which more than one feasible action is obligatory. The latter involve cases in which all feasible actions are forbidden. Some (especially, Valentyne 1987 and 1989) argue that plausible principles of deontic logic may well render obligation dilemmas impossible; but they do not preclude the possibility of prohibition dilemmas. The case of Sartre’s student, if genuinely dilemmatic, is an obligation dilemma; Sophie’s case is a prohibition dilemma. There is another reason that friends of dilemmas emphasize this distinction. Some think that the “disjunctive solution” used by opponents of dilemmas—when equally strong precepts conflict, the agent is required to act on one or the other—is more plausible when applied to obligation dilemmas than when applied to prohibition dilemmas.

As moral dilemmas are typically described, they involve a single agent . The agent ought, all things considered, to do \(A\), ought, all things considered, to do \(B\), and she cannot do both \(A\) and \(B\). But we can distinguish multi-person dilemmas from single agent ones. The two-person case is representative of multi-person dilemmas. The situation is such that one agent, P1, ought to do \(A\), a second agent, P2, ought to do \(B\), and though each agent can do what he ought to do, it is not possible both for P1 to do \(A\) and P2 to do \(B\). (See Marcus 1980, 122 and McConnell 1988.) Multi-person dilemmas have been called “interpersonal moral conflicts.” Such conflicts are most theoretically worrisome if the same moral system (or theory) generates the conflicting obligations for P1 and P2. A theory that precludes single-agent moral dilemmas remains uniquely action-guiding for each agent. But if that same theory does not preclude the possibility of interpersonal moral conflicts, not all agents will be able to succeed in discharging their obligations, no matter how well-motivated or how hard they try. For supporters of moral dilemmas, this distinction is not all that important. They no doubt welcome (theoretically) more types of dilemmas, since that may make their case more persuasive. But if they establish the reality of single-agent dilemmas, in one sense their work is done. For opponents of dilemmas, however, the distinction may be important. This is because at least some opponents believe that the conceptual argument against dilemmas applies principally to single-agent cases. It does so because the ought-to-do operator of deontic logic and the accompanying principles are properly understood to apply to entities who can make decisions. To be clear, this position does not preclude that collectives (such as businesses or nations) can have obligations. But a necessary condition for this being the case is that there is (or should be) a central deliberative standpoint from which decisions are made. This condition is not satisfied when two otherwise unrelated agents happen to have obligations both of which cannot be discharged. Put simply, while an individual act involving one agent can be the object of choice, a compound act involving multiple agents is difficult so to conceive. (See Smith 1986 and Thomason 1981.) Alexander Dietz (2022) has recently shown, however, that matters can be even more complicated. He describes a case where a small group of people have an obligation to save two strangers, but one of the members of the group has an obligation to save her own child at the same time. The small group and the individual can both make choices, and the group’s obligation conflicts with that of the individual member (assuming that the group can succeed only if all members act in concert). This is an odd multi-agent dilemma, “one in which one of the agents is part of the other” (Dietz 2022, p. 66). Erin Taylor (2011) has argued that neither universalizability nor the principle that ‘ought’ implies ‘can’ ensure that there will be no interpersonal moral conflicts (what she calls “irreconcilable differences”). These conflicts would raise no difficulties if morality required trying rather than acting, but such a view is not plausible. Still, moral theories should minimize cases of interpersonal conflict (Taylor 2011, pp. 189–190).To the extent that the possibility of interpersonal moral conflicts raises an intramural dispute among opponents of dilemmas, that dispute concerns how to understand the principles of deontic logic and what can reasonably be demanded of moral theories.

Another issue raised by the topic of moral dilemmas is the relationship among various aspects of morality. Consider this distinction. General obligations are moral requirements that individuals have simply because they are moral agents. That agents are required not to kill, not to steal, and not to assault are examples of general obligations. Agency alone makes these precepts applicable to individuals. By contrast, role-related obligations are moral requirements that agents have in virtue of their role, occupation, or position in society. That lifeguards are required to save swimmers in distress is a role-related obligation. Another example, mentioned earlier, is the obligation of a defense attorney to hold in confidence the disclosures made by a client. These categories need not be exclusive. It is likely that anyone who is in a position to do so ought to save a drowning person. And if a person has particularly sensitive information about another, she should probably not reveal it to third parties regardless of how the information was obtained. But lifeguards have obligations to help swimmers in distress when most others do not because of their abilities and contractual commitments. And lawyers have special obligations of confidentiality to their clients because of implicit promises and the need to maintain trust.

General obligations and role-related obligations can, and sometimes do, conflict. If a defense attorney knows the whereabouts of a deceased body, she may have a general obligation to reveal this information to family members of the deceased. But if she obtained this information from her client, the role-related obligation of confidentiality prohibits her from sharing it with others. Supporters of dilemmas may regard conflicts of this sort as just another confirmation of their thesis. Opponents of dilemmas will have to hold that one of the conflicting obligations takes priority. The latter task could be discharged if it were shown that one these two types of obligations always prevails over the other. But such a claim is implausible; for it seems that in some cases of conflict general obligations are stronger, while in other cases role-related duties take priority. The case seems to be made even better for supporters of dilemmas, and worse for opponents, when we consider that the same agent can occupy multiple roles that create conflicting requirements. The physician, Harvey Kelekian, in Margaret Edson’s (1999/1993) Pulitzer Prize winning play, Wit, is an oncologist, a medical researcher, and a teacher of residents. The obligations generated by those roles lead Dr. Kelekian to treat his patient, Vivian Bearing, in ways that seem morally questionable (McConnell 2009). At first blush, anyway, it does not seem possible for Kelekian to discharge all of the obligations associated with these various roles.

In the context of issues raised by the possibility of moral dilemmas, the role most frequently discussed is that of the political actor. Michael Walzer (1973) claims that the political ruler, qua political ruler, ought to do what is best for the state; that is his principal role-related obligation. But he also ought to abide by the general obligations incumbent on all. Sometimes the political actor’s role-related obligations require him to do evil—that is, to violate some general obligations. Among the examples given by Walzer are making a deal with a dishonest ward boss (necessary to get elected so that he can do good) and authorizing the torture of a person in order to uncover a plot to bomb a public building. Since each of these requirements is binding, Walzer believes that the politician faces a genuine moral dilemma, though, strangely, he also thinks that the politician should choose the good of the community rather than abide by the general moral norms. (The issue here is whether supporters of dilemmas can meaningfully talk about action-guidance in genuinely dilemmatic situations. For one who answers this in the affirmative, see Tessman 2015, especially Chapter 5.) Such a situation is sometimes called “the dirty hands problem.” The expression, “dirty hands,” is taken from the title of a play by Sartre (1946). The idea is that no one can rule without becoming morally tainted. The role itself is fraught with moral dilemmas. This topic has received much attention recently. John Parrish (2007) has provided a detailed history of how philosophers from Plato to Adam Smith have dealt with the issue. And C.A.J. Coady (2008) has suggested that this reveals a “messy morality.”

For opponents of moral dilemmas, the problem of dirty hands represents both a challenge and an opportunity. The challenge is to show how conflicts between general obligations and role-related obligations, and those among the various role-related obligations, can be resolved in a principled way. The opportunity for theories that purport to have the resources to eliminate dilemmas—such as Kantianism, utilitarianism, and intuitionism—is to show how the many moralities under which people are governed are related.

Debates about moral dilemmas have been extensive during the last six decades. These debates go to the heart of moral theory. Both supporters and opponents of moral dilemmas have major burdens to bear. Opponents of dilemmas must show why appearances are deceiving. Why are examples of apparent dilemmas misleading? Why are certain moral emotions appropriate if the agent has done no wrong? Supporters must show why several of many apparently plausible principles should be given up—principles such as PC, PD, OP, D, ‘ought’ implies ‘can’, and the agglomeration principle. And each side must provide a general account of obligations, explaining whether none, some, or all can be overridden in particular circumstances. Much progress has been made, but the debate is apt to continue.

Aquinas, St. Thomas, Summa Theologiae , Thomas Gilby et al . (trans.), New York: McGraw-Hill, 1964–1975.
Blackburn, Simon, 1996, “Dilemmas: Dithering, Plumping, and Grief,” in Mason (1996): 127–139.
Brink, David, 1994, “Moral Conflict and Its Structure,” The Philosophical Review , 103: 215–247; reprinted in Mason (1996): 102–126.
Coady, C.A.J., 2008. Messy Morality: The Challenge of Politics , New York: Oxford University Press.
Conee, Earl, 1982, “Against Moral Dilemmas,” The Philosophical Review , 91: 87–97; reprinted in Gowans (1987): 239–249.
Dahl, Norman O., 1996, “Morality, Moral Dilemmas, and Moral Requirements,” in Mason (1996): 86–101.
Dietz, Alexander, 2022, “Collective Reasons and Agent-Relativity, ” Utilitas , 34: 57–69.
Donagan, Alan, 1977, The Theory of Morality , Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
–––, 1984, “Consistency in Rationalist Moral Systems,” The Journal of Philosophy , 81: 291–309; reprinted in Gowans (1987): 271–290.
Edson, Margaret, 1999/1993. Wit , New York: Faber and Faber.
Freedman, Monroe, 1975, Lawyers’ Ethics in an Adversary System , Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill.
Gowans, Christopher W. (editor), 1987, Moral Dilemmas , New York: Oxford University Press.
Greene, Joshua, 2013, Moral Tribes: Emotion, Reason, and the Gap Between Us and Them , New York: Penguin Books.
Greenspan, Patricia S., 1983, “Moral Dilemmas and Guilt,” Philosophical Studies , 43: 117–125.
–––, 1995, Practical Guilt: Moral Dilemmas, Emotions, and Social Norms , New York: Oxford University Press.
Haidt, Jonathan, 2012, The Righteous Mind: Why Good People are Divided by Politics and Religion , New York: Pantheon.
Hill, Thomas E., Jr., 1996, “Moral Dilemmas, Gaps, and Residues: A Kantian Perspective,” in Mason (1996): 167–198.
Holbo, John, 2002, “Moral Dilemmas and the Logic of Obligation,” American Philosophical Quarterly , 39: 259–274.
Hursthouse, Rosalind, 1999, On Virtue Ethics , New York: Oxford University Press.
Kant, Immanuel, 1971/1797, The Doctrine of Virtue: Part II of the Metaphysics of Morals , Mary J. Gregor (trans.), Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
Lemmon, E.J., 1962, “Moral Dilemmas,” The Philosophical Review , 70: 139–158; reprinted in Gowans (1987): 101–114.
–––, 1965, “Deontic Logic and the Logic of Imperatives,” Logique et Analyse , 8: 39–71.
Marcus, Ruth Barcan, 1980, “Moral Dilemmas and Consistency,” The Journal of Philosophy , 77: 121–136; reprinted in Gowans (1987): 188–204.
Mason, H.E., (editor), 1996, Moral Dilemmas and Moral Theory , New York: Oxford University Press.
McConnell, Terrance, 1978, “Moral Dilemmas and Consistency in Ethics,” Canadian Journal of Philosophy , 8: 269–287; reprinted in Gowans (1987): 154–173.
–––, 1988, “Interpersonal Moral Conflicts,” American Philosophical Quarterly , 25: 25–35.
–––, 1996, “Moral Residue and Dilemmas,” in Mason (1996): 36–47.
–––, 2009, “Conflicting Role-Related Obligations in Wit,” in Sandra Shapshay (ed.), Bioethics at the Movies , Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Mill, John Stuart, 1979/1861, Utilitarianism , Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing.
Parrish, John, 2007, Paradoxes of Political Ethics: From Dirty Hands to Invisible Hands , New York: Cambridge University Press.
Plato, The Republic , trans, Paul Shorey, in The Collected Dialogues of Plato , E. Hamilton and H. Cairns (eds.), Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1930.
Ross, W.D., 1930, The Right and the Good , Oxford: Oxford University Press.
–––, 1939, The Foundations of Ethics , Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Santurri, Edmund N. 1987, Perplexity in the Moral Life: Philosophical and Theological Considerations , Charlottesville, VA: University of Virginia Press.
Sartre, Jean-Paul, 1957/1946, “Existentialism is a Humanism,” Trans, Philip Mairet, in Walter Kaufmann (ed.), Existentialism from Dostoevsky to Sartre , New York: Meridian, 287–311,
–––, 1946, “Dirty Hands,”, in No Exit and Three Other Plays , New York: Vintage Books.
Sinnott-Armstrong, Walter, 1988, Moral Dilemmas , Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
Smith, Holly M., 1986, “Moral Realism, Moral Conflict, and Compound Acts,” The Journal of Philosophy , 83: 341–345.
Styron, William, 1980, Sophie’s Choice , New York: Bantam Books.
Taylor, Erin, 2011, “Irreconciliable Differences,” American Philosophical Quarterly , 50: 181–192.
Tessman, Lisa, 2015, Moral Failure: On the Impossible Demands of Morality , New York: Oxford University Press.
Thomason, Richmond, 1981, “Deontic Logic as Founded on Tense Logic,” in Risto Hilpinen (ed.), New Studies in Deontic Logic , Dordrecht: Reidel, 165–176.
Trigg, Roger, 1971, “Moral Conflict,” Mind , 80: 41–55.
Vallentyne, Peter, 1987, “Prohibition Dilemmas and Deontic Logic,” Logique et Analyse , 30: 113–122.
–––, 1989, “Two Types of Moral Dilemmas,” Erkenntnis , 30: 301–318.
Van Fraassen, Bas, 1973, “Values and the Heart’s Command,” The Journal of Philosophy , 70: 5–19; reprinted in Gowans (1987): 138–153.
Walzer, Michael, 1973, “Political Action: The Problem of Dirty Hands,” Philosophy and Public Affairs , 2: 160–180.
Williams, Bernard, 1965, “Ethical Consistency,” Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society (Supplement), 39: 103–124; reprinted in Gowans (1987): 115–137.
Zimmerman, Michael J., 1988, An Essay on Moral Responsibility , Totowa, NJ: Rowman and Littlefield.
–––, 1996, The Concept of Moral Obligation , New York: Cambridge University Press.
Anderson, Lyle V., 1985, “Moral Dilemmas, Deliberation, and Choice,” The Journal of Philosophy 82: 139–162,
Atkinson, R.F., 1965, “Consistency in Ethics,” Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society (Supplement), 39: 125–138.
Baumrin, Bernard H., and Peter Lupu, 1984, “A Common Occurrence: Conflicting Duties,” Metaphilosophy , 15: 77–90.
Bradley, F. H., 1927, Ethical Studies , 2 nd edition, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Brink, David, 1989, Moral Realism and the Foundations of Ethics, New York: Cambridge University Press.
Bronaugh, Richard, 1975, “Utilitarian Alternatives,” Ethics , 85: 175–178.
Carey, Toni Vogel, 1985, “What Conflict of Duty is Not,” Pacific Philosophical Quarterly , 66: 204–215.
Castañeda, Hector-Neri, 1974, The Structure of Morality , Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas.
–––, 1978, “Conflicts of Duties and Morality,” Philosophy and Phenomenological Research , 38: 564–574.
Chisholm, Roderick M., 1963, “Contrary-to-Duty Imperatives and Deontic Logic,” Analysis , 24: 33–36.
Conee, Earl, 1989, “Why Moral Dilemmas are Impossible,” American Philosophical Quarterly , 26(2): 133–141.
Dahl, Norman O., 1974, “‘Ought’ Implies ‘Can’ and Deontic Logic,” Philosophia , 4: 485–511.
DeCew, Judith Wagner, 1990, “Moral Conflicts and Ethical Relativism,” Ethics , 101: 27–41.
Donagan, Alan, 1996, “Moral Dilemmas, Genuine and Spurious: A Comparative Anatomy,” Ethics, 104: 7–21; reprinted in Mason (1996): 11–22.
Feldman, Fred, 1986, Doing the Best We Can , Dordrecht: D. Reidel Publishing Co.
Foot, Philippa, 1983, “Moral Realism and Moral Dilemma,” The Journal of Philosophy , 80: 379–398; reprinted in Gowans (1987): 271–290.
Gewirth, Alan, 1978, Reason and Morality , Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Goldman, Holly Smith, 1976, “Dated Rightness and Moral Imperfection,” The Philosophical Review , 85: 449–487, [See also, Holly Smith.]
Gowans, Christopher W., 1989, “Moral Dilemmas and Prescriptivism,” American Philosophical Quarterly , 26: 187–197.
–––, 1994, Innocence Lost: An Examination of Inescapable Wrongdoing , New York: Oxford University Press.
–––, 1996, “Moral Theory, Moral Dilemmas, and Moral Responsibility,” in Mason (1996): 199–215.
Griffin, James, 1977, “Are There Incommensurable Values?” Philosophy and Public Affairs , 7: 39–59.
Guttenplan, Samuel, 1979–80, “Moral Realism and Moral Dilemma,” Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society , 80: 61–80.
Hansson, Sven O., 1998, “Should We Avoid Moral Dilemmas?,” Journal of Value Inquiry , 32: 407–416.
Hare, R.M., 1952, The Language of Morals , Oxford: Oxford University Press.
–––, 1963, Freedom and Reason , Oxford: Oxford University Press.
–––, 1981, Moral Thinking: Its Levels, Methods, and Point , Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Hill, Thomas E., Jr, 1983, “Moral Purity and the Lesser Evil,” The Monist , 66: 213–232.
–––, 1992, “A Kantian Perspective on Moral Rules,” Philosophical Perspectives , 6: 285–304.
Hoag, Robert W., 1983, “Mill on Conflicting Moral Obligations,” Analysis , 43: 49–54.
Howard, Kenneth W., 1977, “Must Public Hands Be Dirty?” The Journal of Value Inquiry , 11: 29–40.
Kant, Immanuel, 1965/1797, The Metaphysical Elements of Justice: Part I of the Metaphysics of Morals , John Ladd (trans.), Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill.
Kolenda, Konstantin, 1975, “Moral Conflict and Universalizability,” Philosophy , 50: 460–465.
Ladd, John, 1958, “Remarks on Conflict of Obligations,” The Journal of Philosophy , 55: 811–819.
Lebus, Bruce, 1990, “Moral Dilemmas: Why They Are Hard to Solve,” Philosophical Investigations , 13: 110–125.
MacIntyre, Alasdair, 1990, “Moral Dilemmas,” Philosophical and Phenomenological Research , 50: 367–382.
Mallock, David, 1967, “Moral Dilemmas and Moral Failure,” Australasian Journal of Philosophy , 45: 159–178,
Mann, William E., 1991, “Jephthah’s Plight: Moral Dilemmas and Theism,” Philosophical Perspectives , 5: 617–647.
Marcus, Ruth Barcan, 1996, “More about Moral Dilemmas,” in Mason (1996): 23–35.
Marino, Patricia, 2001, “Moral Dilemmas, Collective Responsibility, and Moral Progress,” Philosophical Studies , 104: 203–225.
Mason, H.E., 1996, “Responsibilities and Principles: Reflections on the Sources of Moral Dilemmas,” in Mason (1996): 216–235.
McConnell, Terrance, 1976, “Moral Dilemmas and Requiring the Impossible,” Philosophical Studies , 29: 409–413.
–––, 1981, “Moral Absolutism and the Problem of Hard Cases,” Journal of Religious Ethics , 9: 286–297.
–––, 1981, “Moral Blackmail,” Ethics , 91: 544–567.
–––, 1981, “Utilitarianism and Conflict Resolution,” Logique et Analyse , 24: 245–257.
–––, 1986, “More on Moral Dilemmas,” The Journal of Philosophy , 82: 345–351.
–––, 1993, “Dilemmas and Incommensurateness,” The Journal of Value Inquiry , 27: 247–252.
McDonald, Julie M., 1995, “The Presumption in Favor of Requirement Conflicts,” Journal of Social Philosophy , 26: 49–58.
Mothersill, Mary, 1996, “The Moral Dilemmas Debate,” in Mason (1996): 66–85.
Nagel, Thomas, “War and Massacre,” Philosophy and Public Affairs , 1: 123–144.
–––, 1979, “The Fragmentation of Value,” in Mortal Questions , New York: Cambridge University Press; reprinted in Gowans (1987): 174–187.
Nozick, Robert, 1968, “Moral Complications and Moral Structures,” Natural Law Forum , 13: 1–50.
Paske, Gerald H., 1990, “Genuine Moral Dilemmas and the Containment of Incoherence,” The Journal of Value Inquiry , 24: 315–323.
Pietroski, Paul, 1993, “Prima Facie Obligations, Ceteris Paribus Laws in Moral Theory,” Ethics , 103: 489–515.
Price, Richard, 1974/1787, A Review of the Principal Questions of Morals , Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Prior, A.N., 1954, “The Paradoxes of Derived Obligation,” Mind , 63: 64–65.
Quinn, Philip, 1978, Divine Commands and Moral Requirements , New York: Oxford University Press.
–––, 1986, “Moral Obligation, Religious Demand, and Practical Conflict,” in Robert Audi and William Wainwright (eds.), Rationality, Religious Belief, and Moral Commitment , Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 195–212.
Rabinowicz, Wlodzimierz, 1978, “Utilitarianism and Conflicting Obligations,” Theoria , 44: 1924.
Rawls, John, 1971, A Theory of Justice , Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Railton, Peter, 1992, “Pluralism, Determinacy, and Dilemma,” Ethics , 102: 720–742.
–––, 1996, “The Diversity of Moral Dilemma,” in Mason (1996): 140–166.
Sartorius, Rolf, 1975, Individual Conduct and Social Norms: A Utilitarian Account of Social Union and the Rule of Law , Encino, CA: Dickenson Publishing.
Sayre-McCord, Geoffrey, 1986, “Deontic Logic and the Priority of Moral Theory,” Noûs , 20: 179–197.
Sinnott-Armstrong, Walter, 1984, “‘Ought’ Conversationally Implies ‘Can’,” The Philosophical Review , 93: 249–261.
–––, 1985, “Moral Dilemmas and Incomparability,” American Philosophical Quarterly , 22: 321–329.
–––, 1987, “Moral Dilemmas and ‘Ought and Ought Not’,” Canadian Journal of Philosophy , 17: 127–139.
–––, 1987, “Moral Realisms and Moral Dilemmas,” The Journal of Philosophy , 84: 263–276.
–––, 1996, “Moral Dilemmas and Rights,” in Mason (1996): 48–65.
Slote, Michael, 1985, “Utilitarianism, Moral Dilemmas, and Moral Cost,” American Philosophical Quarterly , 22: 161–168.
Statman, Daniel, 1996, “Hard Cases and Moral Dilemmas,” Law and Philosophy , 15: 117–148.
Steiner, Hillel, 1973, “Moral Conflict and Prescriptivism,” Mind , 82: 586–591.
Stocker, Michael, 1971, “’Ought’ and ‘Can’,” Australasian Journal of Philosophy , 49: 303–316.
–––, 1986, “Dirty Hands and Conflicts of Values and of Desires in Aristotle’s Ethics,” Pacific Philosophical Quarterly , 67: 36–61.
–––, 1987, “Moral Conflicts: What They Are and What They Show,” Pacific Philosophical Quarterly , 68: 104–123.
–––, 1990, Plural and Conflicting Values , New York: Oxford University Press.
Strasser, Mark, 1987, “Guilt, Regret, and Prima Facie Duties,” The Southern Journal of Philosophy , 25: 133–146.
Swank, Casey, 1985, “Reasons, Dilemmas, and the Logic of ‘Ought’,” Analysis , 45: 111–116.
Tännsjö, Torbjörn, 1985, “Moral Conflict and Moral Realism,” The Journal of Philosophy , 82: 113–117.
Thomason, Richmond, 1981, “Deontic Logic and the Role of Freedom in Moral Deliberation,” in Risto Hilpinen (ed.), New Studies in Deontic Logic , Dordrecht: Reidel, 177–186.
Vallentyne, Peter, 1992, “Moral Dilemmas and Comparative Conceptions of Morality,” The Southern Journal of Philosophy , 30: 117–124.
Williams, Bernard, 1966, “Consistency and Realism,” Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society (Supplement), 40: 1–22.
–––, 1972, Morality: An Introduction to Ethics , New York: Harper & Row.
Zimmerman, Michael J., 1987, “Remote Obligation,” American Philosophical Quarterly , 24: 199–205.
–––, 1988, “Lapses and Dilemmas,” Philosophical Papers , 17: 103–112.
–––, 1990, “Where Did I Go Wrong?” Philosophical Studies , 58: 83–106.
–––, 1992, “Cooperation and Doing the Best One Can,” Philosophical Studies , 65: 283–304.
–––, 1995, “Prima Facie Obligation and Doing the Best One Can,” Philosophical Studies , 78: 87–123.

How to cite this entry . Preview the PDF version of this entry at the Friends of the SEP Society . Look up topics and thinkers related to this entry at the Internet Philosophy Ontology Project (InPhO). Enhanced bibliography for this entry at PhilPapers , with links to its database.

[Please contact the author with suggestions.]

Acknowledgments

I thank Michael Zimmerman for helpful comments on the initial version of this essay, and two reviewers for suggestions on the most recent instantiation.

Accessibility

Support SEP

Mirror sites.

View this site from another server:

Info about mirror sites

Library of Congress Catalog Data: ISSN 1095-5054

Training & Certification
Knowledge Center
ECI Research
Business Integrity Library
Career Center
The PLUS Ethical Decision Making Model

Seven Steps to Ethical Decision Making – Step 1: Define the problem (consult PLUS filters ) – Step 2: Seek out relevant assistance, guidance and support – Step 3: Identify alternatives – Step 4: Evaluate the alternatives (consult PLUS filters ) – Step 5: Make the decision – Step 6: Implement the decision – Step 7: Evaluate the decision (consult PLUS filters )

Introduction Organizations struggle to develop a simple set of guidelines that makes it easier for individual employees, regardless of position or level, to be confident that his/her decisions meet all of the competing standards for effective and ethical decision-making used by the organization. Such a model must take into account two realities:

Every employee is called upon to make decisions in the normal course of doing his/her job. Organizations cannot function effectively if employees are not empowered to make decisions consistent with their positions and responsibilities.
For the decision maker to be confident in the decision’s soundness, every decision should be tested against the organization’s policies and values, applicable laws and regulations as well as the individual employee’s definition of what is right, fair, good and acceptable.

The decision making process described below has been carefully constructed to be:

Fundamentally sound based on current theories and understandings of both decision-making processes and ethics.
Simple and straightforward enough to be easily integrated into every employee’s thought processes.
Descriptive (detailing how ethical decision are made naturally) rather than prescriptive (defining unnatural ways of making choices).

Why do organizations need ethical decision making? See our special edition case study, #RespectAtWork, to find out.

First, explore the difference between what you expect and/or desire and the current reality. By defining the problem in terms of outcomes, you can clearly state the problem.

Consider this example: Tenants at an older office building are complaining that their employees are getting angry and frustrated because there is always a long delay getting an elevator to the lobby at rush hour. Many possible solutions exist, and all are predicated on a particular understanding the problem:

Flexible hours – so all the tenants’ employees are not at the elevators at the same time.
Faster elevators – so each elevator can carry more people in a given time period.
Bigger elevators – so each elevator can carry more people per trip.
Elevator banks – so each elevator only stops on certain floors, increasing efficiency.
Better elevator controls – so each elevator is used more efficiently.
More elevators – so that overall carrying capacity can be increased.
Improved elevator maintenance – so each elevator is more efficient.
Encourage employees to use the stairs – so fewer people use the elevators.

The real-life decision makers defined the problem as “people complaining about having to wait.” Their solution was to make the wait less frustrating by piping music into the elevator lobbies. The complaints stopped. There is no way that the eventual solution could have been reached if, for example, the problem had been defined as “too few elevators.”

How you define the problem determines where you go to look for alternatives/solutions– so define the problem carefully.

Step 2: Seek out relevant assistance, guidance and support

Once the problem is defined, it is critical to search out resources that may be of assistance in making the decision. Resources can include people (i.e., a mentor, coworkers, external colleagues, or friends and family) as well professional guidelines and organizational policies and codes. Such resources are critical for determining parameters, generating solutions, clarifying priorities and providing support, both while implementing the solution and dealing with the repercussions of the solution.

Step 3: Identify available alternative solutions to the problem The key to this step is to not limit yourself to obvious alternatives or merely what has worked in the past. Be open to new and better alternatives. Consider as many as solutions as possible — five or more in most cases, three at the barest minimum. This gets away from the trap of seeing “both sides of the situation” and limiting one’s alternatives to two opposing choices (i.e., either this or that).

Step 4: Evaluate the identified alternatives As you evaluate each alternative, identify the likely positive and negative consequence of each. It is unusual to find one alternative that would completely resolve the problem and is significantly better than all others. As you consider positive and negative consequences, you must be careful to differentiate between what you know for a fact and what you believe might be the case. Consulting resources, including written guidelines and standards, can help you ascertain which consequences are of greater (and lesser) import.

You should think through not just what results each alternative could yield, but the likelihood it is that such impact will occur. You will only have all the facts in simple cases. It is reasonable and usually even necessary to supplement the facts you have with realistic assumptions and informed beliefs. Nonetheless, keep in mind that the more the evaluation is fact-based, the more confident you can be that the expected outcome will occur. Knowing the ratio of fact-based evaluation versus non-fact-based evaluation allows you to gauge how confident you can be in the proposed impact of each alternative.

Step 5: Make the decision When acting alone, this is the natural next step after selecting the best alternative. When you are working in a team environment, this is where a proposal is made to the team, complete with a clear definition of the problem, a clear list of the alternatives that were considered and a clear rationale for the proposed solution.

Step 6: Implement the decision While this might seem obvious, it is necessary to make the point that deciding on the best alternative is not the same as doing something. The action itself is the first real, tangible step in changing the situation. It is not enough to think about it or talk about it or even decide to do it. A decision only counts when it is implemented. As Lou Gerstner (former CEO of IBM) said, “There are no more prizes for predicting rain. There are only prizes for building arks.”

Step 7: Evaluate the decision Every decision is intended to fix a problem. The final test of any decision is whether or not the problem was fixed. Did it go away? Did it change appreciably? Is it better now, or worse, or the same? What new problems did the solution create?

Ethics Filters

The ethical component of the decision making process takes the form of a set of “filters.” Their purpose is to surface the ethics considerations and implications of the decision at hand. When decisions are classified as being “business” decisions (rather than “ethics” issues), values can quickly be left out of consideration and ethical lapses can occur.

At key steps in the process, you should stop and work through these filters, ensuring that the ethics issues imbedded in the decision are given consideration.

We group the considerations into the mnemonic PLUS.

P = Policies Is it consistent with my organization’s policies, procedures and guidelines?
L = Legal Is it acceptable under the applicable laws and regulations?
U = Universal Does it conform to the universal principles/values my organization has adopted?
S = Self Does it satisfy my personal definition of right, good and fair?

The PLUS filters work as an integral part of steps 1, 4 and 7 of the decision-making process. The decision maker applies the four PLUS filters to determine if the ethical component(s) of the decision are being surfaced/addressed/satisfied.

Does the existing situation violate any of the PLUS considerations?
Step 2: Seek out relevant assistance, guidance and support
Step 3: Identify available alternative solutions to the problem
Will the alternative I am considering resolve the PLUS violations?
Will the alternative being considered create any new PLUS considerations?
Are the ethical trade-offs acceptable?
Step 5: Make the decision
Step 6: Implement the decision
Does the resultant situation resolve the earlier PLUS considerations?
Are there any new PLUS considerations to be addressed?

The PLUS filters do not guarantee an ethically-sound decision. They merely ensure that the ethics components of the situation will be surfaced so that they might be considered.

How Organizations Can Support Ethical Decision-Making Organizations empower employees with the knowledge and tools they need to make ethical decisions by

Intentionally and regularly communicating to all employees:
Organizational policies and procedures as they apply to the common workplace ethics issues.
Applicable laws and regulations.
Agreed-upon set of “universal” values (i.e., Empathy, Patience, Integrity, Courage [EPIC]).
Providing a formal mechanism (i.e., a code and a helpline, giving employees access to a definitive interpretation of the policies, laws and universal values when they need additional guidance before making a decision).
Free Ethics & Compliance Toolkit
Ethics and Compliance Glossary
Definitions of Values
Why Have a Code of Conduct?
Code Construction and Content
Common Code Provisions
Ten Style Tips for Writing an Effective Code of Conduct
Five Keys to Reducing Ethics and Compliance Risk
Business Ethics & Compliance Timeline

Ethics Home Page
Business Ethics
Campus Ethics
Character Education
Government Ethics
Leadership Ethics
Ethics Articles
Ethics Cases
Ethical Decision Making
Ethics Blogs
Center News
E-letter/Subscribe
Make a Gift

Moral issues greet us each morning in the newspaper, confront us in the memos on our desks, nag us from our children's soccer fields, and bid us good night on the evening news. We are bombarded daily with questions about the justice of our foreign policy, the morality of medical technologies that can prolong our lives, the rights of the homeless, the fairness of our children's teachers to the diverse students in their classrooms.

Dealing with these moral issues is often perplexing. How, exactly, should we think through an ethical issue? What questions should we ask? What factors should we consider?

The first step in analyzing moral issues is obvious but not always easy: Get the facts. Some moral issues create controversies simply because we do not bother to check the facts. This first step, although obvious, is also among the most important and the most frequently overlooked.

But having the facts is not enough. Facts by themselves only tell us what ; they do not tell us what to be. In addition to getting the facts, resolving an ethical issue also requires an appeal to values. Philosophers have developed five different approaches to values to deal with moral issues.

Utilitarianism was conceived in the 19th century by Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill to help legislators determine which laws were morally best. Both Bentham and Mill suggested that ethical actions are those that provide the greatest balance of good over evil.

To analyze an issue using the utilitarian approach, we first identify the various courses of action available to us. Second, we ask who will be affected by each action and what benefits or harms will be derived from each. And third, we choose the action that will produce the greatest benefits and the least harm. The ethical action is the one that provides the greatest good for the greatest number.

The second important approach to ethics has its roots in the philosophy of the 18th-century thinker Immanuel Kant and others like him, who focused on the individual's right to choose for herself or himself. According to these philosophers, what makes human beings different from mere things is that people have dignity based on their ability to choose freely what they will do with their lives, and they have a fundamental moral right to have these choices respected. People are not objects to be manipulated; it is a violation of human dignity to use people in ways they do not freely choose.

Of course, many different, but related, rights exist besides this basic one. These other rights (an incomplete list below) can be thought of as different aspects of the basic right to be treated as we choose.

In deciding whether an action is moral or immoral using this second approach, then, we must ask, Does the action respect the moral rights of everyone? Actions are wrong to the extent that they violate the rights of individuals; the more serious the violation, the more wrongful the action.

The fairness or justice approach to ethics has its roots in the teachings of the ancient Greek philosopher Aristotle, who said that "equals should be treated equally and unequals unequally." The basic moral question in this approach is: How fair is an action? Does it treat everyone in the same way, or does it show favoritism and discrimination?

Favoritism gives benefits to some people without a justifiable reason for singling them out; discrimination imposes burdens on people who are no different from those on whom burdens are not imposed. Both favoritism and discrimination are unjust and wrong.

This approach to ethics assumes a society comprising individuals whose own good is inextricably linked to the good of the community. Community members are bound by the pursuit of common values and goals.

The common good is a notion that originated more than 2,000 years ago in the writings of Plato, Aristotle, and Cicero. More recently, contemporary ethicist John Rawls defined the common good as "certain general conditions that are...equally to everyone's advantage."

In this approach, we focus on ensuring that the social policies, social systems, institutions, and environments on which we depend are beneficial to all. Examples of goods common to all include affordable health care, effective public safety, peace among nations, a just legal system, and an unpolluted environment.

Appeals to the common good urge us to view ourselves as members of the same community, reflecting on broad questions concerning the kind of society we want to become and how we are to achieve that society. While respecting and valuing the freedom of individuals to pursue their own goals, the common-good approach challenges us also to recognize and further those goals we share in common.

The virtue approach to ethics assumes that there are certain ideals toward which we should strive, which provide for the full development of our humanity. These ideals are discovered through thoughtful reflection on what kind of people we have the potential to become.

Virtues are attitudes or character traits that enable us to be and to act in ways that develop our highest potential. They enable us to pursue the ideals we have adopted. Honesty, courage, compassion, generosity, fidelity, integrity, fairness, self-control, and prudence are all examples of virtues.

Virtues are like habits; that is, once acquired, they become characteristic of a person. Moreover, a person who has developed virtues will be naturally disposed to act in ways consistent with moral principles. The virtuous person is the ethical person.

In dealing with an ethical problem using the virtue approach, we might ask, What kind of person should I be? What will promote the development of character within myself and my community?

These five approaches suggest that once we have ascertained the facts, we should ask ourselves five questions when trying to resolve a moral issue:

This method, of course, does not provide an automatic solution to moral problems. It is not meant to. The method is merely meant to help identify most of the important ethical considerations. In the end, we must deliberate on moral issues for ourselves, keeping a careful eye on both the facts and on the ethical considerations involved.

This article updates several previous pieces from by Manuel Velasquez - Dirksen Professor of Business Ethics at Santa Clara University and former Center director - and Claire Andre, associate Center director. "Thinking Ethically" is based on a framework developed by the authors in collaboration with Center Director Thomas Shanks, S.J., Presidential Professor of Ethics and the Common Good Michael J. Meyer, and others. The framework is used as the basis for many programs and presentations at the Markkula Center for Applied Ethics.

Featured Materials

Ethics Home
About the Center
© 2014 Markkula Center for Applied Ethics

Academia.edu no longer supports Internet Explorer.

To browse Academia.edu and the wider internet faster and more securely, please take a few seconds to upgrade your browser .

Enter the email address you signed up with and we'll email you a reset link.

We're Hiring!
Help Center

Critically examine one theoretical framework for resolving ethical dilemmas and the estimated value as a beginning practitioner.

Related Papers

ramesh ramsahoye

This dissertation explores the views, attitudes and experiences of four accredited therapists working in Ireland in relation to crying in front of a client. Only a handful of publications have dealt with the subject directly and this void in the literature necessarily impacts upon how training programmes address the topic. Research efforts so far have mainly used quantitative measures to investigate the phenomenon, with the exception of Waldman’s (1995) qualitative study. These enterprises have confirmed that some counsellors do cry in client sessions, though some do not, and that a number of factors may determine the responses of practitioners. This additional qualitative enquiry is guided by the evident need to gather more specific data about how therapists actually think in the moment and about how they manage experiences of emotional intensity that could lead to their crying. The researcher also wanted to find out whether therapists’ theoretical perspectives affected their thinking about crying in the context of their work. The important issue of transcendent tears, omitted from most previous discussions, is also examined. Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis was chosen as the most suitable method for addressing these areas, through on-to-one interviews. The interviews revealed the crying behaviour of participating counsellors to be an extremely complex phenomenon, touching upon many significant aspects of the therapeutic process. An important distinction between tearing-up and a full crying episode emerged, in which the former behaviour was accepted by participants as part of counsellor congruence and empathy. Issues are identified for consideration by training institutions and implications for the supervisory process and therapist self-care are assessed. It is hoped that this research will go some way towards distinguishing between helpful and unhelpful forms of crying as well as normalising this mode of emotional expression as a legitimate form of self-disclosure, when situationally appropriate, for therapists in the course of their clinical work.

Abubakar Ameir Mtuka

Guidance and counselling

International Journal for Educational and Vocational Guidance

Graca Santos

British Journal of Guidance and Counselling

Gary Hermansson

Canadian Journal of Counselling

John Sumarah , Ron Lehr

Canadian Journal of Counselling and Psychotherapy Revue Canadienne De Counseling Et De Psychotherapie

Tracey Fuller

Michael Arribas-Ayllon

Ananya Sinha

Background: Ethical issues are ubiquitous during therapeutic work, despite the presence of professional ethics codes that guide ethical decision making. This exploratory research looks at how mental health trainees and practitioners, across various mental health disciplines, perceive and experience ethical dilemmas in the therapy space. Method: The sample included 12 mental health practitioners from varied mental health disciplines (clinical psychology, psychiatry and psychiatric social work), and practising counsellors, from an urban city in India. Three focus group discussions were conducted, where participants expressed the ethical issues and challenges encountered during their sessions with clients. Results: Content analysis of the narratives of the focus group discussions highlighted prominent ethical dilemmas in these domains: negotiation of boundaries or frames of the interaction; involvement of family in therapeutic decisions; negotiation of issues of gender and power in therapy; value conflicts in working with sexuality issues; therapist competence; and method of resolution of ethical dilemmas. Personal and cultural values emerged as impacting the perceptions, interpretations and experience of ethically challenging situations. The findings have implications for the development of culturally sensitive and value-based training methodologies.

Loading Preview

Sorry, preview is currently unavailable. You can download the paper by clicking the button above.

Business Insights

Harvard Business School Online's Business Insights Blog provides the career insights you need to achieve your goals and gain confidence in your business skills.

Career Development
Communication
Decision-Making
Earning Your MBA
Negotiation
News & Events
Productivity
Staff Spotlight
Student Profiles
Work-Life Balance
AI Essentials for Business
Alternative Investments
Business Analytics
Business Strategy
Business and Climate Change
Creating Brand Value
Design Thinking and Innovation
Digital Marketing Strategy
Disruptive Strategy
Economics for Managers
Entrepreneurship Essentials
Financial Accounting
Global Business
Launching Tech Ventures
Leadership Principles
Leadership, Ethics, and Corporate Accountability
Leading Change and Organizational Renewal
Leading with Finance
Management Essentials
Negotiation Mastery
Organizational Leadership
Power and Influence for Positive Impact
Strategy Execution
Sustainable Business Strategy
Sustainable Investing
Winning with Digital Platforms

7 Ways to Improve Your Ethical Decision-Making

A diverse team of five business professionals having a discussion

03 Aug 2023

Effective decision-making is the cornerstone of any thriving business. According to a survey of 760 companies cited in the Harvard Business Review , decision effectiveness and financial results correlated at a 95 percent confidence level across countries, industries, and organization sizes.

Yet, making ethical decisions can be difficult in the workplace and often requires dealing with ambiguous situations.

If you want to become a more effective leader , here’s an overview of why ethical decision-making is important in business and how to be better at it.

Access your free e-book today.

The Importance of Ethical Decision-Making

Any management position involves decision-making .

“Even with formal systems in place, managers have a great deal of discretion in making decisions that affect employees,” says Harvard Business School Professor Nien-hê Hsieh in the online course Leadership, Ethics, and Corporate Accountability . “This is because many of the activities companies need to carry out are too complex to specify in advance.”

This is where ethical decision-making comes in. As a leader, your decisions influence your company’s culture, employees’ motivation and productivity, and business processes’ effectiveness.

It also impacts your organization’s reputation—in terms of how customers, partners, investors, and prospective employees perceive it—and long-term success.

With such a large portion of your company’s performance relying on your guidance, here are seven ways to improve your ethical decision-making.

1. Gain Clarity Around Personal Commitments

You may be familiar with the saying, “Know thyself.” The first step to including ethics in your decision-making process is defining your personal commitments.

To gain clarity around those, Hsieh recommends asking:

What’s core to my identity? How do I perceive myself?
What lines or boundaries will I not cross?
What kind of life do I want to live?
What type of leader do I want to be?

Once you better understand your core beliefs, values, and ideals, it’s easier to commit to ethical guidelines in the workplace. If you get stuck when making challenging decisions, revisit those questions for guidance.

2. Overcome Biases

A bias is a systematic, often unconscious inclination toward a belief, opinion, perspective, or decision. It influences how you perceive and interpret information, make judgments, and behave.

Bias is often based on:

Personal experience
Cultural background
Social conditioning
Individual preference

It exists in the workplace as well.

“Most of the time, people try to act fairly, but personal beliefs or attitudes—both conscious and subconscious—affect our ability to do so,” Hsieh says in Leadership, Ethics, and Corporate Accountability .

There are two types of bias:

Explicit: A bias you’re aware of, such as ageism.
Implicit: A bias that operates outside your awareness, such as cultural conditioning.

Whether explicit or implicit, you must overcome bias to make ethical, fair decisions.

Related: How to Overcome Stereotypes in Your Organization

3. Reflect on Past Decisions

The next step is reflecting on previous decisions.

“By understanding different kinds of bias and how they can show themselves in the workplace, we can reflect on past decisions, experiences, and emotions to help identify problem areas,” Hsieh says in the course.

Reflect on your decisions’ processes and the outcomes. Were they favorable? What would you do differently? Did bias affect them?

Through analyzing prior experiences, you can learn lessons that help guide your ethical decision-making.

4. Be Compassionate

Decisions requiring an ethical lens are often difficult, such as terminating an employee.

“Termination decisions are some of the hardest that managers will ever have to make,” Hsieh says in Leadership, Ethics, and Corporate Accountability . “These decisions affect real people with whom we often work every day and who are likely to depend on their job for their livelihood.”

Such decisions require a compassionate approach. Try imagining yourself in the other person’s shoes, and think about what you would want to hear. Doing so allows you to approach decision-making with more empathy.

Leadership, Ethics, and Corporate Accountability | Develop a toolkit for making tough leadership decisions| Learn More

5. Focus on Fairness

Being “fair” in the workplace is often ambiguous, but it’s vital to ethical decision-making.

“Fairness is not only an ethical response to power asymmetries in the work environment,” Hsieh says in Leadership, Ethics, and Corporate Accountability . “Fairness–and having a successful organizational culture–can benefit the organization economically and legally as well.”

It’s particularly important to consider fairness in the context of your employees. According to Leadership, Ethics, and Corporate Accountability , operationalizing fairness in employment relationships requires:

Legitimate expectations: Expectations stemming from a promise or regular practice that employees can anticipate and rely on.
Procedural fairness: Concern with whether decisions are made and carried out impartially, consistently, and transparently.
Distributive fairness: The fair allocation of opportunities, benefits, and burdens based on employees’ efforts or contributions.

Keeping these aspects of fairness in mind can be the difference between a harmonious team and an employment lawsuit. When in doubt, ask yourself: “If I or someone I loved was at the receiving end of this decision, what would I consider ‘fair’?”

6. Take an Individualized Approach

Not every employee is the same. Your relationships with team members, managers, and organizational leaders differ based on factors like context and personality types.

“Given the personal nature of employment relationships, your judgment and actions in these areas will often require adjustment according to each specific situation,” Hsieh explains in Leadership, Ethics, and Corporate Accountability .

One way to achieve this is by tailoring your decision-making based on employees’ values and beliefs. For example, if a colleague expresses concerns about a project’s environmental impact, explore eco-friendly approaches that align with their values.

Another way you can customize your ethical decision-making is by accommodating employees’ cultural differences. Doing so can foster a more inclusive work environment and boost your team’s performance .

7. Accept Feedback

Ethical decision-making is susceptible to gray areas and often met with dissent, so it’s critical to be approachable and open to feedback .

The benefits of receiving feedback include:

Learning from mistakes.
Having more opportunities to exhibit compassion, fairness, and transparency.
Identifying blind spots you weren’t aware of.
Bringing your team into the decision-making process.

While such conversations can be uncomfortable, don’t avoid them. Accepting feedback will not only make you a more effective leader but also help your employees gain a voice in the workplace.

How to Become a More Effective Leader | Access Your Free E-Book | Download Now

Ethical Decision-Making Is a Continuous Learning Process

Ethical decision-making doesn’t come with right or wrong answers—it’s a continuous learning process.

“There often is no right answer, only imperfect solutions to difficult problems,” Hsieh says. “But even without a single ‘right’ answer, making thoughtful, ethical decisions can make a major difference in the lives of your employees and colleagues.”

By taking an online course, such as Leadership, Ethics, and Corporate Accountability , you can develop the frameworks and tools to make effective decisions that benefit all aspects of your business.

Ready to improve your ethical decision-making? Enroll in Leadership, Ethics, and Corporate Accountability —one of our online leadership and management courses —and download our free e-book on how to become a more effective leader.

About the Author

Staff and Board
Mission and Strategic Plan
Berkshire Region
Central Region
Northeast Region
Pioneer Valley Region
Southeast Region
Shared Interest Groups / Activities / Task Forces
Donate to NASW-MA Chapter
Membership Benefits
Student Membership
Join or Renew
Action Center
Legislative Agenda & Priority Bills
Legislative Education & Advocacy Day (LEAD)
Political Action for Candidate Election (PACE)
Additional Advocacy Resources
Employment Lawyers and Legal Resources
Clinical Alerts
Private Practice
Supervision
Workplace Safety
Social Work Assistance Network (SWAN)
Therapy Matcher
FOCUS CE Mailer PDF Archive
CE Webinars
MLK Jr. Forum 2025 - coming soon
Virtual School Social Work Conference 2024
Virtual Symposium 2025 Call for Proposals
Nursing Home & Elder Issues Conference 2024
CE Events Calendar
Online CE Institute
CE Authorization by NASW-MA
CE Frequently Asked Questions
CE Advertisements
Student Resource Center
BIPOC Student Membership Program
Graduation Cords
Legislative Education and Advocacy Day (LEAD)
Licensing Test Prep
Career Services
Professional Mentoring
Loan Forgiveness
Scholarships / Fellowships
Student Ambassador Program
Intern with NASW-MA
Social Work Voice (member only)
Email Newsletter (member only)
Office Space
CE Programs & Trainings
Supervision, Groups, and Services
Volunteer, Research, Other
Place an Ad
Awards 2023
Awards Information and History


Name:
Category:
Share:

Essential Steps for Ethical Problem-Solving

Is there a conflict of values, or rights, or professional responsibilities? (For example, there may be an issue of self-determination of an adolescent versus the well-being of the family.)

2. IDENTIFY the key values and principles involved. What meanings and limitations are typically attached to these competing values? (For example, rarely is confidential information held in absolute secrecy; however, typically decisions about access by third parties to sensitive content should be contracted with clients.)

3. RANK the values or ethical principles which - in your professional judgment - are most relevant to the issue or dilemma. What reasons can you provide for prioritizing one competing value/principle over another? (For example, your client’s right to choose a beneficial course of action could bring hardship or harm to others who would be affected.)

4. DEVELOP an action plan that is consistent with the ethical priorities that have been determined as central to the dilemma. Have you conferred with clients and colleagues, as appropriate, about the potential risks and consequences of alternative courses of action? Can you support or justify your action plan with the values/principles on which the plan is based? (For example, have you conferred with all the necessary persons regarding the ethical dimensions of planning for a battered wife’s quest to secure secret shelter and the implications for her teen-aged children?)

5. IMPLEMENT your plan, utilizing the most appropriate practice skills and competencies. How will you make use of core social work skills such as sensitive communication, skillful negotiation, and cultural competence? (For example, skillful colleague or supervisory communication and negotiation may enable an impaired colleague to see her/his impact on clients and to take appropriate action.)

6. REFLECT on the outcome of this ethical decision making process. How would you evaluate the consequences of this process for those involved: Client(s), professional(s), and agency (ies)? (Increasingly, professionals have begun to seek support, further professional training, and consultation through the development of Ethics review Committees or Ethics Consultation processes.)

From discussion by Frederick Reamer & Sr. Ann Patrick Conrad in Professional Choices: Ethics at Work (1995), video available from NASW Press 1-800-227-3590

Format developed by Sr. Vincentia Joseph & Sr. Ann Patrick Conrad
NASW Office of Ethics and Professional Review, 1-800-638-8799
750 1st Street, NE, Suite 700, Washington, DC 20002

Ethics Resources:

(formerly COI)

Other Ethics Information:

8/27/2024 NEW Loan Forgiveness Program - Applications Open!

8/23/2024 Liability Insurance through NASW Assurance Services / Preferra

8/14/2024 Member Verification Postcards from National NASW

8/5/2024 NASW-PACE Endorses Vice President Kamala Harris for President

9/3/2024 Webinar - Living in the In-Between: Unpacking Mental Health, Assimilation... (1.5 CEUs)

9/12/2024 Webinar - Childhood Trauma & Emotional Eating: A Trauma-Informed... (1.5 CEUs)

9/14/2024 Virtual License Test Prep Course

9/17/2024 Webinar - Unmasking Gambling Disorder: History, Risk Factors, and Pathways to Help... (1.5 CEUs)

National Association of Social Workers - Massachusetts Chapter 6 Beacon Street, Suite 915, Boston MA 02108 tel: (617)227-9635 fax: (617)227-9877 email: chapter [email protected] Copyright 2020, NASW-MA. All rights reserved.

Advanced Search
All new items
Journal articles
Manuscripts
All Categories
Metaphysics and Epistemology
Epistemology
Metaphilosophy
Metaphysics
Philosophy of Action
Philosophy of Language
Philosophy of Mind
Philosophy of Religion
Value Theory
Applied Ethics
Meta-Ethics
Normative Ethics
Philosophy of Gender, Race, and Sexuality
Philosophy of Law
Social and Political Philosophy
Value Theory, Miscellaneous
Science, Logic, and Mathematics
Logic and Philosophy of Logic
Philosophy of Biology
Philosophy of Cognitive Science
Philosophy of Computing and Information
Philosophy of Mathematics
Philosophy of Physical Science
Philosophy of Social Science
Philosophy of Probability
General Philosophy of Science
Philosophy of Science, Misc
History of Western Philosophy
Ancient Greek and Roman Philosophy
Medieval and Renaissance Philosophy
17th/18th Century Philosophy
19th Century Philosophy
20th Century Philosophy
History of Western Philosophy, Misc
Philosophical Traditions
African/Africana Philosophy
Asian Philosophy
Continental Philosophy
European Philosophy
Philosophy of the Americas
Philosophical Traditions, Miscellaneous
Philosophy, Misc
Philosophy, Introductions and Anthologies
Philosophy, General Works
Teaching Philosophy
Philosophy, Miscellaneous
Other Academic Areas
Natural Sciences
Social Sciences
Cognitive Sciences
Formal Sciences
Arts and Humanities
Professional Areas
Other Academic Areas, Misc
Submit a book or article
Upload a bibliography
Personal page tracking
Archives we track
Information for publishers
Introduction
Submitting to PhilPapers
Frequently Asked Questions
Subscriptions
Editor's Guide
The Categorization Project
For Publishers
For Archive Admins
PhilPapers Surveys
Bargain Finder
About PhilPapers
Create an account

Creative problem-solving in ethics

Author's profile.

Reprint years

Call number, other versions.

No versions found

Buy this book

PhilArchive

External links.

Available at Amazon.com

Through your library

Sign in / register and customize your OpenURL resolver
Configure custom resolver

Ethical Dilemma: Example, Problem, and Solution Essay

To find inspiration for your paper and overcome writer’s block
As a source of information (ensure proper referencing)
As a template for you assignment

Introduction

Example of an ethical dilemma, moral dilemmas, ethical steps, ethical dilemma: conclusion.

An ethical dilemma is a situation where people are forced to make a choice between two options available to them. It is necessary to explain that regardless of the option an individual takes both options have negative consequences.

However, the individual chooses an option that have few negative impacts on the event or people involved (Adair 2013). This essay uses an ethical dilemma case study to illustrate the issues involved in this context and how they are managed without causing a lot of harm to all the parties involved.

Engrave Computers is a technology based company that specializes in producing software that enable managers to monitor the performance of employees and predict their productivity. This software also gives companies opportunities to explore various issues that affect the performance of employees and propose solutions to these challenges. I am the manager of this company and Ben has been very influential in developing this software.

The company does not demand that employees should hand over their production rights and other patent requirements to it; in fact, it encourages its workers to be creative and invent software that will boost its sales and retain the right to distribute, sell, share or change the particulars of their inventions (Thomas 2010).

The company gives workers this privilege to motivate them to continue rendering their services without feeling the company or managers are misusing their talents.

The company is registered to take part in an international exhibition where the winner is awarded a quarter of its working capital and offered a free one year advertising space in an international broadcasting channel. I am confident that Ben will make the company proud since he has always won this contest.

On the other hand, this company experienced significant losses last year because most employees reported to work late or were absent without seeking permission from the human resource management (Pollock 2011).

As a result, an urgent meeting was convened and it was agreed that absenteeism and lateness will not be tolerated and anyone culpable will be suspended for three months. Workers were requested to read the new regulation and append their signatures to show that they agreed on the terms stated by the human resource department.

Last week the company secretary was suspended since she failed to observe this regulation and this was a warning that no one will be spared. Ben reported to work yesterday after being absent for four days and claims that he was not feeling well. Everybody is keen watching what will happen to him as pressure continues to pile on the human resource department to take corrective measures against him (Saaty 2011).

However, this department felt that this case was beyond its abilities and forwarded the matter to my department. I forwarded the issue to the board of directors but I was directed to solve it within 24 hours.

This situation was not as easy as it looked due to the considerations that I had to observe before taking any step. There were challenges regarding all alternatives available to me at that moment. First, being a manager means I had to a stake step that would ensure the operations if the company would not be affected. This means that the operations of the company would go on despite the measures I would have taken.

Secondly, I was supposed to show other employees that no one is above the policies of this company and if anyone commits a mistake the individual must be punished. Thirdly, it was necessary to show employees that I was committed to implement the policies regarding lateness and absenteeism (Arthur 2009).

The human resource department had suspended the secretary and thus I was supposed to follow the same path. Lastly, I was supposed to ensure that the company participates in the oncoming exhibition since it had already confirmed its participation.

The policies of this company were changed to ensure that an employee who comes late is suspended for three months. This was motivated by the poor performance witnessed in the last financial year and no one was willing to experience another financial crisis. Therefore, I suspended Ben for three months to ensure other workers become obedient and follow the regulations provided to them.

The following are ethical considerations that guided me to take this step. This decision was motivated by the need to ensure that no one commits this mistake against regardless of the position of an individual in the company (Haberfeld 2012). Ben was an indispensable employee but his actions were considered to have economic, legal and social impacts on the company and other workers.

First, the suspended secretary would have complained of double standards if I would have ignored suspending Ben. This would have led to a legal tussle between her and the company. Secondly, other workers would have noticed that Ben was not punished and this could crate differences among them (McCarthy 2011).

Thirdly, I knew that we were going to miss the prestigious prize on the scheduled event; however, this was not as important as other activities of this company. In addition, the occasion is held after every five years and this means that it would have significant impacts on this company.

Therefore, my decision was economically responsible since it focused on the long term gains the company will make if employees are punctual and attend all activities as the company directed them (Baaske 2009).

The company will never make losses due to absenteeism or lateness even though it was going to miss the award. In addition, it was ethical since it showed that I was promoting professional discipline in the company. It is advisable to follow the rules and policies regarding work to ensure that workers respect with them without favoring some workers (Farrell 2012).

The decision also promoted respect for the rule of justice and equality at the company. It is necessary to explain that the secretary was suspended after failing to meet the requirements of the company; therefore, it would have been very unfair to exempt Ben from punishments yet they are all employees of this company.

Even though, I had the option of punishing him after his presentation this was not a logical alternative since it was bound to affect him during that period (Harrison 2010). Therefore, my decision was appropriate and I will hot hesitate to suspend another worker in case the individual violates the policies of this company.

Ethical dilemmas are common in life but individuals must make wise choices that will not affect their relationships or work. It is necessary to ensure that they make informed choices and if possible they should consult their friends before taking any step. These dilemmas put our faith and commitments to test; therefore, they should be approached very carefully.

Adair, J 2013, Decision Making and Problem Solving: Creating Success, AMACOM Books, New York.

Arthur, W 2009, The Thinking Manager’s Toolbox: Effective Processes for Problem Solving and Decision Making, South-Western College, Connecticut.

Baaske, K 2009, Arguments and Arguing: The Products and Process of Human Decision Making, Prentice Hall, New Jersey.

Farrell, O 2012, Business Ethics: Ethical Decision Making and Cases, Cengage Learning, South-Western, Connecticut.

Haberfeld, W 2012 , Police Leadership: Organizational and Managerial Decision Making Process, Prentice Hall, New Jersey.

Harrison, F 2010, The Managerial Decision-Making Process, South-Western College, Connecticut.

McCarthy, B 2011, Justice, Crime, and Ethics, Hastings House, Washington.

Pollock, J 2011, Ethical Dilemmas and Decisions in Criminal Justice: Ethics in Crime and Justice, Prentice Hall, New Jersey.

Saaty, T 2011, Theory and Applications of the Analytic Network Process: Decision Making with Benefits, Opportunities, Costs, and Risks, Wiley, New York.

Thomas, S 2010, Theory and Applications of the Analytic Network Process: Decision Making with Benefits, Opportunities, Costs, and Risks, Prentice Hall, New Jersey.

Ethics Between Law and Religion
Formal Ethics and Common Grounds
Turbidity and Total Suspended Solids of Water: Lentic and Lotic Sites
Canadian Pacific and International Bank's Analysis
The Sandwich Principle for Working with Employees
Sandel's Proposals on Justice
The Parable of the Sadhu
Utilitarian, Libertarian, Deontological, and Virtue Ethics Perspectives
Ethical Behavior in Research
What Makes Killing Wrong?
Chicago (A-D)
Chicago (N-B)

IvyPanda. (2019, June 4). Ethical Dilemma: Example, Problem, and Solution. https://ivypanda.com/essays/ethical-dilemma-5/

"Ethical Dilemma: Example, Problem, and Solution." IvyPanda , 4 June 2019, ivypanda.com/essays/ethical-dilemma-5/.

IvyPanda . (2019) 'Ethical Dilemma: Example, Problem, and Solution'. 4 June.

IvyPanda . 2019. "Ethical Dilemma: Example, Problem, and Solution." June 4, 2019. https://ivypanda.com/essays/ethical-dilemma-5/.

1. IvyPanda . "Ethical Dilemma: Example, Problem, and Solution." June 4, 2019. https://ivypanda.com/essays/ethical-dilemma-5/.

Bibliography

IvyPanda . "Ethical Dilemma: Example, Problem, and Solution." June 4, 2019. https://ivypanda.com/essays/ethical-dilemma-5/.

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Publications
Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

Advanced Search
Journal List
Behav Anal Pract
v.16(3); 2023 Sep
PMC10480129

Examination of Ethical Decision-Making Models Across Disciplines: Common Elements and Application to the Field of Behavior Analysis

Victoria d. suarez.

1 Endicott College, Beverly, MA USA

Videsha Marya

2 Village Autism Center, Marietta, GA USA

Mary Jane Weiss

3 Behavioral Health Center of Excellence, Los Angeles, CA USA

Human service practitioners from varying fields make ethical decisions daily. At some point during their careers, many behavior analysts may face ethical decisions outside the range of their previous education, training, and professional experiences. To help practitioners make better decisions, researchers have published ethical decision-making models; however, it is unknown the extent to which published models recommend similar behaviors. Thus, we systematically reviewed and analyzed ethical decision-making models from published peer-reviewed articles in behavior analysis and related allied health professions. We identified 55 ethical decision-making models across 60 peer-reviewed articles, seven primary professions (e.g., medicine, psychology), and 22 subfields (e.g., dentistry, family medicine). Through consensus-based analysis, we identified nine behaviors commonly recommended across the set of reviewed ethical decision-making models with almost all ( n = 52) models arranging the recommended behaviors sequentially and less than half ( n = 23) including a problem-solving approach. All nine ethical decision-making steps clustered around the ethical decision-making steps in the Ethics Code for Behavior Analysts published by the Behavior Analyst Certification Board ( 2020 ) suggesting broad professional consensus for the behaviors likely involved in ethical decision making.

Ethical decision making is operant behavior involving a behavior chain of complex responses (Marya et al., 2022 ). As behavior analysts, we make difficult ethical decisions daily. Behavior analysts are typically taught to respond to ethical scenarios via vignettes or descriptions of real-world ethical dilemmas (e.g., Bailey & Burch, 2016 ; Sush & Najdowski, 2019 ). However, the variability in ethical dilemmas that behavior analysts contact can be extensive and often contains contextual information not included in past training. Such contextual variables (e.g., impact of and on stakeholders, organizational variables, perspective of the funding source) might alter one’s course of action. Ethical decision-making models can equip behavior analysts with the needed tools to navigate varied and complex dilemmas. Thus, behavior analysts can benefit from models that allow an analysis of contextual variables because those variables often impact solutions.

Ethical conduct of board certified behavior analysts is governed by the Behavior Analyst Certification Board (BACB) ethical codes. Since its inception, the BACB has disseminated three major codes— Guidelines for Responsible Conduct for Behavior Analysts (BACB, 2004 , 2010 ), the Professional and Ethical Compliance Code for Behavior Analysts (BACB, 2014 ), and most recently the Ethics Code for Behavior Analysts (BACB, 2020 ). Although versions prior to 2020 outlined specific ethical obligations and provided a framework and reference for considering paths of action when confronted with ethical challenges, no ethical decision-making tool was embedded until the most recent Code iteration.

Within applied behavior analysis (ABA), several ethical decision-making models have been published to guide behavior analysts to make optimal decisions (BACB, 2020 ; Bailey & Burch, 2013 , 2022 ; Brodhead, 2015 ; Brodhead, Quigley, & Wilczynski, 2018 ; Newhouse-Oisten et al., 2017 ; Rosenberg & Schwartz, 2019 ; Sush & Najdowski, 2019 ). These models unanimously share the common goal of providing readers with a systematic approach to ethical decision making, yet include unique elements that provide varying contextual recommendations. Some models offer a generalizable approach affording wider applicability to a variety of ethical situations (BACB, 2020 ; Bailey & Burch, 2013 , 2016 , 2022 ; Brodhead et al., 2018 ; Rosenberg & Schwartz, 2019 ; Sush & Najdowski, 2019 ), and other models provide guidance to navigate specific ethical situations (Brodhead, 2015 ; Newhouse-Oisten et al., 2017 ). Moreover, some models incorporate a problem-solving approach wherein multiple behaviors are considered along with their possible outcomes to aid decision making in ethical contexts (Rosenberg & Schwartz, 2019 ).

Existing models within the behavior analytic literature have all emerged in the last 7 years and offer a discipline-specific approach. However, many other allied disciplines (e.g., medicine, psychology) have published literature offering models for ethical decision making for a longer period than the field of behavior analysis. Recently, there have been calls to action where behavior analysts have been looking to and learning from related professions (LaFrance et al., 2019 ; Miller et al., 2019 ; Pritchett et al., 2021 ; Taylor et al., 2019 ; Wright, 2019 ). Learning from other disciplines may help the field of behavior analysis rule out ineffective approaches or derive novel effective solutions more quickly.

The purpose of this systematic literature review was to conduct a descriptive analysis of ethical decision-making models across behavior analysis and allied disciplines. This literature review aimed to identify similarities and differences in approaches to ethical decision making that could inform future ethical decision-making models and aid the development of ethical decision-making skills in behavior analysts.

Inclusion Criteria

Articles included in this systematic review met the following three criteria: published in peer-reviewed journals through June 2020, written in English, and the title or abstract included keywords from the search (described below). We began the review in July 2020 and completed it in August 2021.

Search Procedure

We conducted a systematic review of the literature on ethical decision-making models for the fields of applied behavior analysis, education, medicine, occupational therapy, psychology, social work, and speech language pathology using the Preferred Reporting Item for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines (Moher, Liberati, Tetzlaff, Altman, & Prisma Group, 2009 ). We chose these fields because of their similarities to behavior analysis’ mission in serving vulnerable populations. The following procedures were completed in accordance with the PRISMA guidelines: (1) potential articles meeting inclusion criteria were identified; (2) the identified articles were comprehensively screened; (3) the eligibility of each article was evaluated across dependent measures; and (4) the included articles were analyzed.

The first and second authors completed primary database searches using PsycINFO and PubMed. The keywords used to identify potential articles to be included in this analysis were: applied behavior analysis, clinical psychology, counseling psychology, decision mak*, educat*, ethic*, model, medicine, nursing, occupational therapy, speech and language*, and social work. In particular, the key words “ethic*”, “decision mak*”, and “model” were used in combination with the terms “applied behavior analysis,” or “clinical psychology,” or “counseling psychology,” or “medicine,” or “nursing,” or “occupational therapy,” or “speech,” or “language.”

The initial PsycINFO and PubMed searches yielded 635 articles. Of these, 46 were duplicates. The titles and abstracts of the remaining 589 articles were read by the first and second authors to evaluate the inclusion of keywords. Full-text articles were retrieved for studies that included the words ethics or ethical , decision making , or model in their abstracts or titles ( n = 249). Of these, a total of 173 articles were selected for full-text review.

The articles selected for full-text review ( n = 173) were read in their entirety to evaluate whether they met these criteria: (1) included humans as the population of interest; (2) mentioned decision making; (3) mentioned ethics; (4) provided at least three identifiable steps to be followed as a part of a model in either a text or figure format; and (5) the provided model addressed how to respond to ethical dilemmas. The first and second authors scored each of the 173 articles across the aforementioned criteria to determine whether they would be included in the final analysis. Articles ( n = 27) for which it was unclear whether they met any of the criteria were coded as needing additional review, and the third and fourth authors completed an additional full-text review to determine whether they would be included in the final analysis. A total of 126 articles were removed for not meeting all five of the criteria. Thus, 47 articles remained to be included in the analysis.

Next, the first and second authors conducted a manual search (i.e., identification through other sources) of the references ( n = 1,354) for the remaining 47 articles. The screening criteria for this search was identical to the initial screening in which the title and abstract were searched for the inclusion of the words ethics or ethical , decision making , and model . Seventy-nine additional articles were identified through this process. Of these 79 articles, 16 were identified as duplicates from the initial PsycINFO and PubMed searches. Twelve articles were inaccessible to us online or through available library loans and were thus excluded. A list of these articles is not included in this article but is available upon request. Upon reviewing the full text of the remaining 51 articles, 26 additional articles met eligibility to be included in the analysis. In sum, a total of 60 articles met all inclusion criteria and were included.

Interrater reliability was scored using a consensus-based approach. In particular, all four authors collaboratively scored each of the models across the various measures described in the section below. If there was disagreement on scoring at any point, the authors collaboratively reviewed the model using figures provided within the article and any available text describing the model until consensus in scoring was reached.

Dependent Measures

Articles that met criteria for inclusion were evaluated across four dependent measures. First, we evaluated the steps included within the models from each article. Second, we categorized the model by the professional discipline or field of study. Third, we evaluated whether the model author presented the model in a specific order or sequence (i.e., linear or sequential model). Lastly, we scored whether the model included a problem-solving approach. We provide greater detail on each of these dependent measures below.

Decision-Making Steps

The models from each article were evaluated across nine steps (Table (Table1). 1 ). These steps were developed during the process of data synthesis. We read the included articles and identified common themes based on their prevalence in the examined literature. Next, we began classifying articles by the inclusion of these steps, indicating whether each article contained each of the identified steps. Then, we began tracking additional steps that appeared in articles. If those steps appeared in multiple articles, we added them as official steps in the analysis. When this was done, all previously coded articles were recoded for these additional steps. For the purpose of the current review, we identified the following nine components of ethical decision making: (1) ethical radar; (2) urgent detour; (3) pinpoint the problem; (4) information gathering; (5) available options/behaviors; (6) ranking and weighing; (7) analysis; (8) implementation; and (9) follow-up. Details on scoring criteria for each of these steps can be found in Appendix Table Table4. 4 . We scored models included in each article as either including or not including the steps listed above. This was done by using the text description of the model, if provided, or the figure representation of the model if descriptive text was not included.

Steps from the Decision-Making Model from the Ethics Code for Behavior Analysts ( 2020 ) and from the Current Literature Review

Steps from BACB code	Steps from current literature review
1. Clearly define the issue and consider potential risk of harm to relevant individuals.	1. Ethical radar ( ).
	2. Urgent detour
	3. Pinpoint the problem ( ).
2. Identify all relevant individuals.	4. Information gathering ( ?) 4a. Affected parties ( ). 4b. Reference professional code of ethics. 4c. Reference other codes of ethics ( ). 4d. Case specific information ( ).
3. Gather relevant supporting documentation and follow-up on second-hand information to confirm that there is an actual ethical concern.
4. Consider your personal learning history and biases in the context of the relevant individuals.*
5. Identify the relevant core principles and Code standards.
6. Consult available resources (e.g., research, decision-making models, trusted colleagues).
7. Develop several possible actions to reduce or remove risk of harm, prioritizing the best interests of clients in accordance with the Code and applicable laws.	5. Available options/behaviors
8. Critically evaluate each possible action by considering its alignment with the “letter and spirit” of the Code, its potential impact on the client and stakeholders, the likelihood of it immediately resolving the ethical concern, as well as variables such as client preference, social acceptability, degree of restrictiveness, and likelihood of maintenance.	6. Ranking/weighing of information
9. Select the action that seems most likely to resolve the specific ethical concern and reduce the likelihood of similar issues arising in the future.	7. Analysis
10. Take the selected action in collaboration with relevant individuals affected by the issue and document specific actions taken, agreed-upon next steps, names of relevant individuals, and due dates.	8. Implementation
11. Evaluate the outcomes to ensure that the action successfully addressed the issue.	9. Follow up

*Step 4 of the BACB model aligns with components from Step 6 of current literature review.

Decision-making Steps

Steps	Description
Ethical radar	This step was coded if the author(s) referenced a signal-detection component in the process of decision making. Signal detection refers to the experience of detecting an ethical dilemma. In particular, the individual may feel that something is unusual, that something is out of the ordinary, or they may feel some vague discomfort. This step was coded to be present if the model made a reference to the practitioner coming into contact with a situation wherein they suspected there might be an ethical issue present. For example, if a practitioner was instructed by their supervisor to round up the time they actually spent delivering services. Encountering such a situation might lead a practitioner to be uncomfortable such that further analysis is warranted.
Urgent detour	This step was coded if the model author(s) referred to situations in which a practitioner would need to report the issue to a legal or other governing body prior to taking any other actions or analyzing the situation further. For example, if a practitioner encountered a situation in which they had reasons to suspect abuse of their client by the parent. Provided that the practitioner had enough evidence to support their suspicion, it would be essential for them to report the abuse to child services prior to taking any other action.
Pinpoint the problem	This step was coded if the model author(s) referred to the practitioner explicitly identifying the ethical issue. The distinguishing feature of this step as compared with the earlier step of ethical radar is the precise identification of the ethical issue beyond a general suspicion that an ethical issue might be present. For example, in the case of a practitioner who is approached by a client to purchase an item from the client’s business, pinpointing the problem would include labeling the actions as the potential development of a dual relationship.
Information gathering	This step was coded when the model author(s) recommended gathering contextually relevant information that would be needed to make an ethical decision. The information collected was further divided into the following subcategories where appropriate: a. : This step was coded if the model author(s) included any language that mentioned different people involved in the situation or how the situation might impact different parties. For example, if parents, teachers, or other affected individuals are relevant to the ethical dilemma or decision. b. This step was coded if the model author(s) guided the model users to follow their professional code of ethics. c. This step was coded if the model author(s) guided the model users to follow other codes of ethics that differ from the code of ethics from their professional affiliation(s). For example, if the practitioner is prompted to refer to the rules and regulations specific to their organization, or a reference is made to their religious or personal values. d. This step was coded if the model author(s) referenced any other information that might be specific to the situation but was not captured in the other subcategories listed above. For example, issues of client preferences, quality of life, contexts and settings, and assessment of the practitioners’ understanding of the circumstances all fell into this category.
Available options/behaviors	This step was coded if the model author(s) guided the model users to consider information that would limit or constrain the practitioners’ set of available behaviors. For example, if there were any medical indications that required consideration or if colleagues should be consulted.
Ranking and weighing	This step was coded if the model author(s) guided the model user to consider the influence of their learning history, the impact of personal values, application of guidelines, or the results of a risk-benefit analysis.
Analysis	This step was coded if the model author(s) guided the model user to consider and synthesize the information from the prior steps to make a decision.
Implementation	This step was coded if the model author(s) guided the model user to implement the decided plan of action.
Follow up	This step was coded if the model author(s) guided the model user to evaluate the solution or action after it was implemented.

Field of Study

The field of study of each article was recorded (e.g., psychology). Where possible, we also included a secondary field of study (e.g., school psychology). The primary field of study of the article was determined based on the journal that it was published in and the intended audience of the article. Secondary fields of study were coded to further gather information about the specific subfield. For example, if the article was published in a psychology journal and the audience of the article was specifically school psychologists.

Problem Solving

Models within each article were scored as including a problem-solving component or approach if the model author(s) guided the model users to identify two or more possible solutions and likely outcomes or consequences to the possible solutions. Models that did not include more than one possible solution and did not anticipate outcomes to solutions were scored as not including a problem-solving component.

Linear or Sequential

We coded whether the proposed model was linear or sequential in nature. That is, the model author(s) indicated that steps in the model followed a certain order or sequence wherein each preceding step in the model was to be considered prior to moving on to subsequent steps. If a model was not linear or sequential, this was also recorded.

Number of Models

A total of 55 ethical decision-making models across 60 peer-reviewed journal articles were analyzed. Models included in more than one article were counted as duplicates, and papers that included more than one model resulted in each unique model being coded.

Table Table2 2 shows the number of models that included each of the nine steps. None of the steps were present in all models and the step that was included in the greatest number of models was ranking and weighing information ( n = 51; 93%). After ranking and weighing information, the steps found in the most-to-least number of models were: affected parties and available options/behaviors ( n = 49; 89%); reference other codes of ethics (e.g., personal, religious, organizational; n = 44; 80%); analysis ( n = 43; 78%), reference of professional codes ( n = 40; 73%); case specific information ( n = 38; 69%); implementation and pinpoint the problem (29 models each; 52%); follow up ( n = 26; 47%); ethical radar ( n = 21; 38%); urgent detour ( n = 16; 29%); and, information gathering ( n = 11; 20%).

Steps Included in Each Model

Steps	No. of models (%)	Models
Ethical radar ( )	21 (38%)	Boccio, ; Bommer et al., ; Cassells et al., ; Cassells & Gaul, ; Christensen, ; DeWolf, ; Duff & Passmore, ; Ehrich et al., ; Fan, ; Forester-Miller & Davis, ; Grundstein-Amado, ; Hayes, ; Heyler et al., ; Hill et al., ; Hough, ; Kaldjian et al., ; Kanoti, ; Kirsch, ; Macpherson et al., ; Ponterotto & Reynolds, ; Zeni et al.,
Urgent detour	16 (29%)	Boccio, ; Bolmsjö, Sandman, & Andersson., ; Bommer et al., ; Candee & Puka, (Deontology); Cassells et al., ; Cassells & Gaul, ; DeWolf, ; Ehrich et al., ; Fan, ; Forester-Miller & Davis, ; Greipp, ; Hill et al., ; Hughes & Dvorak, ; Sileo & Kopala, ; Soskolne, ; Tymchuk,
Pinpoint the problem ( )	29 (53%)	Boccio, ; Bolmsjö et al., ; Bommer et al., ; Christensen, ; Fan, ; Green & Walker, ; Grundstein-Amado, ; Haddad, ; Harasym et al., ; Hill et al., ; Hough, ; Johnsen et al., ; Johnson et al., ; Jones, ; Kaldjian et al., ; Kanoti, ; Kirsch, ; Laletas, ; Liang et al., ; Marco et al., ; Murphy & Murphy, ; Park, ; Phillips, ; Shahidullah et al., ; Soskolne, ; Sullivan & Brown, ; Toren & Wagner, ; Tsai & Harasym, ; Zeni et al.,
Information gathering	11 (20%)	Cassells et al., ; DeWolf, ; Ehrich et al., ; Harasym et al., ; Hayes, ; Hough, ; Hughes & Dvorak, ; Jones, ; Sileo & Kopala, ; Tsai & Harasym, ; Tymchuk,
Affected parties	49 (89%)	Boccio, ; Bolmsjö et al., ; Bommer et al., ; Candee & Puka, (Deontology); Candee & Puka, (Utilitarian); Cassells et al., ; Cassells & Gaul, ; Christensen, ; Cottone, ; du Preez & Goedeke, ; Duff & Passmore, ; Fan, ; Ferrell et al., ; Forester-Miller & Davis, ; Green & Walker, ; Greipp, ; Grundstein-Amado, ; Haddad, ; Harasym et al., ; Hayes, ; Heyler et al., ; Hill et al., ; Hough, ; Hughes & Dvorak, ; Hundert, ; Johnsen et al., ; Johnson et al., ; Jones, ; Kaldjian et al., ; Kanoti, ; Kirsch, ; Laletas, ; Liang et al., ; Macpherson et al., ; Murphy & Murphy, ; Nekhlyudov et al., ; Phillips, ; Park, ; Ponterotto & Reynolds, ; Schaffer et al., ; Schneider & Snell, ; Siegler, ; Shahidullah et al., ; Sileo & Kopala, ; Soskolne, ; Sullivan & Brown, ; Tsai & Harasym, ; Tunzi & Ventres, ; Tymchuk, ;
Reference professional code of ethics	40 (73%)	Boccio, ; Bolmsjö et al., ; Cassells et al., ; Cassells & Gaul, ; Christensen, ; Cottone, ; DeWolf, ; du Preez & Goedeke, ; Duff & Passmore, ; Ehrich et al., ; Fan, ; Forester-Miller & Davis, ; Green & Walker, ; Greipp, ; Haddad, ; Harasym et al., ; Hayes, ; Heyler et al., ; Hill et al., ; Hough, ; Hughes & Dvorak, ; Johnsen et al., ; Kaldjian et al., ; Kirsch, ; Laletas, ; Liang et al., ; Macpherson et al., ; Marco et al., ; Park, ; Phillips, ; Ponterotto & Reynolds, ; Schaffer et al., ; Schneider & Snell, ; Shahidullah et al., ; Siegler, ; Sileo & Kopala, ; Soskolne, ; Sullivan & Brown, ; Toren & Wagner, ; Tsai & Harasym,
Reference other codes of ethics	44 (80%)	Boccio, ; Bolmsjö et al., ; Bommer et al., ; Candee & Puka, (Deontology); Cassells et al., ; Cassells & Gaul, ; Christensen, ; Cottone, ; du Preez & Goedeke, ; Duff & Passmore, ; Ehrich et al., ; Fan, ; Ferrell et al., ; Forester-Miller & Davis, ; Garfat & Ricks, ; Green & Walker, ; Greipp, ; Haddad, ; Harasym et al., ; Hayes, ; Heyler et al., ; Hill et al., ; Hough, ; Hundert, ; Johnson et al., ; Jones, ; Kaldjian et al., ; Kirsch, ; Laletas, ; Liang et al., ; Macpherson et al., ; Marco et al., ; Nekhlyudov et al., ; Park, ; Phillips, ; Schaffer et al., ; Schneider & Snell, ; Shahidullah et al., ; Sileo & Kopala, ; Sullivan & Brown, ; Toren & Wagner, ; Tsai & Harasym, ; Tymchuk, ; Zeni et al., ;
Case specific information	38 (69%)	Bommer et al., ; Candee & Puka, (Deontology); Cassells et al., ; Cassells & Gaul, ; Christensen, ; Cottone, ; DeWolf, ; Ehrich et al., ; Ferrell et al., ; Forester-Miller & Davis, ; Greipp, ; Grundstein-Amado, ; Haddad, ; Harasym et al., ; Hayes, ; Hughes & Dvorak, ; Hundert, ; Johnsen et al., ; Johnson et al., ; Jones, ; Kaldjian et al., ; Kanoti, ; Laletas, ; Liang et al., ; Murphy & Murphy, ; Nekhlyudov et al., ; Park, ; Phillips, ; Ponterotto & Reynolds, ; Schneider & Snell, ; Shahidullah et al., ; Siegler, ; Sileo & Kopala, ; Soskolne, ; Sullivan & Brown, ; Tsai & Harasym, ; Tunzi & Ventres, ; Zeni et al.,
Available options / behaviors	49 (89%)	Boccio, ; Bolsmjö et al., ; Candee & Puka, (Deontology); Candee & Puka, (Utilitarian); Cassells et al., ; Cassells & Gaul, ; Christensen, ; Cottone, ; DeWolf, ; du Preez & Goedeke, ; Duff & Passmore, ; Fan, ; Ferrell et al., ; Forester-Miller & Davis, 1996; Garfat & Ricks, ; Greipp, ; Grundstein-Amado, ; Harasym et al., ; Hayes, ; Heyler et al., ; Hill et al., ; Hough, ; Hughes & Dvorak, ; Hundert, ; Johnsen et al., ; Johnson et al., ; Jones, ; Kaldjian et al., ; Kanoti, ; Kirsch, ; Laletas, ; Liang et al., ; Macpherson et al., ; Marco et al., ; Murphy & Murphy, ; Nekhlyudov et al., ; Park, ; Phillips, ; Ponterotto & Reynolds, ; Schaffer et al., ; Schneider & Snell, ; Shahidullah et al., ; Siegler, ; Sileo & Kopala, ; Soskolne, ; Toren & Wagner, ; Tsai & Harasym, ; Tunzi & Ventres, ; Tymchuk,
Ranking / weighing of information	51 (93%)	Boccio, ; Bolsmjö et al., ; Bommer et al., ; Candee & Puka, (Deontology); Candee & Puka, (Utilitarian); Cassells et al., ; Cassells & Gaul, ; Christensen, ; Cottone, ; du Preez & Goedeke, ; Duff & Passmore, ; Ehrich et al., ; Fan, ; Ferrell et al., ; Forester-Miller & Davis, ; Garfat & Ricks, ; Green & Walker, ; Greipp, ; Grundstein-Amado, ; Haddad, ; Harasym et al., ; Hayes, ; Heyler et al., ; Hill et al., ; Hughes & Dvorak, ; Hundert, ; Johnsen et al., ; Johnson et al., ; Jones, ; Kaldjian et al., ; Kanoti, ; Kirsch, ; Laletas, ; Liang et al., ; Macpherson et al., ; Marco et al., ; Murphy & Murphy, ; Nekhlyudov et al., ; Park, ; Phillips, ; Ponterotto & Reynolds, ; Schaffer et al., ; Schneider & Snell, ; Shahidullah et al., ; Siegler, ; Soskolne, ; Sullivan & Brown, ; Tsai & Harasym, ; Tunzi & Ventres, ; Tymchuk, ; Zeni et al.,
Analysis	43 (78%)	Bolsmjö et al., ; Bommer et al., ; Candee & Puka, (Utilitarian); Cassells et al., ; Cassells & Gaul, ; Christensen, ; Cottone, ; du Preez & Goedeke, ; Duff & Passmore, ; Ehrich et al., ; Fan, ; Ferrell et al., ; Forester-Miller & Davis, ; Green & Walker, ; Grundstein-Amado, ; Haddad, ; Harasym et al., ; Heyler et al., ; Hill et al., ; Hughes & Dvorak, ; Hundert, ; Johnsen et al., ; Johnson et al., ; Jones, ; Kaldjian et al., ; Kanoti, ; Kirsch, ; Laletas, ; Macpherson et al., ; Murphy & Murphy, ; Nekhlyudov et al., ; Park, ; Phillips, ; Ponterotto & Reynolds, ; Schaffer et al., ; Shahidullah et al., ; Soskolne, ; Sullivan & Brown, ; Toren & Wagner, ; Tsai & Harasym, ; Tunzi & Ventres, ; Tymchuk, ; Zeni et al.,
Implementation	29 (53%)	Bolsmjö et al., ; Cassells & Gaul, ; Christensen, ; DeWolf, ; du Preez & Goedeke, ; Duff & Passmore, ; Ehrich et al., ; Ferrell et al., ; Forester-Miller & Davis, ; Garfat & Ricks, ; Haddad, ; Harasym et al., ; Heyler et al., ; Hill et al., ; Hough, ; Jones, ; Kanoti, ; Kirsch, ; Laletas, ; Macpherson et al., ; Murphy & Murphy, ; Park, ; Phillips, ; Ponterotto & Reynolds, ; Soskolne, ; Sullivan & Brown, ; Toren & Wagner, ; Tsai & Harasym, ; Tymchuk,
Follow up	26 (47%)	Bolsmjö et al., ; Bommer et al., ; Cassells & Gaul, ; Christensen, ; DeWolf, ; du Preez & Goedeke, ; Ferrell et al., ; Forester-Miller & Davis, ; Garfat & Ricks, ; Harasym et al., ; Heyler et al., ; Hill et al., ; Hough, ; Johnsen et al., ; Kanoti, ; Kirsch, ; Liang et al., ; Macpherson et al., ; Murphy & Murphy, ; Park, ; Phillips, ; Ponterotto & Reynolds, ; Soskolne, ; Sullivan & Brown, ; Toren & Wagner, ; Tymchuk,

Figure Figure1 1 shows a stacked bar chart of the primary and secondary fields of the ethical decision-making models. Medicine dominated the resulting set of models, followed by psychology, education, business, then child and youth care and organizational behavior management (OBM). Nevertheless, 23 different subspecialties were represented in the secondary field of the ethical decision-making models.

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc.
Object name is 40617_2022_753_Fig1_HTML.jpg

Stacked-Bar Graph Showing the Number of Ethical Decision-Making Models Based on the Primary and Secondary Literatures from which It Came

Table Table3 3 presents a list of the synthesized models and their respective fields of study. The most common field of study across the 55 models was medicine ( n = 34; 62%). Seventeen of the models from medicine were specific to the subfield of nursing (50%) and three were specific to the subfield of psychiatry (9%). Of the remaining models from the field of medicine, one each was specific to critical care (3%), dentistry (3%), emergency medicine (3%), geriatrics (3%), internal medicine (3%), and oncology (3%). The remaining models from the field of medicine were coded as “general medicine” because they did not indicate a specific subfield.

Field of Study of Included Models

Primary field	Secondary field	Models
Business	Leadership	Zeni et al.,
Business	Management	Jones,
Child and Youth Care	Not Specified	Garfat & Ricks,
Education	Administration	Green & Walker,
Education	Teaching	Ehrich et al., ; Johnson et al.,
Engineering	Not Specified	Fan,
Medicine	Critical care	Kanoti,
	Dentistry	Johnsen et al.,
	Emergency medicine	Marco et al.,
	Epidemiology	Soskolne,
	Family medicine	Tunzi & Ventres,
	Geriatrics	Kirsch,
	Internal medicine	Kaldjian et al.,
	Nursing	Bolmsjö, Sandman, & Andersson, ; Cassells et al., ; Cassells & Gaul, ; Christensen, ; DeWolf, ; Ferrell et al., ; Greipp, ; Haddad, ; Hough, ; Hughes & Dvorak, ; Macpherson et al., ; Murphy & Murphy, ; Park, ; Phillips, ; Schaffer et al., ; Sullivan & Brown, ; Toren & Wagner,
	Oncology	Nekhlyudov et al.,
	Psychiatry	Grundstein-Amado, ; Hayes, ; Hundert,
	Not Specific	Candee & Puka, (Deontology); Candee & Puka, (Utilitarian); Harasym et al., ; Schneider & Snell, ; Siegler, ; Tsai & Harasym,
Organizational behavior management	Business	Bommer et al.,
Psychology	Coaching	Duff & Passmore,
	Counseling	Cottone, ; Forester-Miller & Davis, 1996; du Preez & Goedeke, ; Sileo & Kopala,
	I/O psychology	Heyler et al.,
	Pediatric psychology	Shahidullah et al.,
	Psychobiography	Ponterotto & Reynolds,
	School psychology	Boccio, ; Laletas,
	Not Specified	Tymchuk, ; Hill et al., ; Liang et al.,

Thirteen models were specific to the field of psychology (24%). Four of the psychology specific models were from the subfield of counseling (31%) and two were specific to the subfield of school psychology (15%). Other specified psychology subfields included coaching ( n = 1; 8%), industrial/organizational psychology ( n = 1; 8%), pediatric psychology ( n = 1; 8%), and psychobiography ( n = 1; 8%). The remaining models were coded as “general psychology” because they did not indicate a specific subfield.

Three models were specific to the field of education (5%). Two of these were specific to the subfield of teaching (67%) and one was specific to the subfield of administration and leadership (33%). Two models were specific to the field of business (4%); one of these was specific to the subfield of management (50%) and the other to the subfield of leadership (50%). One model was specific to the field of child and youth care (2%), one was specific to engineering (2%), and one was specific to OBM (2%).

Figure Figure2 2 shows the number of models that contained a problem-solving approach. A total of 23 models included a problem-solving approach (42%) and 32 did not (58%). Most of the models with a problem-solving component came from medicine ( n = 15; 65%), followed by psychology ( n = 7; 30%), and engineering ( n = 1; 43%). No models from the fields of business, education, or OBM included a problem-solving component.

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc.
Object name is 40617_2022_753_Fig2_HTML.jpg

Bar Graph Showing the Number of Decision-Making Models with and without a Problem-Solving Component, and Models that were Sequential or Nonsequential

Figure Figure2 2 also shows the number of models that were sequential. A total of 52 models were linear or sequential in nature (95%), whereas 3 were not (5%). Most of the models that were sequential came from medicine ( n = 32; 62%), followed by psychology ( n = 14; 27%), education ( n = 3; 58%), business ( n = 2; 4%), engineering ( n = 1; 2%), and child and youth care ( n = 1; 2%).

The goal of this literature review was to identify and analyze published ethical decision-making models in behavior analysis and allied disciplines to determine consistency in recommended approaches. We examined 55 ethical decision-making models to collect data on what recommended steps were included and what approaches were most frequently emphasized. Three general themes within ethical decision-making models arose from our analysis. These include: (1) What steps were included within models; (2) Whether the steps were sequential (i.e., a behavior chain); and (3) Whether the entire process could be labeled as problem solving (i.e., Szabo, 2020 ). We discuss each of these findings in turn.

Behaviors Involved in Ethical Decision Making

The first main finding surrounds the variability in recommended steps of ethical decision making across models. We found that each of the nine steps coded appeared in an average (arithmetic mean) of 58% of the articles (range: 20%–93%). This suggests that some consistency exists in what behaviors various scholars recommend practitioners should engage in when faced with an ethical decision. However, the wide variability in how frequently each behavior appeared also highlights that ABA practitioners would benefit from researchers clarifying at least three important characteristics of ethical decision-making models. These are: (1) What behaviors are necessary and sufficient to make an optimal ethical decision in ABA contexts (i.e., component analysis)? (2) What are the conditions under which specific steps are and are not needed (i.e., conditional discrimination analysis)? (3) Is there an optimal functional result of ethical decision making that is more important than the specific topographies a practitioner uses to contact that outcome (i.e., functional analysis; see Cox, 2021 )? Practitioners and researchers may begin to explore some of these questions when engaging in ethical decision making.

More than half of the articles examined emphasized the need for consulting ethical codes. It is interesting that more ethical models recommended practitioners reference codes of ethics from outside their discipline ( n = 44; 80% of models; e.g., personal, religious, organizational) than their own discipline’s code of ethics ( n = 40; 73%). To our knowledge, the conflict between personal and professional codes of ethics is an underexplored topic in the ABA literature. Nevertheless, the slightly greater emphasis on other codes of ethics in addition to one’s own discipline suggests this might be an important area where practitioners could use guidance. Also, the field of ABA would likely benefit from future research and scholarship surrounding the conditions and functional outcomes of ethical decisions where personal and professional values conflict.

It is important to mention that our review was done prior to the publication of the BACB’s ( 2020 ) ethical decision-making model. The BACB’s model was published in the analysis and writing stage of this review. Our findings suggest a robust literature spanning 40+ years, 60+ articles, and 50+ models all clustered around similar ethical decision-making steps published by the BACB. Perhaps most intriguing is that we identified the nine steps from our review prior to the publication of the BACB’s model, and no previous models had incorporated all nine ethical decision-making steps until the BACB published their decision model (BACB, 2020). Practicing behavior analysts would benefit from future component analyses, conditional discrimination analyses, functional analyses, and empirical support surrounding the BACB’s ethical decision-making model.

Our analysis also suggests that behavior analysts and allied professionals approach ethical decision making similarly. Given the complexity of ethical decision making and the shared types of dilemmas human service professionals contact, some convergence is expected. However, there are many reasons that two professionals from different disciplines may come into disagreement (Boivin et al., 2021 ; Bowman et al., 2021 ; Cox, 2019 ; Gasiewski et al., 2021 ). Having familiar systems with empirical support for how to navigate ethical dilemmas might improve the likelihood that a positive resolution occurs. Further, such interprofessional similarities in ethical decision-making processes allows future interdisciplinary dialogue to focus more on specific areas of agreement because what and how information will be used to make a decision is already agreed upon.

Behavior Chains and Behavior Topography

We found that 95% of the ethical decision-making models could be described as a behavior chain (e.g., Catania, 2013 ). Framing ethical decision making as a behavior chain might be useful as it highlights the interrelated and sequential nature of ethical decision making. That is, completing one step in an ethical decision-making behavior chain leads to a context wherein the next response in the chain is more likely to contact reinforcement. For example, until you have gathered all relevant information about how the decision will affect all relevant parties, your ranking and weighing of information seems less likely to lead to the best outcome. That said, the temporally delayed nature of behaviors and consequences involved in ethical decision making is different than how behavior chains have been studied in laboratory settings (e.g., Baum, 2017 ; Cox, 2021 ; Slocum & Tiger, 2011 ). Future research will likely be needed to better understand the effects of temporal relations on behavior chains and thus determine what approach best provides a behavioral description of ethical decision making.

It is interesting that the order in which steps were proposed differed across models. We are unaware of any research that compares the effectiveness of different sequential ethical decision-making models to understand whether the order of behaviors recommended as a chain are more or less useful. Nevertheless, future research that identifies the extent to which rigid sequences of behaviors need to occur to optimize decision making would be helpful for the field of ABA. Such information would likely improve behavior analytic training programs and prove useful for clinical directors, ethics committee chairs, case supervisors (e.g., BCBAs), and direct staff (e.g., RBTs).

Ethical Decision Making as Problem Solving

Recent attention has been given to the common-sense problem-solving approach (Szabo, 2020 ), which we used to score models within the current analysis. This problem-solving approach may offer great utility and is observed across various fields (e.g., cognitive psychology; Szabo, 2020 ). Within behavior analysis, this problem-solving approach has increasingly been applied to teach complex skills (e.g., Suarez et al., 2021 ). Our review involves an interesting extension of this analysis to ethical decision making and indicates the steps of the models may also point to additional precurrent behaviors or mediating strategies that could prove to be important elements of the behavioral chain.

We found that 42% of the ethical decision-making models could be described as including problem solving (e.g., Kieta et al., 2019 ). Framing ethical decision making as involving problem solving is advantageous because of the existing empirical literature on how to teach problem-solving skills and recognition of the importance of verbal stimuli and verbal behavior (e.g., Kieta et al., 2019 ). However, this also might have the drawbacks of adding complexity and less empirical support specific from the behavior analytic literature on describing, predicting, and controlling problem solving. This suggests that there are either components of ethical decision making outside of problem solving or that there are components of problem solving that might be missing from current decision-making models. Future research using concept analysis (e.g., Layng, 2019 ) combined with laboratory experiments may help clarify which of the above scenarios is more likely (or if there’s an unknown third!).

We also found that 58% of the ethical decision-making models could not be described as including problem solving. We are unaware of any research that has directly compared the effectiveness of ethical decision-making models with and without problem-solving components. Nevertheless, a practically useful set of empirical questions might identify the conditions under which ethical decision-making models with and without problem-solving components are more helpful for practitioners. Behavior analytic training programs subsequently could teach fluency toward ethical decision making via problem solving under some conditions and ethical decision making without problem solving under other conditions.

Limitations and Final Thoughts

The current study included several limitations. One limitation centers on the procedures used for rater agreement. Article ratings were completed in a group format and by consensus among the authors. It is possible that reactivity to other members of the group affected overall ratings (e.g., Asch, 1956 ). It is also possible that the search terms we used failed to capture relevant ethical decision-making models or that additional search terms would have led to different results. Further, we also restricted our inclusion criteria to specific human service fields allied to ABA. Thus, it is possible that a more comprehensive search of ethical decision-making models across more varied professions would lead to different outcomes. Finally, we did not include ethical decision-making models published in books mainly due to access issues and a typical lack of peer-review for books. Regardless, these limitations may provide greater support for our primary findings that the existing variability in ethical decision-making steps and overall lack of empirical support suggest this area is ripe for future research.

The development of an ethical decision-making skill set is vital for behavior analysts and for other human service providers. Dilemmas present as complex circumstances, with specific and unique contextual variations that require nuanced assessment. The process of training behavior analysts to meet these demands is daunting. There is a need to identify strategies for navigating dilemmas and for making ethical decisions. Allied professions and behavior analysis have identified steps in this process. Many of these models use problem-solving techniques. The BACB’s Decision Making Model overlaps substantially with existing literature across professions, and uses a problem-solving, sequential approach. These results are especially interesting as we had completed identifying the decision-making steps scored in the current article before the BACB model was released. It seems that the field has built a model that is entirely aligned with and built upon this interprofessional database. It will be important to empirically evaluate this new model. It will also be important to explore other decision-making approaches, to compare models, and to (potentially) match models to the contextual variables embedded in the presenting dilemma. The field of behavior analysis has, at times, been insular, and this has been a source of internal and external criticism. However, this review of the literature supports the substantial overlap across fields and provides concrete hope for mutually beneficial interdisciplinary collaboration. So, although decision-making models can be field-specific, ethical dilemmas appear to be universal and so are the intended outcomes. As behavior analysis tackles this complex skill set, it is important to learn from colleagues in allied disciplines, examine the component skills likely to be crucial to the development of this behavioral repertoire, and develop procedures for measuring, teaching, and training clinicians to methodically approach ethical dilemmas.

Data Availability

The datasets generated during and/or analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

No funding was received to assist with the preparation of this manuscript.

Declarations

The authors do not have any potential conflicts of interest to disclose and have no relevant financial or nonfinancial interests to disclose.

No human participants were involved in this research, and therefore informed consent was not obtained.

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

All articles with an asterisk indicate the final articles included in the review

Asch SE. Studies of independence and conformity: I. A minority of one against a unanimous majority. Psychological Monographs: General & Applied. 1956; 70 (9):1–70. doi: 10.1037/h0093718. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Bailey, J., & Burch, M. (2013). Ethics for behavior analysts (2nd expanded ed).
Bailey J, Burch M. Ethics for behavior analysts . 3. Routledge; 2016. [ Google Scholar ]
Bailey J, Burch M. Ethics for behavior analysts . 4. Routledge; 2022. [ Google Scholar ]
Baum WM. On Human Nature . Academic Press; 2017. Behavior analysis, Darwinian evolutionary processes, and the diversity of human behavior; pp. 397–415. [ Google Scholar ]
Behavior Analyst Certification Board. (BACB, 2004, 2010). Guidelines for responsible conduct for behavior analysts. https://www.bacb.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/2010-Disciplinary-Standards_.pdf
Behavior Analyst Certification Board. (BACB, 2014). Professional and ethical compliance code for behavior analysts . https://www.bacb.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/05/BACB-Compliance-Code-10-8-15watermark.pdf
Behavior Analyst Certification Board. (BACB, 2020). Ethics code for behavior analysts . https://bacb.com/wp-content/ethics-code-for-behavior-analysts/
Boccio DE. Does use of a decision-making model improve the quality of school psychologists’ ethical decisions? Ethics & Behavior. 2021; 31 (2):119–135. doi: 10.1080/10508422.2020.1715802. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Boivin, N., Ruane, J., Quigley, S. P., Harper, J., & Weiss, M. J. (2021). Interdisciplinary collaboration training: An example of a preservice training series. Behavior Analysis in Practice, 1–14 . 10.1007/s40617-021-00561-z [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ]
Bolmsjö IÅ, Edberg AK, Sandman L. Everyday ethical problems in dementia care: A teleological model. Nursing Ethics. 2006; 13 (4):340–359. doi: 10.1191/0969733006ne890oa. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Bolmsjö IÅ, Sandman L, Andersson E. Everyday ethics in the care of elderly people. Nursing Ethics. 2006; 13 (3):249–263. doi: 10.1191/0969733006ne875oa. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Bommer M, Gratto C, Gravander J, Tuttle M. A behavioral model of ethical and unethical decision making. Journal of Business Ethics. 1987; 6 (4):265–280. doi: 10.1007/BF00382936. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Bowman KS, Suarez VD, Weiss MJ. Standards for interprofessional collaboration in the treatment of individuals with autism. Behavior Analysis in Practice. 2021; 14 :1191–1208. doi: 10.1007/s40617-021-00560-0. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Brodhead MT. Maintaining professional relationships in an interdisciplinary setting: Strategies for navigating nonbehavioral treatment recommendations for individuals with autism. Behavior Analysis in Practice. 2015; 8 (1):70–78. doi: 10.1007/s40617-015-0042-7. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Brodhead MT, Quigley SP, Wilczynski SM. A call for discussion about scope of competence in behavior analysis. Behavior Analysis in Practice. 2018; 11 (4):424–435. doi: 10.1007/s40617-018-00303-8. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Candee D, Puka B. An analytic approach to resolving problems in medical ethics. Journal of Medical Ethics. 1984; 10 (2):61–70. doi: 10.1136/jme.10.2.61. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Cassells JM, Gaul AL. An ethical assessment framework for nursing practice. Maryland Nurse. 1998; 17 (1):9–21. [ Google Scholar ]
*Cassells, J. M., Jenkins, J., Lea, D. H., Calzone, K., & Johnson, E. (2003). An ethical assessment framework for addressing global genetic issues in clinical practice. Oncology Nursing Forum, 30 (3): 383–392. Oncology Nursing Society. [ PubMed ]
Catania, A. C. (2013). Learning (5 th ed.). Sloan. ISBN 10: 1-59739-023-7
Christensen PJ. An ethical framework for nursing service administration. Advances in Nursing Science. 1988; 10 (3):46–55. doi: 10.1097/00012272-198804000-00006. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Cottone RR. A social constructivism model of ethical decision making in counseling. Journal of Counseling & Development. 2001; 79 (1):39–45. doi: 10.1002/j.1556-6676.2001.tb01941.x. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Cottone RR. Displacing the psychology of the individual in ethical decision-making: The social constructivism model. Canadian Journal of Counselling & Psychotherapy. 2004; 38 (1):5–9. [ Google Scholar ]
Cottone RR, Claus RE. Ethical decision-making models: A Review of the literature. Journal of Counseling & Development. 2000; 78 (3):275–283. doi: 10.1002/j.1556-6676.2000.tb01908.x. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Cox DJ. Ethical considerations in interdisciplinary treatments. In: Rieske RD, editor. Handbook of interdisciplinary treatments for autism spectrum disorder . Springer; 2019. pp. 49–61. [ Google Scholar ]
Cox DJ. Descriptive and normative ethical behavior appear to be functionally distinct. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis. 2021; 54 (1):168–191. doi: 10.1002/jaba.761. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
DeWolf MS. Ethical decision-making. Seminars in Oncology Nursing. 1989; 5 (2):77–81. doi: 10.1016/0749-2081(89)90063-6. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
du Preez E, Goedeke S. Second order ethical decision-making in counselling psychology: Theory, practice and process. New Zealand Journal of Psychology. 2013; 42 (3):44–49. [ Google Scholar ]
Duff M, Passmore J. Ethics in coaching: An ethical decision making framework for coaching psychologists. International Coaching Psychology Review. 2010; 5 (2):140–151. doi: 10.53841/bpsicpr.2010.5.2.140. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Eberlein L. Introducing ethics to beginning psychologists: A problem-solving approach. Professional Psychology: Research & Practice. 1987; 18 (4):353–359. doi: 10.1037/0735-7028.18.4.353. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Ehrich LC, Kimber M, Millwater J, Cranston N. Ethical dilemmas: A model to understand teacher practice. Teachers & Teaching: Theory & Practice. 2011; 17 (2):173–185. doi: 10.1080/13540602.2011.539794. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Fan LC. Decision-making models for handling ethical dilemmas. Proceedings of the ICE-Municipal Engineer. 2003; 156 :229–234. doi: 10.1680/muen.2003.156.4.229. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Ferrell BR, Eberts MT, McCaffery M, Grant M. Clinical decision making and pain. Cancer Nursing. 1991; 14 (6):289–297. doi: 10.1097/00002820-199112000-00002. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
*Forester-Miller, H., & Davis, T. E. (1996). A practitioner's guide to ethical decision making . American Counseling Association. https://www.counseling.org/docs/ethics/practitioners_guide.pdf?sfvrsn=2
Garfat T, Ricks F. Self-driven ethical decision-making: A model for child and youth care workers. Child & Youth Care Forum. 1995; 24 (6):393–404. doi: 10.1007/BF02128530. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Gasiewski K, Weiss MJ, Leaf JB, Labowitz J. Collaboration between behavior analysts and occupational therapists in autism service provision: Bridging the gap. Behavior Analysis in Practice. 2021; 14 (4):1209–1222. doi: 10.1007/s40617-021-00619-y. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Green J, Walker K. A contingency model for ethical decision-making by educational leaders. International Journal of Educational Leadership Preparation. 2009; 4 (4):1–10. [ Google Scholar ]
Greipp ME. Ethical decision making and mandatory reporting in cases of suspected child abuse. Journal of Pediatric Health Care. 1997; 11 (6):258–265. doi: 10.1016/S0891-5245(97)90081-X. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Grundstein-Amado R. An integrative model of clinical-ethical decision making. Theoretical Medicine. 1991; 12 (2):157–170. doi: 10.1007/BF00489796. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Grundstein-Amado R. Ethical decision-making processes used by healthcare providers. Journal of Advanced Nursing. 1993; 18 (11):1701–1709. doi: 10.1046/j.1365-2648.1993.18111701.x. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Haddad AM. Ethical considerations in home care of the oncology patient. Seminars in Oncology Nursing. 1996; 12 (3):226–230. doi: 10.1016/S0749-2081(96)80040-4. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Harasym PH, Tsai TC, Munshi FM. Is problem-based learning an ideal format for developing ethical decision skills? Kaohsiung Journal of Medical Sciences. 2013; 29 (10):523–529. doi: 10.1016/j.kjms.2013.05.005. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Hayes JR. Consultation-liaison psychiatry and clinical ethics: A model for consultation and teaching. General Hospital Psychiatry. 1986; 8 (6):415–418. doi: 10.1016/0163-8343(86)90022-8. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Heyler SG, Armenakis AA, Walker AG, Collier DY. A qualitative study investigating the ethical decision making process: A proposed model. The Leadership Quarterly. 2016; 27 (5):788–801. doi: 10.1016/j.leaqua.2016.05.003. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Hill M, Glaser K, Harden J. A feminist model for ethical decision making. Women & Therapy. 1998; 21 (3):101–121. doi: 10.1300/J015v21n03_10. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Hough MC. Learning, decisions and transformation in critical care nursing practice. Nursing Ethics. 2008; 15 (3):322–331. doi: 10.1177/0969733007088430. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Hughes KK, Dvorak EM. The use of decision analysis to examine ethical decision making by critical care nurses. Heart & Lung. 1997; 26 (3):238–251. doi: 10.1016/S0147-9563(97)90061-3. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Hundert EM. A model for ethical problem solving in medicine, with practical applications. Focus. 2003; 144 (4):839–435. doi: 10.1176/foc.1.4.427. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Johnsen DC, Flick K, Butali A, Cunningham-Ford MA, Holloway JA, Mahrous A, Marchini L, Clancy JM. Two critical thinking models—Probing questions and conceptualization—Adding 4 skill sets to the teacher's armamentarium. Journal of Dental Education. 2020; 84 (7):733–741. doi: 10.1002/jdd.12177. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Johnson RL, Liu J, Burgess Y. A model for making decisions about ethical dilemmas in student assessment. Journal of Moral Education. 2017; 46 (2):212–229. doi: 10.1080/03057240.2017.1313725. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Jones TM. Ethical decision making by individuals in organizations: An issue-contingent model. Academy of Management Review. 1991; 16 (2):366–395. doi: 10.5465/amr.1991.4278958. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Kaldjian LC, Weir RF, Duffy TP. A clinician’s approach to clinical ethical reasoning. Journal of General Internal Medicine. 2005; 20 (3):306–311. doi: 10.1111/j.1525-1497.2005.40204.x. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Kanoti GA. Ethics and medical-ethical decisions. Critical Care Clinics. 1986; 2 (1):3–12. doi: 10.1016/S0749-0704(18)30620-1. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Kieta AR, Cihon TM, Abdel-Jalil A. Problem solving from a behavioral perspective: Implications for behavior analysts and educators. Journal of Behavioral Education. 2019; 28 (2):275–300. doi: 10.1007/s10864-018-9296-9. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Kirsch NR. Ethical decision making: Application of a problem-solving model. Topics in Geriatric Rehabilitation. 2009; 25 (4):282–291. doi: 10.1097/TGR.0b013e3181bdd6d8. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
LaFrance DL, Weiss MJ, Kazemi E, Gerenser J, Dobres J. Multidisciplinary teaming: Enhancing collaboration through increased understanding. Behavior Analysis in Practice. 2019; 12 (3):709–726. doi: 10.1007/s40617-019-00331-y. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Laletas S. Ethical decision making for professional school counsellors: Use of practice-based models in secondary school settings. British Journal of Guidance & Counselling. 2018; 47 (3):283–291. doi: 10.1080/03069885.2018.1474341. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Layng TJ. Tutorial: Understanding concepts: Implications for behavior analysts and educators. Perspectives on Behavior Science. 2019; 42 (2):345–363. doi: 10.1007/s40614-018-00188-6. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Liang B, Chung A, Diamonti AJ, Douyon CM, Gordon JR, Joyner ED, Meerkins TM, Rene MK, Seinkiewicz SA, Weber AE, Wilson ES. Ethical social justice: Do the ends justify the means? Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology. 2017; 27 (4):298–311. doi: 10.1002/casp.2323. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Macpherson I, Roqué MV, Segarra I. Moral dilemmas involving anthropological and ethical dimensions in healthcare curriculum. Nursing Ethics. 2020; 27 (5):1238–1249. doi: 10.1177/0969733020914382. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Marya VG, Suarez VD, Cox DJ. Ethical decision-making and evidenced-based practices. In: Fisher WW, Piazza CC, Roane HS, editors. Handbook of applied behavior analysis interventions for autism . Springer; 2022. pp. 47–70. [ Google Scholar ]
Newhouse-Oisten MK, Peck KM, Conway AA, Frieder JE. Ethical considerations for interdisciplinary collaboration with prescribing professionals. Behavior Analysis in Practice. 2017; 10 (2):145–153. doi: 10.1007/s40617-017-0184-x. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Marco CA, Lu DW, Stettner E, Sokolove PE, Ufberg JW, Noeller TP. Ethics curriculum for emergency medicine graduate medical education. Journal of Emergency Medicine. 2011; 40 (5):550–556. doi: 10.1016/j.jemermed.2010.05.076. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Miller KL, Re Cruz A, Ala'i-Rosales S. Inherent tensions and possibilities: Behavior analysis and cultural responsiveness. Behavior & Social Issues. 2019; 28 (1):16–36. doi: 10.1007/s42822-019-00010-1. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG, Prisma Group Reprint—preferred reporting items for systematic reviewsand meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. Physical Therapy. 2009; 89 (9):873–880. doi: 10.1093/ptj/89.9.873. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Murphy MA, Murphy J. Making ethical decisions—Systematically. Nursing. 1976; 6 (5):CG13–CG14. doi: 10.1016/j.jemermed.2010.05.076. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Nekhlyudov L, Braddock CH., III An approach to enhance communication about screening mammography in primary care. Journal of Women's Health. 2009; 18 (9):1403–1412. doi: 10.1089/jwh.2008.1184. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Park EJ. An integrated ethical decision-making model for nurses. Nursing Ethics. 2012; 19 (1):139–159. doi: 10.1177/0969733011413491. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Park EJ. The development and implications of a case-based computer program to train ethical decision-making. Nursing Ethics. 2013; 20 (8):943–956. doi: 10.1177/0969733013484489. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Park EJ, Park M. Effectiveness of a case-based computer program on students’ ethical decision making. Journal of Nursing Education. 2015; 54 (11):633–640. doi: 10.3928/01484834-20151016-04. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Phillips S. Ethical decision-making when caring for the noncompliant patient. Journal of Infusion Nursing. 2006; 29 (5):266–271. doi: 10.1097/00129804-200609000-00005. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Ponterotto JG, Reynolds JD. Ethical and legal considerations in psychobiography. American Psychologist. 2017; 72 (5):446–458. doi: 10.1037/amp0000047. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Pritchett, M., Ala’i-Rosales, S., Cruz, A. R., & Cihon, T. M. (2021). Social justice is the spirit and aim of an applied science of human behavior: Moving from colonial to participatory research practices. Behavior Analysis in Practice, 1–19 . 10.1007/s40617-021-00591-7 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ]
Rosenberg NE, Schwartz IS. Guidance or compliance: What makes an ethical behavior analyst? Behavior Analysis in Practice. 2019; 12 (2):473–482. doi: 10.1007/s40617-018-00287-5. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Schaffer MA, Cameron ME, Tatley EB. The value, be, do ethical decision-making model: Balancing students’ needs in school nursing. Journal of School Nursing. 2000; 16 (5):44–49. doi: 10.1177/105984050001600507. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Schneider GW, Snell L. CARE: An approach for teaching ethics in medicine. Social Science & Medicine. 2000; 51 (10):1563–1567. doi: 10.1016/S0277-9536(00)00054-X. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Shahidullah JD, Hostutler CA, Forman SG. Ethical considerations in medication-related roles for pediatric primary care psychologists. Clinical Practice in Pediatric Psychology. 2019; 7 (4):405. doi: 10.1037/cpp0000285. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Siegler M. Decision-making strategy for clinical-ethical problems in medicine. Archives of Internal Medicine. 1982; 142 (12):2178–2179. doi: 10.1001/archinte.1982.00340250144021. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Sileo FJ, Kopala M. An A-B-C-D-E worksheet for promoting beneficence when considering ethical issues. Counseling & Values. 1993; 37 (2):89–95. doi: 10.1002/j.2161-007X.1993.tb00800.x. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Slocum SK, Tiger JH. An assessment of the efficiency of and child preference for forward and backward chaining. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis. 2011; 44 (4):793–805. doi: 10.1901/jaba.2011.44-793. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Soskolne CL. Ethical decision-making in epidemiology: The case study approach. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology. 1991; 44 (1):125–130. doi: 10.1016/0895-4356(91)90187-E. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Suarez, V. D., Najdowski, A. C., Tarbox, J., Moon, E., St Clair, M., & Farag, P. (2021). Teaching individuals with autism problem-solving skills for resolving social conflicts. Behavior Analysis in Practice, 1–14 . 10.1007/s40617-021-00643-y [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ]
Sullivan PA, Brown T. Common-sense ethics in administrative decision making. Part II. Proactive steps. Journal of Nursing Administration. 1991; 21 (11):57–61. doi: 10.1097/00005110-199111000-00013. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Sush, D., & Najdowski, A. C. (2019). A workbook of ethical case scenarios in applied behavior analysis . Academic Press.
Szabo, T. (2020). Problem solving. In M. Fryling, R. Rehfeldt, J. Tarbox, & L. Hayes (Eds.), Applied behavior analysis of language and cognition: Core concepts and principles for practitioners. Context Press.
Taylor BA, LeBlanc LA, Nosik MR. Compassionate care in behavior analytic treatment: Can outcomes be enhanced by attending to relationships with caregivers? Behavior Analysis in Practice. 2019; 12 (3):654–666. doi: 10.1007/s40617-018-00289-3. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Toren O, Wagner N. Applying an ethical decision-making tool to a nurse management dilemma. Nursing Ethics. 2010; 17 (3):393–402. doi: 10.1177/0969733009355106. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Tsai TC, Harasym PH. A medical ethical reasoning model and its contributions to medical education. Medical Education. 2010; 44 (9):864–873. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2923.2010.03722.x. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Tunzi M, Ventres W. Family medicine ethics: An integrative approach. Family Medicine. 2018; 50 (8):583–588. doi: 10.22454/FamMed.2018.821666. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Tymchuk AJ. Guidelines for ethical decision making. Canadian Psychology/Psychologie Canadienne. 1986; 27 (1):36. doi: 10.1037/h0079866. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Wright PI. Cultural humility in the practice of applied behavior analysis. Behavior Analysis in Practice. 2019; 12 :805–809. doi: 10.1007/s40617-019-00343-8. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Zeni TA, Buckley MR, Mumford MD, Griffith JA. Making “sense” of ethical decision making. The Leadership Quarterly. 2016; 27 (6):838–855. doi: 10.1016/j.leaqua.2016.09.002. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]

Home — Essay Samples — Philosophy — Ethics — Ethics and Its Effective Importance

Ethics and Its Effective Importance

Categories: Ethics

About this sample

Words: 1032 |

Published: Oct 23, 2018

Words: 1032 | Pages: 2 | 6 min read

Ethics essay outline, ethics essay example, introduction.

Definition of ethics as systematic moral principles
Importance of ethics in decision-making and its impact on individuals and society
Brief overview of the essay's aims and topics

Understanding Ethics

Origin of the word "ethics" from the Greek word "ethos"
Overview of the general dilemmas covered by ethics
Role of ethics in guiding individuals in leading a good life and making ethical decisions
The language of right and wrong in ethics

Sources of Ethics

Discussion of how ethics is derived from religions, philosophies, and cultures
Mention of the ethical debates on topics such as abortion, human rights, and professional conduct
Ethics as a moral map and framework for addressing complex moral issues

Disagreements and Ambiguity in Ethics

Explanation of how ethics can pinpoint disagreements and clarify moral issues
Acknowledgment that ethics doesn't always provide definitive answers
The challenge of moral ambiguity and taking responsibility for ethical choices

Approaches to Ethical Problem Solving

Historical perspectives on solving ethical problems, including divine guidance and philosophical reasoning
Modern view emphasizing ethical decisions rather than fixed conclusions
The role of philosophy in clarifying ethical issues and ethical methods

Objective vs. Subjective Ethics

Debate between ethical realists and ethical non-realists
Ethical realists' belief in the discovery of objective ethical truths
Ethical non-realists' perspective that humans invent ethical truths
The challenge of diverse ethical codes and behaviors among humans
Summary of key points discussed in the essay
The existence of ethical properties in the world regardless of human opinions
How to customize a healthy good life
How to generalize our own
How to choose right sucessful path.
How to make our own right decision
And also of course about the language of right and wrong
Dalton, Derek 2011 “Gender Differences in Ethics Research; Importance of Controlling Social Desirability Response” Volume 103 pg 73-93. Toronto, Canada.
Ferell, 20017 ‘'Business Ethics'’ Edition 11 Boston, USA.
Jeanes, Emmal 2017 “Are We Ethical? Approaches to Ethics in Management and Organization” Volume 24.2017 pg. 174-197. London.
Mulder, Laetitia 2015 “Effect of Specific and General Rules on Ethical Decisions” Vol. 126.2015 pg. 115-129. Amsterdam.
Razaha Juhaida Johari 2017 “Ethical Issues and their Relevence of Auditions” Vol 5.2017 pg 205-214. London.
Velasquez, Manual 1996 “Why Ethics Matters a Defence of Ethics in Business Organization” Vol. 6 1996 pg. 201-227. Chicago, Illinois, USA.
Wild, Nigel 2011 “Ethical Strategies for Organization” Vol. 16.2011 pg 110-127 Bingley.

Cite this Essay

Let us write you an essay from scratch

450+ experts on 30 subjects ready to help
Custom essay delivered in as few as 3 hours

Get high-quality help

Prof. Kifaru

Verified writer

Expert in: Philosophy

+ 120 experts online

By clicking “Check Writers’ Offers”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy . We’ll occasionally send you promo and account related email

No need to pay just yet!

Related Essays

2 pages / 1019 words

2 pages / 860 words

3 pages / 1447 words

1 pages / 522 words

Remember! This is just a sample.

You can get your custom paper by one of our expert writers.

121 writers online

Ethics and Its Effective Importance Essay

Still can’t find what you need?

Browse our vast selection of original essay samples, each expertly formatted and styled

Related Essays on Ethics

In Harper Lee's novel "To Kill a Mockingbird," one of the most memorable characters is Atticus Finch, a lawyer who defends Tom Robinson, a black man falsely accused of raping a white woman. Atticus's decision to take on this [...]

One is often confronted with various challenges and decisions that require careful consideration. The choices made during these times could potentially shape the course of their life, and it is therefore essential to approach [...]

As individuals, our values shape our beliefs, guide our decisions, and influence our actions. Our personal values are the principles that we hold dear and that define who we are. In this essay, I will explore the development of [...]

Drug addiction is a complex and pervasive issue that affects millions of individuals worldwide. It not only harms the individual struggling with addiction but also has far-reaching consequences for their families, communities, [...]

The NAEYC Code of Ethical Conduct was developed to uphold the application of core values, ideals, and principles to assist teachers” decision-making about ethical issues. The Core Values of the NAEYC Code of Ethical Conduct is [...]

Soren Kierkegaard did not believe that God defined and created human morality, instead he believed that it was up to us as individuals to define our own morals, values, and ethics. Kierkegaard wanted man to ‘wake up’ and [...]

Get Your Personalized Essay in 3 Hours or Less!

We use cookies to personalyze your web-site experience. By continuing we’ll assume you board with our cookie policy .

Instructions Followed To The Letter
Deadlines Met At Every Stage
Unique And Plagiarism Free

Addressing Challenges: A Guide to Problem and Solution Essay Topics

Table of contents

1.1 Environmental Issues Problem-Solution Essay Topics
1.2 Social Problems Problem And Solution Essay Ideas
1.3 Healthcare Challenges: Problem-Solving Essay Ideas
1.4 Technological Advancements Ideas for a Problem Solution Essay
1.5 Educational Concerns Problem Solution Paper Topics
1.6 Economic Problems to Write About
1.7 Global Challenges Topics for Problem Solution Essays
1.8 Political and Governance Problem Solution Essay Topics
1.9 Transportation Problem Solution Topics
1.10 Cultural and Ethical Dilemmas
2 Easy Problem Solution Topics For an Essay
3 Closing Note

Navigating the complexities of real-world issues through the lens of academic inquiry, problem-and-solution essays serve as a dynamic educational tool. Which topic is specific enough for a good problem-and-solution essay? Problem and solution essays are crucial to academic writing, offering students an invaluable opportunity to analyze various situations and articulate effective solutions critically. These essays sharpen critical thinking and problem-solving skills and encourage a deep exploration of a multitude of contemporary issues. By tackling these essays, students gain the ability to approach problems from multiple perspectives and develop insights into potential remedies.

This article promises to dive into an extensive array of topics for problem and solution essays, encompassing diverse areas and problems to write about, such as environmental issues, social challenges, healthcare dilemmas, and more.

120 Problem Solution Essay Topics List

With such a rich palette of issues, the next step in crafting an impactful essay becomes crucially important. Selecting an appropriate topic is key when tasked with writing a problem-solving essay. It’s essential to choose a subject that is not only relevant and engaging but also provides ample scope for in-depth research and thorough analysis. This careful selection allows for a detailed exploration of the issue and the formulation of effective solutions. To aid in this process, we have compiled an extensive list of 120 thought-provoking topics for problem-solution essays.

Environmental Issues Problem-Solution Essay Topics

Combating Climate Change: Strategies for Global Cooperation.
Addressing Ocean Pollution: Cleaning Our Seas.
Deforestation: Reforestation and Sustainable Practices.
Urban Air Pollution: Cleaner Cities.
Endangered Species: Conservation Efforts.
Plastic Waste Management: Innovative Solutions.
Sustainable Agriculture: Feeding the World Responsibly.
Renewable Energy: Transition from Fossil Fuels.
Water Scarcity: Effective Water Management.
Eco-friendly Transportation: Reducing Carbon Footprint.

Social Problems Problem And Solution Essay Ideas

Homelessness: Creating Sustainable Housing Solutions.
Gender Inequality: Bridging the Gap in the Workplace.
Racial Discrimination: Fostering Inclusivity.
Bullying in Schools: Prevention Strategies.
Elderly Care: Improving Senior Living.
Child Abuse: Strengthening Child Protection Services.
Poverty Alleviation: Economic Empowerment Programs.
Substance Abuse: Effective Rehabilitation Approaches.
Unemployment: Job Creation Strategies.
Digital Divide: Bridging the Technological Gap.

Healthcare Challenges: Problem-Solving Essay Ideas

Mental Health Stigma: Promoting Awareness and Acceptance.
Obesity Epidemic: Lifestyle and Dietary Changes.
Healthcare Accessibility: Universal Health Coverage.
Pandemic Preparedness: Lessons from COVID-19.
Antibiotic Resistance: Developing New Treatments.
Chronic Diseases: Prevention and Management.
Mental Health in the Workplace: Supporting Employees.
Telemedicine: Bridging the Healthcare Gap.
Health Education: Promoting Healthy Lifestyles.
Drug Affordability: Policies for Cheaper Medications.

Technological Advancements Ideas for a Problem Solution Essay

Cybersecurity: Safeguarding Digital Information.
AI Ethics: Balancing Innovation and Privacy.
Social Media Addiction: Finding Digital Balance.
Technological Unemployment: Reskilling the Workforce.
Online Privacy: Protecting Personal Data.
E-waste Management: Sustainable Recycling Practices.
Digital Literacy: Educating the Next Generation.
Internet Censorship: Balancing Freedom and Security.
Tech in Education: Enhancing Learning Experiences.
Future of Work: Adapting to Technological Changes.

Educational Concerns Problem Solution Paper Topics

Student Loan Debt: Financial Aid and Repayment Options.
Academic Pressure: Promoting a Balanced Education.
Dropout Rates: Improving Student Engagement.
Quality Education in Rural Areas: Bridging the Gap.
Gender Disparity in STEM: Encouraging Female Participation.
Teacher Burnout: Strategies for Support and Retention.
Digital Divide in Education: Accessible Learning for All.
Standardized Testing: Alternatives for Student Assessment.
Special Needs Education: Inclusive Teaching Strategies.
Lifelong Learning: Promoting Continuous Education.

Economic Problems to Write About

Income Inequality: Fair Wage Policies.
Global Trade: Promoting Ethical Practices.
Sustainable Economic Growth: Eco-friendly Business Models.
Financial Literacy: Educating the Public.
Unemployment: Innovative Job Creation Strategies.
Cryptocurrency: Regulation and Security.
Global Poverty: Effective Aid Strategies.
Economic Crises: Preventive Measures and Solutions.
Gig Economy: Ensuring Worker Rights.
Consumer Debt: Promoting Responsible Spending.

Global Challenges Topics for Problem Solution Essays

International Conflict Resolution: Peacekeeping Strategies.
Refugee Crisis: Humanitarian Aid and Integration.
Global Hunger: Sustainable Solutions.
Climate Change Migration: International Policies.
Cultural Preservation: Protecting Heritage in a Globalized World.
Human Trafficking: Global Efforts to Combat.
Global Health: Eradicating Communicable Diseases.
Water Crisis: International Cooperation for Water Security.
Wildlife Trafficking: International Laws and Enforcement.
Global Education: Ensuring Access for All.

Political and Governance Problem Solution Essay Topics

Corruption: Transparency and Accountability Measures.
Election Integrity: Ensuring Fair Democratic Processes.
Political Polarization: Fostering Civil Discourse.
Human Rights: Protecting Individual Freedoms.
Press Freedom: Combating Censorship.
Public Trust in Government: Building Confidence through Transparency.
Policy Making: Involving Public Participation.
International Relations: Diplomacy and Conflict Resolution.
Government Surveillance: Balancing Security and Privacy.
Political Activism: Encouraging Civic Engagement.

Transportation Problem Solution Topics

Urban Traffic Congestion: Efficient Public Transport Solutions.
Road Safety: Reducing Accidents and Fatalities.
Sustainable Aviation: Eco-Friendly Air Travel.
Maritime Pollution: Cleaner Shipping Practices.
Electric Vehicles: Infrastructure and Adoption.
Public Transportation Accessibility: Inclusive Design.
Bicycle-Friendly Cities: Promoting Cycling Infrastructure.
Autonomous Vehicles: Ethical and Practical Considerations.
Urban Planning: Integrating Efficient Transportation Systems.
Transportation in Rural Areas: Improving Connectivity.

Cultural and Ethical Dilemmas

Cultural Appropriation: Promoting Cultural Sensitivity.
Ethical Consumerism: Making Informed Choices.
Media Bias: Promoting Objective Reporting.
Animal Rights: Ethical Treatment and Welfare.
Online Censorship: Balancing Free Speech and Regulations.
Genetic Engineering: Ethical Implications and Regulations.
Work-Life Balance: Corporate Policies for Better Harmony.
Privacy in the Digital Age: Ethical Considerations.
Artificial Intelligence: Addressing Ethical Concerns.
Cultural Preservation: Respecting and Protecting Heritage.

Easy Problem Solution Topics For an Essay

Selecting an easy topic for a problem-solving essay is a strategic process that can significantly streamline your writing phase. Which topic is specific enough for a good problem-and-solution essay? To identify such a topic, begin by reflecting on common challenges faced in everyday life, whether they pertain to personal, community, or global issues. An easy topic often lies in an area where you have personal experience or interest, as this familiarity can provide a wealth of insights and ready solutions. Additionally, consider issues with widespread impact yet are manageable in scope, ensuring that your essay can propose realistic and achievable solutions. Researching current events and trends can also unveil relevant and engaging topics, yet not overly complex, making them ideal candidates for a concise and focused essay. Here are 20 easy problem and solution topics:

Reducing Stress in College: Time Management Strategies.
Healthy Eating on a Budget: Accessible Nutrition.
Overcoming Procrastination: Effective Techniques.
Managing Social Media Use: Finding a Healthy Balance.
Improving Sleep Quality: Strategies for Better Rest.
Balancing School and Work: Time Management Tips.
Reducing Screen Time: Encouraging Outdoor Activities.
Dealing with Bullying in Schools: Prevention and Intervention.
Encouraging Physical Activity: Community Fitness Programs.
Improving Reading Habits: Encouraging Literary Engagement.
Enhancing Community Safety: Neighborhood Watch Programs.
Reducing Littering: Effective Waste Management.
Coping with Anxiety: Mindfulness and Relaxation Techniques.
Promoting Environmental Awareness: Educational Campaigns.
Addressing Teen Smoking: Prevention and Education.
Encouraging Volunteerism: Community Involvement Programs.
Reducing Carbon Footprint: Sustainable Lifestyle Changes.
Overcoming Fear of Public Speaking: Confidence Building.
Enhancing Road Safety: Awareness and Enforcement.
Promoting Cultural Understanding: Exchange Programs.

By aligning your selection with areas of personal insight or concern, you ease the research and writing process and infuse your essay with authenticity and enthusiasm.

Closing Note

In conclusion, problems and solutions examples offer a platform to address a plethora of issues, ranging from personal challenges to global concerns. The problem-solution paper topics listed in this article provide diverse issues to explore, offering opportunities for critical thinking and solution-focused writing. Whether you choose a complex global issue or a simpler, more relatable topic, the key is to present a well-researched problem and propose feasible and effective solutions. It is a problem-solving solution essay topic guide for college students guide. Thus, young people develop their writing skills through these essays and contribute their voices to ongoing discussions about important matters. Remember, every problem has a solution, and your essay could be the first step toward finding it.

Readers also enjoyed

WHY WAIT? PLACE AN ORDER RIGHT NOW!

Just fill out the form, press the button, and have no worries!

We use cookies to give you the best experience possible. By continuing we’ll assume you board with our cookie policy.

15 Ethical Dilemma Examples You See in the Real-World

There might be affiliate links on this page, which means we get a small commission of anything you buy. As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases. Please do your own research before making any online purchase.

In your everyday life, and especially at work, have you faced ethical dilemmas that challenge your personal morals? If so, considering common ethical dilemma examples can go a long way to resolving your own.

You'll learn you must analyze the risks, rely on your convictions, and trust your instincts. Stepping back and removing yourself from the situation can help you gain a perspective that will aid in making your best decisions.

It's also important to be sure you act after thinking the situation through and not before. To help with this, take a look at our article, “7 Ways to Live Consciously in an Unconscious World.”

Drawing on the experience of others may empower you to navigate your struggle and arrive at the best decision.

This process exercises your critical thinking skills and the decisions you make can help you become respected as a person and a professional. Therefore, looking at ways that others have navigated those difficult moral decisions may be an excellent way to help you should you ever face similar circumstances.

In this article, you’ll learn about specific ethical dilemma examples that will help you understand the difficulty of making decisions that go against moral principles… which may make it less troublesome to make a decision when facing your next ethical dilemma.

Table of Contents

What Are Ethical Dilemmas?

Ethical dilemmas are all about difficulty in choosing between two courses of action, in which either choice involves disobeying a moral principle.

For instance, if you’re facing an ethical dilemma, it can affect you emotionally as you may struggle between what you consider to be right against what you consider to be necessary for a certain situation.

An ethical dilemma occurs when your moral principles are challenged. Some instances of the moral tenets are honesty, abstaining from and not promoting violence, caring for others, respecting the privacy of others, aiding people in trouble, and not harming others, whether humans or animals.

You may have heard of ethical dilemma examples called moral dilemmas or ethical paradoxes. In some instances, any choice you make is wrong in some sense.

In each ethical dilemma, the options are at odds with each other; they conflict with each other, causing a contradiction or paradox.

There are situations where you might have two choices; if you choose one, it would be impossible to choose the other.

Real-World Ethical Dilemma Examples

Often, the best way to mitigate ethical dilemmas is to learn about and seek understanding with real-world examples. Here are 15 examples of real-world ethical dilemmas we trust you’ll find useful.

1. Monitoring Teens on Social Media.

Should a teenager using Snapchat, Instagram, or TikTok have their social media use monitored? This is an ethical dilemma many parents of teens face as teenagers spend many hours engaging in online activities daily. For some parents, the question may be: Do I trust my child to use social media responsibly or not?

For others, they may be asking themselves: From a safety standpoint as a parent, should I monitor my teenager’s online activities, or are they old enough to use social media responsibly?

Whichever ethical dilemma they are facing, a parent’s fear of cyberbullying and safety for their children is not unfounded. According to 2018 Pew Research , 21% of 13-15-year-olds, 16% of 16-17-year-olds, and 12% of 18-20-year-olds experienced cyberbullying.

ethical dilemma examples in healthcare | ethical dilemma examples in nursing | medical ethical dilemma examples for students

While anyone utilizing the Internet risks cyberbullying, teens are ill-equipped to deal with such treatment as their brains are not yet fully developed. Therefore, it is a parent’s duty to protect their child from online attacks.

However, since the close monitoring of a teenager’s activities, online or otherwise, may be construed as a lack of trust toward the teen, it can potentially damage or at least put a strain on the parent-child relationship. Therein lies the ethical dilemma and the choices each parent must make.

One father of two teenaged girls chose to monitor their activities, sharing that, above all, “The devices belong to me and my wife, and we are entitled to see anything and everything on them.”

A good way to build trust with your teens may be to spend time playing games or asking “would you rather” questions ; trust will help them know that whether you monitor their online activity, you care.

2. Ghosting.

This is when you end a relationship by not responding to the other person at all, by just ignoring them, rather than telling them you would like to end the relationship. While ghosting someone is not the nicest of ways to end a relationship, is it morally wrong?

If you believe in kindness, you may struggle as to whether you can live with your decision to ghost someone. Ghosting seems like the easy way out for the one ghosting, but it's hard for the one being ghosted to find closure and move on.

Someone may choose to ghost their soon-to-be ex because they want to avoid conflict. Or maybe they are afraid the other person might lash out and become violent. For whatever reason, facing that person is uncomfortable that they consider ghosting.

If you consider ghosting someone, think about how that could make them feel. Is that really who you are? Getting a fresh and honest perspective may make you think differently if you're considering ghosting someone.

If you've been ghosted, you find some benefit in reading our “ 55 Survival Quotes to Make You Tough in 2023 .”

3. Intentionally Misinterpreting Data.

There are several instances you may find yourself in where you’re tempted to fudge the numbers. Maybe you’re in the corporate world and are tempted or encouraged to share the data in such a way that will cause stockholders to believe their investments are more secure than they are.

Your ethical dilemma may be whether you misinterpret the data and secure your career or share the true numbers and risk losing your job.

An ethical dilemma example of misinterpreting or outright lying about data is the FTX scandal where investors lost billions of dollars on the digital currency platform after being misled by founder Sam Bankman-Fried.

4. Selling a Car Without Disclosing All Known Negative Details.

Let's say you're selling your car to upgrade to a newer model. Nothing much is wrong with it, so you fail to disclose the fact that it has trouble starting from time to time; or, that it was involved in an accident.

Should you disclose whatever is wrong with it to potential buyers or do you consider purchasing a used car to be a ‘buyer beware' situation? Uphold your moral standards and make sure you aren’t the subject of someone’s used car sales gone bad story.

5. Cheat on Your Significant Other.

Your relationship has gone south but you're still considered a couple. You meet someone that, well, if you weren't married… But you are; and you stood before an entire congregation of people promising fidelity “til death do us part'.

A few years have passed and you just don't have the same romantic feelings anymore. Whether he's changed or you've changed or you've both changed, you can't quite put your finger on it. Now, you feel like you'd rather get out than stay in.

Since the relationship is rocky, can you justify starting a new relationship? Or, should you stay faithful and risk letting the potential new love of your life get away? Sometimes a person will cheat on their significant other as an act of revenge when they are mad at each other. And sometimes, the decision to cheat ends badly.

If you've made the decision not to cheat, try solidifying your relationship with our advice on relationships.

6. Should You Lie to a Sick Loved One?

Usually, if someone considers lying, whether they do it or not, it goes against their belief system and in their heart they know that it's wrong. However, whenever the truth would hurt someone you love, it often presents a gray area or a moral dilemma.

There have been instances where family members have either lied or withheld the truth in order to spare the feelings of a sick loved one, particularly in cases of Alzheimer's patients.

ethical dilemma examples in business | real life examples of ethical dilemmas | ethical dilemma examples and solutions

If an Alzheimer's patient asks about a loved one, and that loved one is deceased, finding out about their death all over again can cause them pain. Because of that, some family members will lie to spare their loved one's feelings. Is it ever compassionate to withhold information from your loved one with Alzheimer's?

This may be a dilemma you should discuss with your family members to help make your own personal decision. However, make sure you follow your own moral compass rather than doing what others wish you to do .

7. To Share or Not to Share Political Leanings.

Have you noticed how passionate people are about politics? If you choose to share your political leanings online or in person, you would lose followers, friends, and/or family members.

Some people weigh the options and decide it's not worth it to speak what's on your mind and lose the close contact of others.

Some say it's best to be real, to be authentic, and share any and all beliefs, loud and proud. Before choosing either option, weigh your options. Which choice can you live with? Which one could you not live with?

No matter what you decide, take time to consider the consequences of each choice before firmly making your decision. Then, be prepared to live with those consequences.

8. Whether to Report an Accident.

If you're in a rush and you pass by and an accident, would you report it? Or would you not, knowing that the next person that passes by most likely would call the authorities?

The moral dilemma would be: risk getting to your meeting late, especially if you have to give an account of what happened to the police; or risk feeling guilty because you chose not to stop and help in a situation and caused the authorities to arrive sooner rather than later or even too late.

If you're struggling about whether you should report an accident as a witness, put yourself in the shoes of those affected by the accident to discover what you should do and how you can help.

9. To Share or Not to Share Religious Beliefs.

It's been said to never discuss politics or religion. Yet there comes a time in close relationships where the question of whether to share what your beliefs are may come to mind, bringing you face to face with a moral dilemma.

If you know the person you'll be sharing with has beliefs that are different from yours, you may wonder if sharing your beliefs will push them away.

Withholding the information as you grow closer in a relationship may cause several problems: the other person in the relationship may feel you haven't been as open and honest as you should have been, or you may feel conflicted as you want to share but are hesitant to do so.

However, if you feel a kinship with a person on a spiritual level , you may consider sharing your religious views.

If the question of whether you should share your religious views at work arises, you may want to ask yourself why you would consider sharing.

While there are employment laws against discrimination of religion, you need to be careful not to proselytize, which is to try to convert someone, and would be frowned upon in the workplace.

10. Should You Lie to Your Boss?

Being less than truthful with your boss can have repercussions, depending on the lie. The moral dilemma you may face may be whether you should lie about your experience and education, which could easily be verified. If the lie is less impactful, as in, you call in sick but aren't, you are less likely to get caught in the lie.

In employing your critical thinking skills you may find that you agree its fine to lie to your boss in certain situations. However, does lying to your boss on any level go against your personal moral beliefs? If so, that will create your moral dilemma.

11. Recalling a Faulty Product.

Let's say you own a business, and it has come to your attention that the product you've shipped and sold has a faulty part.

What would you do? If the part's faultiness would cause harm to someone using the product, that's a serious consideration. If, however, the faultiness may not be noticed and would not cause harm, that may cause you to consider not recalling the product.

The moral dilemma is presented as you determine how you feel about not making the product right and looking out for the best interests of your customers. There is also the legal side of recalling a product.

12. Taking Credit for Your Coworker’s Work.

You've collaborated on a project at work. Your team members have given valuable input that has drawn attention from your management team. You know this recognition could move you closer to a promotion.

Although one of your teammates had the most eye-catching input, should you claim credit for it? After all, it was a team effort, and you'd really like that promotion.

The moral dilemma is doing what's right by giving your teammates the credit they deserve, which would preserve your working relationship or risk your working relationship by claiming the credit for yourself.

To help you make your decision ask yourself whether taking credit for someone else's work is ethical. It would be more beneficial to pursue your own path to promotion without detracting from someone else.

13. Aborting a Child with Down Syndrome.

When you're expecting a baby, it's generally a joyous occasion. If you find out your baby will be living with life-changing challenges, such as Down syndrome, you may find you're facing a moral dilemma.

According to the Centers for Disease Control (CDC), the life expectancy of babies with Down syndrome increased from 10-years-old in 1960 to 47-years-old in 2007.

real life examples of ethical dilemmas | professional ethical dilemma examples | ethical dilemma scenarios for students

While there are additional challenges associated with a child with Down syndrome, the dilemma basically comes down to the question: how does an abortion fit into your moral beliefs?

You may want to read this article showcasing three families struggling with the moral dilemma of aborting a Down syndrome child.

14. Should You Tell Your Friend if Her Husband is Cheating?

It's a heavy burden to carry and keep a secret from a friend, especially if you feel that she will be hurt by finding out the truth. You may also be worried about how the information you're intending to share will be received.

If not received well, you could lose a friend. At best, it would likely be an emotional conversation.

Or your moral dilemma might be: should you speak to your friend about the situation or speak to her husband or just do nothing?

No matter what your choice is according to your moral beliefs, I think you can agree this is a sticky situation. If you do decide to tell your friend, do it with finesse.

15. Is It Okay to Take Supplies from Your Office?

Many people work in office settings and for their job functions to be fulfilled, their companies supply tools they need. These tools may be something as simple as paper clips to pens, notebooks, office chairs, and computers.

The moral dilemma becomes when you question whether you should take some of these office supplies home for your own personal use.

According to your belief system, would that be stealing from the company or would it be acceptable? Would it matter if the item you'd like to take is a small item or do you believe, right or wrong, any item would carry the same weight in your decision?

Final Thoughts on Real-World Ethical Dilemmas

While ethical dilemma examples may go from two difficult choices, to almost impossible choices, I'm sure you and I can agree that it helps to arm yourself with the knowledge of how others have faced similar situations.

In reading through the ethical dilemma examples we've provided, you may have found a pathway to your own answers.

When making your choices, it's in your best interest to keep honesty, integrity, and morality paramount. The ability to weigh each choice and try to objectively choose for the greater good is beneficial.

Your critical thinking skills will come into play and possibly be challenged when making difficult choices. As you can see from the examples we've provided in this article, some moral dilemmas are quite difficult and the answers are not always clear-cut choices.

The bottom line is that the examples detailed in this article may help you in making decisions as they arise in your own life, especially when you find them challenging.

A good starting point is to get yourself in the right mindset , consider all the facts, then figure out whether you have the control to make the decision needed before moving forward. Having done that, once you've made your choice, you'll have the satisfaction that you've chosen wisely.

ethical dilemma examples | ethical dilemma examples for students with answers | ethical dilemma examples for college students

DOI: 10.52902/kjsc.2024.28.121
Corpus ID: 269039411

Correlation between Communication Competence, Problem-Solving Skills, Clinical Competence, and Critical Thinking Competence on Person-Centered Care Competence of Nursing Students in who Experienced Clinical Practice

Mi Young Moon
Published in Forum of Public Safety and… 30 March 2024
Education, Medicine

Related Papers

Showing 1 through 3 of 0 Related Papers

IMAGES

Decision Making and Problem Solving Free Essay Example
Defining the Ethical Problem and Relevant Research in Ethics Essay
PPT
Sample essay on ethics
Six Step Problem-Solving Method Free Essay Example
Essay On Ethics

VIDEO

Problem Solution Essay Topics
Business Statistics 106
Ethics problem explain 📈!. ll Sumit Rewari Sir ll ✅
ETHICS CASE STUDY|PART-1|HOW TO SOLVE ETHICS CASE STUDY|UPSC|MPPSC|RAS|UPPCS|RAKSHA ACADEMY|
ETHICS CASE STUDY|PART-3|HOW TO SOLVE ETHICS CASE STUDY|UPSC|MPPSC|RAS|UPPCS|RAKSHA ACADEMY|
Top essay writing I Amazing essay online

COMMENTS

A Framework for Ethical Decision Making
Ethics Resources. A Framework for Ethical Decision Making. This document is designed as an introduction to thinking ethically. Read more about what the framework can (and cannot) do. We all have an image of our better selves—of how we are when we act ethically or are "at our best.". We probably also have an image of what an ethical ...
Thinking Ethically
This approach to ethics assumes a society comprising individuals whose own good is inextricably linked to the good of the community. Community members are bound by the pursuit of common values and goals. The common good is a notion that originated more than 2,000 years ago in the writings of Plato, Aristotle, and Cicero.
PDF Ethical Decision Making and Behavior
7. thical Decision Making and BehaviorAs we practice resolving dilemmas we find ethics to be less a goal than a pathway, less a destination than a trip. cist Rushworth KidderWHAT'S AHEADThis chapter surveys the components of ethical behavior—moral sensitivity, moral judgment, moral motivation, and moral character—and introduces systematic a.
Moral Dilemmas
Supporters of dilemmas may draw a distinction between dilemmas of type \ (V\) and \ (W\). The upshot is typically a message to opponents of dilemmas: "You think that all moral conflicts are resolvable. And that is understandable, because conflicts of type \ (V\) are resolvable. But conflicts of type \ (W\) are not resolvable.
Principles of Clinical Ethics and Their Application to Practice
An overview of ethics and clinical ethics is presented in this review. The 4 main ethical principles, that is beneficence, nonmaleficence, autonomy, and justice, are defined and explained. ... A four-pronged systematic approach to ethical problem-solving and several illustrative cases of conflicts are presented. Comments following the cases ...
The PLUS Ethical Decision Making Model
Seven Steps to Ethical Decision Making. - Step 1: Define the problem (consult PLUS filters) - Step 2: Seek out relevant assistance, guidance and support. - Step 3: Identify alternatives. - Step 4: Evaluate the alternatives (consult PLUS filters) - Step 5: Make the decision. - Step 6: Implement the decision.
A Framework for Moral Decision Making
Thinking Ethically: A Framework for Moral Decision Making. Developed by Manuel Velasquez, Claire Andre, Thomas Shanks, S.J., and Michael J. Meyer. Moral issues greet us each morning in the newspaper, confront us in the memos on our desks, nag us from our children's soccer fields, and bid us good night on the evening news.
PDF Resolving an Ethical Dilemma
2. Step 3: Make A Decision. And now, take both parts of your analysis into account and make a decision. This strategy should give you at least some basic steps you can follow. Read more about Philosophical Ethics in the next section. 3. Philosophical Ethics. Adapted from Thomas White, "Ethics," Chapter 1, Business Ethics: A Philosophical Reader ...
PDF Ethical Reflection as a Part of Creative Problem-solving
for ethical re!ection in creative problem-solving, as it could only hamper the process. But this common perspective is mistaken, in two directions. First, a key component of ethical re!ection is the exercise of moral imagination, which includes a kind of creative problem-solving (Brown, 2020; Fesmire, 2003; Johnson, 1993, 2014; Weston, 1992, 2007).
Critically examine one theoretical framework for resolving ethical
Codes of ethics frequently suggest ethical frameworks as the preferred method for dilemma resolution, and documenting their use demonstrates a commitment to ethical problem solving. Clause 3.4.1 of the IACP code of ethics requires that IACP regulated counsellors follow a systematic process of ethical decision making (IACP, 2012).
7 Ways to Improve Your Ethical Decision-Making
7. Accept Feedback. Ethical decision-making is susceptible to gray areas and often met with dissent, so it's critical to be approachable and open to feedback. The benefits of receiving feedback include: Learning from mistakes. Having more opportunities to exhibit compassion, fairness, and transparency.
PDF Using an Ethical Decision-Making Model to Address
Ethical Problems in Schools (STEPS) as an example of a model designed for school. counselors in the Ethical Code for School Counselors. This model was created by. Carolyn Stone (2013). The model contains nine steps: Define the problem emotionally and intellectually. Apply the ASCA and ACA ethical codes and the law.
Problem solving through values: A challenge for thinking and capability
Abstract. The paper aims to introduce the conceptual framework of problem solving through values. The framework consists of problem analysis, selection of value (s) as a background for the solution, the search for alternative ways of the solution, and the rationale for the solution. This framework reveals when, how, and why is important to ...
Essential Steps for Ethical Problem-Solving
From discussion by Frederick Reamer & Sr. Ann Patrick Conrad in Professional Choices: Ethics at Work (1995), video available from NASW Press 1-800-227-3590. Format developed by Sr. Vincentia Joseph & Sr. Ann Patrick Conrad. NASW Office of Ethics and Professional Review, 1-800-638-8799. 750 1st Street, NE, Suite 700, Washington, DC 20002.
Anthony Weston, Creative problem-solving in ethics
Anthony Weston (ed.) - 2001 - New York: Oxford University Press. Teaching Business Ethics as Innovative Problem Solving. Patricia Calton - 2014 - Teaching Philosophy 37 (4):455-464. Thinking Like a Bad Guy: Teaching Critical and Creative Managerial Ethical Thinking Using Codes of Ethics.
Ethical Dilemma Essay: Example, Problem, and Solution
An ethical dilemma is a situation where people are forced to make a choice between two options available to them. It is necessary to explain that regardless of the option an individual takes both options have negative consequences. Get a custom essay on Ethical Dilemma: Example, Problem, and Solution. 188 writers online.
Engaging and Supporting Problem Solving in Engineering Ethics
He has published 30 books and numerous articles, papers, and reports on text design, task analysis, instructional design, computer-based learning, hypermedia, constructivist learning, cognitive tools, and problem solving. ... In two experiments, we examined alternative strategies for engaging ethical problem solving. In Experiment 1, students ...
Examination of Ethical Decision-Making Models Across Disciplines
This problem-solving approach may offer great utility and is observed across various fields (e.g., cognitive psychology; Szabo, 2020). Within behavior analysis, this problem-solving approach has increasingly been applied to teach complex skills (e.g., Suarez et al., 2021). Our review involves an interesting extension of this analysis to ethical ...
What Covid Has Taught the World about Ethics
Although Covid is new, the ethical issues prompted by it are not, and they needn't be addressed ab initio. There is a wealth of knowledge about the appropriate values and principles to guide ...
Values and Ethics for Professional Social Work Practice
dignity and worth of the person, importance of human relationships, integrity, and competence. Taken together, the values for social work say, "this is who we are," "this is what makes us ...
Ethics and Its Effective Importance: [Essay Example], 1032 words
Ethics Essay Outline Introduction. Definition of ethics as systematic moral principles; Importance of ethics in decision-making and its impact on individuals and society; ... Approaches to Ethical Problem Solving. Historical perspectives on solving ethical problems, including divine guidance and philosophical reasoning ...
120 Problem and Solution Essay Topics
Table of contents. 1 120 Problem Solution Essay Topics List. 1.1 Environmental Issues Problem-Solution Essay Topics. 1.2 Social Problems Problem And Solution Essay Ideas. 1.3 Healthcare Challenges: Problem-Solving Essay Ideas. 1.4 Technological Advancements Ideas for a Problem Solution Essay. 1.5 Educational Concerns Problem Solution Paper Topics.
15 Ethical Dilemma Examples You See in the Real-World
Often, the best way to mitigate ethical dilemmas is to learn about and seek understanding with real-world examples. Here are 15 examples of real-world ethical dilemmas we trust you'll find useful. 1. Monitoring Teens on Social Media.
Correlation between Communication Competence, Problem-Solving Skills
It is necessary to induce nursing students to use a lot of volunteer programs in order to increase their person-centered care competence, and it is necessary to develop and actively guide convergence extracurricular activities linked to subjects. Purpose: This study is a descriptive research study conducted to identify the relationship and influencing factors between communication competence ...
A Physics Informed Neural Network for Solving the Inverse Heat Transfer
Abstract. Recently, Physics-Informed Neural Networks have displayed great potential in delivering swift and accurate solutions for inverse problems. Here, a Physics-Informed Neural Network (PINN) was used to solve the inverse heat conduction problem in the rotating cavities of a aeroengine high-pressure compressor internal air system. The neural network was designed to receive experimentally ...

Bibliography

Moral Dilemmas

1. Examples

Acknowledgments

Support SEP

Why do organizations need ethical decision making? See our special edition case study, #RespectAtWork, to find out.

Ethics Filters

Critically examine one theoretical framework for resolving ethical dilemmas and the estimated value as a beginning practitioner.

Related Papers

RELATED PAPERS

Business Insights

7 Ways to Improve Your Ethical Decision-Making

The Importance of Ethical Decision-Making

1. Gain Clarity Around Personal Commitments

2. Overcome Biases

3. Reflect on Past Decisions

4. Be Compassionate

5. Focus on Fairness

6. Take an Individualized Approach

7. Accept Feedback

Ethical Decision-Making Is a Continuous Learning Process

About the Author

Creative problem-solving in ethics

Reprint years

Buy this book

PhilArchive

Through your library

Similar books and articles

Ethical Dilemma: Example, Problem, and Solution Essay

Introduction

Examination of Ethical Decision-Making Models Across Disciplines: Common Elements and Application to the Field of Behavior Analysis

Videsha Marya

Mary Jane Weiss

Inclusion Criteria

Search Procedure

Dependent Measures

Decision-Making Steps

Field of Study

Problem Solving

Linear or Sequential

Number of Models

Behaviors Involved in Ethical Decision Making

Behavior Chains and Behavior Topography

Ethical Decision Making as Problem Solving

Limitations and Final Thoughts

Data Availability

Declarations

All articles with an asterisk indicate the final articles included in the review

Ethics and Its Effective Importance

Table of contents

Understanding Ethics

Sources of Ethics

Disagreements and Ambiguity in Ethics

Approaches to Ethical Problem Solving

Objective vs. Subjective Ethics

Cite this Essay

Related Essays

Still can’t find what you need?

Related Essays on Ethics

Related Topics

Get Your Personalized Essay in 3 Hours or Less!

Addressing Challenges: A Guide to Problem and Solution Essay Topics

120 Problem Solution Essay Topics List

Environmental Issues Problem-Solution Essay Topics

Social Problems Problem And Solution Essay Ideas

Healthcare Challenges: Problem-Solving Essay Ideas

Technological Advancements Ideas for a Problem Solution Essay

Educational Concerns Problem Solution Paper Topics

Economic Problems to Write About

Global Challenges Topics for Problem Solution Essays

Political and Governance Problem Solution Essay Topics

Transportation Problem Solution Topics

Cultural and Ethical Dilemmas

Easy Problem Solution Topics For an Essay

Closing Note

Readers also enjoyed

WHY WAIT? PLACE AN ORDER RIGHT NOW!

15 Ethical Dilemma Examples You See in the Real-World

What Are Ethical Dilemmas?

Real-World Ethical Dilemma Examples